Panasonic AF100 / AF101 - The movie

I was at the HD Expo, or whatever else it is named nowadays, on wednesday in NYC and Jan Crittenden spoke of the R&D, feedback from the digital cinema community, the work behind this camera and especially the price point being targeted for affordability. I asked her about a DVCPRO P2 codec version, she mentioned the most likely probability of AVC-Intra instead, but she made very clear that if that is in the future it would add more than $4000.00 to the price. She also made clear that the 8 bit AVCHD codec put in place will give the user a great image to work with nonetheless. I recommend to robert and all the other complainers of the 8 bit output to wait a couple of years for the version of their dreams. In the meantime as Ms. Crittenden predicts, Panasonic is going to sell thousands of this camera to people willing and able to create beautiful looking content with it.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Vitaliy Kiselev
My big respect to Jan.
It is rare to see manager, especially woman, who understand all inner things.
And likes the things she is doing
Click to expand...

Oh, she was great today. It was an honor to speak to her. She of course spoke very well of Barry Green and his input. I took pictures of her and the AF-100 but I have no idea how to load them into the forum. I tried but couldn't. Anyway it was a pretty cool experience. Thank you Ms. Crittenden for all the info.
 
robertrogoz said:
Joe, please do understand a few things. There is nothing wrong with AVCHD or any 4:2:0 codec, unless you have to do extensive post production and color work.
Click to expand...

I would say it doesn't have to be "extensive post production and colour work" to fall apart. Even slight level, gamma and colour correction can wreck GH1 footage. I prefer to shoot as close to the "preferred look" in-camera so post work is not needed, or at least minimally. The Ki Pro Mini will hopefully relieve this problem.
 
robertrogoz said:
BTW could you point out some releases of big screen movies shot mostly on AVCHD? I kind of have hard time, maybe for a reason?
Click to expand...


Name the last time ANY consumer/prosumer/sub-$50,000 camera shot movie got a mass release to the cinemas! Paranomal Activity is the only one I can think of, and even it was shot with a lowly 8 bit 4:2:0 camera. I don't care about big screen released films anyway, that's not my gig, my intentions are to use it for music videos, commercials, and industrials. Even if Panasonic made this camera with a 4:4:4 codec or a 4:2:2 codec, it doesn't mean that overnight tons of people will be able to suddenly get there movies into theatres. If you need a digital cinema camera with (gulp) in-camera 4:4:4, I'll happily suggest to you the Sony F35. Or my personal favorite, an Arri ST with Master Prime Lenses and Kodak Vision 3 5219 500T film... :Drogar-Dolar(DBG):
 
powervideo said:
I would say it doesn't have to be "extensive post production and colour work" to fall apart. Even slight level, gamma and colour correction can wreck GH1 footage. I prefer to shoot as close to the "preferred look" in-camera so post work is not needed, or at least minimally. The Ki Pro Mini will hopefully relieve this problem.
Click to expand...


Please know that the GH1Codec is not the same as the AVCCAM codec. The 5D codec is not the same as the AVCCAM codec. Those AVCHD implementations are more of a Playback codec, using only I and P frames. The AVCCAM codec uses I, B, and P frames. It makes a huge difference. Also you should not edit in a long GOP codec, transcode to something better, like Cineform, or ProRes or DNX. These all work extremely well.

Best,

Jan
 
As I understand, main complains about AF100 are:

1) H264 codec (named AVCCAM here) using 4:2:0 color.
Many people in target auditory expect to get at least 4:2:2 intraframe codec.
I don't know, but may be some temporary solution can be offered by firmware upgrade reducing GOP to 3 or even 2 and upping bitrate.
It is improbable that we could get 4:2:2 color in AVCHD here.

2) 8bit output in HDMI and SDI, so even having 4:2:2 uncompressed image people want more space to work in postprocessing.
Of course, most of such guys will buy third party HD recorder.
No one except low level chip developers know if this is possible to get real 10bit output.
Most probably it is impossible in current model.
 
Vitaliy Kiselev said:
As I understand, main complains about AF100 are:

1) H264 codec (named AVCCAM here) using 4:2:0 color.
Many people in target auditory expect to get at least 4:2:2 intraframe codec.
I don't know, but may be some temporary solution can be offered by firmware upgrade reducing GOP to 3 or even 2 and upping bitrate.
It is improbable that we could get 4:2:2 color in AVCHD here.

2) 8bit output in HDMI and SDI, so even having 4:2:2 uncompressed image people want more space to work in postprocessing.
Of course, most of such guys will buy third party HD recorder.
No one except low level chip developers know if this is possible to get real 10bit output.
Most probably it is impossible in current model.
Click to expand...

youre right here its improbable. the main reason i believe they dont tinker with the codec is that it is a standard. they cant change its specifications or it will have complications when being ingested by different editing programs. unless a new standard is created this is the best that we could get out of avchd from these companies... e.g. sony (nxcam), canon(hfs series) and panasonic (avccam series).

but wouldnt it be awesome to have a 45mbps 4:2:2 avchd :P

p.s. i used to have an hmc150, i loved it and the codec is great and robust.
No problems in colorgrading at all. (unless you dont know how to light a scene) keying isnt perfect but it works easily.
 
Last edited:
dcloud said:
youre right here its improbable. the main reason i believe they dont tinker with the codec is that it is a standard.
Click to expand...

Funny thing about standards is that they are not law :-)
Someone always starts first by breaking them.
Acquisition of Sanyo allowed Panasonic to make TM700 with 1080p60.
And they do not followed standards here.
Most probably because development had been influenced by new people in the company.
 
Joe Walker said:
I recently matched AVCHD footage with Varicam footage, dude, there is N-O-T-H-I-N-G wrong with AVCHD, it holds its own! I don't understand the histeria of this b.s. anti-AVCHD stuff!
Click to expand...
My only gripe about AVC is the decoding time, but you know what? That's a slight annoyance for the computers of today. Cameras that use MPEG2 (and there are some very good implementations of that, don't get me wrong) are stuck with MPEG2 forever.
 
Vitaliy Kiselev said:
2) 8bit output in HDMI and SDI, so even having 4:2:2 uncompressed image people want more space to work in postprocessing.
Of course, most of such guys will buy third party HD recorder.
No one except low level chip developers know if this is possible to get real 10bit output.
Most probably it is impossible in current model.
Click to expand...
Even if 10-bit 4:2:2 Uncompressed output were possible with the AF100 as is, would it actually make any real difference versus 8-bit 4:2:2 Uncompressed with the current chip-set?

I would think that the entire insides of the camera would have to be improved to really take advantage of 10-bit output. Yeah, the AVC-Intra cams can do real 10-bit output, but their chips are also fine-tuned to create a 10-bit signal for 10-bit recording within the camera.

The EX-1 is capable of 10-bit output, but most people use the NanoFlash, which is only 8-bit.

I have tried finding information about how 10-bit Uncompressed compares to 8-bit Uncompressed on the EX1/EX3, but I haven't found much. Most people don't seem to be doing it, and what little information I've found has been mixed.
 
crank 2- A1s and HF10s (I think this defines the sub 50k thing, the prosumer thing, and the consumer thing in one shot), open water (may not count as it might not meet the mass requirement)
 
Last edited:
Sorry, my point was more directed at Robert's jab at AVCHD not being used as a shooting format for a major motion picture released in the cinemas, to which I was merely trying to point out that in the grand scheme of things, so very few movies shot on any sub $50K video cameras ever really make it to a mass release in theatres. I'm not knocking video as a format to shoot movies on at all, far from it, I have a lot of respect for all formats. I just think it's ridiculous to pin AVCHD in a non-professional corner, and I also think it's ridiculous to say that since no films released in the cinemas have been shot on AVCHD, that its somehow an inferior format.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top