Was giving up on a AF100 but decided to reconsider.

SJX said:
Barry, I just realized I made a mistake. I have no idea why I wrote HDMI in my original question, but what I meant to ask was if the AF100 outputs 4:2:2 60p slomo out of it's HD-SDI?
Then again I'm not sure a Hyperdeck records 1080 60p or even the Ninja.
Click to expand...
1080/60p is impossible in HD-SDI, no matter what camera you're talking about. HD-SDI cannot handle 1080/60p, it maxxes out at 1080/60i. The only way to get 1080/60p out of SDI is to use two HD-SDI outputs, chained together, called "dual-link HD-SDI", or to use the new all-in-one standard, 3GSDI.

No, the Hyperdeck won't record 60p, it doesn't have 3G-SDI or dual-link. None of the recorders do, with maybe the exception of the Gemini, and that costs twice what the camera does.
 
Letzring said:
I was under the impression that BBC's "approval" on the af100 was conditional on using an external recorder though?
Click to expand...
Yes, they require that of all 4:2:0 cameras. They require an external recorder on the EX3, EX1, F3, etc. BBC requirements are minimum 50mbps/4:2:2, so if the camera's own recorder doesn't supply that, then you are required to use an external recorder.

But that still means the resolution, noise, color, gamma, all the other "image attributes" were fine. They only asked that it comply with their minimum recording requirements (through the use of an external).
 
lpowell said:
Actually, I'm on the same page with you there. The AF100 makes a much better A-cam, mounted on a well-damped tripod and wired up to XLR boom mics. The AF100's built-in waveform and audio monitors provide far more assurance of correct recording levels than the GH2's viewfinder. The AF100 also supports remote control of focus and aperture via Manfrotto 521PFI, with real-time display of aperture, focal length, and focus distance. These features work splendidly with the new motorized zoom lenses, the Lumix 45-175mm and the Olympus 12-50mm.

The GH2, OTOH, is a great B-cam for mobile shooting with a shoulder rig. Its auto-focus and OIS features work with a much broader variety of lenses than the AF100, and the GH2's tiny size and weight let you take it anywhere. The GH2 is also one of the few DSLR's with a built-in viewfinder that is fully functional in video mode. Not to mention the hacked GH2's ability to track rapid motion more reliably than virtually any camera under $10K.
Click to expand...
All totally agreed. Other thing is, while ETC reduces quality, dang is it convenient to be able to pop into ETC and get double duty usage out of your lenses.
 
For the record, has any body ever tested what resolution the GH2 puts out? Do the hacked ones put more resolution out? I have the impression there are several types of hack?
 
Letzring said:
The Roberts report requires a little interpretation in that he draws a "line in the sand" at any evidence of moire and aliasing, in other-words he ignores any information that may be in the image once moire and aliasing raise their ugly head. FWIW he wasn't to happy with the F3 either.

Send me a PM if you are interested in seeing my samples of how the D800 looks compared to a hacked GH2. I think the D800 makes likeable video of skin tones, and the FF DOF thing is definitely happening, nice build quality, great stills, I was evaluating it to use on my steadicam and after testing I stuck with the GH2.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the offer. I may PM you later when I get another break. But I have pretty much given up on the D800. I shot a lot with a 7D and also 5D and am a bit tired of the DSLR workarounds.
 
SJX said:
For the record, has any body ever tested what resolution the GH2 puts out? Do the hacked ones put more resolution out? I have the impression there are several types of hack?
Click to expand...
The hack doesn't increase the resolution the camera can deliver, but it helps preserve more of the resolution the sensor can make. The GH2's original codec is decent quality, much better than the GH1, but in all codecs, when they run out of bandwidth they have to cheat, and that usually means smearing out the fine details. The hacked codec gives much greater bandwidth and so that detail doesn't get mushed away.

The hacked GH2 does put out a sharper image in terms of overall resolved detail than the AF100 does, but that's because the GH2 has no optical low-pass filter to prevent or mask aliasing, and the AF100 does have one. The AF100 exterminates almost all effects of aliasing, and in doing so, it softens the image some. Some legit detail is lost in the pursuit of wiping out false detail (aliasing). The GH2 makes no attempt to exterminate the false detail, and so no legit detail is lost either.

Some are "wowed" by the GH2's resolution, others see it as "crunchy" or "electronic", which is a fair way to see the effects of aliasing. In general the GH2 doesn't make the horrible purple/orange chroma alias artifacts that the Canon DSLRs do, so even though it does exhibit some aliasing, it's not nearly as objectionable as the Canon DSLRs. Many people don't even notice that some of the "sharpness" they're seeing is actually false aliasing detail, or they don't care. Which is, as I said in my article on aliasing, a personal preference. I prefer solid imagery with no pollution if I can get it.

The question is -- could Panasonic have gone maybe halfway with the OLPF (anti-aliasing filter), maybe let more of the real detail through, and let some of the alias detail slide in there also, seeing as it doesn't seem to bother GH2 shooters? I wonder...
 
I see. It makes sense Barry. I also wish Panasonic had gone halfway.

But are there numbers floating around as to how many line pairs the hacked GH2 resolves?
 
Just a reminder of what you said earlier in the thread :beer:

Also, please to anybody, do not suggest other cameras. I don't want to stir this off topic and turn it in a AF100 vs other cameras thread. I have done my homework and narrowed it down to the AF100. I'm interested to learn more about this camera. Not any others, thanks.
 
Shooter said:
Just a reminder of what you said earlier in the thread :beer:

Also, please to anybody, do not suggest other cameras. I don't want to stir this off topic and turn it in a AF100 vs other cameras thread. I have done my homework and narrowed it down to the AF100. I'm interested to learn more about this camera. Not any others, thanks.
Click to expand...


Your point please?

I'm not about to go with a DSLR, specially one with no clean uncompressed 4:2:2 over the AF100. I already said that several times.

I'm just curious if there are hard numbers to back all the talk of the GH2 being sharper than the AF100 and see if it's real solid resolution or just contrast and aliasing.
 
Barry_Green said:
The question is -- could Panasonic have gone maybe halfway with the OLPF (anti-aliasing filter), maybe let more of the real detail through, and let some of the alias detail slide in there also, seeing as it doesn't seem to bother GH2 shooters? I wonder...
Click to expand...

Is the AF100's anti-aliasing filter a physical one, or some electronic magic? If it's physical, could it be moved out of the ala a ND wheel? Or removed completely?

I've always had a soft spot for the AF100 - it's so ugly it's beautiful.
 
Also, please to anybody, do not suggest other cameras. I don't want to stir this off topic and turn it in a AF100 vs other cameras thread. I have done my homework and narrowed it down to the AF100. I'm interested to learn more about this camera. Not any others, thanks.
Click to expand...

Your point please?
Click to expand...


My point was ..you made the rules then you broke your own rules.

You pursued every other camera option after explicitly stating to us... that was not your goal or desire.

Just saying cos it amused me. Dont take any offence cos none is intended.

I do admire your due dilligence but dont understand why anyone in your position would not test a camera with the same gusto. Pixel peeping is fine but I doubt it will make your feature film any better.

BTW - are you the... Producer, writer, D.P, Cinematographer , director, editor...?
 
Shooter said:
My point was ..you made the rules then you broke your own rules.

You pursued every other camera option after explicitly stating to us... that was not your goal or desire.
Click to expand...

Pursued? Just because Barry and I talked a little bit about the FS100, actually mainly how much more we like the AF100, and some others and I talked about the D800? How is that "pursuing"? In no moment I said I was going with the FS100 or D800. I only said those would be the other options, but I said that from the get go! Besides that I was only exploring the AF100 through the whole thread. I came back to the D800 when somebody brought it up again. I addressed the GH2 when again, somebody suggested it in place of the AF100. Then I asked some info on it just to try and understand what's the hype about shooting video with a camera made for stills, with a highly compressed codec regardless of hacking, no real video camera functions at all such as ND, and a camera that in order to make it usable you have to build it into a Frankenstein rig, which defeats both the purpose of it being small and cheap. Now where did I "pursue" anything besides the AF100. Mentioning, specially when somebody brings it up, is not pursuing.
 
SJX said:
I'm just curious if there are hard numbers to back all the talk of the GH2 being sharper than the AF100 and see if it's real solid resolution or just contrast and aliasing.
Click to expand...
There is definitely both. But because of the aliasing present in both systems, it's not as easy to quantify as you'd think.

You can look at the Wringer chart test that I did, but that won't really answer what you want:
Reason being, both cameras are pretty much able to resolve the full chart.

I will try to work up something later with maybe just straight trumpets; I haven't used those for a while since getting the Wringer because the Wringer tells you a lot more, but all it really tells us in this test is the effectiveness of the OLPF on the AF100 and lack thereof on the GH2. It doesn't show the resolution advantage that the GH2 does have.
 
jdv said:
Is the AF100's anti-aliasing filter a physical one, or some electronic magic? If it's physical, could it be moved out of the ala a ND wheel? Or removed completely?
Click to expand...
It is physically attached in front of the sensor, behind the sealed optical block that constitutes the package of the sensor protection glass, then ND filter wheel, then the OLPF, then the sensor. That unit is all made in a dust-proof clean room, and sealed, so no, you can't get in there and remove it. I asked the engineers about it at NAB, because I figured, hey, since some people like the GH2 look so much, maybe they should provide an alternative OLPF-free AF100 for those who want that, but it isn't possible.
 
lpowell said:
Here's some hard numbers for you, 24Mbps vs 100Mbps:
Click to expand...
That's codec quality though, and not resolution/aliasing. If you'd shot the AF100 with the NanoFlash at 100mbps+, you'd have eliminated all that macroblocking and you'd be able to see if there was really any actual res difference between what the cameras were capable of producing. Not quite the same thing.
 
SJX said:
More like 100Mbps vs Uncompressed. :)
Click to expand...
That is an interesting point, and I don't know of any direct comparisons of hacked GH2 versus externally recorded AF100 footage. If you follow the link to my Vimeo page, you'll find downloadable samples of my unedited GH2 footage. Examining some of those frames under magnification may give you a good idea of the GH2's motion picture quality.

As for "resolution numbers", there's really no objective way to measure the resolution, it's a subjective judgment call. At high spatial resolutions, the image sensor's output is contaminated with ultra-fine aliasing artifacts that are literally folded down into the upper resolution range. As a result, the genuine resolution of the sensor is submerged within spurious alias products and there's no way to separate them. With digital cameras, "sharpness" is a marriage of refined technology and aesthetic preference.
 
So... after these 10 pages of 'all over the place' SJX... what are your thoughts on the AF100? Are you all 'spec'd out' yet? :)

Here's a current TV Pilot Presentation shot on the AF100, might add a little insight since people on this level can use just about any camera on the market.



PRODUCTION FACTS & FIGURES

# of
Pages shot 1st day (12 hrs) 8
# of
Setups 1st Day: 34
# of
Cast & Crew: 50
# of
VFX shots 18

TECHNICAL
Cameras: Panasonic AF100
Format: HD
Aspect Ratio:1.78:1

http://www.clownlogicfilms.com/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top