Single Chip Camera Evaluation

Just watched it, very interesting Stuff like the AF100 and Sony F3 do hold their own quite well considering the price differential, shocked at the highlight performance of the DSLR's
 
Vultch said:
Just watched it, very interesting Stuff like the AF100 and Sony F3 do hold their own quite well considering the price differential, shocked at the highlight performance of the DSLR's
Click to expand...
To me all DSLRs appeared much softer and with obvious moire in the red dress, but they did not clip highlights as bad (into yellow) as the AF100 and F3. I wonder if they recorded internal 4:2:0 AVCHD codec or 4:2:2 SDI and if it would make any difference. Did anyone from Panasonic assist?
 
I was at the London screening and - believe me - the DSLRs look terrible in terms of resolution compared to the other cameras. This shouldn't be a surprise at all, of course but it is clear to see when the footage is inter-cut. Aliasing is a given. For me, next to fall was the AF100 - colour reproduction (worse than DSLRs) and resolution (better than DSLRs) were not great but probably in proportion to the AF's price relative the others there. For me, the F3 was a hit and in my opinion offers the best bang for buck on the big screen - resolution and colour reproduction were unquestionably better than the AF - as they should be! For the price, though, the AF is a winner for TV and the web if the budget is tight!

Personally, I liked the Phantom image best of all the cameras tested. I would also add that the 35mm stocks looked very grainy. Obviously, it's a contextual thing to some extent when you inter-cut with very clean CMOS-based DCinema kit like the Red and Alexa but I'm convinced the 35mm post was not handled in the optimum way, so be careful when using those Zacuto evaluations to compare to a 35mm baseline because I have seen much, much cleaner results from the same 35mm stocks. There was one guy (I'll not name him) at the London screening show-boating for attention and claiming 'Film is dead!' even comparing the 5D results favourably. Believe me, there was absolutely nothing in the test footage that could convince anyone sensible (including my grandmother) that the DSLRs are a seriously viable alternative to 35mm for anything destined for the big screen!!!
 
I was very surprised with the Kodak and think it gave very good results. I think concerning these tests alone, I'd have to go with the Alexa and then Red. I have the 5d and think the 7d's performance was better, but not necessarily the better overall camera for film look. I love RED but in these tests, I was most impressed with the Alexa's performance.
 
I think the AF100 held its own very well considering it was the only camera in its price range on the list that wasn't a DSLR. Any camera below it was a DSLR, and any camera above it was twice the price or more. Don't forget guys, the highlights in that test were brought back down after blowing out, so they probably didn't look as bad had they been left alone. Every camera has a weakness, and a CC fix in the higher values would've removed all if not almost all of that yellow tinge. It's just a setback, but not something you HAVE TO live with.

That test made me a prouder owner of the AF. :) A $5000 camera never worked or looked so good...ever...
 
KyleProhaska said:
I think the AF100 held its own very well considering it was the only camera in its price range on the list that wasn't a DSLR. Any camera below it was a DSLR, and any camera above it was twice the price or more. Don't forget guys, the highlights in that test were brought back down after blowing out, so they probably didn't look as bad had they been left alone. Every camera has a weakness, and a CC fix in the higher values would've removed all if not almost all of that yellow tinge. It's just a setback, but not something you HAVE TO live with.

That test made me a prouder owner of the AF. :) A $5000 camera never worked or looked so good...ever...
Click to expand...

This is all fair and true. At the screening the AF image was perfectly acceptable in context with the big boys and that's quite an achievement for a camera at this price - unthinkable just a couple of years ago. Having said that, i'd have like to see some deep focus wides because I still think the AF is seriously lacking when it comes to very fine detail.
 
thanks for posting this. i cant wait the next episodes.

im surprised how well the 7D held up against the 5D
 
As an owner/operator of a RED One MX, an AF-100 and a 7D I must say I am very surprised at how well the AF and 7D held up to the RED.
 
I was proud of how well the AF-100 did. The highlight clipping has been discussed in detail here on this forum for months now. I've seen it myself in my own work. The key for me is careful exposure and controlling light. I thought the F3 showed similar yellow tint in that test though not quite as bad. I thought the AF100 did great in the low light test. I watched it next to the RED and I was shocked how well they compared. I think it's great to have these results and am grateful for this detailed information. They said, that you can make any one of these cameras look good by adjusting for their limitations. I've been shooting a lot lately and every day I find new ways of making that happen with the AF100.
 
The results of tests were not too surprising with the exception of the Red One MX lattitude. I have an MX and an M, a 7D, Gh13 and GH2.
Red uses a RAW workflow that, when exposed on an MX and graded by experienced Red users, will capture more than 13 stops.
 
I'm curious to see what the S-log feature will do to the highlight clipping in the F3. Could be the make or break point for many DPs if it can resolve those details in brightest of brights. Making it more on level with Alexa. If only my AF100 could get the same out of the highlights... haha
 
One thing I noticed in the BTS footage, but am not sure was mentioned during the SCCE screenings, was the use of tungsten lights. Appears all the tests were done with incandescents, probably because they wanted a continuous spectrum of light, but I always think of single chip cameras as biased towards daylight balance.
 
Last edited:
Bern Caughey said:
A Panasonic engineer was the camera specialist for the AF100.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that Barry pretty much kept the camera at an out of the box setting as that was the instruction. There were any number of times that if he had stepped in and been able to tweak a couple of things it would have come out differently. But keep in mind that the purpose of the test was to learn where the weakness of the tools were so that you wouldn't be surprised when it counts. The highlight test was just such an example. No one in their right mind would try to get that shot, unless you had an Alexa. Most folks don't, so knowing what you know about the cameras how would you go about getting that shot. So could the AF100 looked better, sure, even Barry, our camera engineer who was there, would agree. And even with its straight out of the box setup it held pretty well.

Best,

Jan
 
Jan_Crittenden said:
Keep in mind that Barry pretty much kept the camera at an out of the box setting as that was the instruction. There were any number of times that if he had stepped in and been able to tweak a couple of things it would have come out differently. But keep in mind that the purpose of the test was to learn where the weakness of the tools were so that you wouldn't be surprised when it counts. The highlight test was just such an example. No one in their right mind would try to get that shot, unless you had an Alexa. Most folks don't, so knowing what you know about the cameras how would you go about getting that shot. So could the AF100 looked better, sure, even Barry, our camera engineer who was there, would agree. And even with its straight out of the box setup it held pretty well.

Best,

Jan
Click to expand...

Well said, Jan. It stands for the low light tests as well. I was very happy with the apparent parity with the top cameras but I would never want that shot or even try it. Lots of folks are voracious about low light capability. I'm giddy about the low light capabilities of all these cameras, especially after shooting with an adapter for a few years. On our last shoot we had to ND practicals to cool it down some. One of the engineers in the test suggested that the AF100 and F3 would react well to shifting the whole range of light down. I've found that to be true and also hugely expressive. For me it's about finding that new middle.
 
A comment made at the Las Vegas SCCE screening by one of the panelists - i forget who exactly- was that if you wanted to shoot a "horror movie" ie a movie with a lot of dark scenes either the F3 or AF100 would be ideal for the purpose. If the film was a sunny comedy, you'd be happier with an Alexa or F35 .....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top