Panasonic AF101 Footage

perhaps in the front end sensor area, but i dont see why they cant have the same chips that encode avchd as the older avccams. even the tiny hmc40 has the proper avccam encoding

but debating this is useless. lets move on and wait for future footages
 
Vitaliy Kiselev said:
I see the only reason to hold AVCHD raw footage.
And this reason is - same codec as in GH2. No CABAC present in current implementation.
Presenting such footage and proof that this is indeed same codec could mean big disaster for AF100 sales.
Most probably they hope to hold as much as possible.
So, encoder analysys will be buried under positive reviews and not all will be not so noticeble.
Click to expand...

Then who cares, if the footage is fantastic and grades well from what we are told by people who have used it. I will be getting a gh2 because where I live I can' t expect to have any hope of having an af-100 until half of next year and also as a professional photographer I will have a better understanding of my skill in movie making by then with the gh2. I think that anybody that can' t see the functionality and form factor difference between the af100 and gh2 should not preorder the af100 and should wait when the two are here to see and test which one fits there needs and pocket better. I am really getting exited for my little gh2 because if panasonic gives us the same avchd image that we can see here I will have a winner now and when time will come I will upgrade for the better form factor. Filmaking and photography are becoming too much influenced by tech talk to a level that completely forget the finality. Do we human being see it is as good, very good to fantastic. In the end I don' t care one iota what technology it has or lack until it looks great and grades well to my eyes and client eyes.
 
Michael Olsen said:
Thank you for posting!

Definitely looking good - I look forward to seeing more footage at a higher resolution. At least we know it resolves a good 720p image :) Some raw AVCHD for download would be great, too.

And just so I understand...the footage posted here was shot on the following pieces of equipment:

AF-100 - $5000
HPG-20 - $4500
PL Mount - $?
24mm Zeiss UP - $200 Rental
50mm Zeiss UP - $200 Rental
85mm Zeiss UP - $200 Rental

Right?
Click to expand...

Right:) The AF-101 is a 4,589 + VAT camera. This is an affordable camera. We buy these cameras because we can't afford a camera that costs 2x or 3x as much. And the whole point is to own the camera and avoid expensive rentals. DVX, FX1, EX1. That sort of thing.

One can rent a fully equiped Red One and some affordable SLR lenses, instead of renting ultra primes (500 euro a day for a set).

A test of body + 14-140 would be nice, 5234 euro + vat
or a test of body + 14-35 f2 + 35-100 f2, 7919 euro + vat

The P2 solution adds 4678 euro + VAT with an hour of P2 recording. IMHO it's money better spent on lenses to get a 9-10,000 euro Af100 package.
 
Vitaliy,

Basically you are wrong, I really do not understand where you come up with this stuff. The reason to withhold is because the camera imaging portion is not done. The codec implementation we have is different than that of the GH2 and vastly different than the GH1s and the Canons. It is more closely aligned to AVC-Intra, but long GOP. The camera is about 85% at this point, I have one of the same level here and it has its hiccups in the imaging. There is no reason to feed her to the wolves.

Thanks,

Jan
 
its really bothersome that so many people keep comparing this to dslr. i dont think it is anything like it, aside from just the large imager. i have not jumped on the dslr because for me it just wasnt a video camera. the af100 is a digital film camera that should be compared to 35mm adapter setups and other digital film cameras out right now. panasonic would not screw this up to make it close to or the same as a dslr image. i mean, its a true native 1080p signal, this alone is what separates the camera. i look at this as an opportunity to drop the hassle of my adapter and have a real large imager digital film camera.
 
Jan_Crittenden said:
Vitaliy,

Basically you are wrong, I really do not understand where you come up with this stuff. The reason to withhold is because the camera imaging portion is not done. The codec implementation we have is different than that of the GH2 and vastly different than the GH1s and the Canons. It is more closely aligned to AVC-Intra, but long GOP. The camera is about 85% at this point, I have one of the same level here and it has its hiccups in the imaging. There is no reason to feed her to the wolves.

Thanks,

Jan
Click to expand...

Thanks for that Jan.
Its good that tough questions are answered here though, it makes me more and more confident in my choice.
 
I agree. This camera wont look like a 5D2/7D or work like either. It will resemble more of a GH1 in picture style and feel like a HVX200 or similar Panasonic camera to use.
 
danielc said:
its really bothersome that so many people keep comparing this to dslr. i dont think it is anything like it, aside from just the large imager. i have not jumped on the dslr because for me it just wasnt a video camera.
Click to expand...

Does it bother you that Panasonic is comparing it to HDDSLR's? There whole marketing campaign has been targeting the HDDSLR market so it makes PERFECT sense that people want to weigh the pros and cons of both systems. I think its too early to tell whether this camera will be worth the price bump.
 
Last edited:
Jan_Crittenden said:
It is more closely aligned to AVC-Intra, but long GOP. The camera is about 85% at this point, I have one of the same level here and it has its hiccups in the imaging. There is no reason to feed her to the wolves.

Thanks,

Jan
Click to expand...


I think you guys need to be a bit more patient here and see the final release. I mean, Panasonic is being extremely forthcoming with information, specifications and RECEPTIVE to feedback. In a sense, we have all been invited to help engineer this equipment. Tell me, which other company do you know of that does this? Sony, Canon, JVC, they just spit out a camera with a flashy release party and tell us "Here you go--Buy it". And so many folks think they have been blessed with an opportunity to buy a camera that is heavily priced (Sony), lacks features (Canon) or presents poor reliability (JVC). Meanwhile they could have bought a Panasonic, which in my book always provides high quality and excellent value.

So chill. If you do not like the final AF100, you can always go with what the other companies are offering.

Paul Vicente
 
acoelho1 said:
I'm glad you didn't include Red on the list although who knows when the Red Scarlet will come out.
Click to expand...

I did not include Red because in many respects, they seem to follow the same pattern that has made Panasonic successful. They release specifications (VERY) early, and this allows for them to get feedback while they finish out the design.

I think SONY is the worst on this.... Their thinking is still geared to the older workflow... i.e. tape. They continue to produce $80K tape decks even today. Madness I say.

Paul
 
Paul Vicente said:
I did not include Red because in many respects, they seem to follow the same pattern that has made Panasonic successful. They release specifications (VERY) early, and this allows for them to get feedback while they finish out the design.

I think SONY is the worst on this.... Their thinking is still geared to the older workflow... i.e. tape. They continue to produce $80K tape decks even today. Madness I say.

Paul
Click to expand...

I agree on Sony which is probably why panasonic is winning the battle for the Broadcast market. Unless something else comes out to challenge the AF100, it seems like a winner and at this price point, it should sell really well. I like to wait though, let the early adopters deal with the initial headaches.
 
While they do compare it to DSLR's Jan made it clear in one of the videos that the real market are those currently using 35mm lens adapters on DVX/HVX's. It's a natural progression for those users to jump to the AF100. Panasonic has lots of customers in that price range. Also, nice to hear it has moved rom 70% to 85% done.
 
well actually there has been many interviews where jan does say that its not geared to take hdslr shooters, but more so people using 35mm adapters on existing video cameras. the gentleman at NAB also referenced people already shooting 16mm film who may go digital. i dont think panasonic is gearing it that way, though many hdslr users may switch anyway. with all of the other dabates on this forum, i doubt this one needs more say. i am just referring to some posters stating the codec and imager as dslr which i think this is totally different. everything is speculation, more so because i do not know what panasonic is thinking for marketing, but what i heard it hasnt been as blatant as you put it.
 
Michael Olsen said:
Well, to be precise, AVCHD is what the Canon DSLRs shoot.
Click to expand...
Not exactly. The Canon DSLRs shoot h.264, and AVCHD is also h.264, but they're not the same. The AVCHD badge is for a specific standard of implementation of h.264 as specified by Sony and Panasonic jointly; the Canons don't use that. They use a limited/stripped-down version of h.264, with a lot of bandwidth thrown at it to overcome the limitations of their encoder.

It gets confusing because the GH1 also bears the "AVCHD" label, but ... what the GH1 has is no better (and, in stock form, is quite a bit worse!) than what the Canons have. But neither of them is anything like what the AF100/HMC40/HMC80/HMC150 offer.


as it's also the same codec you can see on the best looking Blu-Rays.
Click to expand...
Yes, although Blu-Ray can have a higher ultimate bitrate, the footage structure of AVCHD is the same as that of Blu-Ray. Most Blu-Ray players can play AVCHD memory sticks (if they have an SD slot) and you can author AVCHD footage onto a DVD that can then be played directly in a Blu-Ray player.
 
Jan_Crittenden said:
Vitaliy,

Basically you are wrong, I really do not understand where you come up with this stuff. The reason to withhold is because the camera imaging portion is not done. The codec implementation we have is different than that of the GH2 and vastly different than the GH1s and the Canons. It is more closely aligned to AVC-Intra, but long GOP. The camera is about 85% at this point, I have one of the same level here and it has its hiccups in the imaging. There is no reason to feed her to the wolves.
Click to expand...

Thanks for detailed answer, Jan.
My source is inside consumer department who make GH2, so may be they got it wrong.
I'll hold my thoughts on this until actual release.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top