I don't know the answer to this at all but I do remember in the HDV days I never had any issue with Canon's HDV codec but I had problems with the Sony cams, especially when camera flashes go off. It would pixelate the image. The Canon codec was really rock solid for HDV. It has to be a similar situation. Canon's 4:2:2 Mpeg2 is a solid codec and Sony's AVCHD must be solid as well. There maybe a poor implementation in Panny's AVCHD codec. When I first got the AF100 I had really bad vertical banding throughout the image at all ISO's. I've been able to dial it out with the current PP but I'm now looking for better in terms of image quality.
Panasonic would have had a winner if they had made an AF100 with the GH2 sensor.
- Thread starter EndCredits
- Start date
Barry_Green
Moderator
C300 is $16,000. AF100 is $3500. You had better get better performance for an additional $12,500. The higher price tag gives the manufacturer room to include better components, etc.
The FS100 is 30% more expensive than the AF100, but I don't know that I've seen any comparison in banding between them. They both use the same codec.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Definitely not. I've extensively compared both codecs, as codecs, and they are absolutely on par with each other.
Situations like that are usually fixed by black balancing.
Steve Kahn
Well-known member
So then you're saying it's all hardware related? If so I'm curious as to what Canon (and Sony) have done to minimize this issue.
IIRC Phil Bloom has said that banding is not such an issue with the FS100 as it is with the AF100
Barry_Green
Moderator
Again, I don't know that Sony has done anything. But Canon has 4x as expensive hardware, which gives them room to use more powerful processors, etc.
Anyone can say anything; I'd want to see documented side-by-side tests. Lots of people tried to say the FS100 had "better highlight handling" than the AF100, but in actuality they're pretty much exactly the same.
I find that when people accept something as "common wisdom", it's wrong about 99% of the time. The FS100 is of comparable generation hardware as the AF100, uses an extremely comparable codec, I would expect that it would have the same performance in terms of gradient banding.
dustylense
Veteran
If you have a hard time getting a good image out of the Af100, buying a $16k camera won't solve your problems.
Oliver Rush
Well-known member
alaskacameradude
Veteran
Um, I'm not sure exactly what you are saying about Philip Bloom, but as I recall he did some of the more extensive large chip
camcorder shootout comparisons that I've seen online. He doesn't normally just spout stuff without some knowledge and tests to back it
up. He seemed to think the Sony image was better. Your opinion of course may differ.
http://philipbloom.net/2011/05/05/bloomshootout/
Last edited:
Mark Smith
Veteran
David W. Jones
Veteran
I'm sure the AVC-Intra 100 Mb/s (10-bit 4:2:2) codec helped play a role in that.
I find the highlight handling on the HPX300 to be pretty good, plus you can pull back on the highlights in post and still retain detail much better than any AVCHD camera I've used. Probably the AVC-Intra 10 bit at play as well. What a beautiful codec!
Steve Kahn
Well-known member
That's not the issue here. Of course you can get a great image out of the camera. If you don't blow out highlights and lock in your look when you shoot no one would complain.
The issue is messaging that image in post and the fact that it can't be pushed all that far. Many of us are just asking for that recipe (if there is one).
Steve Kahn
Well-known member
Yes but they are all 8 bit color when all is said and done. When the files all hit the nle they all have the same 8 bit color. That is what I don't quite understnad here.
If the mighty Canon for 16k is doing some voodoo in camera then perhaps that trick can be performed in post via software to alleviate said banding issues.
Barry_Green
Moderator
i have used three of them, and this is exactly my experience. And our fs100 forum has lots of complaints about fs100 clipping issues. Based on my own experience, actually using the cameras, I say that the highlight handling is comparable between the fs100 and the af100.
Barry_Green
Moderator
I'm not saying anything about him, other than to say that in general he doesn't use charts, and therefore his type of testing isn't my type of testing. I try to minimize variables (by setting them both in the same gamma and the same matrix, etc) before comparing them in scientifically controlled, utterly repeatable conditions. And that is the kind of test I would need to see before I believed ANYONE who says "this one is better than that one" in any particular area. Especially when my own firsthand experience disagrees with such a conclusion.
Choice of gamma, knee, ISO, color matrix, and color saturation level - all of those things can influence the "highlight handling" - and if comprehensive scientific testing doesn't explore and account for all that, then I say the results are opinion, not fact. Doesn't matter to me whose opinion it is; I'm more interested in documentable fact.
Erik Naso
Veteran
Best one yet!
Steve Kahn
Well-known member
I got this in my Vimeo in box this morning.
My wish is that Panasonic would do the testing you speak of Barry; that they assemble these matrices of results for all of the variables.
Further that they be up front with the strengths and weaknesses of a given camera before we buy it. That they be honest and show data about things which always seem to concern people. I feel that would be a big asset to this community and help people have faith in Panasonic which in turn would help this company that at the moment doesn't seem to be doing all that well.
alaskacameradude
Veteran
Ok, fair enough. Phillip DID do a pretty extensive 'test' though which he posted with the same cameras shooting the same subjects.
Not test charts, true enough, but he was not making his claims 'blindly' but from what he saw of them shooting real world subjects.
When you tested the AF100 and FS100 did you handle ALL things the same? Or did you use different F-stops or lenses or grade one camera and
not the other? My firsthand experience has shown me what I would call a significant difference between the two.
And funny you should mention 'test chart' type testing. You see, Adam Wilt did a pretty extensive review of the FS100 in which he
shot 'test charts' with both the AF100 and FS100. One of his conclusions?
"Mind you, while the FS100 fares poorly in comparison to the three-times-more-expensive F3, it’s far sharper, better balanced, and much less alias-prone than any current DSLR in video mode (typical sample charts here) AND the Panasonic AG-AF100, too: the large-single-sensor camcorder closest to the FS100 in price. And yes, since you ask, I have that same chart shot with an AF100"
The above is a quote from his article and he HAS test charts posted for both cameras. He goes on to say:
"Is the AF100 a viable alternative? Certainly it can make gorgeous images, when wielded by a skilled DP. But the Panasonic has
harsher highlight handling, noticeably lower resolution, and more luma aliasing, and it can’t hold a candle (pun intended) to the FS100’s low-noise, low-light prowess: it maxes out at ISO 3200, and a heavily-processed ISO 3200 it is, too. I also find the Sony to be more operator-friendly when on a tripod, though handheld, it’s a wash (the Panasonic’s handycam design is no advantage with cameras this fat and laterally unbalanced). For me, the NEX-FS100’s image quality is “better enough” to make it worth the additional cost (and I say that as someone whose sole owned HD camera at the moment is a Panasonic DMC-GH2)."
All of this is in his LONG 4 page review here:
http://provideocoalition.com/index....w_sony_nex-fs100_super35_lss_avchd_camcorder/
Again, as I said, your opinion may differ, but I'm not the only one who sees the difference, Philip Bloom and Adam Wilt seem to
be saying they do as well. Again though the AF 100 has other advantages which you have done a great job pointing out.
I just don't think it is near as 'cut and dried' as you seem to think it is, that the AF100 is way better. If it wasn't a
close match with both cameras having advantages in certain areas, I don't think I (and so many others I have talked to)
would have had such a hard time choosing which one to buy.....they are both good, they just have different strengths
and weaknesses.
Last edited: