Ignorant 16x9 Question?

[Don Miller]

Originally Posted by Olof Ekbergh

This is how the AF100 Manual describes the chip:

So there mushing (technical term) a 12MB matrix into a 1920 x 1080 2MB matrix, as with DSLR. But apparently with a heavier low pass filter, as well as other electronic magic. The camera has the advantage of not needing to make very high res still photos.

It may not be the exact chip in the GH2, but I bet it's very close.

It makes me wonder how good a purpose built chip will be? Does a purpose built chip even need to be bayer? Is the AF100 bayer?

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Mark David Williams

My problem is possible line skipping and 8 bit out make it all a little questionable for me. I really need more info on this.

You can be pretty certain it does. Referring back to the GH2 link (and it's likely to be the same or very similar sensor) - DMC-GH2 | PRODUCTS | LUMIX | Digital Camera | Panasonic Global - it refers to it being able to have a burst speed of 5fps at 16 megapixel and 40fps at 4 megapixel. That's logical enough - it can get all the data off the chip 5 times per second, but not 40 times per second. Move to true video, and up to 60fps, and the same limits are likely to apply - it's only likely to be able to read a quarter or less of the total number of pixels. (I actually suspect it will be reading a third of the 12 megapixels in the 16:9 centre section, again 4 megapixel.)

Why does it worry you? With the right OLPF, pixel skipping is not the problem it is in DSLRs. The worst implication is likely to be reduced sensitivity compared to if it wasn't used. I suspect that is why it doesn't seem to be anything like as noise free as the F3 seems to be. And that is likely to mean the lack of 10 bit doesn't really matter, 10 bit only means a lot in a very noise free camera, so whilst the F3 may well benefit from it, the AF101 probably won't.

[Mark David Williams]

Originally Posted by David Heath

Why does it worry you? With the right OLPF, pixel skipping is not the problem it is in DSLRs. The worst implication is likely to be reduced sensitivity compared to if it wasn't used. I suspect that is why it doesn't seem to be anything like as noise free as the F3 seems to be. And that is likely to mean the lack of 10 bit doesn't really matter, 10 bit only means a lot in a very noise free camera, so whilst the F3 may well benefit from it, the AF101 probably won't.

David

My current workflow is Sony EX1 Letus adapter and 35mm still lenses using the 10 bit out to a Ki Pro editing in vegas by proxy and colour correcting and rendering in 32 bit DPX files in After effects. This maintains the highest quality.

My interest in what the AF100 can do is would it be a step up or a step down and so I'm trying to evaluate what it can do here in this forum as I expect are many others as I and most people cant afford to just buy one and then decide.

[Olof Ekbergh]

Originally Posted by Mark David Williams

David

My current workflow is Sony EX1 Letus adapter and 35mm still lenses using the 10 bit out to a Ki Pro editing in vegas by proxy and colour correcting and rendering in 32 bit DPX files in After effects. This maintains the highest quality.

My interest in what the AF100 can do is would it be a step up or a step down and so I'm trying to evaluate what it can do here in this forum as I expect are many others as I and most people cant afford to just buy one and then decide.

Mark, I use an EX1R and an EX3 with NanoFlash. I also Have both AJA Kona and Matrox MX02 in my edit suites.

I have captured 10 bit into my Kona from SDI in the EXcams, for chromamkeys. And now that I have been using my NanoFlash for more than a year, I have not noticed any huge difference in chroma keys 8bit (NF) vs 10bit (Kona). I think the EXcams are fairly noisy so the benefit of 10bit is IMHO not great. The 422 color space is a significant upgrade though.

I don't think you will really have an answer if the AF100 is an upgrade to your SDOF until we have some more footage available. And more testing has been done. I do think it will be a lot more ergonomically workable than a ground glass adaptor on an EXcam.

I have ordered the AF100 and I will be doing a lot of comparos EXcams to AF100. And I will post my findings here.

I hope personally to be able to mix EXcams and the AF100 in my productions the way I have done with my 5DmkII and 7D. I really see the AF100 not as a replacement for my EXcams but a much better 7D. I think even with all its problems the 5DmkII is still in a class of its own. I love shooting with it, the 7D not so much.

These are my personal feelings and observations, your "smilage" may vary depending on your shooting style and clients.

[Mark David Williams]

Thanks Olof

I'm looking forward to seeing some of your findings!

Best

Mark