Was giving up on a AF100 but decided to reconsider.

[SJX]

The AF-100 doesn't have the resolution of the $10K+ cameras, but the image it produces isn't murky or washed out. You have do do this in post if this is what you're after. ( i.e. I don't think the look of Redemption is caused by the AF-100 )

Dingo, honestly, I think you are totally not getting what I'm saying and why I'm here for. This is the only explanation I can find for your post having nothing to do with what I write. I'm not here to put the AF100 down. Yes, I'm not here to praise either. I'm here to realistically access it's very well known set of limitations and problems and see if I can make it work for me. So no reason to be apprehensive, which by your posts I think you are. I'm not here to go to war with you.

Relax. :thumbsup:

Back to the topic, I didn't say it was the AF100's fault, did I? I actually said it was probably not their intention to make it look it's best. How's that blaming the AF100?

I guess you and I are saying the same thing about Redemption.

I think either they wanted it to look murky and washed out or the frames I have seen are not representative of the movie's image quality. Maybe they are frames from rips instead of straight from a blu-ray. Nonetheless, Redemption is not the best example of image quality from a AF100 IMO. I think it gets thrown around a lot because it's probably the largest production known to have used it and it's a full feature film with explosions, action etc.

About the AF100 not having the resolution of the $10k+ cameras, well, honestly it doesn't seem to have the resolution of the $5k+ cameras either.
The FS100, FS700 and specially the EX1 and EX3 all resolve more. But I'm not a resolution obsessed person. The FS100 is sharper but only half the camera in my opinion, so I would rather go with the AF100. I just think Redemption looks bad. The stuff Barry Green posts from the AF100 look much better than anything I have seen from Redemption. Just my opinion.

 

[SJX]

A lot of what you're reading (like that Art Adams article) was done when the AF100 was brand new and nobody really knew how to shoot with it yet.

Yes I saw it was an old article. This is why I came here to see if there were any new developments.

There is zero noise in the AF100, when you set the settings properly. ZERO. Zero zero zero discernible noise. Look at this vimeo for comparisons of the noise levels at various ISO's:

That's encouraging to hear. I will check the video, thanks!

As far as highlights go, what people are really complaining about there is when different chroma channels clip at different levels, causing a shift in highlights. And yes, the first answer I offer is "don't overexpose". That's been rule #1 with video, ever since video first came about, fer cryin' out loud. But if you want to increase your overexposure latitude without encountering color shifting, that's also easily done -- once again, it's just about knowing the camera and configuring it for what you're trying to do. The AF100 has a very saturated color palette, and the higher the color saturation, the higher the differences between color channels, and therefore the more likelihood that overexposing will cause one of those color channels to clip. So desaturate the image, and use cine-D gamma, and you will vastly expand the range you can shoot under without encountering color shifts.

So this is basically the bulk of it? Reduce saturation and use Cine-D? This is the type of thing I was looking for on top of the obvious normal procedures to avoid clipping when shooting video. Thanks!


Does Cine-D sacrifice any dynamic range?


What about B.Press, for which situations would you recommend it? People seem to recommend it a lot as an all around setting.
Thanks!

 

[Barry_Green]

The FS100 may resolve a little bit more than the AF100, but not much. The FS700 certainly should. The EX1 and EX3 definitely do, just as they out-resolve the FS100 and the C300 and all the other large-sensor cameras.

The AF100 isn't the sharpest camera out there. It's a lot sharper than an HVX200 was, but it's not as sharp as an HPX250. That's just the way it is. Is it sharp enough for the big screen? Certainly. Is it as sharp as an FS100? That's debateable, in my tests I found them quite comparable. But the AF100 is optimized to eliminate aliasing at all costs, its OLPF is quite generous in attempting to eliminate the aliasing that plagued the DSLRs that came before it; the FS100 is tuned towards sharpness, so in terms of aliased detail the FS100 lets more through than the AF100 does. But it probably lets in a little more real resolved detail too.

Point is -- I think the AF100 is a screaming steal at its price point, and if someone learns how to shoot with it they can deliver excellent footage. And there's nothing out there within its price range that does as much, with as many features, that makes working with it as easy. Time is money, and I save lots of both when using the AF100 as versus any other low-cost large-sensor camera. The only camera out there that I seriously would consider as an alternative to it would be the FS700, and that's well over twice the price. The FS100 is the only camera out there with a good image at anywhere near the AF100's price, and it's missing so many vital features that I just don't enjoy shooting with it at all. The FS700 fixes most of those issues, but costs $8,000, which puts it in another price league as compared to the $3500 street of the AF100.

 

[Barry_Green]

So this is basically what there's to it? Reduce saturation and use Cine-D? Does Cine-D sacrifice any dynamic range?

Cine-D adds dynamic range.

What about B.Press, for which situations would you recommend it? People seem to recommend it a lot as an all around setting.
Thanks!

B.Press got very popular during the DVX and HVX days, as a way to vacuum up noise, and the higher contrast it adds made footage look sharper. It's a "poppy" look, and lots of people like it. Cine-D is a very flat look, not entirely suitable for final footage but more useful as for serving as a slate for color grading.

 

[longcipher]

Do yourself a favor and rent the camera for 5 days. http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/video/cameras/panasonic/panasonic-ag-af100-hd-camcorder

 

[Gary Huff]

point is -- i think the af100 is a screaming steal at its price point, and if someone learns how to shoot with it they can deliver excellent footage.

this.

 

[dhart1949]

SJX,

Most of the questions you have been asking are answered in Barry Green's most excellent "The AF100 Book" and "The AF100 DVD". If your camera "budget" is $3,000, your choices in cameras are pretty much limited to DSLRs or the AF 100. As you might expect a majority of the folks on this forum choose the AF 100 over DSLRs as their main camera. There is no "perfect" camera. A good DP knows the short comings of his camera and has figured ways to work around them. I've spent many hours learning the ins and outs of the AF 100. It's difficult, if not impossible, to decide if this is the right camera for your "movie" unless you spend some quality time going through the camera.

 

[scott favorite]

Highly recommend Barry's Dvd for creating the look you want.

 

[Erik Naso]

I have used Barry's settings for sometime now and get great results. I'm not sure if he still uses them but I like what I get.

FIM CAM
SYNCRO SCAN
DETAIL LEVEL -5
V DETAIL -5
DETAIL CORING +2
DRS OFF
GAMMA CIN LIKE D
MATRIX NORM2
CHROMA LEVEL -7 (I tend to change this to -3 sometimes)

all other settings are unchanged

I like to grade my footage and these settings work well.

 

[Shooter]

Sure this would be the best, but I looked around and can't find a AF100 locally to rent. I found FS100, FS700 and we have also RED, EX1 etc. But no AF100 unfortunately.

You dont have a location in your sig ,,,but surely someone nearby has an AF100...?

A couple of people testing is a great way to understand the kit.

 

[Alpha Beta Omega]

When I need something easy to use and that I can trust I bring out my AF101. Still loving it.

 

[Shooter]

FWIW - below are links to the tests I did before I laid out money for my AF102.


I was satisfied with results, learnt a lot from them and confidently purchased it to use on a $180k TVC production for international broadcast.

Left nothing to chance or serendipity.


http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?236025-AF102-Scene-Setting-Tests-SCREEN-GRABS&highlight=

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?236028-AF102-Peak-white-tests-SCREEN-GRABS&highlight=

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?236029-AF102-Knee-Setting-Tests-SCREEN-GRABS&highlight=

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?236027-AF102-Gamma-Settings-SCREEN-GRABS&highlight=

 

[SJX]

The FS100 may resolve a little bit more than the AF100, but not much. The FS700 certainly should.

I don't know. I don't think the FS700 really resolves more than the FS100. They are pretty much the same camera and same chip right. At least from what I have seen from both. But I have never done actual tests.

The EX1 and EX3 definitely do, just as they out-resolve the FS100 and the C300 and all the other large-sensor cameras.

Yes, the EX cameras are great cameras. I wonder what happened? Did it slip through or something for Sony to put out such a great camera in that price point. Great resolution, 10 bit 4:2:2 and all the features.

But do you mean the fact it resolves more than the large sensor cameras has to do with sensor size? Because it also resolves more than pretty much any other camera apart from the high end. At least any other sub $10K camera.

The AF100 isn't the sharpest camera out there. It's a lot sharper than an HVX200 was, but it's not as sharp as an HPX250.

Just a quick question Barry, as I know you have probably used the old Varicam C27F/H. How does the AF100 compares to that in terms of resolution? I shot with one once and the softness was driving me crazy at the time, even though the image looked gorgeous, specially at a time most things were still pretty much 4:1:1.

Actually how do you think the AF100 compares in general? I know they are very far apart in price point but they are also separated by over a decade, so they are cameras of different eras. The EX1 or EX3 for example don't do bad at all against the old f900 to be honest.

That's just the way it is. Is it sharp enough for the big screen? Certainly. Is it as sharp as an FS100? That's debateable, in my tests I found them quite comparable. But the AF100 is optimized to eliminate aliasing at all costs, its OLPF is quite generous in attempting to eliminate the aliasing that plagued the DSLRs that came before it; the FS100 is tuned towards sharpness, so in terms of aliased detail the FS100 lets more through than the AF100 does. But it probably lets in a little more real resolved detail too.

Wouldn't it be great if somehow manufacturers could have some sort of "adjustable OLPF"? So it would be up to the user the degree they wanted and you could change it when aliasing was a problem or when more resolution was more important.
Yeah, I know.

Point is -- I think the AF100 is a screaming steal at its price point,

Definitely! This is actually one of the reasons I'm considering it. It pretty much got down to the D800, the AF100 and the FS100 since it can be had for not much more than a AF100 it seems. D800 has my favorite image, AF100 is my favorite camera, FS100 is sharpest with the D800 a close second.

and if someone learns how to shoot with it they can deliver excellent footage. And there's nothing out there within its price range that does as much, with as many features, that makes working with it as easy. Time is money, and I save lots of both when using the AF100 as versus any other low-cost large-sensor camera. The only camera out there that I seriously would consider as an alternative to it would be the FS700, and that's well over twice the price.

Well, as a camera I think the AF100 is still much better. Isn't the FS700 basically a FS100 on steroids? Bigger, fatter, ND filters and super slomo. Is there anything else it does better? By Bloom's review it seemed it was it. It still has the basically useless LCD placement, the uncomfortable shape form factor but with the disadvantage of being larger, which is the only other big plus going for the FS100 over the AF100 besides the resolution in my opinion. The FS100 can still look like a DSLR or tourist camera for discreet shooting. But I don't think the FS700 can anymore.

The FS100 is the only camera out there with a good image at anywhere near the AF100's price, and it's missing so many vital features that I just don't enjoy shooting with it at all.

Yes. The more I find out about both cameras the more I like the AF100 as a camera and the more I think I couldn't shoot with a FS100. Not without it being a pain.

The FS700 fixes most of those issues, but costs $8,000, which puts it in another price league as compared to the $3500 street of the AF100.

Are there really places selling the AF100 for $3500? I have to look harder.

Cine-D adds dynamic range.

But not at expense of noise I hope?

B.Press got very popular during the DVX and HVX days, as a way to vacuum up noise, and the higher contrast it adds made footage look sharper. It's a "poppy" look, and lots of people like it. Cine-D is a very flat look, not entirely suitable for final footage but more useful as for serving as a slate for color grading.

Not a fan of this look so I guess I may avoid B.Press in favor of Cine-D. Will have to test if I get the camera. Besides I always shoot for grading. Not a fan of getting the look in camera.

How do you think Cine-D compares to Marvel's flat cine style for the AF100? They seem to be made for the same reason.

By the way Barry, I just watched this:

Good to put a face on the name. Great run-through. In the video you mentioned that you don't need a Zacuto Z-finder since the camera has one. Does it really compare to the Z-finder? I never used the Z-finder but hear great things about it. But I read several bad reviews about the AF100 EFV.

Last question is, is it possible to record 1080 60p slowmotion from the HDMI 4:2:2? Or it only sends 60i and 24psf?

Thanks Barry.

 

[SJX]

SJX,

Most of the questions you have been asking are answered in Barry Green's most excellent "The AF100 Book" and "The AF100 DVD". If your camera "budget" is $3,000, your choices in cameras are pretty much limited to DSLRs or the AF 100. As you might expect a majority of the folks on this forum choose the AF 100 over DSLRs as their main camera. There is no "perfect" camera. A good DP knows the short comings of his camera and has figured ways to work around them. I've spent many hours learning the ins and outs of the AF 100. It's difficult, if not impossible, to decide if this is the right camera for your "movie" unless you spend some quality time going through the camera.

Highly recommend Barry's Dvd for creating the look you want.

Yeah, I will definitely get the DVD. Do the DVD and book have different things? Or is it enough to get the DVD?

 

[SJX]

FWIW - below are links to the tests I did before I laid out money for my AF102.


I was satisfied with results, learnt a lot from them and confidently purchased it to use on a $180k TVC production for international broadcast.

Left nothing to chance or serendipity.


http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?236025-AF102-Scene-Setting-Tests-SCREEN-GRABS&highlight=

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?236028-AF102-Peak-white-tests-SCREEN-GRABS&highlight=

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?236029-AF102-Knee-Setting-Tests-SCREEN-GRABS&highlight=

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?236027-AF102-Gamma-Settings-SCREEN-GRABS&highlight=

Nice. I will check them with more time later. Thanks.
Are the frames available in full rez anywhere?

 

[groveChuck]

Rent it, test it. Use your lenses.

Compare Cine D, Cine V, B Press (to know it before you discard it) and HD Norm (which I use most frequently, along with Cine D and V).

Regarding sharpness, most users turn Detail down to -3 to -7. You may find you prefer otherwise.

What else? Rent it. Test it.

As Shooter noted, we don't know where you are, but in addition to lensrentals.com, there's AF100rental.com, which offers this package (including Nikon lenses, even if you don't want them. Maybe they'll discount without them).

Rental Rates: Panasonic AG-AF100

Daily: $200.00
Weekly(7days): $400.00
Weekends: $250.00
Standard rental includes:

• (4) Batteries
• (4) Sandisk 16GB SD cards
• (1) Nikon 24mm f2.0 lens
• (1) Nikon 28mm f2.0 lens
• (1) Nikon 35mm f1.4 lens
• (1) Nikon 50mm f1.4 lens
• (1) Nikon 85mm f1.4 lens
• voightlander Nikon lens mount adaptor
• Panasonic Lumix 14-140 HD 4/3 lens
• Panasonic Lumix 20mm 1.7 4/3 lens
• AC Adapter/Charger
• Extra charger
• AC/DC Power Cable
• Wireless Remote Control
• Manuals
• CD-ROM

Lastly? Rent it. Test it. 7 days, 4 cards, 4 batteries, 400 bucks- hard to beat.

 

[Straw Man]

If you go looking, you'll be able to find plenty of people whining about any given camera and pixel peeping it to death. It's like a baseball bat. It's a tool, and in the hands of an amateur will produce mediocre in-field ground outs. In the hands of a pro, it can hit home runs.

Evidence: http://vimeo.com/23283557

(Shot on Af100 using AVCHD internal codec)

Yes, they used Zeiss glass and obviously had production value, but that's the point isn't it? The camera is easily capable of stunning images. At this level and up, the camera is rarely the bottleneck. It's usually the people behind it!

 

[scott favorite]

I like the book to reference specific questions quickly. The dvd is a master class. Both were indispensable to my investment. Some might say the information is the same.
But personally I learned and understood more having the camera in my hands going thru the myriad menus with the dvd. To each his own.

 

[Letzring]

Definitely! This is actually one of the reasons I'm considering it. It pretty much got down to the D800, the AF100 and the FS100 since it can be had for not much more than a AF100 it seems. D800 has my favorite image, AF100 is my favorite camera, FS100 is sharpest with the D800 a close second.

This remark (with regards to the D800) is a little confusing to me. Have you tested the D800 side by side with any of the other cameras you mentioned or is this based on something you read or perhaps the Philip Bloom stuff?

Really, there are some very practical advantages to something like an AF100, but if I'm allowed to speak in generalities a lot of people coming from Canon HDSLRs don't like the AF100 "look".

I know you are asking about the AF100 specifically, but for the budget you have mentioned I would go with a GH2 and spend the difference on a sound-person with a smart slate.

 

[Shooter]

I know you are asking about the AF100 specifically, but for the budget you have mentioned I would go with a GH2 and spend the difference on a sound-person with a smart slate.

The sound guy would be working for sweet fxxx..all if he was working for the difference! His slate would cost more that the difference let alone his recorder. (Maybe he doesnt have rent to pay or need to eat.). The sound editor of course will beassumed to be happy doing the extra work for nothing.

and personally..I wouldnt even contemplate shooting a narrative feature on any DSLR!