The best we could do with AF100

G

gustavo_viral

Active member
I think this is the best looking job we did with AF100.


I think it looks nice. But could look better with C300 for example?

We ordered the Samurai, but did'nt get yet. You think would have made difference?

Some takes were too soft. I think was the lens. An old 35mm nikon. I had to sharpen the image a little bit. The lumix 7-14 and 20mm were fine.

Thanks.

Gustavo
From Brazil
 
Looks great! I don't think using a Samurai would have made it better. If you where doing a green screen then maybe you would benefit from it.
 
Any lens will perform worst when wide open, especially an older lens, so if you were using an older Nikon wide open, yeah, expect substantial softening. If you have lenses that performed well and one that didn't, then definitely that lens is to blame, and it would have been equally weak on any other camera you tried it on.

A Samurai would have made the chroma keying a little better, sure. A C300 would have made it a little sharper, but whether that small increase in sharpness is worth the 5x price increase is something you'd have to weigh.
 
Barry_Green said:
A C300 would have made it a little sharper, but whether that small increase in sharpness is worth the 5x price increase is something you'd have to weigh.
Click to expand...

A C300 would have been slightly better at keying, given its native codec's 4:2:2 color space, but the keying software these days is so advanced, that I'm not sure if the ease would have really been any more apparent.
 
Hey Folks. Thanks for the feedback!

Just to keep clear. There was no keying in this spot.

So are you saying that the only benefit from Samurai is to make keying better? I'm expecting some increase in quality, something like HVX200 look. Am i wrong?

And about the C300, something says to me that is a far superior camera that the look and feel would be much better. But, it's costs so much more!

The funny thing is the client does not care which camera was used. But we want to be improving always... I like the AF100, but when i see the graded footage on a big TV in 1080, makes me wonder about another cam.

Sorry about my english and thanks again!
 
The Samurai will, under normal circumstances, provide a *very slight* increase in image quality. The footage isn't going to get magically sharper or anything. You'll get the benefit of 4:2:2, which is nice, but that's about all the Samurai will do for you. If you do heavy extensive grading, the Samurai will give you a more robust codec to do that with, but if you basically shoot for finished footage, I doubt most people would be able to tell the difference between Samurai and native footage.

The C300 is definitely a better camera, no doubt -- but it's also 5x the price, so -- is it 5x better? Or 30% better? You'd have to judge that for yourself... if the client's happy, why not keep doing what you're doing, and don't spend any money until you really have to?
 
Hi Gustavo,

I like the Panasonic look, maybe your movie should have more contrast, lower gamma, but it is a personal taste.
Probably C300 should be better, maybe Sonys, but as I told before I like the Panasonics since DVX100.

I remember the first job I did in RED ONE, it looked too soft in 4k, but after post work and unsharp mask the footage was excellent.
If you love sharp images, the 5D or Sonys are great.

Maybe the Voigtlander 25mm would make the image sharper, or the Zeiss.

Good job!
Ulisses
 
Gustavo,

I like the production quality, the editing, the audio and the music very much. But image, even when watched in HD on Vimeo, looks soft. Honestly, I think a C300 would look appreciably better.
 
BobbyMurcerFan said:
Gustavo,

I like the production quality, the editing, the audio and the music very much. But image, even when watched in HD on Vimeo, looks soft. Honestly, I think a C300 would look appreciably better.
Click to expand...

And this is an environment where the AF100 should be able to shine - a completely controlled set w/ full lighting (ie - bad high lights shouldn't pose a problem). Adam Wilt's examination of the AF100 shows that the camera is going to be soft looking in a lot of circumstances:

"In practical shooting, the AF100’s images are just a little bit soft, and a wee bit aliasy on fine detail; nothing that makes the camera unusable in the majority of situations. Its 680 TVl/ph may sound low, but it handily exceeds the 540 TVl/ph resolution of the HXV200 and its successors, and those cameras have satisfied many owners: raw resolution ain’t everything."

The F3 or the C300 outperform the AF100 (and the FS100) by a fairly large margin in terms of resolution - as well they should, at more then 4x the cost.

If that's not worth it to you, or it's simply too rich for your blood, then it comes down to either the new gen of FF DSLRs, or the FS100 which fares better on Wilt's resolution showdown:

"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. When shooting real-world subjects instead of charts (and when not being directly compared to the F3) the FS100 captures a pleasingly sharp image with no apparent softness. In practice, the FS100 does moderately well on the charts (in this case, a DSC Labs MB-SW), capturing 800 TVl/ph horizontally and 1000+ lines vertically."

Or you could go with the Sony FS700, but Wilt describes the resolution of that camera as "Surprisingly, the FS700 is very close to the FS100 on the charts, capturing 800 TVl/ph horizontally and 1000+ lines vertically."

As Barry indicates, it's all about how money you want to spend. You can get an FS100 for about $1,500 more, and a FS700 for about double what the AF100 costs. The C300 is a little more then 4x as expensive.

My take? They're all 8 bit cameras and only the FS700 has the future ability to upgrade to 4K resolution (in theory anyway). I thought your video looked fine - unless the client was upset, of the lack of resolution is killing you, I'd stick and stay.
 
Well, when i'm saying its the best looking video we made with this camera, i'm talking about the controled enviroment, the meticoulos light and etc. I'm sure think the job has flaws and could be a lot better, including the color grading.

I was not the one who did the color grading. Certainly i would have made some diferent. For me it looked fine.

About the AF100 i think its a great camera, and when finish in SD it look great. But when you have to broadcast in HD 1080 it reveals the bad resolution. Well, i like the panasonic brand and workflow and i'm expecting the successor to be a lot better.

Thank you all for the feedback.
 
From what I've seen the resolution in the FS100 is on par with the AF100. Here is a test Barry shot.


Here is a shot from a project I'm working on with an OLD 50mm 3.5 macro Canon FD lens.

tests.Still004.jpg

It's hard to believe that an old lens intended for 35mm photography would have trouble with a 2k image.

As far as keying, Keylight 1.2 is your friend. If you use pre-blur you can remove the jaggedies associated with a compressed color space.
 
Steve,
Barry's video was an eye-opener for me. Unless I'm going blind I can see far more detail on the AF100 - especially in the reds and less aliasing. just got back from the St. Louis Film Festival and saw our short shot on my AF100 and a friend's short shot on an FS100. Both looked great on a forty- foot screen. These cameras can make terrific images - or crummy ones - depending on who's doing the shooting (he said, modestly).
 
taylormade said:
Steve,
These cameras can make terrific images - or crummy ones - depending on who's doing the shooting (he said, modestly).
Click to expand...

That's true enough as far as it goes... but regardless of the shooter, a camera's resolution is a camera's resolution. Gregg Toland back from the grave isn't going to make the AF100 have the resolving power of the C300...

And resolution seems to be the OP's main concern.

"From what I've seen the resolution in the FS100 is on par with the AF100. Here is a test Barry shot."

It's not according to Wilt's articles.. which, like everything else involving these cameras, is in the eyes of the beholder.
 
Resolution charts for the AF100? There are none in the article.

I'll post this again.

This is a side by side test done in the same environment. Wouldn't you say that is telling? Wouldn't you say that all the FS100 aliasing is a huge negative and what people used to think as quality detail in the early dSLR days?

Finally, let's be practical. In the real world of shooting such a minor difference is negligible. When I shoot I have much greater worries: lighting, location, talent... FOCUS!!! I give you another comparison.


To me both detail are pretty close.
 
Steve Kahn said:
Resolution charts for the AF100? There are none in the article.

This is a side by side test done in the same environment.
Click to expand...

I'd say I'd take Adam Wilt at his word... as do many many other shooters. He's a very well respected camera geek.

Personally, I don't have much use for charts (esp looking at them on the internet). If it looks good to me, that's good enough.

If the AF100 looks good to you, then that's all that should matter. The original OP, however, apparently didn't groove on the sharpness and there's at least one very credible person's test(s) that back that feeling up.
 
jdv said:
I'd say I'd take Adam Wilt at his word... as do many many other shooters. He's a very well respected camera geek.
Click to expand...

I have a degree in physics from UCLA. I know the science world and believe me NO ONE takes anyone at their word in science. It is just not done and just not good enough. And these guys aren't "geeks". They're full Ph.Ds and often times come up with contrary - opposite findings.

There are many reasons why an image may be soft and I'll bet it has nothing to do with inherent resolution - especially after seeing the two comparison videos above.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top