DV Info Net

DV Info Net (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/)
-   Panasonic AVCCAM Camcorders (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/panasonic-avccam-camcorders/)
-   -   Panasonic AG-AF100 series (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/panasonic-avccam-camcorders/483744-panasonic-ag-af100-series.html)

Don Miller April 27th, 2010 05:15 PM

I calculate the diagonal of a 16:9 crop of the AF100 sensor at 19.8mm, or .75 inches.
(The diagonal of a 16:9 crop of the 5DII is 41mm, for comparison.)

Brian Drysdale April 27th, 2010 05:18 PM

The same article mentions imaging area of 17.3 mm × 13.0 mm, so that seems like a starting point for comparisions.

2/3 is 8.80mm x 6.6mm, 1/3 is 4.8mm x 3.6mm, Standard 16mm 10.26mm by 7.49 mm.

However, don't take the 2/3 sensor sizes as fixed, the 16:9 sensors are different, for one Sony camera it's 9.58 mm x 5.39 mm. Yet another example: the SI 2k is 10.24x5.76mm @ 2k.

Don Miller April 27th, 2010 05:26 PM

I shouldn't have said "AF100" sensor. I took the size off wikipedia, which may not reflect the full 4/3 standard. As pointed out the logical chip may be 16:9 with a 22.5mm diagonal (if the 4/3 standard allows any shape with a 22.5mm image circle)

So it seems 35mmish is "in the ball park" for the AF100, and otherwise we're just guessing.

David Heath April 27th, 2010 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan Brockett (Post 1519901)
IIf you think about it, Panasonic is damned if they do include P2/AVCINTRA 4:2:2 (it's too expensive, I hate P2 cards, waaah) and damned if they don't (SD cards are flimsy, cheap and unreliable, it only has 4:2:0 color space, waaah).

Damned if you do - damned if you don't. A tough one. An innovative manufacturer may therefore try to think of a third way as an alternative to either of those two. One which will be praised by it's customers, is technically easily implemented, and which is cost effective.

So what about AVC-Intra 100 to Compact Flash cards? You simply don't need P2 to record 100Mbs video these days. The nanoFlash is living proof that a 100Mbs video bitstream can be reliably recorded to fairly basic spec Compact Flash. The new Canon has gone for Compact Flash - why does the Panasonic choice have to be either (expensive) P2, or SDHC - why can't the Panasonic camera record AVC-Intra 100 to CF?

Or would that have their marketing people giving the loudest "waaah!"?

John Wiley April 27th, 2010 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Miller (Post 1520348)
Are we sure 4/3 is an actual measurement? Arri also list 16:9 sensors

4/3rds is an actual measurement, but it is not a ASPECT RATIO. 4/3 is not the same as 4:3. Nothing in the standard dictates that it has to use any particular aspect ratio.


Quote:

I calculate the diagonal of a 16:9 crop of the AF100 sensor at 19.8mm, or .75 inches.
But there is no crop - at least not one that reduces the size of the diagonal. Early reports from Jan Crittenden said the sensor was based on that from the GH1. While the GH1 sensor uses cropping in every aspect ratio, this is because the sensor is larger than it needs to be so that it can accommodate a 4:3, 16:9 and 3:2 image all with a diagonal of 22.5mm. So it is exactly the same as though you are pulling the 16:9 image from a 16:9 sensor.

Francesco Marano April 28th, 2010 09:32 AM

a draw to illustrate the size

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/attachme...0&d=1272467528
bye

Brett Sherman April 28th, 2010 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Heath (Post 1520417)
So what about AVC-Intra 100 to Compact Flash cards? You simply don't need P2 to record 100Mbs video these days. The nanoFlash is living proof that a 100Mbs video bitstream can be reliably recorded to fairly basic spec Compact Flash. The new Canon has gone for Compact Flash - why does the Panasonic choice have to be either (expensive) P2, or SDHC - why can't the Panasonic camera record AVC-Intra 100 to CF?

I think by the time this camera actually gets released SDXC will be the new standard or at least the wave of the future. CF currently enjoys the highest transfer rate now, but not for much longer.

David Heath April 28th, 2010 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brett Sherman
I think by the time this camera actually gets released SDXC will be the new standard or at least the wave of the future. CF currently enjoys the highest transfer rate now, but not for much longer.

Quite possible - the point is that making the native codec AVC-Intra 100 *does not* technically neccessitate the use and expense of P2. At the moment, CF would be the strongest candidate but yes, it's conceivable that in a years time with SDXC it would be possible to reliably use those cards.

What's technically possible, and what is marketing strategy, are two wholly different things and it wouldn't surprise me if for the latter reason Panasonic were keen to keep AVC-Intra linked to P2 and AVCCAM linked to SDHC. It just needs to be absolutely clear that technically a 100Mbs stream like AVC-Intra can be reliably recorded to far cheaper media than P2.

For their higher range products, P2 will no doubt still make more sense than SDXC would. For a sub-$10,000 camera like this, AVC-Intra to CF or SDXC would be far and away the best compromise.

Don Miller April 28th, 2010 05:51 PM

Here are some size comparisons compiled for Red
Some of these may be wrong, but it gives a rough comparison to 4/3

2/3" - 3072 x 1620 - 3K
10.1x 5.35mm MX
native 16:9 aspect ratio, approx 11.5mm diagonal,
3.3 micron pixels, approx: 5 mpx, 3.75 FOV crop factor.

R1 - 4520 x 2540 - 4K
24.4 x 13.7mm Mysterium
native 16:9 aspect ratio, approx 28mm diagonal,
5.4 micron pixels, approx: 12mpx, 1.5 FOV crop factor (APS-C).

S35 - 5120 x 2700 - 5K
30x15mm MX
native 16:9 aspect ratio, approx 33.5mm diagonal,
5.4 micron pixels, approx: 14mpx, 1.25 FOV crop factor (APS-H).

FF35 - 6000 x 4000 - 6k
36x24mm Monstro
native 3:2 aspect ratio, approx 43mm diagonal,
6 micron pixels, approx: 24mpx, 0 crop factor (FF DSLR).

645 - 9334 x 7000 - 9k
56 x 42mm Monstro
native 4:3 aspect ratio, approx 70mm diagonal,
approx: 65 mpx, 0.6 crop factor (MF).

617 - 28000 x 9334 - 28k
168 x 56mm Monstro
native 3:1 aspect ratio, approx 177mm diagonal,
approx: 261 mpx, 0.25 crop factor (MF).


Crop Factor refers to Field of View (FOV) crop factor, or Focal Length Multiplier (FLM), referenced to Full-Frame 35mm.

APS-C (Canon1.6, Nikon1.5): Canon Betacam, 550D, Nikon D300s, D90.
APS-H (Canon 1.3 crop): Canon 1D MkIV.
FF DSLR: Canon 1Ds MkIII and 5D. Nikon D3s/x and D700.
MF (Medium Format): various Hasselblad, Leaf, Mamiya, Pentax, Phase One.

Don Miller April 28th, 2010 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brett Sherman (Post 1520834)
I think by the time this camera actually gets released SDXC will be the new standard or at least the wave of the future. CF currently enjoys the highest transfer rate now, but not for much longer.

Anything but proprietary storage. There's little benefit to the small SD size in a camera like this.

Lawrence Bansbach April 29th, 2010 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Heath (Post 1520869)
Quite possible - the point is that making the native codec AVC-Intra 100 *does not* technically neccessitate the use and expense of P2. At the moment, CF would be the strongest candidate but yes, it's conceivable that in a years time with SDXC it would be possible to reliably use those cards.

AVC Intra 100's data rate is 100 megabits -- or 12.5 megabytes -- per second. Panasonic's E-series P2 cards can reach 1.2 Gbps, or 150 MBps. SDXC cards following the SD 3.0 specification were scheduled to reach 104 MBps (UHS104) last year, and SD 4.0 specifies a maximum transfer speed of 300 MBps. So, on speed alone, SDXC should easily handle AVC Intra 100, and probably AVC Ultra (200 Mbps). Reliability is, of course, another matter.

Don Miller April 29th, 2010 03:30 PM

UDMA CF is necessary with Canon CF to reliably do 35mb/s.

I've been looking at GH1 movies and I have to say the color is nice. Seems very well controlled, especially skin tones. Canon can get a little pink or go too dull at times(with Caucasians). That chip with a proper video anti-aliasing filter should be very nice in the AF100. Especially if the chip is read faster.

I wouldn't want to buy 4/3 lenses, but it doesn't sound like that will be necessary.

David Heath April 29th, 2010 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Miller
UDMA CF is necessary with Canon CF to reliably do 35mb/s.

I think you are confusing MegaBITS with MegaBYTES. The data rate of the EX is 35Mbs(bits), the Canon camera will be 50Mbs (MegaBITS/s). UDMA CF is rated up to 45 MBs (MegaBYTES/s) or no less than 360Mbs - 10x the 35Mbs data rate you refer to.

Something like Sandisk Extreme III (much cheaper) is rated to 30MBs - or 240Mbs. That's still nearly 7x the speed of the 35Mbs codec, and about 5x the speed of the 50Mbs codec (as used by the new Canon).

Now I take the figures with somewhat of a pinch of salt, and ones which need a big safety margin to be allowed. But in real world usage that speed of card is approved with the nanoFlash for the 100Mbs datarate - so about 2-2.5x seems to be an adequate safety margin.

And if the card can record 100Mbs reliably in the nanoFlash, there is no reason why it shouldn't do the same for AVC-Intra 100 in a Panasonic camera. As far as reliability goes, Compact Flash is relied upon by the vast majority of the professional digital stills photo industry. The only failures I've heard of first hand was someone who bought a very cheap, unbranded card - needless to say, he sticks to decent brands now, with no further trouble.

Don Miller April 29th, 2010 06:52 PM

The point I was trying to make was that the speed rating alone didn't matter for avoiding buffer overrun. The card needed to be UDMA.
I do wonder if more than 50 mb/s is necessary. I am curious if current CF cards can really do sustained 100 mb/s.

David Heath April 30th, 2010 02:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Miller
I am curious if current CF cards can really do sustained 100 mb/s.

Don, I don't think there's any doubt about it, and that's relatively cheap cards at that. Higher spec ones will reliably record much higher bit rates still. As far as the 35Mbs rate goes, many people are reliably recording that to pretty low spec SDHC via an adaptor in an EX.

Still not convinced? Just take a look at the relevant Convergent Design website page - Media | nanoFlash | Video Recorders and Converters . You can't just take any cheap unbranded card and hope for the best, but that reference gives a range of cards qualified by CV for given bitrates - all the way up to 280Mbs!

The nanoFlash has been in use for quite a while now - if CF usage for recording sustained 100Mbs was a problem, we'd have heard a lot about it by now.

Giuseppe Pugliese May 7th, 2010 02:19 AM

Skew!
 
I hate to be literally the only one on here who seems to bring this up but... what about SKEW!

You are all talking about size of chip, but not one word about actual function. I have a horrible feeling this is just going to be a lovely tease just like the 300 was. It will be plagued with skew. They really need to be on their game and eliminate the skew issues down to something much closer to a global shutter feel, for this camera to be taken seriously.

Why am I the only one who actually cares about the MOTION in motion pictures? How can anyway stand watching any of this footage from these DSLR's without it screaming SKEW...?

I just don't understand. And for everyone complaining about 4:2:0 color space... it has HD-SDI out... the camera is only 6k I think you can buy one of the few capture boxes out there and get your 10bit 422. But please for the love of the camera gods, push Panasonic to eliminate SKEW!

I will only buy this camera IF there are no skew issues, otherwise its in the same category to me as a DSLR, and thats just sad.

Tim Polster May 7th, 2010 08:33 AM

My guess is that it is down to pure processing power to read each pixel at the same time for every frame.

I hate skew but I think it would be addressed by now if it was an easy fix.

I agree that it seems like as much attention is paid to limiting a camera to fit in a range rather than just whooping the competition. I know this is their busines model and they need to make money, but it is frustrating as a consumer.

What bugs me about skew is that this situation conforms shooting with these cameras to a cinema type approach, ie limited camera movement. Which actually is closer to the role of the AF-100. But for the smaller chipped cameras it just does not fit. These are video cameras and video like it or not, often involves moving the camera.

I sure it wil be fixed over time.

Ethan Cooper May 7th, 2010 08:55 AM

As I understand it, skew comes down to sensor read-reset times (the time it takes to scan a line of the sensor and move on to the next) and processing horsepower. I know Panasonic has mitigated skew somewhat in their higher end cams through processing, but possibly it's been too expensive to implement in their smaller cams to this point. As most things, if you see it in the more expensive line, generally it will trickle down to the less expensive lineups eventually.

My guess is that Panny will up the read-reset times with whatever newer chip they stick in this thing. Who knows if it'll be feasible to cram the processing in there by release time.

Rick Presas May 7th, 2010 10:17 AM

We live in AMAZING times in filmmaking today. Cameras released this year will be able to do, for less than $10k, things that we never would have dreamed of just a decade ago.

The camera will most assuredly appeal to the "Pro World." even DSLR cameras out right now do.

Panasonic doesn't need to "beat RED." RED is a very small company that doesn't pose even a minute threat to Panasonics business. The companies are in totally different classes. If you want something like a red, BUY A RED.

"One perfect camera"? Give me a break. the thing doesn't exist. Has never existed. and never will exist. And the idea that it would make panasonic MORE money is laughable. Thats like saying that the Ford Motor company would make more money if it made one perfect car that could run 10 million miles. Planned Obsolescence has ALWAYS been a part of consumerism, and always will. If it wasn't people would be out of jobs.

If you don't like the camera, don't buy it. There's an OCEAN of options out there for you. That's how amazing the times are right now.

Don Miller May 7th, 2010 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ethan Cooper (Post 1524188)
As I understand it, skew comes down to sensor read-reset times (the time it takes to scan a line of the sensor and move on to the next) and processing horsepower. I know Panasonic has mitigated skew somewhat in their higher end cams through processing, but possibly it's been too expensive to implement in their smaller cams to this point. As most things, if you see it in the more expensive line, generally it will trickle down to the less expensive lineups eventually.

My guess is that Panny will up the read-reset times with whatever newer chip they stick in this thing. Who knows if it'll be feasible to cram the processing in there by release time.

In addition there's the number of channels on the sensor. It appears there are chips with about the same number of photosensors as finished resolution. So about a 2K chip. But there are also the DSLR that do some sort of aggregation to produce a smaller final image. It's possible with CMOS that this aggregation could be done on-chip.
There's going to be different technical approaches to solve these problems. It appears most videocams will switch to CMOS. With that change happening I'm sure they have ideas about limiting skew.

Manus Sweeney May 8th, 2010 04:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Giuseppe Pugliese (Post 1524129)
How can anyway stand watching any of this footage from these DSLR's without it screaming SKEW...?

that may be a little bit of an exaggeration!

personally the only time ive noticed skew in footage from my 7d is in a shot when ive accidentally kicked the tripod or whipped the camera around to reframe

Buba Kastorski May 8th, 2010 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Giuseppe Pugliese (Post 1524129)
what about SKEW!

what about it, every CMOS camera has it,
it is in nature of rolling shutter, I don't think any manufacturers any time son will be able to make CMOS imager fast enough to eliminate skew and at the same time keep the camera cost affordable;
if skew problem would be so important to me as it is to you Giuseppe, for the next couple years for sure, I'd stay with CCDs,
but i don't like crazy camera moves, and I love my DSLRs :)

John Wiley May 9th, 2010 03:29 AM

I agree that skew is not a big issue. Chances are if your footage is unusable because of skew or jello, then there is most likely an underlying problem with the footage which would make it unusable anyway (eg panning too fast, vibrations from strong winds or a moving vehicle) Personally if I ever see skew in my GH1 viewfinder I take it as a warning sign that I'm doing something wrong and need to slow down my movements or stabilise the camera.

Tim Polster May 9th, 2010 08:05 AM

Exactly my point. What if you are not filming a "movie" but shooting video? Is there then a problem with your filming if you have to pan or catch a fast moving object?

I know CMOS is a way to get things to market, but it sort of forces a cinema approach to all shooting unless you can live with diagonal verticals in certain instances.

As a side note, I was shooting in a testing machine shop with some large air compressors with an EX-1. I had a fair amount of jello on locked-down shots from the slight floor vibrations. It is not always operator error! This stuff is real and I could not use those shots.

Chris Hurd May 9th, 2010 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Giuseppe Pugliese (Post 1524129)
what about SKEW

Fewer swish-pans.

How is that not a good thing?

Dan Brockett May 9th, 2010 10:03 AM

As a fan of classic cinema, I am beginning to look at CMOS/rolling shutter skew as possibly a good thing. It forces people who have no concept of how to move a camera cinematically to do so. Cameras are not meant to be waved around like a hose, it makes the audience sick.

MTV camera movement was a reaction to visual boredom and because operators often did not have access to dollies, jibs and Steadicams. Now that you can buy a slider for $99.00 and a jib or Steadicam device for under $1,000.00 IMHO, there are few places or times when lousy camera movement is warranted.

Even the worse skewing camera can make beautiful images if the operator knows how to utilize the movement to good effect instead of just randomly shaking and moving the camera around to give a shot or composition energy. Of course, skew when the camera is not moving is not desirable but if it makes you feel better, 98% of the audience never notices it and when they do, it is still no big deal. It bothers filmmakers and videographers MUCH more than it bothers audiences. These days, it is becoming accepted, to a point, as part of the look that people use.

Dan

Tim Polster May 9th, 2010 09:33 PM

Where did anybody say they were moving their camera like a hose? This was the mantra of the HPX-300 defenders...until they actually fixed the skew a bit.

Not everybody shoots movies with their video cameras. If you shoot any kind of sports, movement or live events this is part of your world. And you do not always have the luxury and cinematic camera movement. Problem is that in a few years, CCD will be gone. So I hope somebody who is making the cameras thinks skew is bad so they eliminate it in the future.

I just don't get the "nobody will notice it" attitude that so many have with today's cameras. If somebody made a light that flickered once every 3 minutes, would you use it? Or be happy when folks told you nobody would notice it or care? Just seems like a degredation of the professional toolset to me.

Although I do expect the AF-100 to have skew, this camera is more of a cinema camera, so it should be less of an issue for use.

Erik Phairas May 9th, 2010 09:48 PM

Well i've never once saw a video posted on vimeo or youtube and thought, "wow that skew ruins the look of this". Unless they were trying to show examples of skew of course.

I have seen many videos that had that horrible CCD bright line that goes up and down the screen when a light or the sun makes it into the frame. I noticed that even before I saw people online complaining.

Skew seems to be an invisible problem to the laymen like me.

Mitja Popovski May 10th, 2010 04:49 AM

If you dont like skew, you just have to wait for 48p, 50p, 60p. But i like 25p.

Manus Sweeney May 10th, 2010 05:27 AM

i think its fair to want some improvements in the rolling shutter.. of course nobody would complain about that! but i think the main point being made by users of dslrs based on experience so far (with the canons at least - the nikons skew is certainly more of a challenge) is that if your movements are exteme enough to give you noticeable skew then perhaps the viewers are going to be more put off by the extreme camera movements before they would by the wavy verticals..

for me at least i think it would be nice if it was fixed or improved but it wouldnt be a dealbreaker of any kind as its never been an issue for me, there are of course many styles of shooting though so just speaking for myself!

Floris van Eck May 10th, 2010 06:13 AM

For filmmaking, I think it is good that people learn how to move the camera. But for a lot of situations, you just need to deal with that happens in front of you, and don't have time to think out shots. For those situations, skew is not a welcome by-effect of the CMOS sensor.

Also, I am quite bored with all the Philip Bloom clones on Vimeo. He started with those slow, timelapse shots of landscapes and people and now everyone is doing it. Maybe all those things can be labeled 'cinematic', but they are very boring to watch (some postive exceptions). I would rather watch a good story with lots of depth of field rather than al those bokeh porn movies we are being flooded with without proper stories.

Just my thoughts. I am looking forward to see what this camera can do.

Paul Cronin May 10th, 2010 07:05 AM

Floris I have the same feelings. Nothing beats a good story and they are hard to find.

Manus Sweeney May 10th, 2010 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Floris van Eck (Post 1525114)
for a lot of situations, you just need to deal with that happens in front of you, and don't have time to think out shots.

im sure youre right but it makes me really curious which kind of shots you guys mean(!).. guerilla style journalism or??

after using a dslr for a while in my opinion you really dont need super slow moving locked down tripod or cinematic shots to avoid the problem so thats why im curious..

Casey Krugman May 10th, 2010 10:17 AM

Rolling shutter skew...
 
I could see it being problematic on handheld shoots with long lenses. I mean lets say you're going for a Bourne Supremecy sort of look, they shot that on a 80-200 after all. But high movement or even purposely shaky camera work (Cloverfield, Horror or thriller in general) could result in vertical skew, making it look completely unnatural and distracting even for the non-professional audience.

I've seen skew out of red shoots, but the vertical skew never, and if you're planning on doing that type of hyper-kinetic shooting, I can imagine the problems associated.

Steve Wake June 7th, 2010 10:16 PM

Panny's Dual Exposure Sensor
 
Maybe I missed it, but did anyone connect the AG-AF100 announcement to the earlier announcement of a prototype "dual exposure" sensor by Panasonic back in February 2010? It caused a stir among folks who assumed it was for the GH2, which it may be, but since the sensor was designed to enhance VIDEO capabilities (specifically dynamic range - i.e. another "film look" requirement), when you pair the new sensor with the AG-AF100 announcement it's pretty clear where it's going.

Now if they develop a global shutter and ASICS fast enough to capture all pixel info (thus avoiding line-skipping), at the price point anticipated they will indeed have a monster.

Matthieu Robert June 9th, 2010 12:43 PM

Last news are saying the Af100 will feed the HD-SDI with 4:2:0, not 4:2:2...

The NanoFlash will be useless, and so is the SDI output.

I hope it's a mistake. If it's not, I don't think Panasonic will sell a lot.

Jad Meouchy June 12th, 2010 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Casey Krugman (Post 1525223)
But high movement or even purposely shaky camera work (Cloverfield, Horror or thriller in general) could result in vertical skew, making it look completely unnatural and distracting even for the non-professional audience.

vertical skew is called 'wobble' and it's a huge problem with consumer-grade cmos cameras

Frank Brodkorb June 21st, 2010 09:08 AM

Panasonic reveals more details of AG-AF100
 
Panasonic reveals more details of AG-AF100

hmmm... sounds promising.

Panasonic reveals more details of AG-AF100 Frank Glencairn

Jonathan Shaw June 22nd, 2010 03:25 AM

Definitely.... looks like it could be a great cam

Bill Koehler June 22nd, 2010 09:54 AM

More info in a marketing brochure from Panasonic.
It mentions that it takes SDXC cards, for instance.

http://mirror.dpreview.com.s3.amazon...m/AG-AF100.pdf


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:55 PM.

DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2024 The Digital Video Information Network