Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

AF100, ouch

Status
Not open for further replies.
Matt Gottshalk said:
You are seriously comparing the Alexa in no light to an AF-100 in daylight?

Yeah that's a fair test, not.
Click to expand...

I allways enjoy "seriuos" disscusion about these kind of "tests", especialy above footage from youtube and downscaled jpg framegrabs
... all this viewed on your 6 bit Lcd laptop screen! :smilewinkgrin: :smilewinkgrin: :smilewinkgrin:

Not to forgots those lovely "quick and dirty" tests. :smilewinkgrin:
 
Petr Dvorak said:
I allways enjoy "seriuos" disscusion about these kind of "tests", especialy above footage from youtube and downscaled jpg framegrabs
... all this viewed on your 6 bit Lcd laptop screen! :smilewinkgrin: :smilewinkgrin: :smilewinkgrin:
Click to expand...

That won't keep Sanjin from posting about 100 very redundant pics per day.
 
Felix K. said:
Anyways, what you see there is noise, not moiré.
Click to expand...

Felix OK, but as I repeat on another way that noise reminds on kind of moiré pattern that probably is not as you said.

Also those sort of artifacts can spin like a kaleidoscope effect when you pan or move camera especially when you make "quick and dirty" tests like Petr Dvorak :smilewinkgrin: :beer:
 
Sanjin Jukic said:
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!
Click to expand...

No you could run it through REDCode 32 and get the same effect. My point is that the AF100's footage on Vimeo has already had serious noise reduction applied to the image.

Apply a 100px blur to just about any footage and it'll be clean as silk! Or downrez to 320x240 and I doubt either will exhibit any noise.

The reason you see noise in the Alex is because its recording medium is actually recording enough information to see it. And yes having a high enough recording to see the noise is overall a greater benefit than turning out 4:2:0 garbage.

If you shot a feature on an AF100 with a lot of VFX and greenscreen work you would spend more than $100k in extra post costs over the Alexa.

You have to look at the price of a camera system through the entire production. If you shoot on a camera phone which costs $10 but the post hasstle and headache ends up costing you an extra $1m that's an EXPENSIVE camera phone! :D
 
Gavin Greenwalt said:
If you shot a feature on an AF100 with a lot of VFX and greenscreen work you would spend more than $100k in extra post costs over the Alexa.
Click to expand...

I have a serious doubts that Alexa is a kind of perfect camera for VFX.

Have a look at the left image of Alexa resolution artifacts as "a surprise" in the comparison with Epic on the right image:

1279365934.jpg

Test done by RED Team and posted here>>>
 
Thomas Church said:
Jim, any chance of us getting any news on Scarlet's release schedule before the AF100 comes out?

I would avoid getting one if Scarlet is coming out a few months later.
Click to expand...

Why? You could use the same lenses on AF100 as Scarlet.

I could see where having a Scarlet and an AF100 would make sense.

I have an HVX200 so my P2 cards and P2 workflow would be the same
when using an AF100. I have also rented RED's when need be. I have Canon & Nikon lenses and have used my Canon T2i for pickup video shots and it's also a great timelapse camera. Tools - these are only tools.....Scarlet will be a welcome edition to the toolbox.
 
Michael, the AF100 is 4/5 sensor (half FF 35) -- Scarlet is a class of cameras, not a single one -- the first Scarlet will probably be the fixed 8x zoom 2/3" sensor Scarlet -- and the first interchangeable lens Scarlet will more than likely be the 2/3" as well. So while you could use some of the same lenses that you could cobble onto an AF100, they will have a radically different field of view. Plus I think most AF100 people will tend to want to take advantage of the very sharp and inexpensive automated Panasonic lenses, which of course will not be very suitable for the Scarlet 2/3rds. Just a guess, but I imagine the Scarlet s35 and FF are a bit further down the road.
 
Sanjin.

the difference when scaled to 1080 isn't as huge as this comparison indicates where you have 1:1 crop @ 1080 and 5k.

There is definititely a difference and it is better seen in motion than on charts, and it is a good thing, as the temporal gains of the added resolution is bigger than what you can see on a single chart (when scaled to 1080/2k) but I wonder how many 4k/2k/1080 cinematic projects you've been delivering, as that's where this diference in resolution is most viewable.

As to the AF-100, I see a lot of sharpening, which I am glad is not in the Alexa images.

If you want to compare, you must compare them under equal conditions and set some equal parameters...

You cannot take one image from one place and another from another and really draw any meaningfull conclusions.

But if you'd prefer the AF-100 over the Alexa, I respect that choice. It's lighter, cheaper and you can kit it up for less. Claiming that it as technically better camera borders on silliness.
 
Gunleik,

it's economy and not me that can decide about camera/tool choice for a job.

The times when "big guys" were playing with expensive tools like an Arri/Panavision movie cameras or even Alexa will soon be definitely gone.

Why?

New kids are already coming and taking jobs with 5DMK2/7D and with GH2/AF100 will definitely kick out those "big guy asses"

that were so often parading in the industry with their use of expensive tools and equipment.

Again it's not about being or not a professional, it's more about economy.

Also in that case professional means being smart and intelligent to fast and easy find a way to accommodate at the new situation and show your high skills at the present reality.

With the newest affordable tools you'll be able to achieve similar result as with use of more expensive before.

Btw, AF100 test showed here did't apply any sharpness to the footage because they were shooting with a razor sharp and extraordinary Nikon 14-24 FX G f/2.8 wide angle zoom lens.
 
What economy?

If your commercial shoot costs $20k+ a day, what's another $400 for a camera that pays for itself in saved post hassle?

The "Big Guys" aren't going to notice a $400 rental discrepancy. Especially when buying air time costs millions of dollars.

"We cut costs on our $3m ad campaign! We saved $1k on our camera!"

The Big Guys can be fired for the ad looking bad. They can't be fired for spending an extra $1k on something that the director insists is necessary.
 
Gavin Greenwalt said:
What economy?

If your commercial shoot costs $20k+ a day, what's another $400 for a camera that pays for itself in saved post hassle?

The "Big Guys" aren't going to notice a $400 rental discrepancy. Especially when buying air time costs millions of dollars.

"We cut costs on our $3m ad campaign! We saved $1k on our camera!"

The Big Guys can be fired for the ad looking bad. They can't be fired for spending an extra $1k on something that the director insists is necessary.
Click to expand...


Gavin,

that's in the case that maybe you are the producer but reality is always more like in a tough and rude world.
 
Sanjin.

I think you may be right that economics are an importnt factor, but we disagree on where the savings are.

If you are shooting anything with a budget, man-hours is the most expensive factor. Risking NOT to get a shot because the camera does not come up to par, is about the stupidest choice you can make.

I see 5D and the like gaining ground, but not in the high-end stuff, but rather in productions and situations where the RED or Alexa wouldn't be used anyway. It somehow can rise the baseline of low budget production looks, but it has little impact on the high-end. When it is used in high-end situations (in Norway I know of 2 TV-series and a feature produced/under production on 5D) there have not been any economical reason for it, but more a venturing into the unknown. And it have worked ok, but there haven't been any money saved, rather the oposite because of the problems related to nail many types of shots.

I am sure the AF-100 will gain ground, but I think that has little relevance for the Scarlet/Epic/RED uses in high end productions.

It may take away a lot of the potential prosumer customers for the Scarlet, though. But RED has made a concious choice as to which markets it wants to target. I think that is smart...
 
As mentioned, if not one of the productions were sponsored, none of them would have saved any money... -:)

While I as a private person wanting to take a nice image, might save thousands, a commercial production don't and actually risks using a lot more.

This was the same argument with RED vs Film, I know, but you have to put in "comparable result and performance" as factors, too...

I am not saying you cannot get nice images from an AF-100 or a 5D, I just say that they are not comparable as professional tools in a professional environment with professional demands.

I am sure - however - that a good DP with an AF-100/5D/iPhone/whatever will manage to get "better" images and overall results than a poor DP with an Epic and that we will see examples of that.

That does not - however - imply that the AF-100 is "better" than the Epic...
 
Gunleik Groven said:
That does not - however - imply that the AF-100 is "better" than the Epic...
Click to expand...

For sure not better than Epic but much better than 11.5 x time more expensive Alexa and AF100 can produce many of gorgeous images with the broadcast quality at PR 422 8-bit recorded at AJA KiPro Compact Mini.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top