Aww... the $4750 was pushing it already...

[I Bloom]

I too am a college student shooting primarily on an XH-A1 and a 7D. I really have a great deal of nostalgia for both of these cameras...I like the sharp, raw look of the A1 (even if its because of noise and a tiny sensor) and the softness of the 7D (even if its because its real resolution is way below 1080p).

But hell, I'm sick of both of them and will do just about anything to get my hands on a RED camera.

And taxes aside (lol), its true that times sure are better for a poor college student now than a few decades ago. I mean, the Bolex is a nice toy, but want to try and shoot a feature on it??

You have nostalgia for the 7D? Do they have dictionaries at that college of yours? :001_tt2:

You should shoot some film while you still can (on a Bolex if needs be). No amount of K or x will ever supersede it's merits as an artistic medium.

IBloom

 

[Matt Gottshalk]

Man, looks like the AF100 will be very impressive.

I wonder if Scarlet could do that opening shot through the window without having the foreground in silhouette? Yeah, I know they did it on purpose in that example footage, and it does look great, I'm just wondering: Is that more than 18 stops?

Barry Green measured it at 10.5

 

[Cedric Akins]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Saxon
Man, looks like the AF100 will be very impressive.

I wonder if Scarlet could do that opening shot through the window without having the foreground in silhouette? Yeah, I know they did it on purpose in that example footage, and it does look great, I'm just wondering: Is that more than 18 stops?


Barry Green measured it at 10.5

Don't forget the new addition to Scarlet, HDR. That should bring the number of stops up a bit.

 

[Matt Gottshalk]

Don't forget the new addition to Scarlet, HDR. That should bring the number of stops up a bit.

Oh I am absolutely sure they will hit it out of the park.

The good thing with the AF-100, imo is that it is now shipping end of December and is ridiculously cheap for the kind of imagery it provides.

I personally can't wait for Scarlet right now so I'll get the AF-100 now and the Scarlet when it does ship.

 

[Rick Burnett]

Oh I am absolutely sure they will hit it out of the park.

The good thing with the AF-100, imo is that it is now shipping end of December and is ridiculously cheap for the kind of imagery it provides.

I personally can't wait for Scarlet right now so I'll get the AF-100 now and the Scarlet when it does ship.

I think a lot of people, like me, are doing this as well. In fact, I hope to make enough with the AF100 to really get a nice S35 package myself. I am skipping the 2/3 as I realized, it's just not the sensor size I want to use.

 

[Lee Saxon]

Barry Green measured it at 10.5

It sounds like you're referring to the AF100 sensor's capability.

I was referring to the silhouette scene at the beginning of that vimeo piece

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

Barry Green measured it at 10.5

In video ?

 

[Rick Burnett]

In video ?

Yes. The AF100 does not shoot higher than 1080p even for stills as they tuned the sensor (OLPF and who knows what else) for 1080p.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

Usable ?

Any links ?

 

[Rick Burnett]

Usable ?

Any links ?

Barry wasn't allowed to take any footage with him when he previewed the prototype. That said, CREWS.TV were allowed to take some footage which they cut together ungraded.

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?225794-Panasonic-AF101-Footage

There is some details on what they used and what they saw. Panasonic has asked them not to post the raw files yet because they are not done with their encoder and definitely said they had things they were still fixing.

They used external footage off the HD-SDI on this shot I believe they said, but also commented that there was very little difference to them on what was shot inside the camera.

Usable? I cannot say. Although given I am coming from a 7D with about 8.5 stops, it will be an improvement for me!

 

[Robert Jackson]

Here's one answer:

http://www.novoflex.com/en/products/adapters/adapters-for-microfourthirds-cameras/

Not saying the AF100 is the end all camera- no camera is. But the M 4/3 mount is infinitely adaptable all the way up to PL. It will not be hurting for lens choice.

Noah

Yeah, you can put almost any lens on it, but the small sensor means that most of them are going to be using a relatively small section of the center of the lens. Which is cool and all in that it's the "sweet spot" of the glass, but it also means you'll be hurting for wide-angle glass. And of course you have to remember that cramming a whole frame into a small section of the lens means the glass had better be able to resolve twice as much detail as it was built to resolve or it will seem soft.

But over and above all of that you're talking about long-gop capture and sensors shooting at what I assume will be non-native resolution. So be prepared for the same consumer-camcorder artifacts that plague all current DSLR video solutions. I know people grit their teeth and deal with it, but I'd rather shoot with a 1/2" or 1/3" 3-chip camera that actually works properly (assuming a pro 2/3" solution was beyond my budget, which it is) than make do with something like this.

If I was in a hurry to buy something right now and absolutely couldn't wait on a Scarlet I'd buy a Panasonic AG-HPX370 and leave the AF100 for soccer moms who want to pretend they're filmmakers.

 

[Rick Burnett]

Yeah, you can put almost any lens on it, but the small sensor means that most of them are going to be using a relatively small section of the center of the lens. Which is cool and all in that it's the "sweet spot" of the glass, but it also means you'll be hurting for wide-angle glass. And of course you have to remember that cramming a whole frame into a small section of the lens means the glass had better be able to resolve twice as much detail as it was built to resolve or it will seem soft.

But over and above all of that you're talking about long-gop capture and sensors shooting at what I assume will be non-native resolution. So be prepared for the same consumer-camcorder artifacts that plague all current DSLR video solutions. I know people grit their teeth and deal with it, but I'd rather shoot with a 1/2" or 1/3" 3-chip camera that actually works properly (assuming a pro 2/3" solution was beyond my budget, which it is) than make do with something like this.

If I was in a hurry to buy something right now and absolutely couldn't wait on a Scarlet I'd buy a Panasonic AG-HPX370 and leave the AF100 for soccer moms who want to pretend they're filmmakers.

Do you actually research anything before you post? The sensor is only 18% smaller than the 7D which means it is pretty close to S35 size to begin with. So if you are fine with the Scarlet, while smaller, it's not magnitude smaller. You are going to be in the same world of hurt that you'd be on the Scarlet or Epic for that matter. For instance, an 8mm lens on the AF100 is roughly the same FoV as 9.44mm on the APS-C sensor. Or, a 25mm on the AF100 will be the same FoV as 30mm on the APS-C. And the nice thing, there is already 25mm F0.95 lens available for m4/3 from 2 different manufacturers.

The S35 is NOT twice the size of m4/3.

Pertaining to the artifacts, not from what I am hearing. They are using a properly tuned OLPF for 1080p which is what was needed. In addition, no one knows what is going on with the sensor specifically. The initial footage I have seen has looked pretty good for being a prototype, and from those who've actually used it, moire/aliasing doesn't seem to be an issue anymore. Rolling shutter is also improved substantially. Until *I* use it, I can't say for certain, but the people making the comments, I trust.

Granted, this is a prototype.

And what do you mean works properly? You are comparing CCD technologies with global shutters yet you are okay with a Scarlet which, I hate to break it to you, does suffer from Rolling Shutter as well. Granted, RED has done a great job with the MX at reducing the skew A LOT, it's still there, so if you whip the camera around too fast, you're going to get the same kinds of issues. It's not eliminated

Want a better recording solution? Slap an external recorder, it will still be 8-bit, but at least it will be 4:2:2.

If you need video camera, then by all means, buy a video camera, but if you need a cinema camera, like the Scarlet S35, the AF100 is a nice stop gap while RED gets the Scarlet built. It has great features and so far, the video I have seen from it looks absolutely fantastic for a prototype.

I wouldn't use the HPX370 if it was given to me, I'd sell it and use the money to buy some more glass. It's way too large for how I work.

Now, if the Scarlet S35 were coming out in December, I honestly wouldn't bother with the AF100, stats wise it is superior beyond even just the magnitude of difference of cost. But right now, for larger sensors, which I mean by that as S35 size sensors, it seems the best thing almost out. I like working with S35 and I've never run into a situation where I've needed a wider lens than my 11-16mm Tokina. I can live with that being a tiny bit tighter on the m4/3 sensor.

I guess you can just call me a soccer mom then

 

[Robert Jackson]

Do you actually research anything before you post? The sensor is only 18% smaller than the 7D which means it is pretty close to S35 size to begin with.

Except that with the Scarlet you have the option of Mini-Primes at a reasonable cost and tailor-made in terms of focal length to the sensor size at hand. And of course there's the fixed-lens Scarlet.

And in terms of artifacts, rolling shutter isn't the only concern. So far every DSLR that shoots video downsamples by way of line-skipping. Chances are this one will, too. Maybe you haven't seen the 7D zone plate that was posted here:

I guess you can just call me a soccer mom then

Will do.

 

[Michael Olsen]

So far every DSLR that shoots video downsamples by way of line-skipping. Chances are this one will, too. Maybe you haven't seen the 7D zone plate that was posted here:

Thing is, the AF-100 isn't a DSLR that happens to have an HD video mode.

It's a video camera designed from the ground up (sensor and OLPF included) to shoot HD video without aliasing/mud/moire. Will it have those problems? Sure. Most cameras, at any price level, do to some degree.

So far, reports from those that have shot on the AF-100 have reported very little aliasing/mud/moire.

I would bet that it will be vastly improved over DSLRs.

Thing is...I believe Scarlet will be a vast improvement over it.

 

[Rick Burnett]

Except that with the Scarlet you have the option of Mini-Primes at a reasonable cost and tailor-made in terms of focal length to the sensor size at hand. And of course there's the fixed-lens Scarlet.

And in terms of artifacts, rolling shutter isn't the only concern. So far every DSLR that shoots video downsamples by way of line-skipping. Chances are this one will, too. Maybe you haven't seen the 7D zone plate that was posted here:

Will do.

You have the option of mini primes on the 2/3 shooting on a smaller sensor, or the fixed with a smaller sensor. Explain to me why you make the assertion that with a smaller sensor you are going to need lens that basically resolve more, yet you are referring to a sensor that is not only smaller than the m4/3 or APS-C sensor, but is also higher resolution requiring even more resolving capability?

DSLR cameras shooting STILLS shoot at a higher resolution at APS-C for some time now. So if anything, even with just line skipping, the pixels aren't changing size. In fact, as stated by both Canon and Panasonic, they use pixel binning as well. For true line skipping, see the D90. It is VERY CLEAR what a line skipped image does. Ergo, still lenses work fine for APS-C sensors. Have a look at the MULTITUDE of examples RED has posted with Canon lenses attached to the Epic. And let me tell you, they are amazing, even at 5K which is MUCH HIGHER resolution per area than any video mode DSLR. VERY FEW people are going to have problems with SLR lenses designed for APS-C and FF35 sensors.

And chances are, the AF100 won't operate the same because it already shows that it doesn't. Are you aware that the Red One actually has aliasing as well at the native resolution? I've actually yet to see a Bayer pattern based CMOS sensor that wasn't tuned with an OLPF to have a little aliasing left in it. They all do.

Do you know that the GH1 and Nikon DSLR DO NOT exhibit the rainbow pattern as the Canon DSLRs do? I have a 7D, believe me, I know too well about the rainbow in moire. This is probably THE BIGGEST reason I am going to use an AF100. I can't stand it. You do know the AF100 is made by Panasonic right? ALL the RED cameras resolve more detail, they are pristine. Red One MX is out of my price range so I have to go down the list into a category I can afford.

You're making all these assumptions on the operation of a camera (AF100) without ANY idea of what they've been working on. It's not designed for stills, it's designed for video, and they've already said they've tuned the sensor for that. Some feedback has come back from 4 or 5 different sources INCLUDING some ungraded video on vimeo. The project manager has shared quite a bit of info as well. Why not actually look into the camera instead of assuming it's the same. Let's see, the 5Dm1 doesn't shoot video, so I should just assume the 5Dm2 doesn't either. That's the type of logic you are using.

While I have no problem with the 2/3 sensor, it's not the size I want to work with. I like the relationship of focal length, FoV and DoF with S35 sized sensors. I like the sensitivity that most of the DSLRs work at. I've yet to see a camera available for sale less than say $15k that has been as good at low light than the Canon cameras. I don't see ANYTHING available in the S35 range by the end of the year I can go out and buy other than the AF100. This is what makes the AF100 attractive to me. It's (so far) exceptionally better than my 7D and that is good enough for now.

And, as a side bar, I've used my 7D for professional gigs, one of which will be airing on CMT soon. The client LOVED what we did. While it is a seriously handicapped camera on many levels, it can still produce lovely results when you know how to work within those limitations. We've had 2 more follow on contracts because of that work, and more coming.

And, what you might not also be aware of, is that the GH2 can actually shoot cropped at the center at the native resolution of the sensor, meaning, aliasing and moire should be on par with shooting stills, which is very low. Many people are excited about using it with 16mm lenses. Granted, I'm not because I want all the other features in the AF100 like zebras, curves, waveforms, histograms, etc, but it's still a pretty cool option.

I'm brand agnostic. I want what works best for me when I need it, what I can afford, and what my clients are happy with. I cannot wait to shoot on the S35, but I need something to shoot on while I wait that works how *I* want it to. Simple decision.

 

[Michael Olsen]

Are you aware that the Red One actually has aliasing as well at the native resolution?

I guess it depends on how you define aliasing...but this is pretty darn clean...

 

[Rick Burnett]

Oh, don't get me wrong, the RED is awesome, but I've seen plenty of shots with things like chrome reflections having stair-steps in them in 1:1 analysis of the footage. Now, for apples-to-apples if we take that RED footage and bring it down to 1080p....no contest The only point I am making is that native resolution typically on a bayer pattern, it seems to me that post companies pick an OLPF point between the red/blue resolution and the green resolution, since they are different. This will probably change I'd imagine if pixel density got MUCH MUCH higher than any target density, but it is what I have observed.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

It's a video camera designed from the ground up (sensor and OLPF included) to shoot HD video without aliasing/mud/moire. Will it have those problems? Sure. Most cameras, at any price level, do to some degree.

I have a couple test clips here (actual clips recorded on an AF100, not transcoded or recompressed). It's got plenty of aliasing and moire to spare. The skew (rolling shutter jell-o) is pretty bad too. To be perfectly frank about it, I'm totally perplexed as to why everyone is so excited about this camera. Outside of resolution and noisy blacks, the HVX200 is still a superior camera, IMO, and it's 5+ years old now. I sold my two long ago and often feel that I should've kept one of them.

So far, reports from those that have shot on the AF-100 have reported very little aliasing/mud/moire.

Compared to what? There is a lot less than what we see from the DSLRs. But it comes down to a specialized OLPF that greatly assists the line-skipping algorithms here. The camera is designed for video, as you have said, and they have gone a long way to eliminate the aliasing and moire that comes from the line-skipping and pixel binning. They don't have to fight the OLPF as found in the DMC-Gxx SLR cameras that are designed to take high rez stills. In fact, it's rather impressive what they have done. However, I think it would have made a lot more sense to manufacture a lower resolution sensor at this format size and eliminate the line-skipping altogether.

Thing is...I believe Scarlet will be a vast improvement over it.

Yep.

Anyway, I'm still really confused about the AF100 and the strong attraction to it. I really do think a lot of people are setting themselves up for disappointment. From what I have seen from it and also from the Sony NEX-VG10, which I have played with, I would choose the Sony. The Sony model has better low-light ability, better noise handling, a full APS-C sized sensor, equivalent onboard codec, HDMI output, equal (maybe better) built-in mic, and it is less than half the price including their 18-100 lens, only 1/3 the price comparing the two camera bodies alone. Both cameras are based off of shallow-FFD mirrorless SLR designs. There are PL, Nikon, Canon, Contax, Leica, etc.. mounts available for both. Both have about 10 stops of DR...

All that said, I'm still not buying the Sony one. Not buying either. Just reporting my thoughts/opinions. I own the Sony NEX-5 mirrorless SLR. It's a nice little camera. I have the 16mm pancake lens as well as their 18-50 zoom. Also have a Nikon mount w/ aperture ring for it and I made myself a PL mount for it, but that still needs a little work -- I will probably just buy one now that they're available. Anyway, I bought this camera and kept it after briefly owning both an Olympus E-PL1 and a Panasonic DMC-G2. I had the G2 for about 5 days and couldn't return it fast enough. FWIW, I'm not a fan of Panasonic's "Venus Engine" or how they handle noise.

I keep hoping my Epic-X will ship soon. And yeah, I'm buying a fixed lens Scarlet, whenever that day comes.

 

[Robert Jackson]

Explain to me why you make the assertion that with a smaller sensor you are going to need lens that basically resolve more, yet you are referring to a sensor that is not only smaller than the m4/3 or APS-C sensor, but is also higher resolution requiring even more resolving capability?

Most medium format lenses don't resolve as many line-pairs per millimeter as 35mm lenses. They're engineered for the sensor size and usually the system is engineered for an upper-limit of potential resolution. And that principle works its way on down. So, for instance, if you put a Canon 85mm f/1.4 on a 4/3 sensor it's not going to yield results that are as sharp as the same lens using all its real estate with a larger sensor, although in this case the overall impression may be that it's shooting more consistent frames from corner to corner because the smaller sensor isn't seeing the weak corners in that lens.

I mean, I've dealt with it. I used to use all kinds of glass on my 4/3 stuff. And it's fun. But most of the time you aren't really getting a better image than you'd get with a piece of glass engineered for 4/3. For instance, I owned the 150mm f/2. You aren't going to find many lenses in that focal length that are as sharp on 4/3. Not even the very sharp Sigma 150mm f/2.8 Macro.

DSLR cameras shooting STILLS shoot at a higher resolution at APS-C for some time now. So if anything, even with just line skipping, the pixels aren't changing size. In fact, as stated by both Canon and Panasonic, they use pixel binning as well. For true line skipping, see the D90. It is VERY CLEAR what a line skipped image does. Ergo, still lenses work fine for APS-C sensors.

Heh...what you've just said is, "The pixel is staying the same size, but we've resized the image by dropping two of every three lines, so we should be fine!" Yeah, other than the gaps between those dropped lines (see zone plate).

Have a look at the MULTITUDE of examples RED has posted with Canon lenses attached to the Epic. And let me tell you, they are amazing, even at 5K which is MUCH HIGHER resolution per area than any video mode DSLR. VERY FEW people are going to have problems with SLR lenses designed for APS-C and FF35 sensors.

The Epic's sensor is 30mm wide. That's the same width as the APS-H sensors in Canon's EOS-1D series. The lenses are engineered for that sensor size.

You're making all these assumptions on the operation of a camera (AF100) without ANY idea of what they've been working on.

Marketing is a game of misdirection. The things people say at trade shows aren't random or off-the-cuff. And Panasonic has repeatedly avoided having conversations about artifacting at the trade shows. Their people say things about how the sensor is optimized for this application and then they toss out some buzzwords that will comfort potentially edgy buyers, but the name of the game is staying out of the way of the fantasy people have in their heads already.

Some feedback has come back from 4 or 5 different sources INCLUDING some ungraded video on vimeo.

Yeah, I've seen it. They've carefully focused on dynamic range and then after the silhouette gag they show you a girl's face in a shaded shallow DOF shot so again the poor resolving power won't be as obvious. They aren't going to be shooting vistas off the lip of the Grand Canyon for you.

Why not actually look into the camera instead of assuming it's the same.

Because I'm not in the market for a consumer camcorder shooting a long-gop mess.

While I have no problem with the 2/3 sensor, it's not the size I want to work with. I like the relationship of focal length, FoV and DoF with S35 sized sensors.

Yeah, everyone does. When they're standing still. You want to run-and-gun with a large sensor. Which is fine. I understand the appeal. I don't share it, but I understand it.

I like the sensitivity that most of the DSLRs work at. I've yet to see a camera available for sale less than say $15k that has been as good at low light than the Canon cameras.

Yeah, that's why you light your sets.

And, as a side bar, I've used my 7D for professional gigs, one of which will be airing on CMT soon. The client LOVED what we did. While it is a seriously handicapped camera on many levels, it can still produce lovely results when you know how to work within those limitations. We've had 2 more follow on contracts because of that work, and more coming.

Great. Keep working whenever you can. Upping your game is always good, too.

I'm brand agnostic. I want what works best for me when I need it, what I can afford, and what my clients are happy with. I cannot wait to shoot on the S35, but I need something to shoot on while I wait that works how *I* want it to. Simple decision.

I couldn't care less who makes the gear. Over the span of my professional life I've shot with video cameras by most of the majors...Sony, Hitachi, Ickegami, JVC, Panasonic...I don't care who makes it. As long as it does what I'm looking for a camera to do. These consumer camcorders and DSLRs don't. I'm not really interested in owning one. But if one of them puts out a camera I'd be interested in owning...say Canon decided to go ahead and build that little 4K machine of theirs and it turned out to use a decent codec...well, then it would be a consideration for me.

But hey, use whatever you like. You just might think a little bit about why pontificating about a dodgy Panasonic might not meet with a unanimous round of approval and agreement on a Red forum. Because even though it doesn't matter who makes the camera...well, there's a reason people are here in the first place.

 

[Michael Olsen]

I have a couple test clips here ...

I think we are in general agreement, Jeff. The AF-100 does a lot better in comparison to DSLRs , which really isn't much a feat in technological terms. The question yet to be answered is how much it will improve image fidelity over cameras like the EX-1 or even the Sony NEX you mentioned. Is it actually recording a better picture, or is quality being traded for sensor size?

There seem to be two big concerns on the DVXUser forum - 8-bit depth is all one can get out of the camera however you slice it, and the fact that a m4/3 sensor doesn't have any servo zooms. Personally, I'm curious for the camera to get a little further along in development and to see some charts. I do love me some charts.