Youre not the only one.
Panasonic AG-AF100 TEST FOOTAGE by Filippo Chiesa (September 2010)
- Thread starter kylekmd
- Start date
Youre not the only one.
plasmasmp
Well-known member
In the first 10 seconds we can almost confirm the AF100 does not have the same codec issues as the GH2. The GH2 in the same situation would have taken a second to rebuild detail after the passing cars, as the codec would have been temporarily overwhelmed.
:wink: If I can borrow a pre-release cam for a few days I have a bunch of tests I want to try :wink:
:wink: If I can borrow a pre-release cam for a few days I have a bunch of tests I want to try :wink:
Essami
Well-known member
No, you're not. I've been eager to see some footage from this cam and based on this I wouldn't order it. So let's hope it's not the cam
kylekmd
Well-known member
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?222673-AF100-AF101-initial-report/page84
Well... Here's the DP of the clip, Filippo Chiesa, on another thread talking about this clip and the shoot.
Maybe we can get him to post some unprocessed footage?
Well... Here's the DP of the clip, Filippo Chiesa, on another thread talking about this clip and the shoot.
Maybe we can get him to post some unprocessed footage?
Last edited:
Coco Bermudez
Well-known member
lol, test footage like this makes me very queezy about having pre ordered the camera, but then i remembered that there is nothing about the footage that i like, so chances are it's not the camera.
Go phil bloom go!
bro...I totally agree with you. When I saw this I almost crapped my pants thinking about pre-ordering from B&H and they already withdrew the funds and the camera is a special order item and is non-cancelable and non-returnable.
My hope rests in Joe Lawry's footage...now I understand why camera manufacturers sometimes like to limit the posting of footage from new cameras. I am not saying that this footage sucks...it's just heavily tainted with some "boxed" CC. If I had not pre-ordered...I would probably not order until I see the unit released and tested....
Jaime Valles
Veteran
Clearly the footage is heavily graded, and that's fine. It's a finished narrative film, not a bunch of color charts. The grading is part of the emotional storytelling of the piece. And if you don't like how it's graded, that's fine too.
That said, I agree that the title of the thread should probably not include the words "Test Footage" because it does imply that it is footage straight off the cards for reference.
And, on a separate note, be aware that as more and more of these cameras become available to the general public, more and more crappy footage is going to show up online (not that I think the footage posted above is crappy:engel017:.) Don't let it dissuade you from the AF100, though. The camera is only as good as the user. There's terrible footage coming from every camera out there, from RED ONE to FILM. So, get used to seeing 10 times more bad footage than good footage from the AF100. It's inevitable, but it's not the fault of the camera.
For real test footage we're just going to have to wait until the finished camera is out there, and trained professionals have a chance to really put it through its paces. Until then, don't base your purchasing decisions on ANYTHING you see posted online, good or bad. The camera is unfinished, remember?
That said, I agree that the title of the thread should probably not include the words "Test Footage" because it does imply that it is footage straight off the cards for reference.
And, on a separate note, be aware that as more and more of these cameras become available to the general public, more and more crappy footage is going to show up online (not that I think the footage posted above is crappy:engel017:.) Don't let it dissuade you from the AF100, though. The camera is only as good as the user. There's terrible footage coming from every camera out there, from RED ONE to FILM. So, get used to seeing 10 times more bad footage than good footage from the AF100. It's inevitable, but it's not the fault of the camera.
For real test footage we're just going to have to wait until the finished camera is out there, and trained professionals have a chance to really put it through its paces. Until then, don't base your purchasing decisions on ANYTHING you see posted online, good or bad. The camera is unfinished, remember?
Michael Olsen
Veteran
I definitely think the "TEST FOOTAGE" in the title could go.
Which is sad. I was looking forward to really being able to dig into the footage a bit, which I did anyway, and come up with a better picture of where it stands for me...which I can't.
We know it's AF-100, we know it was shot on a Nanoflash via HD-SDI. But that's it...I don't know what to attribute various attributes of the footage - is it soft because the camera is soft (heavy OLPF?)? is it soft because the lens was soft? is it soft because the grade softened it up? Too many variables for virtually every element of the picture to really mean anything in terms of testing the camera.
Suppose I'll just have to wait for some raw, unedited AVCHD files to exist.
EDIT: The lenses used were Zeiss 100mm f/1:2 ZF Makro-Planar, a Nikkor 50mm f/1:1.2, a Nikkor 14-24 f/1:2.8. Make of that what you will :beer:
Which is sad. I was looking forward to really being able to dig into the footage a bit, which I did anyway, and come up with a better picture of where it stands for me...which I can't.
We know it's AF-100, we know it was shot on a Nanoflash via HD-SDI. But that's it...I don't know what to attribute various attributes of the footage - is it soft because the camera is soft (heavy OLPF?)? is it soft because the lens was soft? is it soft because the grade softened it up? Too many variables for virtually every element of the picture to really mean anything in terms of testing the camera.
Suppose I'll just have to wait for some raw, unedited AVCHD files to exist.
EDIT: The lenses used were Zeiss 100mm f/1:2 ZF Makro-Planar, a Nikkor 50mm f/1:1.2, a Nikkor 14-24 f/1:2.8. Make of that what you will :beer:
Last edited:
I was invited by adcom to watch this film with a password last week and thought it was not open to public viewing. I like the music the heavy grading makes it impossible to judge the images.....
but given the short time he had to do it, its ok....to me it says absolutely nothing about the quality of the AF100!
the heavy grading makes it impossible to judge the images.....but given the short time he had to do it, its ok....to me it says absolutely nothing about the quality of the AF100!
Paul Vicente
Well-known member
I was invited by adcom to watch this film with a password last week and thought it was not open to public viewing. I like the music
but given the short time he had to do it, its ok....to me it says absolutely nothing about the quality of the AF100!
My 2 Cents:
Watching this clip says nothing about the quality of the images from the camera. Honestly, I think we all know the camera will deliver an excellent picture. So debating that is really not an issue for me. We know from the New Zealand footage that the AF100 can deliver a beautiful image.
For me, the main issue is the crop factor, since I come from a 35mm adapter background, which means a full-frame angle of view. I have always been impressed with the results I have had using a 50mm f/1.4 lens. It is relatively wide, and it allows me to shoot a subject standing a couple of feet away from head to waist, while the background behind is significantly soft and not compressed (meaning tight angle).
For me, the point of buying the AF100 would be bokeh-- but I don't want a narrow depth of field AND a narrow angle of view at the SAME TIME. It looks to me that all of the shots with nice bokeh (which appeal to me) are very tight angles. Once the wide angle lens goes on the depth of field is almost infinite (except for any foreground element--like the plant in the New Zealand footage).
Let's face it, even with a stock HMC150 or HVX200, I can throw the background out of focus--provided I am zoomed in all the way.
My feeling is that for wide shots, the AF100 cannot deliver a narrow depth of field due to the optical characteristics inherent in any sub-25mm lens.
Hopefully the 25mm f/0.95 lens can provide the look I want while using an AF100. otherwise, I may opt to wait for a camera with a larger CMOS chip (like APS-C or even full frame). I am sure such are on the way. Even the NX10 has a bigger chip than the AF100 (but no Panasonic mojo).
Paul Vicente
gustavo_viral
Active member
Thats a good point. Besides Dof, there are others great advantages that justify move out from the HMC150 to the AF100?
Homunculus
Carbonite Member
man this video looked like hell all around. not impressed at all. bad compression, nasty highlights blowouts showing poor DR, horrible color grading. just nothing at all about it impressed me. it seemed like bad prehacked gh1 footage or perhaps DVX100a footage
Barry_Green
Moderator
Would you argue that 35mm movie film cannot deliver a narrow depth of field on a wide shot? Because the AF100 and 35mm movie film are very close to the same size, and very close in terms of attainable DOF under any given circumstances.
Barry_Green
Moderator
The four primary advantages the AF100 offers over an HMC150 would be:
1) shallow DOF
2) interchangeable lenses
3) sharper footage
4) variable frame rates
The HMC150 also has advantages over the AF100, including:
1) substantially lower price
2) Servo zoom
3) Immune from CMOS issues
There are distinct differences between the products that would make one the clear choice over the other for many given shooting circumstances.
heavyG
Underwater Giraffe Member
No-one seems to understand this or acknowledge it.
Barry_Green
Moderator
I think part of the problem is the name of the lens mount, being "micro" four thirds. Obviously that makes people think it's small, because it says "micro"! But that's actually backwards, because the chip is actually >larger< than a standard Four Thirds chip. The "micro" refers to the flange focal distance, the distance between the lens and the sensor. It's been micro-ized to make for thinner camera bodies. But the sensor is the same, and it's nearly the same size as 35mm cine film. There's a small difference, yes, it's slightly smaller, but not appreciably.
Thanks for the great big 'Screw You' guys. Much appreciated.. especially from a Moderator of this forum.
Now i remember why i dont bother coming to these forums anymore..
Last edited:
Sorry Joe, I should have been much clearer and when making statements like this as a moderator it is my job to be very clear. I deeply apologise as my statement didnt include what you guys had done. In fact I was only yesterday linking your clip to a couple of people to point out some of the qualities you were able to show in your clip.
Again sorry if I wasnt clear. But you also have to understand that that initial AF100 clip from around IBC has driven me nuts with inane questions.
groveChuck
U-matic Member
Joe (and Yves)- no "screw you", rather thank you for your test. Much appreciated!
Remember, you can't please all the people all the time... :undecided
Paul Vicente
Well-known member
Hi Barry,
I will not speak for guys who shoot 35mm all the time, but in MY experience, the wider the lens (i.e. <28-24mm) the greater the depth of field, and as I mentioned in my post, I am coming from a 35mm Adapter background, where it is a full-frame world with a 36mm image width. This means that with a "standard" 50 mm lens, I get pretty good bokeh. However with my 35mm, the bokeh is reduced, and further down the line, at 28mm, it is even less. So I am trying to imagine what a 25mm lens at f/1.4 or f/0.95 will look. That is all.
I can appreciate what Micro Four Thirds means.... But in reality, it is not full-frame, and it is even less than APS, so the crop factor forces me to go with what I previously considred to be a VERY wide lens to meet the needs of my work... So I am concerned that the bokeh will not be as nice. As for the quality, I am not concerned. AVCHD is a very good codec, and Panasonic has handeled the resolution coming out of of the chip to render a nice clean, sharp image.
To Joe:
No one was referring to your footage... Just the recent item. Your clips were good, clean, and highly professional. Cheers!
Paul