AF100, ouch

[Jeff Coatney]

You know, I'm not a DP in the professional sense, like many of you are. (Hats off.) But, I like to shoot my own stuff and I am very discerning of image quality. So, one issue that keeps creeping into these discussions of new cameras, for me, is that of "peer review".

If your client's project can be shot on an AF100, its likely that they will be blown away by the result. The footage however, is unlikely to impress the fellow seasoned Pro. This becomes an issue when your work is judged by your peers for awards or for referrals to jobs that crop up due to one person's being overbooked.

I have no doubt that to 90% of the clientele in the world, a lower quality threshold image will pass muster. But what about the tide of editors and colorists, and fellow DP's, Agency Creatives, QC technicians or that 10% of clients that are sensitive to quality? How are you protecting your reputation in those scenarios? Is relying on a lower cost/ lower quality option actually costing you money in the long run?

Food for thought.

 

[David Collard]

As long as customers put up with line-skipping, companies will continue to release these cameras in pretty boxes. As soon as this stuff is rejected... they will give you what you really need.

Jim

IF Red wasn't around it would still be the same old guard. Take it or leave it attitude.
Red's legacy continues.

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

As good as the AF100 looks, it's a completely different class of camera from most of those you mentioned. the AF100 is a prosumer camera, with a great price, but meant for independent films, shorts and commercials.

The Alexa, F35 and Genesis are professional level cameras, meant to be on large sets with a lot of lighting and set ups available. You can still ahve them out on smaller sets, but generally they fall out of the price range of most of them.

The Red is kind of middle of the road. Cheap enough for indie, yet works well in the large, union film environment.

Personal Choice: Super 35 on the Arri's or Panavisions, if shooting digital, Alexa.

Mark,

a professional should always has a kind of fact talk.

Let's try to make it with the pixel peeping shawn below at the cropped details.

Alexa image shows more noise and aliasing Moiré artifacts than Panasonic AG-AF100.

Shot on Alexa from CML/Abel Cine test sample Int_PR4444_LogC>>>

3x zoomed upper left corner from Alexa test image.

Shot on Panasonic AG-AF100 with Nikon 14-24mm FX G f/2.8 zoom, example from Vimeo>>>

3x zoomed upper right corner from AG-AF100 vimeo test example.

 

[Elsie N]

You know, I'm not a DP in the professional sense, like many of you are. (Hats off.) But, I like to shoot my own stuff and I am very discerning of image quality. So, one issue that keeps creeping into these discussions of new cameras, for me, is that of "peer review".

If your client's project can be shot on an AF100, its likely that they will be blown away by the result. The footage however, is unlikely to impress the fellow seasoned Pro. This becomes an issue when your work is judged by your peers for awards or for referrals to jobs that crop up due to one person's being overbooked.

I have no doubt that to 90% of the clientele in the world, a lower quality threshold image will pass muster. But what about the tide of editors and colorists, and fellow DP's, Agency Creatives, QC technicians or that 10% of clients that are sensitive to quality? How are you protecting your reputation in those scenarios? Is relying on a lower cost/ lower quality option actually costing you money in the long run?

Food for thought.

What Jeff said.

My own experience has been that I have usually been satisfied (not always) with what was available in the way of footage at the time. But as soon as I have been exposed to something better looking, I've become impatient with viewing the old footage. And the more I've learned, the more critical and demanding I've become. I'm hoping the g-nashing and g-nawing will cease when I can shoot that highly anticipated Epic HDR footage.

Please make it stop! I need some peace...

On the other hand, I do understand what people like Leo et al are up against.

 

[Matt Gottshalk]

Mark,

a professional should always has a kind of fact talk.

Let's try to make it with the pixel peeping shawn below at the cropped details.

Alexa image shows more noise and aliasing Moiré artifacts than Panasonic AG-AF100.

Shot on Alexa from CML/Abel Cine test sample Int_PR4444_LogC>>>

3x zoomed upper left corner from Alexa test image.

Shot on Panasonic AG-AF100 with Nikon 14-24mm FX G f/2.8 zoom, example from Vimeo>>>

3x zoomed upper right corner from AG-AF100 vimeo test example.

You are seriously comparing the Alexa in no light to an AF-100 in daylight?

Yeah that's a fair test, not.

 

[Liam Hall]

You know, I'm not a DP in the professional sense, like many of you are. (Hats off.) But, I like to shoot my own stuff and I am very discerning of image quality. So, one issue that keeps creeping into these discussions of new cameras, for me, is that of "peer review".

If your client's project can be shot on an AF100, its likely that they will be blown away by the result. The footage however, is unlikely to impress the fellow seasoned Pro. This becomes an issue when your work is judged by your peers for awards or for referrals to jobs that crop up due to one person's being overbooked.

I have no doubt that to 90% of the clientele in the world, a lower quality threshold image will pass muster. But what about the tide of editors and colorists, and fellow DP's, Agency Creatives, QC technicians or that 10% of clients that are sensitive to quality? How are you protecting your reputation in those scenarios? Is relying on a lower cost/ lower quality option actually costing you money in the long run?

Food for thought.

A client might not be able to recognize the camera/format of a job, but they do recognize talent. Indeed, if people judge your work based on the camera you are using, then they aren't looking at your work.

There's a whole lot more to a great shot than the camera it was shot on.

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

You are seriously comparing the Alexa in no light to an AF-100 in daylight?

Yeah that's a fair test, not.

Matt,

there is new Alexa vs. AF100 daylight footage pixel-peeping comparison below.

Fair or not comparison but AF-100 has a cleaner image than Alexa.

Also I do have a big doubt about the fact that Alexa could have 11.5 x more times better image quality than Panasonic AF-AF100.

Why 11 x more times?

Alexa Pro Package costs at Abel Shop $79,641.00.

Panasonic AG-AF100 ($4,795.00) with AJA KiPro Mini Compact PR422 recorder ($1,994.95) at BHvideo+photo Shop both cost together $6,789.95.

$6,789.95 x 11.5 = $78,084.42 that's pretty close to 79,641.00 of Alexa price.

Shot on Alexa daylight download original at CML>>>

3 x times blown up detail of the Alexa daylight test image.

 

[Stephen Williams]

If your client's project can be shot on an AF100, its likely that they will be blown away by the result. The footage however, is unlikely to impress the fellow seasoned Pro. This becomes an issue when your work is judged by your peers for awards or for referrals to jobs that crop up due to one person's being overbooked.
.

Hi,

To be honest if you know how to light & have tested your camera system to breaking point, a good DP will produce good images regardless of the camera.

Stephen

 

[AnthonyFlores]

I think that for anything posted to the web, the AF100 will do a pretty
solid job and in the hands of the right director/DP, it will look very professional
... I think the difference is that the Scarlet S35 will be able to produce
image quality and resolution that can be shown on the big screen. AF100 ...
not so much.

For most of us, alot of our work WILL be posted to the web. So the AF100
will be just fine for a variety of projects.

For me, it mostly comes down to budgeting in the near future. For an extra
$10,000 I can get an Epic in Stage 3 ... so dropping $5000 on an AF100
doesn't make sense. However, once that's paid for -- and if the Scarlet is
still delayed -- I could see getting a camera like that for clients that aren't
willing to pay for (or need) Epic quality imagery.

I'd be curious to see what the AF100 footage looks like with fast, Leica M
lenses like the 50mm 1.4 or Noctilux 50mm .95 -- or the 21 or 35mm 1.4.

It's nice that because it's micro 4/3 -- these lenses work without adapters.

Those lenses are legendary in the Lecia still world and I have a feeling they
would make the AF footage feel more cinematic and less video-like.

Anthony

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Sanjin are you drinking again? Where is this moire you speak of in the slate? You realize Moire isn't just another word for noise right?

 

[Tom Lowe]

Hi,

To be honest if you know how to light & have tested your camera system to breaking point, a good DP will produce good images regardless of the camera.

Stephen

So Stephen, will you be shooting your next masterpiece international TVC on a DVX100? Surely with your skill, that camera should be more than enough to get the job done?

 

[Joe G.]

The yellow indoor low light comparison was silly.

The outdoor test however shows not a lot of value for your $70k. Hmmm...

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

Sanjin are you drinking again? Where is this moire you speak of in the slate? You realize Moire isn't just another word for noise right?

Gavin,

whatever you say but it looks like a noise made by Moiré pattern behind that expensive Alexa OLPF sometimes simply can't handle.

But obviously that AF100 OLPF can handle a lot.

Supposed to be that Panasonic with AF100 finally nailed it and AG-AF100 could be an enormous success and a real successor of popular AG-DVX100.

 

[Felix K.]

Ah, Sanjin, look up Moiré again, please. Moiré needs two interfering patterns. In the digital cinema world, the first pattern is the pixel pattern on the sensor chip. The second pattern is then normally part of the object that is filmed, e.g. a fence, or a brick, or the texture of some kind of cloth.
But it is never ONE WHITE LINE ON A MOVIE SLATE!

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

Ah, Sanjin, look up Moiré again, please. Moiré needs two interfering patterns. In the digital cinema world, the first pattern is the pixel pattern on the sensor chip. The second pattern is then normally part of the object that is filmed, e.g. a fence, or a brick, or the texture of some kind of cloth.
But it is never ONE WHITE LINE ON A MOVIE SLATE!

Felix,

noise that looks like "an interference pattern" that's exactly what I see there and it is probably caused by OLPF error.

That means OLPF wrongly sees or confuses it like "an interference pattern" but there is no any and then it produces a noise that looks more like a kind of moiré pattern.

 

[Felix K.]

Sorry, Sanjin, but this is impossible. The noise is not in front of the sensor. It is created IN the sensor. So it can't cause a moiré pattern. Noise is totally random. That is the definition of noise. "Random" is the opposite of "pattern". Look it up!

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

But obviously that AF100 OLPF can handle a lot.

Or it's been run through 2 heavy compression algorithms and had most of the detail in its (most noisy) blue channel thrown away.

Run a 10px median filter on the Alexa and I bet it would be completely noise free!

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

Sorry, Sanjin, but this is impossible. The noise is not in front of the sensor. It is created IN the sensor. So it can't cause a moiré pattern. Noise is totally random. That is the definition of noise. "Random" is the opposite of "pattern". Look it up!

Felix,

very simple explanation:

OLPF in front of the sensor gives a wrong signal and the sensor can "pack" that as a noise (that I see as a sort of moiré pattern) that actually doesn't exist in real but unfortunately you'll get at the image.

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

Or it's been run through 2 heavy compression algorithms and had most of the detail in its (most noisy) blue channel thrown away.

Run a 10px median filter on the Alexa and I bet it would be completely noise free!

Gavin,

you pay $79,641.00 for Alexa and then you have to "Run a 10px median filter on the Alexa and get completely noise free!"

Very nice!

 

[Felix K.]

An OLPF is nothing more than a very very subtle blur filter (very simplified description). It blurs structures that are smaller than twice the size of the pattern of the sensor thus elimination aliasing. Aliasing can then of course still occur when the data is pressed into a codec that reduces the amount of data. Anyways, what you see there is noise, not moiré.