Only 800 lines of resolution?

Pascal Parvex

Pascal Parvex

Well-known member
I'm checking out the AF100 right now, and I read that is has only 800 lines of resulution. So it is about the same as the HVX200. Is this true? So I would get more real resulution from a Canon 5D Mark II?

Second question: I own the Canon lenses 24L and 135L. What focal length would those be on a AF100 (with adapter for Canon EF lenses)?
 
now i am confused ,from what i have read and personal experience when i owned one i thought canon DSLR video was the lowest HD you can get.
 
Think of any of the big hollywood films shot on HD cameras - The Phantom Menace, Once Upon a Time in Mexico, Collateral, Avatar - when you take into account the 100 pixels or so of the letterbox at the top and bottom of the screen you're only left with approx 800 pixels.

I can't remember too many people saying "Good film, pity the resolution was so low".
 
I'll throw another hat in the 'resolution's no big deal' camp. Give me latitude and smooth highlights and good tonality over resolution any day.

I'm yet to see why people make such a fuss about blu-ray and HD content on home television screens, I just don't see 'that' much of a difference.
 
too true thats IS the biggest load of crap i have heard in a long time,anyone who cant see much difference in BD than DVD need a visit to specsavers.
 
My screen at home is 125" so I DEFINITELY see a difference between DVD and BluRay. NO question. :)

The two biggest pluses of the AF100 over the 5D for me in terms of image are:

1) No chroma moire. This is a huge plus. This is my biggest battle with Canon cameras and shooting. (I own a 7D and an FS100, I had an AF100 for about 7 months)
2) the rolling shutter. The AF100 is twice as fast as the 5D so it's more resistent (but not immune) to getting jello shots per focal length.

Resolution wise, overall it was about the same as the 7D for me, HOWEVER, when you compare the red/blue color resolution, I thought it was much higher. I find blue and red colors to lose definition in the colors much quicker then the AF100 or FS100 in comparing footage.
 
Agreed; unless you're watching on a 19" TV at a distance or something - the difference in quality is obvious, gigantic and un-subtle.
 
I'm actually quite surprised that so many people "claim" that resolution isn't that important. The AF-100 featured 1920x1080 native recording as opposed to camera like the EX1 or HVX200 so discovering that actual achieved resolution is lower than originally claimed (from 900 down to 800) is disappointing and is something that should be approved upon for future Panny cameras. Claims in this thread that there’s not much of a difference between DVD and Blu-ray is quite frankly BS as well. The difference is astounding.

That being said, I agree that resolution isn’t “everything” as I would take the “look” of the Af-100 over the video look of an EX1 any day of the week, but it is definitely very important to me and many others.

On the plus side, the Af-100 seemed to beat out all of the DSLRs in terms of color and resolution so it indeed seems you get what you pay for and the AF-100 sits about right on the totem for a $5k camera ($10k+ with lenses etc...). that is until RED releases their $6k Scarlet and rumored $12k Epic-S.

For now, I still love the AF-100 and have scheduled its use on our next 3 production.

 
When the resolution specs first started to trickle out, I was concerned. Then I got my AF100. I've shot with a lot of cameras...the image out of this camera rocks. No comparison with anything under $15,000.
 
Grug said:
I'll throw another hat in the 'resolution's no big deal' camp. Give me latitude and smooth highlights and good tonality over resolution any day.
Click to expand...

I'm with ya there. And good solid shadow detail. But I'm not willing to give up resolution if I can get that too.

Grug said:
I'm yet to see why people make such a fuss about blu-ray and HD content on home television screens, I just don't see 'that' much of a difference.
Click to expand...

You need a better TV maybe. I've got a small (50") Pannasonic Plasma panel (does 1080/24p native) which even my wife says is night and day better resolution (and everything else too) than our old SD TV. She complains now when we show DVDs on it, and she'll call me on it every time I try to slip in a DVD on her. She's sold on blu-ray, as am I. It's a considerably better technology than SD for me, well worth the little extra money and effort.

That said, I've got friends with LCD panels who think blu-ray is no big deal. But I wonder: why do they always want to watch movies at my house? Hmmm.... So I'm thinking maybe there's more to the panel technology than I thought.
 
Last edited:
Andrew J. Allsbury said:
When the resolution specs first started to trickle out, I was concerned. Then I got my AF100. I've shot with a lot of cameras...the image out of this camera rocks. No comparison with anything under $15,000.
Click to expand...

Except the FS100. I put both the AF100 and FS100 in close enough to the same results. Each has their own merits.
 
I have yet to watch a movie and say afterward "damn if that was on Blu Ray it would have been much better". On my 55" panasonic upconverted SD looks great. Blu Ray looks great too but doesn't make the movies any better.

I watched the Zacuto shootout and the grainy film shots looked best to my eyes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top