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.
Sanjin Jukic said:
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.
Click to expand...

So... a camera you have never used is much better than another camera you have never used, but not as good as the other camera you have never used?

Your constant bashing of the Alexa is as embarrassing to read as a DSLR user saying his 5DII is as good as an R1 (that he has never used).
 
Sanjin Jukic said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is just funny.

Do you seriously in any way try to compare the 4444 10-bit logC image of an Alexa with the 422 8 bit image in rec 709 from a kiPro?

OTOH, then you probably are better off with the AF-100. Good for you!

Cheers!
 
Jim Retar said:
So... a camera you have never used is much better than another camera you have never used, but not as good as the other camera you have never used?

Your constant bashing of the Alexa is as embarrassing to read as a DSLR user saying his 5DII is as good as an R1 (that he has never used).
Click to expand...

Probably you were using all of them and in that case know better :laugh: .

My comparison is made upon the images that are available online for free public use.

Also no any bashing because there are just fast and simple conclusion based on those samples.
 
Liam Hall said:
Someone at Arri sure pissed Sanjin off at some stage on his life...
Click to expand...

Nothing like this but it's just free thinking that Alexa 4444 10-bit logC image is not 11.5 x more times better than AF100 PR 422 8-bit image.

11.5 x is the price difference between both cameras.
 
Sanjin Jukic said:
Nothing like this but it's just free thinking that Alexa 4444 10-bit logC image is not 11.5 x more times better than AF100 PR 422 8-bit image.

11.5 x is the price difference between both cameras.
Click to expand...

There's rarely anything logical about pricing in the film business - you should know that Sanjin:)
 
There's a slight difference between concluding that AF-100 is better than Alexa, than questioning if Alexa is really 11,5 times better...

Fors ome work it might be, for other kinds of work, it may not... -:)

I do BTW know a show being recorded on D-21 to KiPro... -:)
 
Same dejavu again, Sanjin is draging another victims on his baits in another thread. :emote_popcorn:

It`s like endless season of "Deadliest Catch". :biggrin5:
 
Sorry, you're right, Peter. Home with the kids... Sorry!

-:)

I'll go off and read them a book. A nice tale beats most technical discussions... -:)
 
Sanjin Jukic said:
Probably you were using all of them and in that case know better :laugh: .
Click to expand...

I'm not the one spreading nonsense though.

Quality/price difference is not simple maths.... the higher up the scale you go, the less increase in quality you will see... is an AF100 worth 10x a T2i?

How much is an extra few stops of DR worth? How much is 4:4:4 worth? an extra 2 bits? sharper image? bigger sensor?

RED are charging $20k more for higher FPS and encoding on their new models... is this not the same thing?

Is an Epic worth 4x more than a Scarlet in your eyes?
 
One of these shows noticeable compression artefacts, the AF100, as it was DL'd from Vimeo. That was kind of the point in me posting those hasty shots earlier on in the thread, that you can't really tell from the compressed videos what noise and artefacts are from the camera and what is caused by web compression.
The second shot looked nice, though.
I agree with what you said earlier about the economic relationship and how the AF100 and DSLRs are impacting peoples work. But I would imagine, as great as the AF100 will be in some of these, if you have to shoot very low light scenes or are out shooting blue skies, the codec will probably cause a few problems.
 
AF100 sample was already once more compressed @ h264 from the original h264 and Alexa sample was compressed from PR422HQ to h264.

Also the speed was changed on both samples in Cinema Tools to match 24 fps.
 
Jim Retar said:
That was not the original h264 file from the AF-100 (unless you can somehow inter cut 5DII footage and overlay text "in camera" :blink:)

How many times have these been recompressed?... at least twice.
Click to expand...

Jim don't start to mess here.

The thing is very simple.

Do I have to explain every step?

Get samples available free online and do it for yourself.

Also search my other posts/treads where you'll get additional info that maybe you would need.
 
Liam Hall said:
There's rarely anything logical about pricing in the film business - you should know that Sanjin:)
Click to expand...

Liam, you are right on that...
 
Sanjin Jukic said:
The thing is very simple.
Click to expand...

Indeed it is, you took two videos that were already compressed... colour graded them, recompressed them and uploaded them.

That is at least two levels of recompression, plus your colour grade that may or may not get the best out of each video.

It is, basically, a useless comparison that deserves to go nowhere other than the digital bin.
 
Gunleik Groven said:
I'll go off and read them a book. A nice tale beats most technical discussions... -:)
Click to expand...

Yeah that`s good thing to do, and also go out and shoot some beautiful pictures just for your pleasure and then enjoying them with others. :thumbup:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top