Sandpit: Panasonic AG-AF100/101 test (nanoFlash + AVCDHD files together)

kylekmd

kylekmd

Well-known member
A video from Filippo Chiesa:

http://vimeo.com/18734699


Filippo Chiesa writes,
"In this foggy morning (January 12th 2011), I was looking for a good place to film near the Po river when I saw a very interesting sandpit...

nanoFlash 280 mbps + AVCHD

Grading:
Colorista II

Lenses:
Nikon Noct-Nikkor 58mm 1:1.2
Nikon Nikkor AF-S 14-24 1:2.8G
Hartblei Super Rotator tilt-shift 120mm 1:2.8

Camera settings:
Film Cam
PH 1080/25P
Detail Level -7
V Detail Level -7
Chroma Level -2
Gamma Cine-Like D

A big thanks to Soc. Coop. Lelio Guidotti (Polesine Parmense - Parma)

Thanks for watching!"
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the test. I'm on the verge of purchasing the AF100 and Ki Pro Mini, but your Nanoflash test concerned me. On my monitor, the Nanoflash shots looked soft compared to the native codec of the camera cards. Why is that? Or is it just my computer monitor? I don't want to waste $2,000 - $3,000 on an external recording device if it makes the footage look worse. Argh... And explanations or suggestions?
 
awesome, nice stuff!

It's pretty clear by now that there is very little to no visual difference when comparing the two codecs, but the proof will be in the pudding im sure. (grading, keying, etc.. )

Thanks for posting!
 
Yes, how well the native codec performs with keying and grading--both of which I do a lot--will be the litmus test for me. That will determine whether or not I'll need to use an external recording device.
 
Yes, I did not shoot this. Oh no.

I occasionally survey a few host sites for AF100 footage, and re-post (for DVXusers) anything I find interesting.
 
kylekmd said:
Yes, I did not shoot this. Oh no.

I occasionally survey a few host sites for AF100 footage, and re-post (for DVXusers) anything I find interesting.
Click to expand...

I think everyone's confused because on the OP it says "I", so it's assumed that it's you. Maybe clarify that it's not your video when you post and quote the original Vimeo description.

Thanks for posting nonetheless.
 
Mike@AF said:
I think everyone's confused because on the OP it says "I", so it's assumed that it's you. Maybe clarify that it's not your video when you post and quote the original Vimeo description.
Click to expand...
I was a bit confused by that as well; he copied and pasted Filippo's comments but it's not really presented as a quotation so there's room for confusion.

I edited the original post to start off with a line saying that it's a video by Filippo.
 
a nanoflash is a must... 280 mb/s will garantee a better end result after all the post-production (renders).... color correction and color grading will really hit any footage and if the raw material is compressed too much, the end result will be bad... thus, a nanoflash is a good idea...
 
I'm all for better and I looove the nano...but 280 mbs is such overkill for an 8-bit image. I get the concept that maybe I-frame is better, but long GOP at higher than 50 mbs is really spectacular. (I often use 80 mbs and it's great for nearly anything)

I top out at 140 mbs long GOP on the nano, and I think that's overkill for most stuff. 280 is just a waste of card space.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top