Panasonic would have had a winner if they had made an AF100 with the GH2 sensor.

RatLabProductions said:
The greater context of the Zacuto shootout to me is that talented people can do amazing things. Its not the camera. Great cinematography, lighting, grading etc can make a lower end camera look great. A higher end camera gives you more to work with but it doesn't save an artist from his craft.

I do like the blind aspect of the test. I find a lot of people instantly dismiss the footage the moment they find out its from a GH2 especially Canon fanboys.
Click to expand...

Yea that's the important thing to keep in mind...context. In the hands of someone who knows what it can handle and can adjust light accordingly (as in the new Zacuto test) all of the cameras held up well, but for the trained eye, in the blind test, the sharpness/detail is what gave away some over others. GH2 likely rose towards the top because on the lower end, it's the only one at 2K that can really holds its own.

Context is key with this stuff...nobody is saying the AF100 is garbage (I'm definitely not!!), or that the GH2 is on par with an EPIC or RAW, etc. It's just so great to see the tech reach a level where it can be managed a certain way and achieve something that can fool people a lot easier.

Hopefully this thread doesn't derail over all this. Either way, I loved my AF100 for a lot of reasons, and having a GH2-like image (at least in detail) would be WONDERFUL.
 
Jan_Crittenden said:
Babu said: GH2 is a little wider at all focal lengths as well. Why the difference in quality? The OLPF sensor which I want Panasonic to replace in mine but will never happen.

Two things here. The part of the sensor that the AF100 uses is wider than that of the GH2, it isn't as tall as the GH2. Second, the OLPF keeps you from haveing Aliasing and Moire. I really do not think you should have it replaced with anything.
Click to expand...

Jan I'm curious, why is it the GH2 can create the image it can with its internal components but the AF100 can't? I'm not asking with hostility, I'm really curious here from an engineering standpoint, what is it? Does the GH2 have an OLPF like the AF100 does? Why would the image end up so different (even non-hacked?). Is it the software internally?

Looking to learn here, not start a fight :)
 
KyleProhaska said:
Jan I'm curious, why is it the GH2 can create the image it can with its internal components but the AF100 can't? I'm not asking with hostility, I'm really curious here from an engineering standpoint, what is it? Does the GH2 have an OLPF like the AF100 does? Why would the image end up so different (even non-hacked?). Is it the software internally?

Looking to learn here, not start a fight :)
Click to expand...

What he said....

I bought a GH2 and then rented an AF100 for a shoot....
I really liked the GH2 quality much better so I bought
another GH2 body instead of the AF100.
 
KyleProhaska said:
Jan I'm curious, why is it the GH2 can create the image it can with its internal components but the AF100 can't? I'm not asking with hostility, I'm really curious here from an engineering standpoint, what is it? Does the GH2 have an OLPF like the AF100 does? Why would the image end up so different (even non-hacked?). Is it the software internally?
Click to expand...

the OLPF in the AF100 is not in the GH2, The difference is that when one puts in an OLPF it is trying to limit the resolution that will be problematic in some scenarios. So those anomalies can be in the lots of detail areas and shows up looking like Moire and Aliasing. Additionally the rate at which the chip is clocked is faster on the Af100 so you will find less skew. There is very little relationship internally of the two cameras. One is coming from a still background and the other is coming from a motion video background. Each set of engineers are looking to get the best image for the intended market.

Hope that helps,

Jan
 
Jan_Crittenden said:
the OLPF in the AF100 is not in the GH2, The difference is that when one puts in an OLPF it is trying to limit the resolution that will be problematic in some scenarios. So those anomalies can be in the lots of detail areas and shows up looking like Moire and Aliasing. Additionally the rate at which the chip is clocked is faster on the Af100 so you will find less skew. There is very little relationship internally of the two cameras. One is coming from a still background and the other is coming from a motion video background. Each set of engineers are looking to get the best image for the intended market.

Hope that helps,

Jan
Click to expand...

Do these engineers ever look at the video and listen to end users?
What criteria are they using in evaluating video?
From a realityville perspective the video I can produce from the GH2
is much more satisfying for my needs then the AF100 can produce.
YMMV:thumbsup:
 
Frankly they do listen to customers, but first they look at how the most common denominator works. It is almost offensive that you ask whether they look at the video, how else would they make a video camera? I mean really. And where do you think they came up with the list of specifications on the AF100? Many came from here or the Focus Groups we ran. They test looking at motion video with lots of detail in it, they take into consideration how the majority of people have run into issues with still image cameras. It may well do fine in your application, but fail in any number of others. I am not saying the GH2 is bad, it is just not engineered as a video camera. And from my reality, I like the look of the AF100 better.

Best,

jan
 
I find that the gh2(unhacked) matches and intercuts very closely to the AF100. The AF100 is so much more comfortable and easier to control than the gh2.
 
I have both Af101 & GH2.

Both give me very good images. They are only different!

About the look: AF100 has the classic Panasonic colors while the GH2 new gammas designed for Lumix products. Some GH gammas are wonderful (Natural and Dynamic IMHO) and work great in video mode. Cine gamma is almost the Cine-D of AG series.
GH2 has more resolution and more detailed image,in fact it has not the OLPF filter (but Jan,i don't really see bad moire and aliasing,specially on the hacked version) but AF100 in my opinion,has a more organic picture. Artifacts of GH2 in low light are not present in AF100 low light footage. Codecs implementation is different. I'm a little disappointed by the yellowish general image using some gammas (GH2 has not this issue) but with Barry's suggestions we can reduce it a lot.

GH2 produces a "more impact" look,i'm really sure that at the Zacuto's Great Shootout, professionals were impressed!!
 
I think the DSP in the AF100 is a limiting factor. It just doesn't handle highlights as well as the GH2. It's noisier. It's softer. It has banding/solarization. AF100 can make lovely images in controlled conditions, but, like many other Panasonic palmcorders and the HPX500, it chroma clips on highlights in an non-filmic way.

The HPX250 is the first Panasonic palmcorder that handles high lights decently, IMO. It has a 20-bit DSP. It's no P2 Varicam DSP at 32-bit with Film-Rec gamma, but not bad.
 
Jan, my question to respond back then is why if the GH2 has no OLPF does it produce an image pretty much (not 100%) free of aliasing? Couldn't the AF100 do something similar if properly engineered to do that? The skew in the GH2 is definitely worse though as you said.

You said you like the AF100 image more then the GH2, which isn't something I can argue with because it just comes down to opinion. I've seen enough footage from both cameras on my broadcast monitor to know that I'll take the GH2 any day, although they become much closer once you get into things like closeups. Wide shots are a totally different animal.

I guess it's just one of those things where you mix up the ingredients and sometimes the result just doesn't satisfy everyone...and sometimes things surprise you and something not made to taste the way it does comes out wonderful.

Either way the fact still stands for me:

AF100 - Functionality > Image
GH2 - Image > Functionality

Problem being, the GH2 can be helped in that department with a cage, rails, and other things you can surround it with. The AF100 has the functionality already there, but (if you think the image is worse) there isn't a lot that can be done about that. It's pretty much stuck the way it is.

Maybe GH2 image with AF100 functionality isn't really possible when you have a department trying to work on all the needs at the same time...so perhaps I'm asking too much? Either way I'm thankful for great tools... :)
 
I agree that the skew and rolling shutter are far worse on the GH2 than the AF-100, but in my experience, I have had zero issues with moire and aliasing on the GH2, and I have shot things with it that would definitely cause such on Canons.
 
Jan,

My biggest complaint is the chroma clipping. Any chance Panasonic could update the gammas, or are they burnt to ROM?

Sharpness is my least concern, & much prefer Panasonic focus on improved gammas, higher ISO, faster FPS, more bitrate, & a stronger codec, in the next iteration.

And a Image Stablized sensor would be killer!

Like many users I have both the AF, plus a hacked GH2. The latter is only used when it's smaller form factor is preferable, which is rare.

Best,
Bern
 
Last edited:
theres not much point in speculating what could have been. despite panasonic's silence at NAB, at some point they will come out with another camera. im sure jan is overly aware of people's complaints about the af100, which are pretty much all a mostly "as compared to" list of complaints, and they will try to make a product that will compete well with others in the market.

i would speculate that this day in age most product development is based off of the market tone at the time. red influenced higher resolution, DSLRs influenced price and sensor size, BMC may influence RAW, etc....

two things i've figured out for myself having owned a Z1U, 5d2, EX1, af100, and a gopro, is that yes, there is no one do it all, and the reason the af100 doesn't fit my bill is that i need two cameras most often: ENG, and small form factor versatile, meaning my ex1 and 5d do the vast majority of my work, and i just haven't found work for the af100. that's just my end of things, it's different for everyone. i'm interested in replacing my af100 as well as possibly my 5d with the BMC. but hey, some of it is trial and error, each shoot i decide what to pack and weigh the options for each camera.
 
Jan_Crittenden said:
the OLPF in the AF100 is not in the GH2, The difference is that when one puts in an OLPF it is trying to limit the resolution that will be problematic in some scenarios. So those anomalies can be in the lots of detail areas and shows up looking like Moire and Aliasing. Additionally the rate at which the chip is clocked is faster on the Af100 so you will find less skew. There is very little relationship internally of the two cameras. One is coming from a still background and the other is coming from a motion video background. Each set of engineers are looking to get the best image for the intended market.

Hope that helps,

Jan
Click to expand...

It does. Thanks for the engineering insight.

jeff
 
Jan_Crittenden said:
Babu said: GH2 is a little wider at all focal lengths as well. Why the difference in quality? The OLPF sensor which I want Panasonic to replace in mine but will never happen.

Two things here. The part of the sensor that the AF100 uses is wider than that of the GH2, it isn't as tall as the GH2. Second, the OLPF keeps you from haveing Aliasing and Moire. I really do not think you should have it replaced with anything.
Click to expand...
Hi Jan, I know what the purpose of the OLPF is and how it eliminates moire and aliasing, but I really just want a jump in resolution with a less aggressive olpf. I love my af100 over all and the highlights of the cam my clients could care less about. Alot of them have a bluray player and having a higher res image (or fake res through aliasing) would make me a happier man. :p
 
Just to keep a bit of balance, I have an AF101 and a GH2 and I've never once used the GH2 on a professional shoot - in fact I can't stand it despite it's superior sharpness. It's nowhere near as clean and quick to operate as the Af101 imho. But that's probably because I've always been a video guy and was trained on eng, so small form factor is worse for me personally.
 
If Panasonic had put the GH2 sensor in, it would have lost one of its most important features -- 1080/60p. The GH2 sensor can't do the faster frame rates. It can only do 720/60p.

Sure it would be nice if we lived in a perfect world and every product was capable of every possible feature, and I nagged the engineers at NAB hard about the idea of making an AF100 with a GH2 sensor, and when they told me we'd lose the slow-mo variable frame rates, well... yeah, forget that.
 
TomLenham said:
Just to keep a bit of balance, I have an AF101 and a GH2 and I've never once used the GH2 on a professional shoot - in fact I can't stand it despite it's superior sharpness. It's nowhere near as clean and quick to operate as the Af101 imho.
Click to expand...
Agreed 100%. And while the hacked GH2 is definitely sharper than the AF100, that's even a double reason for me not to want to use it on a professional shoot -- the form factor and workarounds, compounded on top of an unauthorized firmware hack, make it too risky and inconvenient, even if it does deliver a sharper image.

I know there are folks who can only afford a GH2, and -- for the price it is an astonishing camera. But there are people on both sides of this fence. Pick what works for you.
 
Barry_Green said:
If Panasonic had put the GH2 sensor in, it would have lost one of its most important features -- 1080/60p. The GH2 sensor can't do the faster frame rates. It can only do 720/60p.

Sure it would be nice if we lived in a perfect world and every product was capable of every possible feature, and I nagged the engineers at NAB hard about the idea of making an AF100 with a GH2 sensor, and when they told me we'd lose the slow-mo variable frame rates, well... yeah, forget that.
Click to expand...

Yea I understand, although Kholi has told me the hacked 720/60p from the GH2 can look just as good (blown up) as the AF100's 1080/60p or better but I haven't seen RAW files yet.

AF100 as a complete kit still rules :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top