The single chip camera evaluation by ASC members

Thank you, Barry!

I'm surprised that the F3 (CMOS) beat the F35 (CCD). CMOS is really coming along. If only it had global shutter (or I should say, if only more camera models used global-shutter CMOS, since it's already out there, just not in any from Canon, Panasonic, or Sony).

I'd love to see the Blu-ray.
 
AGMedia said:
The point here is NOT that Mr. Green is wrong or Mr. LaForet is right -- rather -- that there's room for differing conclusions.

.
Click to expand...

But surely Barry is more impartial - Vincent Laforette is affectionately known as the guy who kick started the whole DSLR revolution with his Reverie vid. You would think that as he gives talks to many people about the merits of DSLR cinematography across the world he has a vested interest in them being portrayed in a positive light a little more than others. Not saying he is overly biased and I do love his work ........... but in a way ...........he kind of is.
 
Is anyone EVER really impartial though? People like certain things that are hard to separate out from a person. All you can try and do is find people who review things that have the same subjective feelings/needs that you have. I can personally say that me and Barry have agreed on things and disagreed on other things on a regular basis. :) I just say this to point out, getting second, third, forth opinions is ALWAYS good, but never a really good substitution for your own hands on opinion.
 
Agreed - I did say MORE impartial to be fair. Food for thought - if the majority of the experienced audience laughed at the DSLR stuff - that's a few more than four opinions........:laugh:. Gotta get the blu ray I suppose to judge for one's self as you advise.
 
Barry_Green said:
Keeping the PL mount super16. The rest can go.
Click to expand...

I thought you were going to mention one of the digital cameras as the "movie camera" to keep because of your statement, "I love love love film, but the writing is on the wall and the torch has been passed".

If I may ask, which "movie cameras" are you getting rid of then?

EDIT: Just realized, you're probably referring to 5 "film" cameras, and that you're only going to keep one. That makes sense.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the report, Barry. It's a shame that they didn't include the GH2 in the mix.

Very nice to hear that the F3 did well. It seems like it could be quite the cinema camera in the right hands.
 
Jaime Valles said:
Thanks for the report, Barry. It's a shame that they didn't include the GH2 in the mix.

Very nice to hear that the F3 did well. It seems like it could be quite the cinema camera in the right hands.
Click to expand...

Agree on your GH2 point. A real big shame that. But what's done is done. Sigh.

Also agree about the F3. Especially with an 10-bit, high datarate external recorder (so many good ones to choose from now!) the F3 will be a killer!
 
It is a pity that until now no one has done a proper test of the gh2 for video (lacking dynamic range for example). From the bits and pieces that have been done left and right it seems to be very good. For one, I don't think anyone would have laughed when they showed the resolution test of the DSLR.
 
Grrr. Now I wish I attended that session. I got so burnt out with info overload I ran out screaming like a mad man before that one
 
Thanks Barry. As always...a supreme benefit to us all. (Agree or disagree w/your opinion...at least it's not RANDOM.) I expect that I'll buy the BluRay....just for fun! :)
 
I finally got an opportunity to see this today in the Zacuto booth. Extremely well done and my hats off the to the guys that participated and gave their time. The one thing that I took in with me was knowing that the AF100 was pretty much out of the box in its scene file, HD NORM, so I could see where the AF100 could have looked better if it had been tweaked to optimal performance. Of course some of the testes were brutal and only some cameras survived, oh wait that was one camera survived, the Alexa. Pretty camera, great engineering. I would concur with Barry's report about the test, and frankly find Vincent's report wondering if he watched the same thing that I did. The booth presentation was on a lower res projector, but that would not have altered the results for anything but the cameras that shoot over HD, i.e., 4K.

Tremendous job by all of those that worked on it. What an incredible cast of contribution.
 
Jan_Crittenden said:
I finally got an opportunity to see this today in the Zacuto booth. Extremely well done and my hats off the to the guys that participated and gave their time. The one thing that I took in with me was knowing that the AF100 was pretty much out of the box in its scene file, HD NORM, so I could see where the AF100 could have looked better if it had been tweaked to optimal performance. Of course some of the testes were brutal and only some cameras survived, oh wait that was one camera survived, the Alexa. Pretty camera, great engineering. I would concur with Barry's report about the test, and frankly find Vincent's report wondering if he watched the same thing that I did. The booth presentation was on a lower res projector, but that would not have altered the results for anything but the cameras that shoot over HD, i.e., 4K.

Tremendous job by all of those that worked on it. What an incredible cast of contribution.
Click to expand...

I think we are all happy with how we have heard the AF100 performed... The fact that it held its own against cameras 3x and more its price says alot. Sure, it is not an Alexa, but no need to make excuses.

Out of curiosity, how did they record the AF100 (and F3) footage? Did they use an external recorder? I am kind of curious about hos an F3 recording to SXS cards compares to an AF100 recording in AVCCAM PH mode. I know most F3 shooters are going to have external recorders, and the SXS was intended for mostly for proxy files on the F3, but I had the opportunity to hire an F3 shooter who used only SXS cards (he did not get a recorder yet), and was kinda wondering how they compared. I know the F3 is a better camera (which it should be at 3x the price), but how does it compare when recording XDcam to SXS?
 
For the most part they recorded onto an external device. there were a couple of times where they recorded to the internal recorder but it was presented in a way that it was hard to compare as they showed the external device first then the internal device and then the next camera. They will be posting high res stuff up on line over the next couple of weeks. I think we will have to wait for that.

Best,

Jan
 
Being I'm about to shoot a feature on a DSLR - this a very unnerving little thread.​
Click to expand...

I'd be more worried about your story than I would your camera. DSLR features are already out there and have sold for millions. I'm not saying that a DSLR is OPTIMAL or the BEST CASE SCENARIO....but it's good enough. If you have a 100K budget....why use a DSLR? If you have a 10K budget....why not? Focus on your story. Don't worry about your camera.
​
 
I *really* wish Panasonic would update the scene settings on their new cameras that are being sent out. I cannot count the number of times people shoot right out of the box and get disappointing results to them, only to come here, change settings to what most of us are using (or very similar) and then be blown away by the results. Sure, no one setup is perfect, but when I look at the difference between the default scene file and the one I use now, it's like night and day. :)
 
Oliver Rush said:
Out of curiosity, how did they record the AF100 (and F3) footage?
Click to expand...
They did an excellent job of eliminating as many variables as possible -- they used the same lens for every camera and every shot, and for recording they recorded to external recorders. As Jan said, they did also compare internal recorders too.

I am kind of curious about hos an F3 recording to SXS cards compares to an AF100 recording in AVCCAM PH mode.
Click to expand...
Well, seeing as both those codecs are generally rather comparable, it would serve to bring their performance closer together. Both codecs are 8-bit 4:2:0 long-GoP. The AVCCAM is a more efficient codec and does a much better job of resisting artifacting, but when used in a scenario where the codec isn't truly being taxed, the codecs look very very similar, and frequently identical. The AVCCAM codec seems to be a pretty good match to what the AF100 head can deliver (external recorders can deliver better performance, especially with the 4:2:2, but the question becomes whether the amount of benefit is worth the additional cost, as compared to the cost of the camera itself... for example, does a $6,000 Gemini really make sense on a $4700 AF100?) On a cost-to-performance basis the AVCCAM codec is a pretty reasonable match. But I don't think XDCAM-EX really benefits the F3 much, it's capable of much more than its codec can deliver.

You can get more benefit from an external recorder on the F3, than you will from the AF100. The AF100's codec is already better than the F3's, so the amount of improvement is largely limited to adding 4:2:2 (which is a nice improvement, of course) whereas with the F3 an external is more valuable, as you would be getting a more robust codec, 4:2:2 (or even 4:4:4 color sampling), and taking advantage of all 10 bits of data (assuming you're using a 10-bit recorder).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top