AF104 (AF100) Fashion shoot in Moscow

[Guy McLoughlin]

Originally Posted by Buba Kastorski

as soon as it'll be available from Vistek for rent I'll get it for a week and will side-by-side it with all cameras that I have, maybe i'll love it after that, but not likely :)

Make sure you get up to speed with the AF-100 settings, as they can radically change the look of the video that this camera produces.

Originally Posted by Buba Kastorski

I also don't understand how camcorder without power zoon and image stabilization (very limited number of fast lenses supporting IS feature ) can be perfect for event video, wedding highlights

The AF-100 is not intended for live event shooting, but rather for digital cinema work, where you work with a sound and lighting crew to create your footage. Other digital cinema cameras like the Sony F3, RED One / Epic, or Arri Alexa would also not be well suited for live event work.

Originally Posted by Buba Kastorski

I'm still waiting for Scarlet, and if I'm lucky - Epic

Both very interesting digital cinema cameras, but are priced far out of the AF-100 $5K price range. I am very curious to see what the Scarlet finally ships as, because the specs and price seem to be kind of fluid.

[Steve Rosen]

GH not G different animals!

I don't know anything about DSLRs, I'm more of an old Arriflex-Aaton sort of guy. My current camera is an HPX500. DSLRs would be pretty useless to me in my work.

My concern has been the general washed-out look of the majority of the footage I've seen from the AF100. That futuristic, barren look, although interesting, doesn't appeal to me personally.

The tried and proven technique with Panasonic cameras since the DVX has been - underexpose a stop or more, use CINE-D and CINE Matrix, crunch the Master Ped to about -5. Even the "normally" acquired footage I've seen from the AF seems vacant, without the rich tones.

My question is, do you think this is the codec, the camera, or the way people are using it?

[Oleg Kalyan]

Steve, I plan to do more testing,
with my sailing promo, I could add an "even saturation", that looks natural without skin clipping pretty much, (close up shots on sailors), which is hard part usually with video, if you compare it to film, setting up low chroma, low pedestal, not crushing blacks in camera important, getting all the contrast in post.

[John Mercer]

My concern has been the general washed-out look of the majority of the footage I've seen from the AF100. That futuristic, barren look, although interesting, doesn't appeal to me personally.

I have to agree. Whilst I can see that the AF100 is a great improvement on the DSLRs, they do seem to look more filmic even with all their problems. I have seen beautiful things from them and not to offend Oleg because this is very nice footage but the look just doesn't excite me. Everything I have seen from this camera is pehaps too sharp looking. It's not a film type sharpness but almsot an incredibly good type of edge enhancement look. I can't say I like it, nor a lot of the other new cameras too. It's very very clear HD video but to me is a little disappointing. I'd love to see a full broadcast documentary on TV shot with this camera to see what could be achieved.

[Steve Rosen]

Well, that's exactly what I will be doing - if I decide to go with the camera...

I may just "settle" for the HPX500 again, and wait... but I do like to experiment with new stuff... and I do like some things about the AF. Main problem with the 500 is that the "pundits" are all dissing DVDPRO HD these days, so I'm pushed into a corner. Personally I think for documentaries the 500 with that codec is more than good enough.

I just wish the AF100 was more "future proofed" - that codec will certainly be obsolete (at least for professional use) within a year.

[Oleg Kalyan]

that codec will certainly be obsolete (at least for professional use) within a year.
Steve Rosen ""

well, Steve, it's not 444 Alexa's codec fur sure, which still will be probably obsolete in a couple of years, from the camera for 80k$ (not the codec itself but the electronic processing, the chip) which still doesn't look like film, imho!

I will do more testing with detail taking down, personally the codec is quite capable, comparing to any DLSR.

[Steve Rosen]

The inevitable pundits are already discounting the codec because of the 8 bit output without an option for 10. Personally, after 40 years of making independent documentaries, I don't put much stock in that stuff, it's the image on the screen that counts.

The problem is, the funders hear this stuff and have unwarranted knee jerk reactions to anything that might block a potential broadcast.

Although I think there are many positive aspects to these on-line forums, there are at least as many negative ones - this is one of them.

[Oleg Kalyan]

Steve, I am with you, 3 years ago when 5dmk2 came, (I bought 2 of them to shoot weddings) not too many people believed in it, 2 years later many jumped on that wagon, now next step of revolution came, with new 35mm censor video cameras came to play. Do they look exactly like film? No, none of them, although in controlled lighting condition they look great for TV hd production, imho.
Do these cameras represent unique niche? You bet!

You know I have a colleague, who dropped his Red one, and grabbed AF100, for 90% of his production needs, a true story! Cheers!

[Lawrence Kim]

Originally Posted by Buba Kastorski

oh yeah, and not in favour of AF, 21Mbps AVCHD is a high price to pay for a large sensor camcorder :)

Panasonic AVCHD 25Mbps has been proven to be better than Sony XDCAM 35Mbps
if you want higher bitrate at 4:2:2, get the Nanoflash