Video Quality on AF100/GH2

When is the Gh2 suppose to be available? I thought it was supposed to be avail. in Nov., at least according to B&H, any news on that?

As far as the image quality i'd have to see the same thing shot by both. Until now I've seen similar quality or even better stuff with gh2, hopefully that will change when we see af100 at its best. I think it's a legitimate question though
 
Last edited:
I bet alot of people will be buying both cameras. You can't get away from moire on standard def tv regardless of the camera you are shooting.
 
This issue wil be debated to death with the usual great "Gnashing of teeth "

But I think the issue is really moot in a lot of cases .These units will coexist together and complement each other beautifully because of their common ancestry.
For pros wanting to do there job as easy as possible the Af100 is designed with features to do just that. buying a gh2 to go along with that will open up some interesting possibilities of placement because of form factor..

If you dont have funds for an af 100 I pretty sure with some work you will be able to achieve alot of what af 100 brings ...simply with more work on your part....

That being said I prefer not to work as hard as I can but as easy as I can so I have ordered both for all the reasons above .

end o statement.
 
I am not a highly experienced film maker like many on this forum, but I do know a little about digital signal processing. Yes, moire and aliasing do come from oversampling an image and then downresing it in a simple manner. Yes, the AF100 has an optical low pass filter (OLPF) to downres the image to HD resolution before it hits the sensor. Yes, the GH2 is optimized for still pictures, so must have a much weaker OLPF to get the required still picture resolution. BUT, an OLPF is not the only way to eliminate aliasing from an image. There are digital filtering techniques that can be done after the image is captured by the sensor that can do the same thing. The problem is that it takes a lot of processing power to do this in real time video. So, with the added processing that the GH2 has over the GH1, it is not inconceivable that some form of digital signal processing is being done after the sensor to eliminate some, if not all, of the moire and aliasing in the video mode. We will not know for sure until after there is solid comparison test data between the GH2 and the AF100.

Personally, I can't wait until processing technology advances far enough that all of the anti-aliasing can be done in the processor. Some still cameras, like the Leica M9 and most medium format cameras, have completely done away with the OLPF and do the anti-aliasing in post processing. This is especially possible when shooting RAW because the processing can be done in post production. I am sure this is what happens when Red footage is downresed from 5K to 2K. It can be done beautifully in post when the raw sensor information is there.

So, here is to looking to the future, when we can have the perfect VDSLR that has enough processing power to shoot video in raw and do the anti-aliasing in real time or in post. Then, you will get clean stills AND clean video. Throw in a global shutter for the sensor to get rid of the jello and you have the perfect crossover camera. Are you listening Panasonic? This would be the perfect combination for the GH3.
 
It's my understanding that the extra money you pay for with an AF100 has less to do with looking "better than a DSLR" and more to do with moving back to the standard pro video workflow. There are a lot of tools and options available in the AF100 that aren't available to those of us who opt for the GH2 route. I would actually think that one would hope they would be similar in image quality, as well, because the GH2 would then make a superb B cam to the AF100 (with the same codec and bitrate no less!).

I personally have grown quite fond of the quirky nature of the DSLR route. I hope the GH2 isn't far behind in image quality from the AF100.
 
pulpfiction007 said:
Don't forget about the gamma controls, color adjustments,
Click to expand...
This is no longer a valid argument. If you talk to editors, what they want is as flat and unchanged image out of camera, with the biggest possible DR, so the color work can be done in the post, on calibrated screen. This workflow will yield far superior results to anything else, particularly any camera tweaks.
 
Brandon Freeman said:
It's my understanding that the extra money you pay for with an AF100 has less to do with looking "better than a DSLR" and more to do with moving back to the standard pro video workflow. There are a lot of tools and options available in the AF100 that aren't available to those of us who opt for the GH2 route. I would actually think that one would hope they would be similar in image quality, as well, because the GH2 would then make a superb B cam to the AF100 (with the same codec and bitrate no less!).
Click to expand...

+1
 
Cameras are just tools, they will not do any work by themselves. To purchase a tool you need two things: a need for tool and money to purchase it. There are always tool rental places, where you can try things out. This endless discussions "my camera is bigger then yours" are just juvenile and stupid.
 
robertrogoz said:
This is no longer a valid argument. If you talk to editors, what they want is as flat and unchanged image out of camera, with the biggest possible DR, so the color work can be done in the post, on calibrated screen. This workflow will yield far superior results to anything else, particularly any camera tweaks.
Click to expand...

Nonsense.

That may be true with SOME editors, but certainly not all. It all depends on the amount of time you have to post.

I know of one fellow DP hho worked on a show for Discovery with multiple other shooters.

He was told to shoot "flat" for the reason you stated, and then found out that the other shooter said "screw it" and baked their looks into their shots because the show had little to no time for color correction.

Sure enough, when the show aired, his stuff looked far less contrasty than everyone else.

Now he gets his look in camera.
 
mcgeedigital said:
Nonsense.

That may be true with SOME editors, but certainly not all. It all depends on the amount of time you have to post.

I know of one fellow DP hho worked on a show for Discovery with multiple other shooters.

He was told to shoot "flat" for the reason you stated, and then found out that the other shooter said "screw it" and baked their looks into their shots because the show had little to no time for color correction.

Sure enough, when the show aired, his stuff looked far less contrasty than everyone else.

Now he gets his look in camera.
Click to expand...
I don't buy your argument for a bit. There were broadcast pieces shot on iPhone, however post is post and every piece of footage has to be up to broadcast specs or it gets rejected outright, particularly for Discovery.
 
It depends on your workflow and turn around. If you don't have a full CC budgeted, I'm pretty sure in camera tweaks will save you time and money.... And at the end of the day, the guy with the wallet calls the shots :)
 
Jarek Zabczynski said:
After you put all the modules on the "brains" that you NEED, they look nothing like a DSLR.
Click to expand...

I agree. It seems to me that when Red made it past their Red One launch and things were humming along nicely in that department, they were hinting at their next camera and then WAIT--- they pulled back. As I recall, they went into hiding for a few days and announced the Epic and Scarlet...

In my opinion, they designed the scarlet as a response to the budding DSLR craze. It was a mistake, since the form factor has proven to be inefficient (according to most reports). Look at the response from the industry.... Zacuto, Redrock and others have done very well trying to cater to the DSLR bunch-- basically trying to make DSLRs look, feel, and work like regular (shoulder) cams.

SONY, Pansonic, Ikegami, Hitachi and others pioneered the current popular camera layouts and perfected them over decades based on input from shooters all over the world. This includes the hand camera concept, perfected with the DVX and PD series cameras.

Likewise, on the photo front, Nikon and Canon have perfected the stills camera. It does what it is designed to do. Take stills. And yes, it can do video as well.

So I agree with an earlier post that said DSLRs will remain popular for low-budget work, while the stuff from Sony, Panasonic, ARRI, and Red will dominate the professional, boradcast and cinema markets.

At the end of the day, you need a larger form factor to accomodate controls, proper viewfinders, inputs/outputs, quick battery replacement options, etc., etc.

This is not a bad thing. Its the way it ought to be.

Cheers.
Paul Vicente
 
Paul Vicente said:
At the end of the day, you need a larger form factor to accomodate controls, proper viewfinders, inputs/outputs, quick battery replacement options, etc., etc.
This is not a bad thing. Its the way it ought to be.
Cheers.
Paul Vicente
Click to expand...

Paul, I quite agree. Just because one can do a thing is insufficient reason to do it. I'm quite sure we have the technology to produce mobile phones the size of a postage stamp, but it's ergonomically impractical to do so. Yes, there are times when smaller footprint trumps all, but these are rare occasions. A larger camera body gives us more hard points, cleaner and more generous area for in & outputs, better overall handling characteristics, and a host of other advantages including better cooling. Of course we don't want to return to the fine days of the blimped Mitchell, but I wouldn't mind at all if the AF100 were just a bit larger.

I'm not complaining about the size of the AF100; it's fine, but I'm glad it's not laid out horizontally like DSLR cameras, which are designed to be primarily hand-held. Cinema cameras are designed to be primarily mounted on a head and the longitudinal body is a plus for shoulder mounting.

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo
 
I like the DSLR form factor for one reason, when I need it to be small for a hard shot I want to get, it can be. This is also what I like about the AF100 and the Epic. If I need to make my AF100 bigger, I can, but with the Alexa, I am stuck with a bigger camera.
 
robertrogoz said:
This is no longer a valid argument. If you talk to editors, what they want is as flat and unchanged image out of camera, with the biggest possible DR, so the color work can be done in the post, on calibrated screen. This workflow will yield far superior results to anything else, particularly any camera tweaks.
Click to expand...

While I agree editors want flat images, I guarantee you that what I can do in-camera on my HPX2700 32 bit DSP is much more precise and non-degrading than what can be done in Apple Color in 8-bit color depth with a sub-sampled codec. Take Film-Rec gamma, one of the features that put Varicam on the map--it has Dynamic Range(200-600%) and Black Stretch controls to really dial in the look or at least capture all the dynamic range possible for post. The very sophisticated matrix and color correction circuits in a P2 Varicam can't be duplicated with the same flexibility and precision in post, ditto detail circuits and knee circuits.

A good DIT can do anything on set a colorist can in post and more. It doesn't make much sense to do so in RAW, but in an 8-bit codec world, baking in a look can still make sense and not just in time savings in post. As a DP, I'd rather bake in the look than have an editor decide what look I was trying to achieve. I've seen my footage absolutely destroyed by over zealous editors/colorists, to the point where I didn't even recognize the project anymore.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top