Zacuto Shootout Episode 2

I watched it all. Found it very entertaining. Well edited and kept the energy up. Loved seeing cameras around the 1000 dollar range competing with the 40+ thousand dollar cameras, made me chuckle. But i was still impressed with the AF100. Still a great cam.
 
Erik Naso said:
Maybe its just me but I got half way into the video and it was so boring I had to stop watching it. I must have ADD. They did put a ton of effort into it and I'm sure the chart guys love this stuff, but to me real world shooting on the cameras built in codec is the best way to check out what a camera can do, not using a external recorder. Maybe I will try watching it again another time.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. But I can't help but watch. those test are meant to show imperfections, and an artist's job is not so focused on highlighting the imperfections of the camera, so the test don't really translate. Still useful info in there. And I am gad they put in the hard work to make it happen (despite the marketing aspect).

For me, the tests are not so important. I knew that dslr had compression artifacts and moire' from day one. But I still shoot dslr. I still hate the compression and moire, and i still can't afford $50,000+ camera.

I can only hope that more users will be aware of how nasty compression and moire is, and continue to hassle dslr makers to do something to fix the issues.
 
Last edited:
I sort of didn't get the point of their "sensitivity test". I understand the part of checking signal to noise and giving numbers for that. But the samples were all at different ISO's, and not on the cameras native sweet spot, so why bother? It would have been nice with a test of each camera at 500, 800, 1600, 3200. Maybe I am just confused. It wasn't clear to me if they are trying to get all the cameras to match up in exposure by changing ISO since the aperture is locked, or if they are changing shutter speed, ND filters, or what not to get the same exposure. Once again, I am maybe just confused, shouldn't the same ISO setting, the same F-stop and shutter speed, give the same medium gray value? My thinking is that 1250 ISO on the Alexa will be 1 and a 1/4th of a stop faster than the 500 ISO film stock, and obviously then the film stock will be underexposed and grainier in comparison.

Also, I don't understand why they use the 500 ISO film stock (5219), instead of the 200 (5213), to compare certain things. I guess the 500 is closer in sensitivity to the digital cameras, but it will have more grain.

Anyways, to me it just felt a bit like apple vs oranges. I've seen some footage on a cinema my school shot when we were testing and comparing the AF-100, Alexa, Sony F3, Canon 5D, HDW-750P (I shot with F3 and HDW-750P). Using internal recorders, it was clear how the AF-100 and Canon 5D was not as sharp as the Sony F3 and Alexa, the AF-100 looked closer to 720p than 1080p. But again, that was internal recorders, and I don't remember what resolution AF-100 records in (I know its "1920", but if it is 1440*1.33, or 1280*1.5).
 
Episode 2 now, and loving this test as well.

Thoughts:
I was super impressed by the Red MX in these tests. Resolution and raw detail just abounded with the Red ONE. The noise ratio tests were difficult To see significant information because of being over the web. That being said, all the cameras looked pretty good to me other than the DSLRs, which is honestly as we know because of the compression.

Super impressed by the AF100. It shows up again and again as a fantastic value. In test after test, it's looking great compared to cams 10x the price. The only tests I've really seen film beat it in is the over-expose test from episode 1, and the resolution charts here in episode 2. Both of which to me arent deal breakers. Light the scene properly for over-exposure, and if Arri Alexa is good enough for TRON in resolution, the AF100 is good enough for me.
Also, the AF100's AVCCAM looked stellar! It was fantastic in the color-resolution chart compared with the 4:2:2 output. Could barely discern a difference. It's there for sure, but man is it close enough that shooting to SD cards is good enough for rock and roll.

Sony F3 (now with SLog) is really the cam to beat. If I ever need more than the AF100 offers, renting an F3 is where it is at. Stunning for the price, especially now with SLog on the table.

Beyond:
I hope that Panny comes out with a higher up AF that undercuts the F3 in price and has 10bit with a better onboard codec. I also hope that Panny does some research and comes out with a log curve to maximize the 4/3 sensor. I just know that there is more image info in there, especially in the highlights, and if Panny can nail down a log curve like SLog, it'll put them right back in there with the F3. Whether or not they could add something like that in a firmware update to the AF100 would be wishful thinking, but at the least they should be getting that for the AF200 or whatever.
 
Last edited:
TheReverend said:
I also hope that Panny does some research and comes out with a log curve to maximize the 4/3 sensor. I just know that there is more image info in there, especially in the highlights, and if Panny can nail down a log curve like SLog, it'll put them right back in there with the F3. Whether or not they could add something like that in a firmware update to the AF100 would be wishful thinking, but at the least they should be getting that for the AF200 or whatever.
Click to expand...

Our two AF100's have made their money back many times over in the last 6-7 months or so (it seems like so lang ago I can't even remember) So I guess I don't really care too much about this shoot-out, I'm happy, my clients are happy-

I agree with the Reverend that there is surely more to come, and we have money in the bank waiting for the next 'BIG' thing from this Genre of interchangeable lens big-ish sensor video cameras.
 
Last edited:
TheReverend said:
Light the scene properly for over-exposure
Click to expand...

I wish that was always an option, but some wide scenes that include backlight Sun can overtax the AF100, & even by Hollywood's standards, require lighting on a grand scale.

Short of S-Log, RAW, more bits, &/or beefier CODEC, it seems one of the simplest improvements Panasonic could implement is a sensor with larger pixels designed specifically for 1080P, instead of a hand-me-down with too many pixels from their consumer division. This is no small task either, but promises improved dynamic range.

As someone who saw the tests projected on a big screen, I'm thrilled with the AF100, & except for the dSLRs, would happily shoot with any of the cameras, or films, included in the SCCE.
 
Last edited:
Bern Caughey said:
it seems one of the simplest improvements Panasonic could implement is a sensor with larger pixels designed specifically for 1080P, instead of a hand-me-down with too many pixels from their consumer division. This is no small task either, but promises improved dynamic range.
Click to expand...

This is generally been a debunked rumor. The AF100's 4/3 sensor is NOT a hand me down from the GH1/2, it is designed for 1080p (as the sensor isn't a normal 4/3 square size, but rectangular), and it is not from their consumer division. You can check Jan's posts here in the forums or up in the AF100 stickies for that info. Or Barry/Jan will post here themselves.

Either way though, I totally agree with you that lighting properly can be an issue in production. Did an outdoor run and gun shoot with an HPX170 and AF100 on tripod just the other day, and it did far better than the 170 in terms of dynamic range. Head and shoulders better with alot more room to adjust in post. There were definitely moments when I was wishing for some reflectors, a good grip, or whatever. Then again, the 170 footage looked outstanding as well.

End of the day, all these cameras we are shooting with these days are PHENOMENAL and whether you picked up the AF100, FS100, F3, or are stuck with a 5dMII or 7D, you can get a beautiful piece put out. Excuses for poor looking films are long gone.
 
It might not be the exact same sensor, but seems to be cut from wafers designed for the GH cameras. If Panasonic is using Super Pixel technology then I have no issue with so many pixels, but I haven't heard such, & can't imagine the marketing department not advertising advanced technology, so doubt that's the case. Until so, bigger pixels are better than smaller ones, as they deliver greater dynamic range.

The Alexa's, F3's, & FS100's, sensors are designed specifically for 1080P, & I hope Panasonic follows a similar path.
 
Last edited:
Brian, you gotta remember that a lot of these are not ideal situations. They're intentionally over / under exposing it to see how it handles. All of the cameras they shot with can look great in controlled environments.
 
Hawk Teflon said:
Brian, you gotta remember that a lot of these are not ideal situations. They're intentionally over / under exposing it to see how it handles. All of the cameras they shot with can look great in controlled environments.
Click to expand...
Thats part of the problem with these scientific tests like the noise samples in Episode 2. Not very many people shot like that in such poor lighting so the test in some ways is meaningless. However if you have your tech hat on maybe its helpful information.
One thing I got out of it is how great digital cinema cameras are now. That is a big deal.
 
Hawk Teflon said:
All of the cameras they shot with can look great in controlled environments.
Click to expand...

Oh I know. I've been shooting for many years and owned and used many camera's. The only DSLR I've owned tho is a GH1 and I got it because of the hack. I only use it where the size of the camera is an issue. Now I'll probably replace that soon with a GH2. The thing is, you don't always have a controlled environment, and even if you do, there are certain limitations the Canon's have that could make it so you don't do the story justice.
 
Oh absolutely. But that why everyone says that there's different tools for different times. But, for $1500 (7D) vs. $20,000 (F3) or even the $70,000 (Alexa - not positive on price) they hold up rather well.

Was it stated anywhere why the GH2 wasn't included in this? I would opt to eliminate the 7D and put the GH2 in there.
 
Hawk Teflon said:
Oh absolutely. But that why everyone says that there's different tools for different times. But, for $1500 (7D) vs. $20,000 (F3) or even the $70,000 (Alexa - not positive on price) they hold up rather well.

Was it stated anywhere why the GH2 wasn't included in this? I would opt to eliminate the 7D and put the GH2 in there.
Click to expand...

At the beginning of Episode 1 they say only cameras from the professional devisions were tested, technically the GH2 in in Panasonics consumer devision.
 
The F3 was IMO the best camera for the price. Very close to the Arri, which is incredible to say. The AF100 did quite well, not as good as the F3, but great for a sub $5,000 camera. I own both cameras. The F3 is superior, but the AF100 serves it's purpose for long interviews and things going direct to web. But the F3 gets all the BIG shoots for broadcast.
 
I enjoyed watching it.

Also just an observation reading here. So the 5D Mark II caused a gazillion products to be made, a stir on every level. To me that is proof enough that the image on it is not all that bad, he he.

- Derrick
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top