So there's no AF100 Successor - Now what?

[Mike@AF]

I couldn't see your videos on my iPad, but now that I'm on my computer I can see them. I do see the issue in your 2nd video. It would appear even worse if this was shot as a closeup instead of the wide shot that this was taken from.


And here are 3 frames from Heist and Heist 2 showing the same issue.


And again on the taillights of this bus.


So the issue appears in the original firmware footage and also on the new firmware footage. I'm guessing it's a sensor issue and JVC probably can't fix it with firmware, but if they can then this could definitely be a camera I buy.

 

[Lpowell]

So the issue appears in the original firmware footage and also on the new firmware footage. I'm guessing it's a sensor issue and JVC probably can't fix it with firmware, but if they can then this could definitely be a camera I buy.

What issue do you have with those frame grabs, that the tail lights turn white when you blow out the exposure? Look close and you'll see that the reflectors are not pure red, they're desaturated reddish-orange. That means they have green and blue components as well as red. With enough overexposure, the RGB components in a direct source of light all flatten out at 100% intensity and the result is white. That's exactly what we see on the JVC LS-300, a vast improvement over the yellowish highlights the AF100 produced.

 

[Mike@AF]

The circle/halo of color around them. Or like a bleeding of the color from the lights. You can really see it with the bokeh in the top Delimex pic. Looks like a circle within a circle. That is not normal and I've never seen a circle like that with bokeh with other cameras.

 

[Lpowell]

The circle/halo of color around them. Or like a bleeding of the color from the lights. You can really see it with the bokeh in the top Delimex pic. Looks like a circle within a circle. That is not normal and I've never seen a circle like that with bokeh with other cameras.

Bokeh is produced by the lens, not the camera. If that's all you've got against the LS300, I think it's time to shut down this inquistion.

 

[Mike@AF]

I know bokeh is produced by the lens. What I'm saying is the camera processing or the sensor is causing some kind of bleeding of oversaturated colors or overexposed colors. Where else have you seen bokeh with two circles like that? Look around the taillights and the light on the door. There is bleeding of the light around them. It doesn't look right.

 

[Lpowell]

What I'm saying is the camera processing or the sensor is causing some kind of bleeding of oversaturated colors or overexposed colors. Where else have you seen bokeh with two circles like that?

Here's the Wikipedia page on "bokeh". It's not the final word on the topic, but it's a good place to start:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh

 

[Mike@AF]

I didn't say I don't know what bokeh is. I do know what bokeh is and don't need to read a wiki on it. I'm saying something weird is happening with the taillights and the bokeh with the LS300. Something about how the sensor is handling either overexposure or oversaturation (or both).

 

[Lpowell]

I'm saying something weird is happening with the taillights and the bokeh with the LS300. Something about how the sensor is handling either overexposure or oversaturation (or both).

OK, I figured you had nothing, just wanted to make sure.

 

[combatentropy]

I agree, Mike@AF, the circle of color around the highlights looks odd.

 

[brudney]

Looks like 'onion bokeh' to me. Definitely a lens artifact.

 

[Mike@AF]

Assuming the top Delimex pic is onion bokeh (though I doubt they would have shot that with such a crappy lens that would produce that bad of a bokeh), there's still the 3 frame grabs below those. The same bleeding is showing up on all three videos that were all shot with different lenses. I don't think it's purely a lens issue.

 

[Lpowell]

Assuming the top Delimex pic is onion bokeh... I don't think it's purely a lens issue.

It's not only bokeh, there's lens flare as well. Magnify the car tail lights in the second Delimex frame. In the center of each tail light is an overexposed white area, surrounded by a thin dark red ring. That ring is the outer edge of the tail light. Outside the dark ring is a red halo - that is wide-aperture lens flare.

 

[combatentropy]

No, it's not bokeh. There is one shot that, yeah, is obviously out of focus. But in the rest, the surface isn't out of focus enough to warrant such a thick ring, especially the first shot, of the lights around the sign, and the shot of the car door, which is actually in focus.

It's not lens flare either, in my opinion. Look at the bus taillight. That doesn't look like flare to me.

 

[Lpowell]

There is one shot that, yeah, is obviously out of focus. But in the rest, the surface isn't out of focus enough to warrant such a thick ring...

Before we call in a ring thickness expert, I think we should consider the kerning. It's obviously off, and clearly indicates a forgery.

 

[Mike@AF]

Before we call in a ring thickness expert, I think we should consider the kerning. It's obviously off, and clearly indicates a forgery.

Huh?

 

[Mike@AF]

It's not only bokeh, there's lens flare as well. Magnify the car tail lights in the second Delimex frame. In the center of each tail light is an overexposed white area, surrounded by a thin dark red ring. That ring is the outer edge of the tail light. Outside the dark ring is a red halo - that is wide-aperture lens flare.

Wide aperture lens flare? Inventive reasoning to make yourself believe there's no issue. It's not a lens flare. If it were, it would move in a different direction than the source of the flare when the source of the flare moves in the frame. That's not what's happening here, so it's impossible to be a lens flare. Also, lens flares don't typically surround it's source perfectly like in these shots.

 

[combatentropy]

Before we call in a ring thickness expert, I think we should consider the kerning. It's obviously off, and clearly indicates a forgery.

You don't have to get all typographical about it.

 

[Lpowell]

It's not a lens flare. If it were, it would move in a different direction than the source of the flare when the source of the flare moves in the frame.

There are more kinds of lens flare than what you may have seen in the movies. But as for "inventive reasoning", I think the font kerning evidence supports my suspicion that these frame grabs may have been forged as credibly as the halos support your theory that "something weird is happening with the LS300". In any case, intellectual integrity calls for equal attention to both theories, so let us strive to "teach the controversy".

 

[Mike@AF]

There are more kinds of lens flare than what you may have seen in the movies. But as for "inventive reasoning", I think the font kerning evidence supports my suspicion that these frame grabs may have been forged as credibly as the halos support your theory that "something weird is happening with the LS300". In any case, intellectual integrity calls for equal attention to both theories, so let us strive to "teach the controversy".

Right, so you're suggesting I captured some frames and retouched them to show these issues? And why would I do that? You can go ahead and watch Heist and Heist 2 on YouTube and see that I didn't do anything to the frame grabs. Maybe you should get some evidence before you go making false accusations.

BTW, still not a lens flare.

 

[Lpowell]

Right, so you're suggesting I captured some frames and retouched them to show these issues?

No, I'm claiming the evidence you may have done so is no less persuasive than your contention that "something weird is happening with the LS300".