Onboard Stabilisation... Why none?

P

paulcurtis

Veteran
Looking at the vimeo footage (which looks lovely) i note that in the hand held sequences there is the usual micro-movements leading to some jello. This is something that's a real problem with dSLRs.

I can just about get decent footage with an LCF viewfinder on a 550D. However i really need to use a stabilised lens on the 550 to really get good results.

On my EX1 i have a stabilised system too. If i turn that off i can produce jello too.

So for a semi pro camera of this cost i find the lack of on board stabilisation a bit of an issue. Especially when the beauty of m43 is access to a huge array of wonderful glass. Except you don't want to hand hold any of it (especially at longer focal lengths)

Does anyone agree this is a real Achilles heal? Or is there going to be some kind of stabilisation implemented?

cheers
paul
 
Electronic stabilisation is balls. On this sort of CMOS sensor electronic stabilisation just wouldn't work as it's applied after the capture, and its all jello at source. So it has to be optical stabilisation (like the EX1) . Which means it's down to the lens. As there is no lens shipping with the AF100 then it cannot have stabilisation.

Im not sure if IS on the Canon lenses will work. I presume they would. You're best getting a set of lens' with IS built in.
 
there is one lens that the stabilization will work, if this is your need you should have it in the kit, it is the Lumix H-VS14140. Many other folks won't find a need. And I didn't see Jello in the footage, I saw a couple of artifacts that I see here, the camera is not done.

Best,

Jan
 
Thanks for the comments. If you watch it full screen then i find the little micro-movements quite distracting. I think that's a form factor/weight issue too, i bet if you weigh it down then it will be better. The jello is there, but it is better than dSLRs (well the canon at least)

I was hoping that some mechanical sensor based stabilisation could work here - like the sony alpha cameras, certainly not electronic post as that would not work at all.

The issue will be what is it like at say, 85mm, hand held, can you get a smooth motion without transferring all the little muscle movements? I tried with a manual 85mm on the canon and frankly the results are unusable professionally. I can see this all the way down to 20mm but it's a lot better there. Perhaps i'm super twitchy though but i do see it on a lot of vimeo work out there. It looks terrible on a big plasma and i can't imagine it broadcast.

I appreciate that in the grand scheme of things you can set things up and work around this kind of stuff and it's not unique to this camera and on balance this is a wonderful new tool. I just look at all that great glass out there and wonder how it will be with things like manual focus and being handheld run and gun.

Thanks Jan, for such an exciting new camera

cheers
paul
 
paulcurtis said:
If you watch it full screen then i find the little micro-movements quite distracting. The jello is there, but it is better than dSLRs (well the canon at least)
Click to expand...
Specifically at what time points?

EDIT: watched it again and could see no jello even in the most jerky hand holding.
 
Last edited:
Jan,
Is the 14-140 lens the only one with internal stabilization that will work with the AF-100?. How about the other Panny/Lumix lenses(4/3 & M4/3) with "Mega OIS"?. Specifically the 14-50 f/2.8-3.5 Manf. #L-ES014050

Thanks for all your insight here, pre-ordered the cam yesterday.
 
Paul Vicente said:
A tripod would do the trick also.
Click to expand...
Of course and I try to use one when ever possible. However a lot of my work is of the ENG nature and when the Taliban are shooting at me a tripod just isnt feasible. The stabilizer in my EX-1 has saved many a shot, especially zoomed in one's.
 
I know the camera is not out yet, but I am gonna go out on a limb and say the AF100 is not the camera you want if you have even a 1% chance of Taliban shooting at you.
 
kgimedia said:
I know the camera is not out yet, but I am gonna go out on a limb and say the AF100 is not the camera you want if you have even a 1% chance of Taliban shooting at you.
Click to expand...
And in your experience what would be?. In my experience the EX-1 has been the near perfect camera for it and the 5D the worse. So without going to a $50,000 2/3" ENG camera that weighs 4 times as much as a EX, with not much shallower DOF, yes the AF100 is a good option. Aside from autofocus which I dont use, the only major thing the EX has over the AF100 is a servo zoom and a huge focal length range. We're all here trying to find a camera that is the best of both worlds and some of us in the news doc biz are trying to bring a creative cinematic look to our work as well.

So back to the topic. A wide, moderately fast zoom with OIS for hand held work when you dont have the option of sticks, would be helpful for those of us who dont shoot on sets or in controlled environments.
 
My original question was whether the AF100 would have internal stabilisation (being a prototype and all) and just to comment that i believe it would make it a much better camera if it did because of access to all those lenses. The m43 is such a good standard because of that.

As i mentioned before yes you can see some subtle jello if you look for it (play it big) but it's the micro-movements that i find off putting. Stuff you simply don't get with a heavier cam, and yes of course you could weigh the cam down but it's nice having that form factor too. The jello could affect post work, especially tracking hand held but then all these cmos cameras suffer to a greater or lesser degree, this seems to be a lesser degree which is great.

I find the same thing with various dSLRs, especially something like the GH1/2 etc. They would be so much more usable with all that great glass if they could stabilise it. I think the olympus pen does and the sony alphas - so it's not impossible.

The AF100 is looking to be a great workhorse of a video camera, i just think a trick was missed with this...

I hope there are some nice fast stabilised lenses on their way, and hopefully from third parties too.

Oh and i'm not bashing Panasonic at all. I'll probably get a GF1 and i have a LX3 and LX5, the LX5 is a wonderful compact camera for movies too. It's MJPEG, great colour, good control, lovely leica lens, and, it's CCD so no jello or rolling shutter. Great for 720p based action!

cheers
paul
 
mcgeedigital said:
I am not going to pixel peep ANY web footage of a camera that isn't even finished yet.

It just doen't make sense.
Click to expand...

Sure, but just to be clear this isn't pixel peeping. This is playing something full screen, sitting back and watching the hand held work. If you're okay with the movements then that's fine. But for me, compared to broadcast/film work i find the results distracting. There are plenty of ways to work around it though. In this case we're talking about a lot of very expensive kit, master primes and uncompressed recording. But the core issue was not tackled - stabilising the hand held shots somehow. I know this was a test and in general it's a fantastic looking test. Really well done.
 
paulcurtis said:
As i mentioned before yes you can see some subtle jello if you look for it (play it big) but it's the micro-movements that i find off putting. Stuff you simply don't get with a heavier cam, and yes of course you could weigh the cam down but it's nice having that form factor too. The jello could affect post work, especially tracking hand held but then all these cmos cameras suffer to a greater or lesser degree, this seems to be a lesser degree which is great.
Click to expand...

Please do not spend huge amounts of time scrutinizing this footage. I believe that the little movement that is show here is a known issue with the shutters not being fully engaged. I have the same problem on my cameras here. This is a PROTOTYPE and it is one of the reasons that I have not wanted to have images posted as people will draw conclusions that are incorrect and that will live with the camera for the first 6-8 months, even if it doesn't show up in the final camera. People will find this post and quote it when referencing the camera a year from now. Hopefully they will stay with this thread to read my post, but there is no guarantee.

So please the camera does not have jello, it isn't a finished camera.

Thank you,

Jan
 
paulcurtis said:
My original question was whether the AF100 would have internal stabilisation (being a prototype and all) and just to comment that i believe it would make it a much better camera if it did because of access to all those lenses. The m43 is such a good standard because of that.

As i mentioned before yes you can see some subtle jello if you look for it (play it big) but it's the micro-movements that i find off putting. Stuff you simply don't get with a heavier cam, and yes of course you could weigh the cam down but it's nice having that form factor too. The jello could affect post work, especially tracking hand held but then all these cmos cameras suffer to a greater or lesser degree, this seems to be a lesser degree which is great.

I find the same thing with various dSLRs, especially something like the GH1/2 etc. They would be so much more usable with all that great glass if they could stabilise it. I think the olympus pen does and the sony alphas - so it's not impossible.

paul
Click to expand...

In camera based IS requires the lens to have a larger image circle then the sensor, so if the lenses image circle barely covers the sensor it can vignette. Also in camera IS can create tilt-shift like effects, not really ideal for a professional camera. Lens based IS works better for interchangable lens cameras.
 
Keep up the good fight, Jan. Your patience and unending courteous response is both amazing and truly admirable. It must be exhausting at times, not to even mention the schedule. I sure hope Panasonic fully appreciates what you do for them. I know we sure do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top