Re: Alan Roberts BBC report on the AF101
 

The 7D suffers from rainbow moire, which the 101 doesn't.

Re: Alan Roberts BBC report on the AF101
 

"Forget the resolution numbers, the AF101 clearly suffers from horrendous aliasing issues..."

Simon I think that's a little strong. It's certainly an improvement over the Canon DSLRs. I'm one of those that agree with you from a professional point of view, but from the perspective of you get what you pay for. Despite Alan's write-off of the 5D MKII for example (which I would never argue with his expertise and agree with) it has been used on BBC drama and situation comedy, I have seen it broadcast I can notice a slight softness but it was perfectly acceptable. I think as always the proof will be in the pudding with actual programme/filmaking examples.

Like I say professionals will use this cam on some interesting projects to a certain extent and then pass to the new craze and it will get broadcast whatever the reservations. It is just for me that there should be no surprises and whilst I have the utmost respect for Jan and Barry Green I have always taken some of their claims (or silences) in perspective as is the same for any other party close to a manufacturer (no offence meant and I will not comment further on that). All these kind of cameras are aimed at an extremely lucrative market probably much more so than broadcast sales: that of the independent no or low budget prosummer, not to say that they are not used by higher end professional and casting absolutely no aspersions on any one here. They are what they are.

What is interesting however from Alan's document is the mystery of exactly how this camera downconverts its megapixel cmos chip to 1920 x 1080. An effective OLPF is quite a cheap item to implement relatively and it maybe suggests that the AF101 does not indeed have one (or an electronic implementation), achieving its image through AD and DSP processing. There is no requirement as in a DSLR to compromise between still megapixel and video HD formats and so this makes it doubly strange, but we may never know. Maybe firmware can be brought to improve this situation or maybe an OLPF solution can be updated or modified to it. Who knows? I just don't think it's worth getting either too defensive or too judgmental when we know that whatever is said about it can be so much for the price. I think it's trying very hard and has some great features that people are asking for.

Re: Alan Roberts BBC report on the AF101
 

It isn't strong at all. The zone plate that Alan showed clearly shows almost entirely aliasing from around halfway out. That is not a good result at all, and is fully worthy of the word "horrendous".

Yes true, but the point I have been stating over and over is that the camera isn't what Panasonic are claiming it is. By all means sell it as a 720p camera (even though it can't even meet that resolution), but to claim it is a full 1080p camera is false on all fronts. I don't care if projected film at the cinema is only effectively equivalent of 800 lines (is it the same for digital projection? I doubt it), the fact is that these days cameras like the EX series reproduce around 1000TVL with virtually no aliasing issues.

There are always going to be problems using a single chip design, but with the 101 it is actually completely baffling how such poor performance is being achieved. By all rights, given the numbers involved it should be capable of making a really good resolution. But it doesn't, and to be totally honest I don't think it has anything at all to do with it being a lower budget camera.

If that is indirectly aimed at me, no offense taken, butI can assure you that while a few years ago I used to be in close contact with Sony, I never gave any concessions to them (witness the issue with the V1 that I found). I am and always have been totally independent with no bias either way. I have always said things as I have found them, which is why a lot of people don't like it when I speak out.

I agree with David Heath's analysis which suggests that the camera is upconverting, not downconverting, and makes much more sense.

Re: Alan Roberts BBC report on the AF101
 

If that is indirectly aimed at me, no offense taken, butI can assure you that while a few years ago I used to be in close contact with Sony

Not at all Simon! I was not even aware of any association you had. I don't agree it is 'horrendous'. A mobile phone image is usually 'horrendous' to me, so it's probably just question of our relative superlatives.

I agree with David Heath's analysis which suggests that the camera is upconverting, not downconverting, and makes much more sense.

I note that Alan Roberts says definitely not, I don't know but can it be fixed that is the question, whatever it's doing?

the fact is that these days cameras like the EX series reproduce around 1000TVL with virtually no aliasing issues.


I think resolution is made into far too the major issue sometimes. I think there are many many other considerations. If I have a say, I personally would rather use our much maligned HPX500 anyday than an EX1, that is not to say that the image from the EX1 is not much sharper it is but the use of broadcast 2/3" lenses and the look is one I prefer. However I totally agree with your implication that video cameras with roughly matched chip rasters to their formats are far more suitable and ussually produce a much sharper and alias free image. It's about physics obviously and again personally I don't care for and am not looking for shallow depth of field.

Off topic: Can anyone tell me how to quote rather than reply from the last post?

Re: Alan Roberts BBC report on the AF101
 

John,

On the Quotes question I don't think you can do this anymore. Chris disabled it for the very last post in a thread as there was a run of lots of threads with needless, boring repetition/quoting a while back I think - I'm not a Mod on here so this is just my hunch. We've all seen forums where excessive re-quoting becomes very tedious/destroys the discussion! The last but one post and above retain the Quote button.

However, I agree in your reply to Simon it might have been very useful/easier (not tedious at all) - but the way you've written your post is just fine.

OK, back to this interesting technical/marketing/product positioning etc. discussion!

Re: Alan Roberts BBC report on the AF101
 

Thanks Andy, my missus has the same philosphy as Chris when I talk sometimes, so I can see the logic. :)

Re: Alan Roberts BBC report on the AF101
 

"I personally would rather use our much maligned HPX500 anyday than an EX1"

This is at the root of this discussion for me. When I bought my 500 ($30,000 with 16x9 finder and accessories) in 2007 I was assured it was a "future-proof" investment. I didn't think it was, and sure enough it's already not good enough.

I considered a 3100, but I'm a 60+ year old independent filmmaker, I don't "provide production services", rent stuff out, or sell my soul making corporate films, so I'm not spending that kind of money again.

So, I spring for an AF100. Lenses and accessories bought, money paid, haven't even received the camera yet (due later this week) and it is already considered not as good as the 500 I'm replacing.

You do get what you pay for, and you get it in the a__...

Re: Alan Roberts BBC report on the AF101
 

The old axiom; Buyer Beware applies to all purchases. That is why it is important for everyone to make sound "business" purchases. Not just based on resolution charts. While I'm selling my soul doing "corporate videos", I get to feed my family. I would rather produce,shoot, and edit productions for my clients that they accept and sometimes even like at a "reasonable" budget. I would trade shooting on a $5,000 camera for getting paid a good salary any day. Is that selling out? I know there a scores of people who would love to be in my position. I don't plan to ever to it for granted. Even if it means selling out a few lines of resolution.

I have yet to have any clients compare the final results of any of my productions to a resolution chart. :)

It's about the content, not the camera!!!

BTW, for those who want to shoot for the BBC, then go to a rental house and rent the appropriate camera. As a producer, you can write off the rental as an expense on your taxes.

Cheers.

Re: Alan Roberts BBC report on the AF101
 

"BTW, for those who want to shoot for the BBC, then go to a rental house and rent the appropriate camera."

I love comments like this. My last three films took about two and a half years apiece to shoot. You figure it out.

And I'm not denigrating people who make corporates, or shoot weddings for that matter. I, too, need to make a living - in fact have been doing so for over 40 years.

But I've paid my dues, and prefer the freedom of making my own films and owning my own equipment.

The AF100 was my choice this year, and I will live with it. But it is disappointing to read reports like this because other people read them too - like broadcasters and national funding organizations, and finishing fund grantors - and those are my "clients".

Re: Alan Roberts BBC report on the AF101
 

Here's some more comment on the AF 100

ProVideo Coalition.com: Stunning Good Looks by Art Adams

It basically sums up as the camera they personally would use instead of shooting with a DSLR - which is a pretty big market for Panasonic.

Re: Alan Roberts BBC report on the AF101
 

Steve,

I'm glad I don't have your clients or the BBC for that matter. Fortunately for me, all I have to do is please NASA.

Good luck.

Re: Alan Roberts BBC report on the AF101
 

I just purchased the af101 a couple of weeks back to use as a B camera to my PDW-700. Often I get a day to spend around cities like Hong Kong or Shanghai gathering footage, and I want to have something smaller to lug around. I have to say that some of the footage I recently shot in Singapore (I have a link to a video clip with some of the footage in an earlier thread) cuts in really nicely with the footage from my PDW-700 - which is judged as a top of the range 2/3 broadcast camera.

Basically, I am really happy with the picture from the camera - and it is so portable and a joy to use as well - I actually enjoy using it much more than my 700 - allbeit aside from the viewfinder. I really believe the camera produces lovely images - and clients never know what something has been shot on - they just want great images and represents what they want in the best light.

Sparky

www.sparkymedia.net

Re: Alan Roberts BBC report on the AF101
 

It is possible. We just don't broadcast it. The trick is to use the multi-quote button
(the little " icon at the bottom right of any post), and then hit the reply button. Viola,
the last post is quoted... although it gets annoying if not used properly (but I know
you will use it properly, as you've already demonstrated). Hope this helps,

Re: Alan Roberts BBC report on the AF101
 

Thanks Chris I'll try not to abuse it if I can work it out :)

I do some of those things Steve as well as the other and I can't spend that kind of money in this climate. I had a great setup with SD, top of the line DVcam cameras decks, Avid/DigiBeta mastering, I just can't transition fully at that level into HD but I have to hang in there somehow for work. It's my fault because I'm in Spain not London where I worked for 20 years in broadcast but that is the reality. I wouldn't worry, I'm sure you're one of those that will make great stuff with the AF101 and I still love the HPX500. Similarly, I recently did a job in a far flung and potentially dangerous place and I did a lot of testing of DSLRs, NXCam newer stuff against my HD101. The JVC still comes out top in terms of picture quality and resolution but the glamour has well and truly worn off, it doesn't impress (these kind of) clients anymore, they want shallow DOF and new new new toys. I still use it for my own projects because I love the look, have developed a thorough workflow and it trucks on.

"BTW, for those who want to shoot for the BBC, then go to a rental house and rent the appropriate camera."

I love comments like this. My last three films took about two and a half years apiece to shoot. You figure it out.

I agree with Steve, David. It's doesn't work that way anyway, the camera/operator is hired by the production and they usually have to have their own gear. You can lose jobs faffing around hiring cameras and if your not familiar with them or they're not set-up right it's a hard ground to hit running.

I'm pleased you are making a good living doing corporates and it must be fantastic doing stuff for NASA, I am very envious, but I think we should not make defensive comments about other's work, we're all in this together. The point I was making wasn't one of "this is not a top of the line BBC camera therefore it's to be dismissed" I was just commenting that you get what you pay for, we have to be realistic; $6000 cams will never be as good as $30,000 cams, no matter how they big it up and that was the context of Alan's test. But it's a great tool, with some great ideas on it and I know guys like you will make it work and pay.

Aside from the picture quality discussion, the only thing I wish they would provide for a lot of these cameras (like the XF305, EXs and now AF101) standard IDX/Anton Bauer battery kits from the get go.

Re: Alan Roberts BBC report on the AF101
 

What we DO know about the forthcoming camera is that it will have the sensor of the F3, and be comparable in price to the AF101. For technical reasons, it's highly likely that much of the fundamental processing will also be similar to the F3, and it must be realistic to hope that in the most key respects it will have many of the best points of the F3.

Fundamentally, the F3 sensor uses an optimum photosite count for 1080p video - somewhere around 3-4 megapixel. The AF101 uses a sensor with many, many more - too many for reading them all at frame rate to be practicable in a camera at this price. We were told it got good results by "using a new, clever form of processing" - with no further elaboration. The results seem to show it's about what you'd expect from very basic processing, and I suspect it may be exactly the same as the GH2 uses. It would certainly be extremely interesting to see the 101 and the GH2 compared on the same zone plate.....

I also agree with comments about the 101 versus some Canon DSLRs. (Which are, after all, first and foremost still cameras.) Yes, it's better, no question. But it's not as good as we were led to believe by a big margin, and if the fundamental front end sensor and processing is the same as a GH2, why does it cost so many times more?

For anyone considering a purchase, the issue is far less how good or bad the 101 is in absolute terms, but if the NXCAM gives better results for the same money, why even consider the 101? And with many more details on the NXCAM due on the 23rd, waiting a few more days makes a great deal of sense.

Re: Alan Roberts BBC report on the AF101
 

Seems like the Sony F3 is also coming up with aliasing on zone plates so the FS100 may not be any better than the AF100

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/sony-xdc...irst-look.html

I'm more than happy with my AF102 - it produces more than acceptable pictures for it's price but it would be nice if Panasonic (& all other camera companies) would be more up front with the tech specs of their products.

Re: Alan Roberts BBC report on the AF101
 

Okay guys, this is just my opinion,

You guys are missing my point. Maybe things work differently in different markets. Before i was out here at JSC, I was a Producer/Director for two commercial production houses. For the most part,,,Nobody here owns their own 35mm or 16mm cameras, or even broadcast HD cameras. There are some great rental houses here in Texas, (some advertise on this very forum.) They provide great options. Here in Houston, most of the freelance camera ops and DPs don't own their own gear and have great relations with Producers and rental houses. If I were freelance I would not buy a camera over $8k. If anything because there are too many video formats out there to support. In fact, for certain budgets I would rent an AF100 from a rental house because they can customize a package, with the lenses and accessories i need.And, I can write off the expense from my taxes... as an expense. All I'm saying is there are options....

I feel for you guys pain,,,,but with all due respect....like i said....in the end....it is a "business decision" ...not a resolution chart decision.

Not being defensive,,,soul selling or not,,,,it is all about the money. No bucks,,,,no Buck Rogers.

The AF100 can be a great business decision and make very pretty pictures. And Alan Roberts has no bearing on that ...unless you let it be.

PEACE

Re: Alan Roberts BBC report on the AF101
 

I'm always on the lookout for compelling posts which really nail it
the right way, because they serve as perfect concluding statements
for threads which otherwise seem to go around in circles. David's
reply above suits that purpose perfectly. It underscores a crucial
fact that I've been trying to get across since I started this site ten
years ago, and that is: it's not about numbers. It's *never* about
numbers. Stop thinking in terms of pixels and lines, and try to start
thinking instead in terms of practical applications. Thanks all,