Shock: AF100 beats PDW-F800 in footage quality

D

discostock

Member
I've just been shocked viewing raw footage from a second unit "b-roll" shoot for a documentary that I'm directing/writing. I was with the photographer on location when the footage was captured in a downtown area an hour before sunset. He was using Sony's high end XDCAM PDW-F800 disc camcorder with the 50mbs 4:2:2 HD 1080 59.94i setting. I recorded the same angles simultaneously using my AF100 with a Zeiss 21mm prime and the camera's internal PH codec - 21 mbs 4:2:0 HD 1080 29.97p. The AF100 menu settings were HD Norm, Norm 1, Knee Low, both Details default 0, Coring -1, Chroma -6, ISO 200, Film Cam, 1080/30p, everything else default.

Results: I was very surprised when I saw the footage output on a large HD monitor in an Avid suite. The XDCAM footage appeared more 'noisy' and didn't handle the contrasts and shadows as well as the AF100. The AF100 footage was 'cleaner', just as sharp, and in the shadows, I could see more detail, a more pleasing contrast balance with the brighter areas, and MUCH LESS grainy noise. Understandably, the XDCAM 4:2:2 handled color better than the AF100's native internal 4:2:0.

Based on what I've been reading in some of the online posts, I was fully expecting the opposite result. And the price difference is staggering. His XDCAM camera pkg was about 50k including the lens. My AF100 cost me 5k new, plus about 2k for the used Zeiss lens.

Yo Panasonic: I am one happy customer!
 
That is good news for you but it is surprising that the PMW-800 had more noise than the AF-100. Not that the AF-100 is supposed to be noisy, just that the PMW-800 is supposed to be very clean.
 
Bassman2003 said:
That is good news for you but it is surprising that the PMW-800 had more noise than the AF-100. Not that the AF-100 is supposed to be noisy, just that the PMW-800 is supposed to be very clean.
Click to expand...

It's possible his PDW-800 needs setting changes. I assume he was using factory defaults. To be clear, the 'noise' difference was most apparent in the shadows and dark areas. The brighter areas were about equal (low noise on both).
 
I forgot to mention the PDW-F800 XDCAM had noticeable moire/aliasing problems in shots of a brick building and a man's suit jacket that had a subtle light gray and dark blue weave. The AF100 was not perfect in those shots, but the moire/aliasing was less noticeable.
 
discostock said:
I forgot to mention the PDW-F800 XDCAM had noticeable moire/aliasing problems in shots of a brick building and a man's suit jacket that had a subtle light gray and dark blue weave. The AF100 was not perfect in those shots, but the moire/aliasing was less noticeable.
Click to expand...

Can I just say as an owner of a PDW-700 (almost identical to PDW-800) and a lovely AF101 - the images are very different. I find that the 700 pictures are very clean, crisp and handle the contrast really well. It is possibly the best ENG camera in operation. However the AF101 produces a wonderful image with a much more organic one. Would I ever replace my PDW-700? No way- it's an amazing camera and most highend HD series are now being filmed with it - but when I don't require ENG style work, when I can take the time to frame and compose shots, I love to use the panny. I've developed quite a set of Nikon ais primes over the past few months and love using them. I can see myself using it more and more with my work (I mainly produce highlight films around sporting events), and I'll shortly be shooting a large number of talking heads testimonial shots where I think I'll use the 101 - but when ever I need to cover a function, media announement, sports match, the 700 is always the first choice.

Basically both great cameras, but I couldn't agree with the statement that the pannies image surpasses the 800. Sparky x
 
discostock said:
I forgot to mention the PDW-F800 XDCAM had noticeable moire/aliasing problems in shots of a brick building and a man's suit jacket that had a subtle light gray and dark blue weave. The AF100 was not perfect in those shots, but the moire/aliasing was less noticeable.
Click to expand...

You recorded progressive, F800 recorded interlaced.

If you didn't watch this on a CRT, you're going to get aliasing issues from real time deinterlacers on a progressive display with interlaced footage



He was using Sony's high end XDCAM PDW-F800 disc camcorder with the 50mbs 4:2:2 HD 1080 59.94i setting. I recorded the same angles simultaneously using my AF100 with a Zeiss 21mm prime and the camera's internal PH codec - 21 mbs 4:2:0 HD 1080 29.97p.
Click to expand...
 
Sparky874 said:
Basically both great cameras, but I couldn't agree with the statement that the pannies image surpasses the 800. Sparky x
Click to expand...

This photographer with the PDW-F800 may need the camera looked at. He is one of the best in our region, but to my eyes, he may have slightly underexposed which could account for extra noise in the dark areas. The AF100 footage looked truly better though (except for the 4:2:0 color compared to the XDCAM 4:2:2).
 
PDR said:
You recorded progressive, F800 recorded interlaced.

If you didn't watch this on a CRT, you're going to get aliasing issues from real time deinterlacers on a progressive display with interlaced footage
Click to expand...

I tried the outputs as 1080i and 1080p. This monitor handles both. It's connected to a Matrox HDMI device.
 
Yes Id like to see the footage. Colour me a bit sceptical. Ive shot on the F800 once - but man it sure was pretty in the sense that this camera is a beast of an HD content camera.

They will look very different so it is of course subjective.
 
Noel Evans said:
Yes Id like to see the footage. Colour me a bit sceptical. Ive shot on the F800 once - but man it sure was pretty in the sense that this camera is a beast of an HD content camera.

They will look very different so it is of course subjective.
Click to expand...

Cheers mate! I agree the F800 is a beast, top of the line professional camera that will handle the most challenging environments and not be as fragile as the AF100. I'm not asserting that the AF100 is a superior overall camera. Just sharing a surprise I experienced in the edit room when I compared the footage. I expected a vast difference with the F800 making my footage look like 1/3" HDV. I was stunned.
 
discostock said:
Here it is. No shots have been altered or color corrected. It's very hard to see the differences in these web versions. The raw is the most revealing.

http://vimeo.com/22723294
Click to expand...

on the contrary, it very easy to see the difference

the F800 footage has been resized without being deinterlaced, that's why the artifacts are there

you cannot compare interlaced vs. progressive. It's like apples vs oranges

But I'm glad everything worked out for you

Cheers
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top