Video Quality on AF100/GH2

Robert Ruffo said:
No, DSLR is the future of no budget low-end production. I hope for your sake that such productions are not YOUR only future.
Click to expand...

Sorry I meant the DSLR form factor. And yes I belive it is. Look at Scarlet and Epic. As hostile Red can be... they know what they're doing camera wise.

Robert Ruffo said:
One can make assumptions about you based on the content of your posts. There is no way you are an experienced, high caliber pro. Sorry, but...
Click to expand...

Really, you're judging my skill as a cinematographer/editor/videographer/ect... by my posts on an online message board? That's quite a stretch.


But, back on topic, how is the aliasing on the GH2? I noticed the roof in that clip as well. Maybe too much in-camera sharpening?
 
Last edited:
I agree people will continue to use dslr's, but as camera makers follow panisonic and start making video cameras with large sensors, the dslr's will dwindle. Not completely, but the sacrifices are rediculous. This is why,I never got rid of my XHA1, I use it with the t2i, and hv40. These are just different tools, for different kinds of shooting.

I shot a pageant a few weeks back, It was an hr long with no intermission or breaks in between, If I tried to use a dslr for that gig I would have been sued for ruining the shoot. So I can see the need for a proper video camera.
 
I think we can take form factor out of the equation, as there is nothing pretty about the form factor on the af100 pre lenses. It seems the af will still need kited out with rails and so fourth, just as the dslr. I love the fact the dslrs alow the flexibility to dress up or down.

In terms of image quality superiority, I have seen nothing shot from the af100 that would sugest it has an advantage in image quality, however I have seen footage fromm the gh2 that looks better in the dynamic range department. Mind boggling. If barry or phillip Green could clear some of their findings on this since they have had a more up close and personal expereiance with the cams, that would be very helpful.

At the end of the day I believe both cams will deliver for their target consumers. My thinking is if you have the loot to get the af100 then get it, if not, and your ok with an image quality at 24mbs at 24p then the gh2 seems to be the answer.
 
JesterJJZ said:
After you put all the modules on the "brains" that you NEED, they look nothing like a DSLR.
Click to expand...

I beg to differ... Allot of people seem to think so. http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=49969

or here...

http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/red-scarlet-makes-surprise-cameo-filming-epics-fast-focus/

Of course, obviously, you can configure it any you like if you really cannot get past the "my camera needs to be big to look pro" mentality.

reem12 said:
In terms of image quality superiority, I have seen nothing shot from the af100 that would sugest it has an advantage in image quality, however I have seen footage fromm the gh2 that looks better in the dynamic range department. Mind boggling.
Click to expand...

I was noticing the same thing. Especially in the highlights. Maybe chips with less pixels are more prone to clipping... as there is lass gradation of light gathered.

Steve Kahn said:
That has NOTHING to do with in-camera sharpening. That is aliasing/moire. [/URL].
Click to expand...

Obviously. But turning down the sharpening on a 7D or 5D GREATLY reduces aliasing and moire. I shoot soft all the time now and re-sharpen in post. It produces a much better artifact free image.

I was just wondering if the GH2 works the same way.
 
Last edited:
mrmoonay said:
I beg to differ... Allot of people seem to think so. http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=49969

or here...

http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/red-scarlet-makes-surprise-cameo-filming-epics-fast-focus/

Of course, obviously, you can configure it any you like if you really cannot get past the "my camera needs to be big to look pro" mentality.



I was noticing the same thing. Especially in the highlights. Maybe chips with less pixels are more prone to clipping... as there is lass gradation of light gathered.



Obviously. But turning down the sharpening on a 7D or 5D GREATLY reduces aliasing and moire. I shoot soft all the time now and re-sharpen in post. It produces a much better artifact free image.

I was just wondering if the GH2 works the same way.
Click to expand...

Do you have any 1080 p footage on-line that we can see?
 
HVXguy said:
Do you have any 1080 p footage on-line that we can see?
Click to expand...

Actually, yes... I'm working on a comparison/tutorial of the benefits of shooting soft and re-sharpening. The results are defiantly worth it.

I thought it was common knowledge that the in-camera sharpening on the Canon's accounted for 60% of the aliasing/moire problems? Oh well, examples will be up soon.
 
groveChuck said:
Thoughts on several posts

#1 You don't want it? Don't buy it.
#2 Waveform and zebras? Worth $1000 to me. Each.
#3 XLR audio- worth $1000 (to me. Not to you? Again, it's simple- don't buy it).
#4 HD-SDI out, worth $1000 to me, maybe $2000.

I'm at $5000 of "bonus features" that I consider essential (and just getting started). So I'm satisfied. You're not? Don't (you know)... buy it.

#5 Didn't Barry say both the sensor and the codec are far removed from the ones on the GH1? So vastly improved that they barely resemble the originals?
Barry?


Is it a perfect camera? No, there is no such thing. But will I make it work, and wring every bit of quality out of I can? You bet.

I'm off my soapbox, and #12 in line at Full Compass. I am a happy camper. :beer:
Click to expand...


Well said, these are all features those of us who are used to those same features on full-sized cameras like the Varicam missed when we started shooting on the dslrs.

I personally welcome them back with the AF-100.
 
mrmoonay said:
Of course, obviously, you can configure it any you like if you really cannot get past the "my camera needs to be big to look pro" mentality.
Click to expand...

Form factor has nothing to do with a '"my camera needs to be big to look pro" mentality' and everything to do with ergonomics and balance - the two things that video DSLR's are absolutely miserable at. From a camera operator's perspective, they're hell to work with, and I highly doubt you'll find a professional operator, "old" or not, that would tell you otherwise.

mrmoonay said:
Maybe chips with less pixels are more prone to clipping... as there is lass gradation of light gathered.
Click to expand...

This isn't how digital sensors work. Here, let me google that for you.

mrmoonay said:
Obviously. But turning down the sharpening on a 7D or 5D GREATLY reduces aliasing and moire. I shoot soft all the time now and re-sharpen in post. It produces a much better artifact free image.
Click to expand...

Can you back that up with side by side comparisons?

mrmoonay said:
I thought it was common knowledge that the in-camera sharpening on the Canon's accounted for 60% of the aliasing/moire problems?
Click to expand...

I'm absolutely flabbergasted by this claim, and would love to know where you get your figures from.
 
The pro features alone are worth the added cost of the AF100 to me. Like Barry and Leo , I am one of the older guys here (no elderly offense meant guys) and in the past have been used to purchasing cameras 3 to 5 times and more the price of the AF100. At this price point for the quality and pro features you get it's really a steal of a deal. It's funny how years ago we would purchase broadcast cameras directly from the pro departments of Sony Broadcast or Panasonic Broadcast. The cameras would then be amortized for depreciation on a 3-5 year schedule due to the initial high costs. At the price of these new cameras they are now literally commodity items that can be purchased mail order or online. They have short technical life spans and depreciate often faster than you can keep up. If you do this work full-time, have regular work and a steady client base a $5k camera should be easy to attain, if not, perhaps you need to revisit your business model.
 
CraigM said:
The pro features alone are worth the added cost of the AF100 to me. Like Barry and Leo , I am one of the older guys here (no elderly offense meant guys) and in the past have been used to purchasing cameras 3 to 5 times and more the price of the AF100. At this price point for the quality and pro features you get it's really a steal of a deal. It's funny how years ago we would purchase broadcast cameras directly from the pro departments of Sony Broadcast or Panasonic Broadcast. The cameras would then be amortized for depreciation on a 3-5 year schedule due to the initial high costs. At the price of these new cameras they are now literally commodity items that can be purchased mail order or online. They have short technical life spans and depreciate often faster than you can keep up. If you do this work full-time, have regular work and a steady client base a $5k camera should be easy to attain, if not, perhaps you need to revisit your business model.
Click to expand...


+1 Perfect Summary
 
Another prop is the zebras and waveform. They've become so ingrained in me that it would be a huge loss not to have them. I also think that people will adapt to whatever they are forced to and then love it. I for one shot for 3 years with 4 gig P2 cards swapping to a P2 store and that was something I got used to. I shot 2 hour concerts like that and now I'd be like WTF. I couldn't imaging having to ever shoot like that again, but I did it. DLSRs were an eye-opening experience and to that the industry is taking notice... But with all good tools there's one that fits one thing better... so I'm all for the GH2 and the AF100. I'd be down for a Red too if that was a required camera option...


I think that I also hit this stuff up and check everything out till I make the purchase and have it in my hands and then who gives a flip... Then I'll just shoot and share what I can on this forum... That's why this is so contentious now... cause people are about to drop a good amount of money during an economy where people are getting laid off and countries are going into the crapper. Woudln't it be interesting to be spending all this money and live in Ireland or wherever the euro tanks next.
 
Thomas Church said:
It's going to be so disappointing if the GH2 ends up having more DR and highlight roll off than the AF100.
Click to expand...
There is nothing at all that the GH2 can do, that the AF100 can't, as far as making images goes. The very notion is just silly. The only exceptions are that the GH2 does higher-res stills, and (because of that) the extended tele feature. But because of those, the GH2 will exhibit aliasing that the AF100 won't, and the GH2 can be hit with moire patterns that you will almost never see on the AF100. And the AF100 does many many things that the GH2 doesn't, including 20 different frame rates, besides all the pro features.

Look, here's the hard rock-bottom truth -- they're not going to be miles different in final image look. They're going to look similar. But to those who want to know if they should just get the GH2 instead, my answer is exactly the same as the answer I used to give when someone would ask "should I shoot on video or should I shoot on film?" The answer was: if you even have to ask, shoot video. When you're ready for film, you'll know it.

So if you think you'll be happy with a GH2, get a GH2. When you're ready for the AF100, you'll know it. I said long ago that even if the AF100 image was no better than the 5D, it'd still be a vastly preferable camera to use and well worth the price difference. So even if it's no better image-wise than a GH2, there are still dozens and dozens and dozens of reasons that it's well worth the price differential (to me, and to many others). If you've looked through the list of things that an AF100 does, that a DSLR doesn't, and you can seriously say that those dozens of reasons are a non-issue to you -- then be happy with the GH2. There's nothing wrong with that. But operationally, integrationally, and professionally, the AF100 is just heads, shoulders, hips, knees, and toes over any DSLR. That's what the cost premium is all about.
 
Barry you are very right, but the mass majority of threads on these two cams points largely to image quality so my guess is the majority of peoples priorities are geared towards a good image, and I just can't get over how the gh2 seems to roll off its highlights better than the af100 when it cost 4 times more. If this winds up being the case, this will be unacceptable to some.
 
reem12 said:
Barry you are very right, but the mass majority of threads on these two cams points largely to image quality so my guess is the majority of peoples priorities are geared towards a good image, and I just can't get over how the gh2 seems to roll off its highlights better than the af100 when it cost 4 times more. If this winds up being the case, this will be unacceptable to some.
Click to expand...
Shoot the exact same scene with both cameras before you make decisions as to which one rolls off highlights better.
 
John Caballero said:
Let the debate begin! I say image quality will be very very close. We can already see some prove of that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cP7kbw54Zo

Watch at 1080p and enjoy.
Click to expand...
I'll be incredibly disappointed if the AF100's resolution is as poor as that. I realise that YouTube "1080p" is actually less though, since they seem to run all 1080-line videos through a deinterlacing filter (sigh).

Edit: just found this which APPEARS to have an untampered download option. Detail is much better here: http://vimeo.com/15948068

I still don't understand why it's so difficult to find fresh "out of the camera" videos from these cameras! All of the recompression steps online are lethal when it comes to quality.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top