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

[Rick Burnett]

Some aliasing on the MX with black scrims:

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=46866

And pertaining to the AF100, the reports I have heard are comparing it's characteristics versus the GH1 and the Canon DSLRs. EVERY person until you that has had the opportunity to play with the camera has said it is a significant improvement over the previously mentioned cameras.

Granted, what you and everyone else has is a prototype. We'll have to reserve judgement until the final production model is available for testing. We aren't sure what they've done to "optimize" the sensor (other than the OLPF). So a lot of things are still up in the air.

I'll be happy I can record externally to 4:2:2 when I am doing greenscreen work to at least get cleaner footage to work with.

And you know, I do have an HVX200, we shot a film with it. I've used them with 35mm adapters as well. No thank you. The amount of light required for that camera is insane.

And interestingly enough, I worked with a group that had both an HVX200 with a 35mm kit and a Red One M. I did scoring for two of their films. Man, the footage from the Red One was AMAZING. The difference in quality at 1080p was night and day.

Like I said, S35 fits what I want exactly, it's just not here yet. I can see that the AF100 is a step up from my 7D (so far), and so at least I am moving up in quality.

 

[Jason Rudd]

The Canon's 7D chip is somewhat close to the size of Super 35mm and in turn m4/3 is somewhat close to the the Canon APS-C size, but in the end, what you end up with is a rather BIG difference between the FOV of what a particular lens FL will give you on m4/3 vs Super 35mm.

The proponents of these m4/3 chip keep perpetuating the fallacy that m4/3 on the GH1/GH2/AF100 is something close to S35mm. That's wrong. It's something like 18~19mm vs 24.89mm.

You hear this a lot on dvxuser.com probably because it's rather Panasonic biased. I'm not anti-AF100, I may buy myself, but let's not stretch the truth here.

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.

 

[Rick Burnett]

Well, truth is Robert, we just come from different perspectives. Nothing wrong with that. If I could afford an Epic I would be in line for one. I'd buy an S35 in a few months if they were available. That's the reason I am here. I've had the money saved up for the 2/3 Fixed initially until I purchased a 7D and starting working with the APS-C sensor size, and then built up a collection of lens that I think work fantastic. What works for me might not work for other people.

This thread was started about the cost of the Scarlet going up and apparently out of the range of people who were thinking about $5k for a camera. I don't see any other camera for $5k that has the features of the AF100. I want the S35 for one simple reason, it makes my life easier getting better, higher quality results. It doesn't make me a better shooter, but it allows me to shoot a larger variety of things that are impossible on cameras with inferior specs.

With the AF100, I look at it the same way. It's increasing the freedom I have to shoot over what I have now. I've watched plenty of Sony footage, as with many of the cameras, including even the Epic so I could day dream a little. If the quality requirements and compensation for my work increase to the level of the Epic, I will move to that price point. Right now, it doesn't. It pays well, but not that well.

PS And since I pre-orderd the AF100 early, you can GUARANTEE that I am going to test the hell out of it immediately. If it's not a significant improvement in the areas my 7D is lacking sensor quality wise, I will dump it while the demand is high for someone who is okay with what it brings. Everyone has different short-comings and or features they can or can't live without.

I understand lighting a set, these types of responses are pointless to say the least. Obviously if someone is looking at the $5k range of cameras, and they are worried about cost, then they'd like to get a camera that helps them out on many angles. Yes, I still need lights to light my scene the way I want, but with a camera that is extremely sensitive, I can use a lot lower powered smaller lights and have a lot more freedom of where they are being used. I like that. Given the amount of light say the HVX200 required us to use, it took a lot more time designing the locations with the lights to get them out of the way. With DSLRs, we've practically used mini lights behind thing to get really neat lighting effects. It's been a blast.

Maybe the AF100 comes out and it isn't all that they've shown so far. It's a risk I am taking, but I think the multitude of features for me, like the external HD-SDI recording is going to help. I'm sure I'll start using it and be aggravated about this and that in no time.

I even have an example: The remote control ports for the camera have no focus control. They have start, stop and iris. I verified this with Panasonic. So now I still have the same problem on my crane. Redmote can't get here fast enough.

And per Jeff, I agree, I honestly don't know why they don't make a properly sized sensor. While I am a CMOS engineer, I don't work with imagers. What I can say is that I've wondered if they are using some sort of modified filter layer/micro lens to help with video mode. Maybe someone will get a microscope in there and see.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

 

[Rick Burnett]

The Canon's 7D chip is somewhat close to the size of Super 35mm and in turn m4/3 is somewhat close to the the Canon APS-C size, but in the end, what you end up with is a rather BIG difference between the FOV of what a particular lens FL will give you on m4/3 vs Super 35mm.

The proponents of these m4/3 chip keep perpetuating the fallacy that m4/3 on the GH1/GH2/AF100 is something close to S35mm. That's wrong. It's something like 18~19mm vs 24.89mm.

You hear this a lot on dvxuser.com probably because it's rather Panasonic biased. I'm not anti-AF100, I may buy myself, but let's not stretch the truth here.

Ummm, my math is correct. 25mm on the m4/3 is the same as 30mm on the 7D in terms of FoV. It's VERY simple mathematics. I guess it all depends on what you consider huge! To visualize the difference it is as simple as taking a lens on a camera from 25mm to 30mm and look at the change. It's a good approximation.

I'd rather have an S35 sizes sensor, hands down. I just don't have that choice on a camera primarily designed for video, under $10k.....yet!

What I REALLY need to do is up my game and just get a damn Epic and be done with it

 

[Terry VerHaar]

And we are having this argument about AF-100 vs. 7D here on reduser because...???

*zzzzzzz* :ack2:

 

[Robert Jackson]

Ummm, my math is correct. 25mm on the m4/3 is the same as 30mm on the 7D in terms of FoV. It's VERY simple mathematics.

Not all that simple, really. The two sensors have different aspect ratios. Horizontally the "crop factor" for m4/3 in regards to the 7D sensor is about 1.3x. Vertically the crop factor is about 1.1x.

So a 25mm on m4/3 is horizontally like a lens of about 33mm, but vertically only like a lens of about like a 28mm. Modified more, of course, if you're not going to be delivering in 4:3. Then things get even less advantageous as you start trimming the top and bottom of the frame off to yield something useful.

 

[Rick Burnett]

Not all that simple, really. The two sensors have different aspect ratios. Horizontally the "crop factor" for m4/3 in regards to the 7D sensor is about 1.3x. Vertically the crop factor is about 1.1x.

So a 25mm on m4/3 is horizontally like a lens of about 33mm, but vertically only like a lens of about like a 28mm. Modified more, of course, if you're not going to be delivering in 4:3. Then things get even less advantageous as you start trimming the top and bottom of the frame off to yield something useful.

Actually, the Panasonic m4/3 sensor actually has additional pixels on the sides when in the 16x9 aspect so the sensor maintains the same diagonal length in both modes. You'll have to redo your calculations for that.

 

[Robert Jackson]

Actually, the Panasonic m4/3 sensor actually has additional pixels on the sides when in the 16x9 aspect so the sensor maintains the same diagonal length in both modes. You'll have to redo your calculations for that.

Heh...well, since it's supposed to be a native 1080p machine that makes enough sense. Doesn't really matter. It's still going to record to AVCHD from a sensor that's shooting at a non-native resolution. I'm sure it will be a fun thing to spend money on so you don't have to wait another couple of months for a real camera, but maybe you should talk about that on a Panasonic forum. :biggrin5:

 

[Jim Retar]

I'm sure it will be a fun thing to spend money on so you don't have to wait another couple of months for a real camera

I'm 99.99% sure that he will be having a hell of alot of fun making money with his camera while you wait "a couple of months" for a real camera.

Good luck Rick, I hope to hear about the AF-100 when you get it.... they are all just tools in the arsenal, I can see times when an AF-100 will perfectly complement a Scarlet S35, possibly even be the better choice for a certain shot.

Hopefully RED will continue to allow us to occasionally talk about B-Cam options... and hopefully some RED Users will understand that just because a camera is not RED, it does not mean it is not a real, workable camera.

 

[Robert Jackson]

I'm 99.99% sure that he will be having a hell of alot of fun making money with his camera while you wait "a couple of months" for a real camera.

He's got a camera. I've got cameras.

It's that consumerist urge to buy something because it's been hyped, whether it's worth owning or not. That's the crux of it.

hopefully some RED Users will understand that just because a camera is not RED, it does not mean it is not a real, workable camera.

It not being a Red doesn't have anything at all to do with it not being a "real, workable camera." It's just another poorly-conceived consumer camera, but there's this rabid fixation on owning something with a large sensor, whether it's capable of decent capture or not. The urge to own something that's been fixated on for a long time tips the scales past the point of rational thought and into the realm of wishful thinking. And then to pitch that wishful thinking on a Red forum to a bunch of people who know better is just in bad taste. It's like showing up at the Sorbonne and telling them all how delicious the food at McDonald's is if they'll just put aside their preconceptions and eat some McNuggets.

 

[Steve Das]

And we are having this argument about AF-100 vs. 7D here on reduser because...???

*zzzzzzz* :ack2:

....mmm..maybe because Scarlet isn't here yet...

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Some aliasing on the MX with black scrims

That's really a moire effect, created optically outside the camera. You can duplicate that easily with various scrims, nets, etc.. You don't even need a camera, but can see the same effect with your own eyes. So, uh, not sure where that thread was going... Quite admirable that the camera captured it the way it did.

And pertaining to the AF100, the reports I have heard are comparing it's characteristics versus the GH1 and the Canon DSLRs. EVERY person until you that has had the opportunity to play with the camera has said it is a significant improvement over the previously mentioned cameras.

It is significantly better than the smaller DSLRs. And you're right, it's all prototype footage at this point. Of course, there will still be significant aliasing and moire issues from the line-skipping nature of the camera. There is just no way around that. But having an OLPF and improved processing of the line-skipping sensor that is designed for HD video rather than stills shooting does make a huge difference.

I'll be happy I can record externally to 4:2:2 when I am doing greenscreen work to at least get cleaner footage to work with.

This is the part where I start to have issues with the AF100... Panasonic has crippled it terribly in terms of record options. The onboard codec is consumer-level crap. So you're going to spend $2K to $4K for an external recording solution just to gain an 8bit output of a 4:2:2 level processed signal? Meh...

And you know, I do have an HVX200, we shot a film with it. I've used them with 35mm adapters as well. No thank you. The amount of light required for that camera is insane.

Hmmm... And everyone thought it had awesome low-light abilities at the time. Yes, using a 35mm adapter did lose you about 1 to 1.5 stops. Some adapter makers claimed less, but I personally never tested or saw one that introduced less than a full stop, which equates to cutting your light transmission in half.

Like I said, S35 fits what I want exactly, it's just not here yet. I can see that the AF100 is a step up from my 7D (so far), and so at least I am moving up in quality.

Sounds reasonable to me. It definitely seems to be a step up from the 7D in terms of the aliasing / moire issues. While it won't eliminate that, it seems like it will be a lot better. I'm not so sure it will have better low light performance or DR. That remains to be seen... The form factor and usability should be worth the upgrade alone. You can actually roll on and not have a break in your recording every 12 minutes with a chance of the camera shutting down on you after a handful of clips. I think Canon has much better color tone, especially for flesh tone reproduction, on their video cameras than Canon does. I always liked how my DVX, HVX, HPX, etc.. cameras looked for shooting corporate interview type stuff or just shooting people in general. ...Speaking about color, that is.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Not all that simple, really. The two sensors have different aspect ratios. Horizontally the "crop factor" for m4/3 in regards to the 7D sensor is about 1.3x. Vertically the crop factor is about 1.1x.

You're correct about the crop. But it's not as severe as going to 2/3" or 16mm. The only time it will be an issue is on the very wide end. Or at least only then, provided you have adequate focal lengths to cover what you want to shoot. I think a lot of people shooting with common 35mm SLR glass on their AF100 will end up using similar focal lengths as they would on the larger format, but rather take a few steps back to maintain the framing and similar DOF properties.

So a 25mm on m4/3 is horizontally like a lens of about 33mm, but vertically only like a lens of about like a 28mm. Modified more, of course, if you're not going to be delivering in 4:3. Then things get even less advantageous as you start trimming the top and bottom of the frame off to yield something useful.

The AF100 does not have a 4:3 aspect ratio sensor anyway. It has a 16:9 sensor. It's recordable area is 17.9mm wide by 10.07mm high. The 17.9mm horizontal is pretty much the only dimension that matters. That's essentially 20% smaller than the 22.3mm recordable width of the 7D.

On the 7D, a 25mm lens would have a 48 degree AOV. A 25mm lens on the AF100 is going to give a 39 degree AOV. If you want the same AOV on the AF100 that you would get on the 7D with a 25mm, you would need to put a 20mm lens on the AF100, as it would give a 48 degree AOV on the AF100 sensor.

And we are having this argument about AF-100 vs. 7D here on reduser because...???

Because, as a moderator, I've tried to shoot the discussion in the head a few times. It just keeps moving about... So may as well let it sit here, in a thread that was garbage to begin with. And here I am contributing to it too... Hehe.

 

[Robert Jackson]

The AF100 does not have a 4:3 aspect ratio sensor anyway. It has a 16:9 sensor. It's recordable area is 17.9mm wide by 10.07mm high. The 17.9mm horizontal is pretty much the only dimension that matters. That's essentially 20% smaller than the 22.3mm recordable width of the 7D.

Sorry. I wasn't thinking about that when I originally posted. I'm familiar with 4/3 in general because I shot with Olympus OM-2n and OM-4T cameras for 20 years or so and so I bought an E-1 when they came out (and later an E-3).

FWIW, I love the idea of a 4/3 sensor in a video camera. It's a very good size. In fact, that ~18mm x ~10mm sensor profile suits me perfectly. And if it was shooting at its native resolution and capturing to a professional codec I'd probably be tempted by this package, too. But it isn't, so I'm not. :beatdeadhorse5:

 

[Michael Olsen]

I actually do think the 4/3 is a great sensor size....and the adaptability of lenses is excellent...

 

[David Rasberry]

I like the 4/3 format a lot too. Fills a nice hole between 2/3" and S35.
Love to see Red make a 4/3 4k Scarlet eventually.

 

[Rick Burnett]

The only reason I chimed in on the discussion of the AF100 was that this post was started with the issue of $4750 pushing it already. The truth is, this post is about the 2/3 camera and not the S35 so really, I'd say the AF100 is not a replacement for the 2/3, any of them, for all the advantages of 2/3 if you need those particular aspects of that sensor size. That said, indirectly recommending a $9k camera isn't going to help the poster either (and that camera being also not a RED camera) as clearly price is a dictating factor.

The big difference between this thread and most others that invoke the DSLR technology (or derivatives) is that I'm not trying to convince people the 7D, AF100 or anything in the same boat are ANYTHING like what you'd expect with ANY of the RED cameras. Without a doubt, their technology is many magnitudes greater in almost EVERY category. (I say almost as neither technology at this point is final, so nothing is definite. For instance, if price is the only thing that matters, well, that will decide what you get). Everyone has their own set of criteria for what they'll accept in a cameras short comings. No one is more right or wrong for what is important to them.

The notion that I'd just be infatuated with the AF100 from marketing is absurd, it's a tool. They can say what they want, but at the end of the day, the product will get tested and I will decide if it is capable of holding me over for now. I am a highly technical person, I am a CMOS engineer, I have a masters in EE where I majored in microelectronics and minored in advanced graphics programming. I've been a chip designer for 15 years. I only say this to make one point, marketing doesn't work on me. Specifications and real world performance matter. I've run my 7D through a ridiculous amount of tests, and will be the first to tell people, it's not the easiest camera to use because of the limitations in it's capabilities and performance. Though for now, for what I want in a camera, it is the best for the money I've invested. It's paid for itself over and over, but, it still means I am restricted from so many other shot opportunites. I cannot wait to not have to sacrifice so many great shot ideas because the camera cannot handle it.

And Jeff, pertaining to the skrims, I disagree with your assertion with the first shot they showed. Yes, the futher examples with the blinds where you have two different patterns creating a moire sampling through the holes of the skrim, but on the first shot, there is clearly rainbow colored aliasing to the shot. In addition, I don't see any screen on that window, so there is no other patterned object behind it, especially in the sky shots, to cause any optical moire. But even if there were screen, the screen and skrim aren't going to cause the moire to discolor like that.

 

[brian hanson]

The $4750 price tag even seemed to be too good to be true. I am glad Jim clarified that Red is a company making cameras for professionals, I want a professional tool and i think it's obvious that it isn't gonna be dirt cheap. If shooting 120fps @3k is going to require an SSD module i am going to spend the extra money and get it.

 

[Robert Jackson]

I am a highly technical person, I am a CMOS engineer, I have a masters in EE where I majored in microelectronics and minored in advanced graphics programming. I've been a chip designer for 15 years. I only say this to make one point, marketing doesn't work on me.

Heh...well, apparently something made you imagine that a line-skipping sensor outputting to AVCHD wasn't going to blow goats. Have you recently suffered a head trauma? :biggrinjester:

 

[Rick Burnett]

I did have to go to the emergency room yesterday for either a blood clot or a leg infection! . Luckily it was a leg infection from the gym. Get to spend all day filming in a dirty abandoned mill, which I feel better about, cause I am on crazy antibiotics now!! Maybe it's the infection going to my brain