Ha! ...Yes I drank the Panasonic AVCHD Kool-Aid when I bought my first HMC-150 eighteen months ago, and I expect this new camera to be my favorite piece of gear for 2011.

Hmmm. I think Sony has equally proven comparable technology in their consumer still cameras, and surely AVC-HD has been one of the most criticised elements of the AF101 design? Many people have said why couldn't they have AVC-Intra 100 or XDCAM 422 50Mbs?

If Sony do bring a similar product to market, I hope it will have at least 35Mbs XDCAM as the codec (ideally 50Mbs) - not AVC-HD.

Guy,

I fully back what you are saying about the AF100. In your position the AF100 makes complete sense for all the obvious reasons, not the least of which is the matching or close to matching colour space you will have between cameras since you already own a Panasonic cam.

My hunch is the "35mm" camera will be around 15 grand US, street price that is, and maybe lower particularly if they leave it as an XDCAM EX camera. They might opt to sell "the brick" without a sizable viewfinder below 10 grand, who knows. The competition right now is fierce with not only in units to be sold but also mindshare. Panasonic has such a compelling product that people could jump ship. Everything will depend, in my view, on how well Sony handles this in the next few months. Their first window to navigate is the next 4 to 6 weeks by stemming some of the tide shift that is going on with the AF100 and the second window will be post Christmas CES and then lead up to NAB.

If Sony doesn't pull themselves out of their corporate shell and engage in the guerilla style internet marketing that Panasonic has done they are in big trouble.

As a +20 year veteran in the advertising world, I am very impressed with Panasonic's prowess in generating user enthusiasm over this new product. Jan Crittenden is to be commended. Who BTW has been nothing but gracious in a competitive manner towards Sony. I have not seen one cheap shot come from Panasonic's bow towards Sony and I have been watching this unfold very carefully.

Like I said in a previous post, I hope Sony is taking copious notes on this as they are being seriously schooled on this right now.

The one thing I disagree with is the "throwing together" of the 35mm "behind the glass" camera for NAB. I would have thought that earlier and did in fact but it was explained to me the process that the big video camera manufacturers go through in making a camera and that camera, according to this process was at the mockup stage that Sony or Panasonic for that matter would have about 6 to 8 months before the production version of the camera is finalized. It is commnplace to have prototypes like this with port holes covered up with tape and so on.

If Sony is true on their word that this camera will be released in EARLY 2011 then we should seen a near finished prototype at this late November press meeting that has been rumoured about recently.

Many people have seen lots of bad AVCHD and assume that all implementations of AVCHD are the same, which is completely false. This is why I alway ask if people have worked with native AVCHD files shot with the Panasonic HMC-150, which from my experience is probably the best example of good AVCHD encoding.

...And Panasonic ( or at least their reps ) have explained why:

AVC-Intra 100 : Too expensive for the $5K price point, but you can use the Panasonic AG-HPG20 ( or another high bit-rate recorder ) to record AVC-Intra 100 from the 4:2:2 uncompressed HD-SDI output. I expect to see some enterprising company create a "bolt-on" high bit-rate recorder for the AF-100. ( the side handle comes off leaving 3 mounting bolts, so why not add a bolt-on recorder )

If you've checked Barry Green's comparison between 21 Mbit Panasonic AVCHD and 35-Mbit Sony XDCAM-EX, you can see that AVCHD holds up better than XDCAM-EX, even when XDCAM-EX has a big bandwidth advantage :

XDCAM-EX vs. AVCCAM

Crews.tv posted a great article comparing video shot with the AF-100 preproduction camera that was simutaneously recorded as both AVCHD 24 Mbit and AVC-Intra 100 Mbit, and even posted full resolution uncompressed screen grabs to illustrate that visually AVCHD 24 Mbit comes very close to looking like AVC-Intra 100 Mbit. ( the Crews.Tv guys claimed that nobody could pick out which was which when looking at the footage at their editing station )

Comparing the uncompressed images, you can see for yourself how good the AVCHD CODEC is for low-motion video. I expect to see a much bigger difference once high-motion images are introduced, but for regular video work AVCHD is great.

Crews.Tv Comparison of AVCHD and AVC-Intra

The Panasonic implementation of the AVCHD CODEC is one reason why I think the AF-100 camera is going to surprise many people once they get to see native footage shot with the camera. ( it won't be crappy consumer AVCHD any more )

I've always like the Panasonic color "mojo" which looks more like film to me than their competitors cameras. ( I come from a 10+ year advertising photography background, so color is a big deal to me )

This would be a very big problem for RED unless they are prepared to be price competitive with Sony.

Sony ( and Canon ) is such a conservative company, I have big doubts that the upper management is ready to adapt to a new internet savvy marketing model.

Jan believes in her own product, and has never slagged any competitor. She almost seems to epitomize the "slow and steady wins the race" no matter what form of craziness is running loose on the web.

It just seemed like such an odd coincidence that this vague Sony camera prototype just happened to show up mid way through NAB. If this was not the case, then I would have expected Sony to clearly explain what they plan on doing with this camera, the way Panasonic did at NAB. It always seemed like the Sony reps were making it up as they went along, with no clear idea of what this new camera was supposed to be or what market they were targeting with it. Just the fact that the price is still so vague today, seems very bizarre to me.

Sony should clear up the rumors and plainly state what this camera will do, who this camera is for, and what it will cost. This is the same type of baloney that Canon dishes out, that does nothing to build confidence or hype in their new product. ( they should take a page from Panasonic and make their stand )

Agree with everything Guy including the clumsiness of Sony's press conference at NAB on this upcoming camera.

Imagine being in a tightly controlled Corporate environment where you can be fired on a moment's notice for not being "on message" and Sony execs find out at NAB that they are being trounced by their primary competitor at the most prestigious tradeshow of it's kind in the World. They have to do something but their corporate culture and fear of getting off message is preventing them from coming out swinging. I think that is close to what happened.

This time the landscape is different. It isn't a matter of incrementally raising the bar and making sure they don't cannibalize their higher end stuff. Things have got so mixed up with their paradigm of incrementally releasing new features with the way Panasonic has delivered so many goods on this new camera.

What hasn't really settled in here or with the general Sony camera user is that the version of the AVC codec and bitrate that Panasonic is using yields as good and in some instances a better result that XDCAM even with heavy movement in the image. It's all in the I,B and P frame cadence, as you know, but knowledge of this isn't widespread yet. Yet. BTW I am a Sony user.

I generally like Sony products and admire what Sony created with both the PD-150 and EX-1 cameras when they were first introduced. ( both are fantastic cameras for the respective times )

...What got me to switch over to Panasonic was the DVX-100, which while limited by the DV25 format, still produced such beautiful color when properly tweaked. The documentary "Iraq in Fragments" winning "Best Cinematography" at Sundance 2006 is a testament to the DVX-100 camera and the color it records.

Upgrading to the HMC-150 and working with the AVCHD files it creates, made me realize that AVCHD is a damn good CODEC when properly implemented, but few people have seen this type of high quality AVCHD footage, so this CODEC gets slagged all the time.

Yes, my experiences are with HMC151 files, and I was somewhat disappointed with the results, at least in 1080 mode. It seems quite good for motion - but gives noticeable static artifacting around sharp edges, at least on a full 1080 plasma. The artifact patterning seems to twinkle at the GOP rate (about twice per second) which makes it pretty clear that it is a codec issue. Maybe it's less obvious on a camera that's not quite as noisy as the HMC151?
I remain unconvinced by the explanation. Canon have put a fully approved broadacast codec into their far cheaper XF100, and still using cheap memory - why can't Panasonic do it? AVC-Intra 100 may have too high a bit rate for SDHC - but be fine for SDXC. An AVC-Intra coder chip shouldn't cost any more than AVC-HD, so the only penalty should be the enforced use of SDXC.
IIRC, Barrys results were comparing motion handling, which is only one aspect of the "goodness" of a codec. I don't believe he ever compared them with areas of high levels of static detail. Based on what I've seen with HMC151 files, I suspect that would have lead to different conclusions about that aspect.
There is a huge problem with that article, which I've already commented on in the thread about it. Namely that you are not comparing the AVC-HD footage with uncompressed - you're comparing it with AVC-Intra 100. As said before: "Both AVC-Intra and AVC-HD are (unsurprisingly!) based on AVC - and it is highly likely that for STILL images they will therefore each take a similar approach to how they compress. In other words, slight differences between them only tell you how they differ - not how good OVERALL either of them is.The difference map approach is far more revealing when the tested codec is being compared directly with uncompressed.

I could just be dreaming up a non-issue here but feel it's worth discussing... it seems an odd decision for Sony to have designed a body with a native PL-mount (as seems to be suggested on the CVP product page).

(IIRC) PL has a flange distance of 52mm while Nikon and Canon have 46.5mm and 44mm respectively. This means all those stills lenses will be forced to function like macros and all lens distance markings will be thrown way-off, not forgetting the inability to focus at infinity! Don't know about the rest of you but I'm in no position to even consider replacing my crate-load of Nikons with PL equivalents!

I really hope the native mount turns out to be something much shorter (maybe like the EX3 at around 28.9mm, or even E-mount at 18mm) so that there is far more choice for lens(+adapter) options - seems a no-brainer to me, just hope Sony engineers have thought the same way. Alternatively, perhaps Sony has another model in their pocket that will sit somewhere between this and the VG10. Hmmm... so many questions!

Sony need to clarify these basic details soon, or at least make some sort of pre-announcement ahead of the late-November press event. The internet rumor-mill left un-checked can quickly damage perceptions if there is too much fog hanging around new products. Sony should recognize that there is a big difference between "creating a buzz" to feed the followers and "creating a fuzz" that feeds the doubters. I'd say that we're still very firmly in the "fuzz" phase!

I've not experienced the artifacting that you are describing. Some people are disappointed by the resolving power of the HMC-150 imagers which are not full 1080P, but rather something closer to 720P. ( Barry Green posted about this, if I remember correctly it's something like 1440 x 810 pixels ) I knew that it wasn't a full-raster camera when I bought it, so this did not bother me.

The Canon camera you are referring to is NOT a large sensor camera, and it is NOT a camera with an interchangeable lens mount, thus you are comparing apples and oranges. Completely different cameras.

Currently there is no other prosumer large sensor video camera, and I expect the AF-100 will keep this market to itself for the next 6-12 months.

If you had actually taken the time to properly read Barry's article you would realize that Barry stated that the AVCHD and XDCAM-EX CODECs performed the same for low-motion subjects, but that the AVCHD CODEC was a "significantly superior" when the more difficult high motion subjects were filmed. Here's a quote from the article:

"So -- conclusions? Easy -- AVCCAM's 21mbps PH mode is a clearly superior codec over XDCAM EX. No question, no argument, no doubt. While XDCAM kept up with AVCCAM in almost all the testing, it took nearly 70% more space to do it. And then there were the codec-stress times when AVCCAM was just significantly superior. Any way you slice it, the recorded image of the AVCCAM was as good or better"

This issue is not about how good the CODEC is compared to uncompressed raw footage, the issue is about Panasonic's choice of using the AVCHD CODEC when some people think that other CODECs might have been a better choice. Which is why I posted the link to Barry Green's article that demonstrated that the Panasonic 21 Mb implementation of the AVCHD CODEC is "significantly superior" to Sony's 35 Mb XDCAM EX CODEC. Lots of people like the Sony XDCAM EX CODEC, so they should love an even better quality Panasonic AVCHD CODEC.

I would be curious to see a direct comparison between the Canon 50 Mbit 4:2:2 CODEC and the Panasonic AVCHD CODEC, as I have a feeling that the AVCHD wouldn't be that bad. ( 4:2:2 color space will always beat out 4:2:0, but the actual image might be comparable )

The theory is well defined on this, and mathematically very similar to Bayer theory. Pixel shift will give a luminance resolution improvement of up to 1.5X on the native sensor OVERALL. When H&V pixel shift are used together (as in the 150) that means you get a factor of sq rt 1.5 overall - about 1.2x on each axis. So expect 1.2x(960x540), or about 1150x650.

This matches well with what is observed in practice - no observable resolution change when switching between 720 and 1080 recording modes.

1440x810 is what can be expected from a 1 megapixel sensor in the arrangement used in cameras like the Z7, the layout arranged to equalise res in H and V axes.
No - the Canon is not a large sensor camera, and I never said it was. I only said that Canon have proved that it is possible to get a fully broadcast approved codec into a camera at a pretty cheap price. No mention of sensor. Putting the same or comparable codec into the AF101 in lieu of AVC-HD shouldn't add much to the price in technical terms. Marketing's a different matter.

I suspect the confusion becomes because to Panasonic "fully broadcast approved" now means AVC-Intra 100, and at the time the camera was under development that meant P2 to handle the data rate. Nowadays, SDXC can handle 100Mbs comfortably.

The only other thing I'll say on codecs is that the EBU did highly extensive testing on acquisition codecs not long ago at a very scientific level. They gave XDCAM 422 50Mbs and AVC-Intra 100 full approval. Those two codecs are fully approved - AVC-HD isn't.

Well, except for the Sony NEX VG-10 that is. It is not nearly as professional as the AF 100 is cracked
out to be, but I WOULD call it a 'prosumer large sensor video camera' but that's just my opinion.

And as far as opinions go, I have yet to see the CAMERA that shoots AVCCAM that looks nearly
as good as the video from the EX-1 or 3. Again, just my opinion, and also, it MUST be noted, that
this is probably because of the CAMERAS that shoot in the AVCCAM's format and NOT the codec
itself. My suspicion is, that the EX cameras produce such nice images because of the larger chips
and their non pixel shifting nature, as well as the very nice lens on those cameras. I would guess,
that a camera that did the same and shot into AVCCAM would also look very good......and I
expect the AF-100 to produce imagery on par with the EX series of cameras with the added benefit
of shallow depth of field. However, I have decided to wait for real world footage, as I don't like being
one of the pioneers on the 'bleeding edge'.

The HMC150 is really not the best example to determine the codec quality. In good lighting, the HMC40 is much more detailed.

I was very keen when I first heard about the NEX VG-10, but then I was expecting it to have the same features as the top of the line Canon or Panasonic consumer cameras. When more details came out, I was disappointed that Sony was still building crippled high-end consumer cams. I honestly don't see a market for this camera as I think it's too awkward for amateurs to shoot with, and it lacks most of the features that prosumer shooters want.

I agree completely. It has nothing to do with the AVCHD CODEC and everything to do the rest of the camera. I think the AF-100 is going to be the first AVCCAM camera from Panasonic that will seriously challenge the Sony EX-1 / 3 cameras for non-ENG work. ( the same goes for Canon's new XF 3xx line )

I expect the AF-100 to be a big seller once it's in the stores. I think it will sell so well that Sony and Canon will be forced to release their own equivalent cameras in order to stay competitive, and the prosumer market will be permanently changed for the better.

...We are talking encoding quality, not how detailed the image is. Yes the HMC-40 has full raster 1/4 inch chips and shoots more detailed images in good light than the HMC-150 does.