pana af-100 vs. sony-f3

Screen%20shot%202011-02-26%20at%202.25.06%20PM.png


Matt- very nice light, and interesting setup. Do you often find it necessary to diffuse LEDs twice? With both the 216 and flexfill? I've just begun using LEDs recently.
And yeah, love the herringbone! he he! What lens was this?

Sorry to hear about your lost clips on the SD card- that's the first I've read of on the AF100. Any insights into what happened? Bad card, bad luck, just a glitch?
 
groveChuck said:
Screen%20shot%202011-02-26%20at%202.25.06%20PM.png


Matt- very nice light, and interesting setup. Do you often find it necessary to diffuse LEDs twice? With both the 216 and flexfill? I've just begun using LEDs recently.
And yeah, love the herringbone! he he! What lens was this?

Sorry to hear about your lost clips on the SD card- that's the first I've read of on the AF100. Any insights into what happened? Bad card, bad luck, just a glitch?
Click to expand...

Not just LEDs, my modus operandi is to double diffuse pretty much ANY key light I use, wether it is LED or Kino Flo.

It does 2 things:

1. Makes the source seem even bigger, thereby providing more wrap around the subject.
2. Obviously makes the light softer, which is what I look for in a key light for your standard interviews.

I have no idea what happened to the card that I got the error on, but it makes me wish for the reliability of P2.
 
Bruce196 said:
Maybe I have missed it but what lens were you using for the shot. Your set up certainly demonstrates that if done properly the A101 can produce very good pictures.
Click to expand...

Tokina AT-X PRO AF 28-70mm f/2.6-2.8. My new favorite interview lens.

Based on the Angenieux optical formula.
 
mcgeedigital said:
Tokina AT-X PRO AF 28-70mm f/2.6-2.8. My new favorite interview lens.

Based on the Angenieux optical formula.
Click to expand...

Hey Matt. That lens has caught my interest seeing you have brought my attention to it. I will take a look at the 280 version with the constant aperture. Meets all my criteria for a variable prime.

Looks like a neat lens that could compliment my Nikkor 17-35 f 2.8 ( which I am lovin') perfectly.
 
Shooter, it is a fantastic lens.

If you can, check out the f/2.6-2.8 version as it is based on the Angenieux design and is a serious step up from the later released 2.8

Speaking of the Nikkor 17-35 f 2.8, that is on my hit list too.

Best,
 
mcgeedigital said:
Shooter, it is a fantastic lens.

If you can, check out the f/2.6-2.8 version as it is based on the Angenieux design and is a serious step up from the later released 2.8

Speaking of the Nikkor 17-35 f 2.8, that is on my hit list too.

Best,
Click to expand...

Matt...I am hearing you say your version is "better" ...Correct?

Jut shot with my Nikkor 17-35 f 2.8 and we thought its performance was awesome in every respect. Highly recommend it to you. (sorry cant post any pix up yet.)

Now I will go and chase down that Tokina we are talking about....
 
mcgeedigital said:
Not just LEDs, my modus operandi is to double diffuse pretty much ANY key light I use, wether it is LED or Kino Flo.

It does 2 things:

1. Makes the source seem even bigger, thereby providing more wrap around the subject.
2. Obviously makes the light softer, which is what I look for in a key light for your standard interviews.

I have no idea what happened to the card that I got the error on, but it makes me wish for the reliability of P2.
Click to expand...

Good MO, thanks.
I hear ya on the P2. Did you try AVCCAM Restorer?
 
Hi Jan, sorry should have made my self clear.
Jan_Crittenden said:
"The B frames allow for looking back and forward before the compression takes place so that a real snapshot of real changes are recorded."
Click to expand...

It's something I have noticed the compression changes every third frame, the third frame appears less compressed than the 2 frame preceding it. To me the compression noise has a kind of flicker to it, a strobe of cleaner compression. Is this normal for your implementations of AVCHD?

Thanks, James

Jan_Crittenden said:
Just so that you are clear, the difference between MPEG4 (AVCCAM) and MPEG2 (XDCAM EX) is night and day. Take a look ath the Article on the comparing them under the articles section on this website. The reality is that AVCCAM is a Content Adaptive Codec and as such it is always assigning badwith to the part of the picture that needs it. Unlike XDCAM EX's which always quantizes in 8X8 blocks, this codec will macroblock way before the AVCCAM implementation of AVCHD. The AVCCAM implementation assigns by need of the picture, 4X4, 8X8, or 16X16 bolcks. Highly detailed gets the 4X4s and the Big expanses with no detail get the 16X16. There is also 8X16, 4X8. It is an intelligent codec. The B frames allow for looking back and forward before the compression takes place so that a real snapshot of real changes are recorded. There are a number of implementations in AVCHD and not all are equal, and not all use B frames or the same number of B frames. Some, like the DSLRs use an I and P frame only which will stress and macroblock way earlier than the AVCCAM implementation regardless of how many bits you throw at it. Both are in the 4:2:0 club, but the 24Mbs of AVCCAM can quite easily hold its own against the 35Mbs of XDCAM EX.

I hope this helps,

Jan
Click to expand...
 
millerandmiller said:
Hi Jan, sorry should have made my self clear.

It's something I have noticed the compression changes every third frame, the third frame appears less compressed than the 2 frame preceding it. To me the compression noise has a kind of flicker to it, a strobe of cleaner compression. Is this normal for your implementations of AVCHD?
Click to expand...

I have not seen this in our implementation of AVCHD. But in all long GOP codecs, some are better than others. With the AVCCAM implementation that is a Bi-Directional frame to either side of the prediction frame. This allows it to intelligently see where it was, where it is going and appropriately assign bandwidth where needed. the frames that are either Bs or Ps are just the changes. Not every implementation out there echos ours. And yes this does indeed impact MPEG2 more.

Best,

Jan
 
wbrock001 said:
So is the tokina 2.6-2.8 28-70 better than the new nikon 24-70 f/2.8?
Click to expand...

At the end of the review mentioned earlier by McGee Digital you will see comparison shots of close up of an eye with Nikon 24-70 2.8 and Tokina 28-70 2.6-2.8 the reviewer concludes;
Should I buy the Tokina or the Nikon?
"Well this you need to answer yourself. An AFS 24-70mm costs around 1500€, and a second hand AFS 28-70mm f/2.8 can fetch 800€ so a used Tokina at 200€ is not only a bargain but a steal. Even the Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM costs over 800€. Of course if you are a pro and plan on using it every day wide open, then maybe you should spend the money for the Nikon."

I have the Nikon and am very happy with it.
 
I would have the Tokina over the Nikkor in this case because the Tokina has an aperture ring. An earlier very nice version of the Nikkor had an aperture ring but... the zoom and the focus moved the front element about 50mm. (rendering it hopeless). The 17-35 Nikkor is all internal. (brilliant)
 
Shooter said:
I would have the Tokina over the Nikkor in this case because the Tokina has an aperture ring. An earlier very nice version of the Nikkor had an aperture ring but... the zoom and the focus moved the front element about 50mm. (rendering it hopeless). The 17-35 Nikkor is all internal. (brilliant)
Click to expand...

Love that 17-35. Never go to a shoot without it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top