|
|||||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
March 12th, 2011, 04:28 PM | #16 | |||
Inner Circle
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,699
|
Re: Alan Roberts BBC report on the AF101
Quote:
At the time, the explanation suggested by me was: Quote:
In the report, Alan says (p9): Quote:
G R G R B G B G G R G R B G B G R, G, B binning such a block will give equal red, green, blue resolutions, each at a resolution one quarter that of the total no of photosites in each direction, and no differential colour aliasing. Exactly what the test results show. It's the absence of colour aliasing that Alan uses to discount pixel-skipping - ("It is very obvious that the scaling has not ignored (skipped) sensor pixels, since that would have invoked coloured aliasing, both horizontally and vertically.") Alans argument ENHANCES the theory in favour of pixel-BINNING, whilst showing there is no pixel-SKIPPING. But I'm open to alternative theories? |
|||
March 12th, 2011, 05:07 PM | #17 | |
Space Hipster
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 1,596
|
Re: Alan Roberts BBC report on the AF101
Quote:
Ever seen the opening segment of the 2010 Emmy Awards TV show? The Emmys was shown in prime time on a major network, watched by over 13 million viewers. The producers could have picked any camera for the opening comedy skit, and they chose - the XF305. It's been cleared for FULL acquisition for the BBC. The BBC bought 50 XF305s for themselves. Talk about putting your money where your mouth is. The AF101 was put through the same tests that all the other cameras go through. No biases, no favoritism. It did what it did. |
|
March 12th, 2011, 06:35 PM | #18 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Spain
Posts: 73
|
Re: Alan Roberts BBC report on the AF101
It's been cleared for FULL acquisition for the BBC. The BBC bought 50 XF305s for themselves. Talk about putting your money where your mouth is.
For the very uses I have outlined (do you know how many cameras they have in total at the BBC?). Look believe me and I don't mean to burst your bubble Glen (politely I mean) when I say to you no serious cameraman that I know is going to dump his 2/3" camera and only use an XF305 from now on, he'll lose a lot of broadcast work. It does not matter where it was used they will not replace studio and major programme use cameras for the BBC or ITV or SKY in the UK (I can't speak for the US). If you don't believe me take it up with the BBC and ask them what they mean by FULL(or Alan) not me that's not my purpose here, only to comment on the reasons behind approval testing from my own understanding of working in UK broadcast. E.g last month an Independent company producing a well known property series for the BBC asked me here in Spain to shoot with HDCAM for main and yet they had brought 2 XF305s, presumably they or I could of used those, but they were insistent. Like I said talented professionals will use all these cameras at one time maybe and we'll see, I'm sure some great things. I don't really want to get into any arguments here. :) |
March 12th, 2011, 07:07 PM | #19 |
Space Hipster
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 1,596
|
Re: Alan Roberts BBC report on the AF101
My bubble isn't burst. As a matter of fact, I did sell my 2/3" cam for the XF305. And I am a professional cameraman (kinda serious). And I still get work. You're gonna have to trust me on that. :-)
Sure, I would rather have the new HPX3100. But for the money, the XF305 is a great little cam. I did look at the AF100 before I bought the XF. I really liked the AF, it had a lot of nice features, and fitted with a PL mount, it was sweet! However, for my needs, the XF fit better. I don't know why some of you are dissin' on the XF305, but it is a really nice cam. |
March 13th, 2011, 02:32 AM | #20 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Belfast, UK
Posts: 6,152
|
Re: Alan Roberts BBC report on the AF101
I think there are going to be a few cameras in this price bracket later in the year, some of which will meet full broadcast HD spec, while others won't. The choice will range from 1/3", 1/2", 2/3" to S35, with standard video type or RAW workflows depending on the manufacturer. The right camera being the one that works best on the type of productions you're shooting.
That's quite a range of choices and not everyone actaully needs a camera that meets the broadcasters' full HD requirements. |
March 13th, 2011, 06:34 AM | #21 | |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Spain
Posts: 73
|
Re: Alan Roberts BBC report on the AF101
Quote:
I am not dissing the XF305 for sure. It is the best camera in that form factor bar none and the picture/lens/codec quality seems to be excellent even compared to much more expensive cameras, though I have to be honest I have not personally used one. Let me say categorically as well infact I truly hope that the XF305 becomes widely accepted because I'm finding it finacially painful to keep up. But as you say you would rather have the HPX3100 and I am sure you would concede it is a much better camera, recognized as such by major broadcasters. I don't write any rules either I just have to follow them sometimes. |
|
March 13th, 2011, 07:21 AM | #22 | |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,699
|
Re: Alan Roberts BBC report on the AF101
Quote:
And the real point is that the 101 is up against other cameras of comparable price, which do meet the spec. (Albeit if needing a nanoFlash in some cases.) Even if you don't actually need the approval, it's still a good marketing point - "I use equipment which is fully approved to latest broadcast spec". |
|
March 13th, 2011, 07:42 AM | #23 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Belfast, UK
Posts: 6,152
|
Re: Alan Roberts BBC report on the AF101
Although, for some people it could come down to a shallow DOF driving the purchase, rather than other factors.
|
March 13th, 2011, 10:16 AM | #24 |
Major Player
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Monterey, California
Posts: 895
|
Re: Alan Roberts BBC report on the AF101
I've had an AF100 on order since December, but have been putting off delivery. Every day there is another nail in the AF coffin.
It seems that Mr Roberts was truly disappointed with the outcome of his tests.. I think, from the tone of his comments, that he really wanted it to perform better than it did. In my case, I do make documentaries intended for broadcast. My trusty HPX500 is now considered obsolete (although I still like the picture personally). As an independent documentary filmmaker, I refuse to spend another 20+ grand on a 3100. So, I've invested in having Leica-R lenses Cine-Moded, bought Cineroid finder, and even acquired a Zuiko lens - all in anticipation of getting the AF100 for my next project, which starts in April. If these tests were better, I'd even consider a Nano. But, all in all, the Canon looks like a better choice. I'd be happy if someone could convince me otherwise. |
March 13th, 2011, 10:57 AM | #25 |
Major Player
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Houston
Posts: 789
|
Re: Alan Roberts BBC report on the AF101
I'm pretty sure Panasonic has been very clear about where this camera falls in the marketplace. It has better ergonomics and fewer issues for moire and such than DSLRs shooting HD.If you don;t like shooting with a DSLr then the AF100 is a very good option for you. Personally I think it is a little stupid for everyone to consider the BBC to be the judge and jury on what camera one should use for documentary production since very few of us will actually have something air on the BBC. If you are in fact shooting for the BBC
then shoot 2/3 broadcast. Okay. Have fun debating while I go to work tomorrow and shoot more footage on our AF 100. And don't forget to clean off the smudge marks from your computer screens from your noses being too close. :)
__________________
David Parks: DP/Editor: Jacobs Aerospace at NASA Johnson Space Center https://www.youtube.com/user/JacobsESCG |
March 13th, 2011, 11:27 AM | #26 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Belfast, UK
Posts: 6,152
|
Re: Alan Roberts BBC report on the AF101
Perhaps it's best to wait for the BBC to decide, which probably be a marker for Nat Geo, Discovery Gold HD etc. If your market isn't one of those high end HD broadcasters, the AF100 could be a possible camera for you.
The EX series into Nanoflash and the Canon are non 2/3" options if you do. |
March 13th, 2011, 11:28 AM | #27 | |
Trustee
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Malvern UK
Posts: 1,931
|
Re: Alan Roberts BBC report on the AF101
Quote:
What I'd like to see is some transparency. If Panasonic were open about what the camera is doing instead of going about it with cloak and daggers there wouldn't be a problem. But they do, and they try to sell it as a 1080p camera that solves all the issues of aliasing etc that the DSLRs suffer from, when in reality it does absolutely nothing of the sort. |
|
March 13th, 2011, 12:57 PM | #28 |
Major Player
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 975
|
Re: Alan Roberts BBC report on the AF101
Simon without knowing the circumstances around your findings, I am willing to give Jan Crittenden the benefit of the doubt until she responds.
I think you have to put this in the context of the whole development of the AF-100/101. Jan had put herself out there unlike any product manager to date in the development of the camera. The user input on the camera was unparalleled. She stated the criteria for the camera was to give the best camera they could for the target price which turned out to be 6 grand USD. They responded with changes to the camera from the user input on forums like this and others, the camera was released to great fanfare and the momentum for the camera took off and the momentum was largely user/forum based. The expectation for the camera was huge. Everyone thought they were getting away with the farm. Now people are finding out the camera is now not like the $20,000 that they had hoped but a $6000 camera. I feel a lot of sympathy for the AF owners right now. It is like they have been kicked in the gut and it's not pretty but it has to be put in perspective. Granted if Jan has made a claim about a chart on a public forum she should in the light of this report put up the chart and quell the anger. She's banked a lot of karma, I would give her some time. There is probably a lot of corporate fallout from this and she is answerable to more than just herself. |
March 13th, 2011, 01:47 PM | #29 | |||
Trustee
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Malvern UK
Posts: 1,931
|
Re: Alan Roberts BBC report on the AF101
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
March 13th, 2011, 03:09 PM | #30 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,699
|
Re: Alan Roberts BBC report on the AF101
I commented on this at the time - as far back as early Feb. ( http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/panasoni...ml#post1614658 - also post #58 in that thread)
I now feel even more certain of what happened in the case of a lot of people. Cameras were pointed at charts with only horizontal and vertical lines, a response was seen at the 800 line blocks and the conclusion drawn "oh good - it's resolving 800 lines". A reasonable assumption to make - but unfortunately completely wrong, as we now know. What they were seeing was aliasing. That's why I went on to say that these sort of assessments need to be done with a zone plate (as Alan used) or at very least a circular res chart with bands (as Simons examples). With such, it's impossible to mistake real detail and aliases - the alias circles have a false centre. Unfortunately, the high levels of aliasing in this camera made the mistake even more difficult to spot. I suspect Panasonic may be putting in an order for zone plates to replace their old charts to prevent a repeat embarrassment! |
| ||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|