4:2:0?
In this "Cinema" Cam?
Man, 4:2:2.

I expect it to have 4:2:2 as well. Panasonic isn't stupid.

I saw it at NAB and from what I was told, it can output uncompressed video through the HD/SDI port and it will have 4:2:2. A Panny rep said you can output it to a P2 deck and record directly to a P2 card. Otherwise it will hold many, many hours of compressed video on the SD cards. It looked to be about 20% larger than an HPX200, and taller, with a large carrying handle that might be detachable.

And what does this camera have that the EX-3 doesn't? Lenses, lenses, lenses! Canon mount, Nikon, Olympus, PL, Zeiss - true 35mm depth of field, in a near-35mm chip. In a true video camcorder, with 2 XLR ports. This is what pretty much what everyone on this forum was begging for. I honestly didn't see this one coming, not from Panasonic. I expect Canon and Sony to fire back with similar models by next NAB. A Panny rep said the camcorder's codec was better than Canon's D-SLRs.

I wonder of you can attach a B4 mount lens? Hmmm....

All the current DSLR's inlcuding the Canon 5d and 7d record 4:2:0 so this isn't anything bad. Considering the amazing stuff that has been seen from DSLR's I doubt 4:2:0 is going to be a huge issue. If this camera actually does a proper low pass filter to get good quality video from a DSLR then this is going to be huge. If you want 4:2:2 get a NanoFlash and add it to this puppy. 24 mbit AVCHD is also a much better format then 35 Mbit mpeg2 so yes the encoding quality will be better then the EX1 or EX3. AVCHD is a much better encoding technology and 24 mbit AVCHD can look like 50 mbit+ mpeg2.

I expect Canon and Sony to fire back with similar models by next NAB.

Sony already have. They announced a similar camera at the same time as Panasonic.

Just a guess here but I'd say Sony's camera will be considerably more expensive. Just seems that way to me.

Sony already have. They announced a similar camera at the same time as Panasonic.

Do you have a link or any other information?

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/digital-video-industry-news/476636-sony-prototype-cinema-camera-shown-nab.html

Just to clarify, the Panny will record 4:2:2 uncompressed, but ONLY via HD/SDI. Is this unit going to come a lens?

I heard a Pany rep say that it was going to run around $6k with a lens, but we're a long way from December, so don't start making purchase plans just yet.

It seems a lot of you are speculating this camera to record 4:2:2 internally, but bear in mind that the AG-AF100 is branded under the AVCCAM marque, which is Panasonic's equivalent to Sony's NXCAM; and in both cases, they are basically "souped up" versions of AVCHD with LPCM stereo audio 1920x1080 4:2:0 video and 24Mbps bitrate. Panasonic does offer 4:2:2 recording in the AVC-Intra 100 (Mbps) format, but that is only offered on their P2 based camcorders, a different product league. Like Sony's XDCAM EX camcorders that also subsample 4:2:0 for internal recording, HD-SDI out should be 4:2:2 (direct from the sensor) to any capable recorder.

24 mbit AVCHD is also a much better format then 35 Mbit mpeg2 so yes the encoding quality will be better then the EX1 or EX3. AVCHD is a much better encoding technology and 24 mbit AVCHD can look like 50 mbit+ mpeg2.

This is HIGHLY debatable. Personally I think it's rubbish. Mpeg4 is more efficient at low rates vs Mpeg2, but they even out as rates increase.

Although most of Panasonic's Lumix lenses for their GH-1 camera are on the slow side, they have a fast, highly reviewed 20mm f/1.7 Aspheric lens equivalent to a 40mm fov in 35mm world. That would offer shallow dof for video shooting.
They also have another fast prime in the pipeline - a 14mm lens, not sure if it's 1.7 or f/2.8 that would be the equivalent of a fast 28mm wide lens.
I own the Lumix 7-14mm wa zoom lens which while not fast at f/4 is very sharp and well corrected even wide open. That's a 14-28 in 35 speak and it's tiny and light weight. I'd love to see this one on the AF100!
I wonder if the lens' IS would work on this camera ? I suppose the auto focus is disabled?

Legacy wide angle lenses are pretty much expensive,useless poor performers in the m4/3 format.
Leica or even Voightlander wa lenses 12-15mm primes are only 24 - 30 when used in m4/3.

just sayin'.

This is HIGHLY debatable. Personally I think it's rubbish. Mpeg4 is more efficient at low rates vs Mpeg2, but they even out as rates increase.

Have you ever compared both formats?

Barry Green wrote an article comparing direct encodings from an EX1 recording both native 35 mbit mpeg2 and AVCHD through an external recorder hooked up via HD-SDI from the camera. The AVCHD had a lot less macro blocks. At one point I would have agreed with you but now that I have seen Barry Green's test and have compared the footage myself I can honestly say that AVCHD at 24 mbits is better then mpeg2 at 35 mbits. Maybe it isn't twice as good as some products would claim but it is better.

AVCHD had a bad reputation because it started out in cheap consumer cameras and the first encoding chips were not very good. The format has really matured in the last two years however and has become just as good and most of the time much better then any mpeg2 format outside of 50 mbit mpeg2.

Yes it is true they even out but 35 mbits is still a bit low for HD.

Barry's a fantastic voice in video, who's reviews i read avidly, and i'm not going to dispute his vastly superior knowledge over mine. However his insistence on the merits of anything Panasonic versus other manufacturers makes me take his views with a pinch of salt.

And perhaps he's right, after all he did the tests. But i didn't hear these tests being announced regarding a non-Panasonic camera.

... have compared the footage myself I can honestly say that AVCHD at 24 mbits is better then mpeg2 at 35 mbits. Maybe it isn't twice as good as some products would claim but it is better.

Disagree entirely with this, 35 Mbits is NOT a bit low for HD, Discovery HD allow you 100% shooting on XDCam EX. I understand that some people favour Panasonic over Sony and vice-versa but it gets a bit tiring when the same old arguments persist that fly in the face of what people are actually doing in real world production, and that is where it matters, not in "tests"

I've had my EX3 for 18 months, shot hundreds of hours, and I've never seen any macro blocking. If you personally have any examples, post them. I've read a few people saying this, and never once have they seen it themselves.

First of all I have no love for Panasonic. I am a Canon guy. I have developed extended mpeg2 editing codecs for Avid Liquid and consider mpeg2 to be one of the best formats we have ever seen. I am used to working with every form of mpeg2 all the way up to 300 mbit/s I frame (which I do not recommend due to file size) so I know how much further mpeg2 can go beyond 35 mbits.

Second Barry didn't use a Panasonic camera in that test at all. He hooked up a AVCHD stand alone encoder through the HD-SDI out on the Sony EX1. You couldn't ask for a more honest test because everything was equal except for the encoder itself. Usually a camera test is subjective due to the fact that so many other parameters of the camera can affect image quality. In his test however it only came down to raw encoding.

Third I'm not saying the 35 mbits from the EX1 looks bad at all. In fact I think it is excellent and we have used them at work along side our Sony F900 and they really held up well. My main point is that AVCHD at 21 -24 mbits/s can and does look at least as good as that and sometimes better. If you don't believe it then show me the samples that say otherwise. The problem is the only way you can prove AVCHD isn't as good is to take a raw HD-SDI source and encode it to compare. You cannot just do a software encode and get the same type of results either. It has to be from the type of hardware encoder you would expect in a camera. Only then do you have a true test of the encoded format.

I do not wish to downplay any camera or format at all because I love all cameras and formats. All I am saying is that AVCHD in this Panasonic camera is not such a bad thing at all. Even if you want to debate if AVCHD can look better it is hard to debate if it doesn't at least look as good as 35 mbit mpeg2.

You can't make a specific claim, then ask others to prove it for you. The onus is on you to prove your claim. You voiced the assertion, you can't ask others to prove a negative.

I'd like to see macro blocking from an EX3? I'd also like to see 24Mbit 4:2:0 AVCHD looking better than 50Mbit 4:2:2 Mpeg2? Or even looking noticeably better on average than 35Mbit 4:2:0 Mpeg2?

XDCAM EX and AVCHD may occasionally look better and worse than each other in different situations, but neither is a clear winner, and you certainly can't say one beats the other. Certainly not 50Mbit Mpeg2.

Look all I have been trying to say here is that AVCHD at 24 mbits can look just as good as mpeg2 at 35 mbits.

This is not a knock on the EX1 or the EX3 which I consider to be excellent cameras. I also consider the XDCAM EX format a top notch format. I'm not sure how many others ways I need to say that. That still doesn't change the fact that sometimes AVCHD is going to give better results. Check out the NanoFlash as an example of what higher then 35 mbit mpeg2 can look like. Also take a look at Barry's article if you want. Other then that I cannot provide any samples right now and even if I could why would I want to? It isn't my job to defend a format and spend the time and energy to prove what one format can do. I still have the right however to point out what I know about a format. You can choose to believe me or not. I really don't care. What I do care about is people trying to tell other people that AVCHD isn't as good just because it is AVCHD. So yes if I see that I will point out that there have been studies (not by me) that this just isn't true.

Now if you want to post a few links to help me understand how AVCHD isn't as good as mpeg2 I would be glad to participate in a civil "discussion" on the pros and cons of both formats without being told I'm speaking rubbish. Other then that I have given some evidence to back up what I have said.

Most of my personal problems with AVC have been with the lower bit rate lite versions, the full fat version by comparison isn't so bad. Neither AVC nor XDCAM is that good when dealing with fine detail though.

However at a fundamental level i don't see why we're not getting cameras with less compression now - storage speed and cost is not an issue these days. I'd happily take 50mbs or 100mbs of mpeg. The encoders are around, simple and the support is there.

cheers
paul

Barry didn't use a Panasonic camera in that test at all. He hooked up a AVCHD stand alone encoder through the HD-SDI out on the Sony EX1. You couldn't ask for a more honest test because everything was equal except for the encoder itself. Usually a camera test is subjective due to the fact that so many other parameters of the camera can affect image quality. In his test however it only came down to raw encoding.
I commented on this at the time, and from memory the comparison only really compared how the codecs behaved with high levels of movement - which obviously is a factor which can stress a codec. But it's not the only factor. Two most obvious ones are how a codec copes with fine detail, and how it copes with even gradients, and to the best of my knowledge Barrys tests didn't look at those factors. That's not a criticism - it is very difficult to do scientifically and objectively, and differing scenes can give widely differing cnclusions. What it does mean is that you can't use Barrys tests to give a blanket "I can honestly say that AVCHD at 24 mbits is better then mpeg2 at 35 mbits".

The other point is that it's impossible to define just how good any codec is at a given bitrate. Coder A will likely give a different result to coder B, even same systems at the same bitrate. More expensive coders tend to give better results than cheaper ones (funny that....!) for real time encoding in camcorders. A coder may compare incredibly well with a clean, noise-free source, but fall apart the moment it sees noise in the video. My experiences with AVC-HD have been limited to the HMC150, and I certainly haven't found the codec in that to equal 35Mbs MPEG2 overall - though it handles motion well.

That's not to say it may not be a different story with a more expensive or more recent camera with a better encoding chip. But AVC-HD won't rival 50Mbs MPEG2 (as used in the new Canon) without a complete redefinition of the standard, if only because the AVC-HD spec doesn't include any 4:2:2 profiles.

Fundamentally, AVC-HD and MPEG2 are built on the same base of technology, it's just that AVC-HD CAN call on extra tools to improve the encoding efficiency - get the same quality for a lower bitrate. The question is whether getting extra recording time on a memory card is worth the extra complexity come the edit, the need for more powerful computing.

I've had to edit a couple of posts and withdraw others from public view entirely which have devolved into who is getting "defensive" over this stuff -- please keep in mind that this is DV Info Net, and we don't play those games here. Let's keep it technical, and above all professional. There's no need to get emotional or defensive about bit rates.

We don't do "platform wars" on this site. That includes formats, codecs, etc. Thanks in advance,

It's been wonderful to play with really good 'extreme' glass with my T2i, and now the news is that I can keep the glass and swap out the 'back end' for a 'proper' video camera. My T2i experience has been a bit of a rollercoaster, but I'm sold on the glass and the large format sensor. I though it would have to be Epic or Scarlet, but the AF100 ticks all the boxes for me.

We'll i wasn't going to bother posting 2 cents on a camera which is slated for practically next year, but this is just too interesting what Panasonic is doing.

On the argument of bit rate.... h.264 at 24mbit should be great, consider all the hdv cameras recording HDV mpeg2 at ~24mbit. they look relatively great, and h.264 is a more efficient compression. Also, i trust that panasonic wouldn't cripple a camera like that on purpose, they will make sure it looks good.

really fascinated that they chose 4/3rds, which was a dying format. if they truly keep the total pixel count at 1920x1080 we should see some incredible dynamic range and low noise in this camera.

also great that they'll be offering mounts in all brands. but i'll really hate to have to go back to crop factors, but if it's a fantastic camera then that's a sacrifice i'd be happy to make.

ok so 3 or 4 cents... but i won't hold my breath until December, useless until then

really fascinated that they chose 4/3rds, which was a dying format.

Old style 4/3rds may be dying, but the AF100 uses the newer Micro 4/3rd mount lenses as standard.

Richard,

On what basis do you figure 4/3's is dying?

Richard and Darren were basing their opinion on simple observation,
and they're right, the *original* 4/3 format is outdated. The AF100,
however, is Micro 4/3, which is currently a highly active and thriving
format (as Richard points out).

Richard,

On what basis do you figure 4/3's is dying?

I did only say it "may be" dying out.

It would be odd for a company to support 2 different lens mounts long term.
Given the relatively recent launch of micro 4/3 and its popularity I would assume Olympus intend to phase out the original over time.

Although they did recently confirm that they are still committed to both - Olympus still committed to Four Thirds DSLRs: Digital Photography Review (http://www.dpreview.com/news/1002/10022303olympus43dslr.asp)

We'll have to wait and see, but personally I wouldn't be rushing to buy a camera with the original 4/3 mount.

While I am quite excited about the announcement of this camera, they ought to do something about the aesthetics of the camera itself. Not that it matters in the slightest but the design reminds me of old VHS camcorders. Big a boxy with a GIANT handle on top.

Form follows function.

Form follows function.
Yes, but imagine hand-holding it...... Not only have you got all the weight right out of in front of you, but the point of contact with the face is the sticking out eyepiece. I'd say that was positively dangerous if you were in a hurry, or with other people around. If you can't have a proper shouldermount, at least enable the camera body to be braced against the cheek. So I'd say functionally it's a dog - no wonder it looks like one!

But it is a prototype, let's hope it gets a major physical design before a real product emerges.

Geez... how is it any different from, say, a CP-16?

The best way to run any camera is *without* touching it.
I wouldn't hand-hold a camera unless I absolutely had to,
and even then, there's *always* a way to add a shoulder
support.

Half the cameras we cover on this site have lousy ergonomics.
Why is it suddenly an issue with this one? Give me a break.

Large sensor cameras of this class are truly welcome for videographers. It's probably a bit early to try to look for too many specifics with coming products. As competitive forces kick in, more and more detail about features and functionality will emerge. I'm really looking forward to the next couple of years. I suspect there is some really good stuff coming.

I have been thinking about the design of these size cameras and I do think they can benefit from a design overhaul. I have two ways I have found to get steady shots:

To me, the best way to keep a steady shot with the handycam style cameras is two hands on each side of the camera and the eyepiece pressed up against my face. This gives stability in the three directions, roll (with the two hands), yaw (with the eyepiece), and tilt (with all three).

Now for me, why not put two handles on each side with the important controls at our fingertips?

The only problem with this setup is that it promotes panning from a fixed point. Which is not the best for 24p shooting.

My second handheld method is having one hand flat underneath the camera extending to the lens and the other hand gripping the top handle at the very back of the camera. This is very smooth and allows for more camera-move based panning better for 24p.

The box design does not work with these techniques as the controls are not in the right place or there is nothing to hold on to.

These cameras can always be operated on a tripod. I agree, we need to shape the camera design around handholding comfortably and leave the box design in the past. In a way, who cares what the camera looks like as long as we can use it and not have wrist cramps.

I already have a BushHawk 300sV Shoulder Mount for Video Cameras with Double Handle (http://www.bushhawk.com/_product_42133/Video_Camera_Mount) which I use with my 5D MKII and my HPX170. I am sure that any RedRock, Zacuto, etc. rig that people are using with their DSLRs will work fine with the new Panasonic.

It all depends on what type of shooting you are doing, but most modern small sensor cameras already have terrible ergonomics. The EX1 comes to mind especially, I shot a baseball game with an EX1 hand held and my wrist was sore for days, this was before I bought the Bushhawk.

It is ugly but so what, my HPX170 is ugly too, the EX1 is similar, just a box with a lens. I think that ergonomics for shooting handheld are important to your work, you need to be looking at a shoulder mounted HPX370 type of form factor anyway. All of these small cameras are a compromise when shooting handheld, this camera is similar except that it will have a large sensor. DSLRs especially, they are awful for shooting video, everything is in the wrong place. But we make do and still manage to shoot some decent footage.

Dan

Large sensor cameras of this class are truly welcome for videographers. It's probably a bit early to try to look for too many specifics with coming products. As competitive forces kick in, more and more detail about features and functionality will emerge. I'm really looking forward to the next couple of years. I suspect there is some really good stuff coming.

4/3 may be a bit small. about a 2.0 crop - ~1/4 the size of the 5DII. The shape is less ideal too, compared
to 35mm ratio. I feel the ideal size may be film 35mm, like the 7D. 4/3 will have too much dof for some users. Especially with fewer lens choices.

Good 4/3 lenses are also expensive compared to 35mm. No large economy of scale yet.
Anyway, with it's release "by the end of 2010" this announcement is more of a "hey, we're doing something". The product manager was quoted as saying this camera wouldn't have the image issues apparent with existing VDSLR. That's an interesting statement considering its probably no where near finished.

I agree Don. For that and other reasons, I feel it's too early to look too closely at what is coming. Now that larger sensor cameras are being competitively defined, I suspect the camera manufacturers will be doing a number of things to react to each others products. This is a good thing for the consumer. Long live competition.

Yeah, these are great times.

Canon, Nikon and Red don't have to worry about performance of these cams relative to their existing product line. Sony and Panny have problems in this regard. This year looks pretty well set for most companies (including Red, which I doubt will ship scarlet to the masses). But 2011 should be a big year.

> 4/3 may be a bit small. about a 2.0 crop - ~1/4 the size of the 5DII. The shape is less ideal too, compared to 35mm ratio. I feel the ideal size may be film 35mm

I thought Film-35mm and 4/3 were almost identical?

well, I may have it wrong
S35 is 24mm wide and 4/3 is 17mm wide?

APS-C is 24 - 25mm wide

As I understand it, Micro 4/3 essentially refers to eliminating the mirror in a DSLR. This allows the camera body to be more compact. It also means the camera's viewfinder display is electronic rather than optical. This is why the Panasonic Lumix GH1 can use the viewfinder to shoot video. It doesn't mean the sensor is smaller than 4/3. Here is some more detailed information.

Four Thirds | Micro Four Thirds | Benefits of Micro Four Thirds (http://www.four-thirds.org/en/microft/)

My bad ..... I think I had APS-C and 4/3 confused.

The 4/3 imaging size is 17.3mm x 13mm, the standard 35mm motion picture camera aperture is 22mm (21mm projector), Super 35mm is 24mm.

The CP 16 is one of the best hand held camera designs made and you don't need any support system to shoot hand held with it. It and the Aaton are commonly used as bench marks for hand held ergonomics. Unfortunately, many of these newer video cameras, which are now larger and heaver than the old 1/3" SD cameras aren't designed with this in mind, so you end up with old 1950s and 60s style camera supports.

So if we have this right, the 4/3 dof will be close to 16mm. As a cine camera that is limiting to some users. 2 million pixels on 4/3 should allow excellent low light performance.
Glass investment is going to be a big part of choosing 4/3. Optically little changes. How dof control is achieved on 4/3 will be the same as 16mm. Fast glass or switching to a bigger sensor.

From what I have read, the GL1 which is the micro 4/3rds camera that people are using to shoot video is actually a bit larger than the 17mm spec.

So it has been said that the AF-100 will be closer to the cinema 35mm frame than anything else. DOF does not look to be an issue as it seems it would have 4x the chip area of a 2/3" chip video camera.

In some ways this is good as the 5DMKII full frame size almost has no DOF at the widest aperatures.

For those who want to maximize the cinematic look, it's advantageous to be the same or close to the size of the cinema 35 frame. While there are benefits to a full frame sensor such as the one in the 5D Mk II, its depth of field is more shallow than 35mm film. To that extent, it gets in the way of the "film look."

There is a term called "location awareness" that is used to describe optimal shallow depth of field in many situations. It refers to the ability to discern the location - for example, a room that is out of focus in a shallow depth of field shot. If the depth of field is so shallow that the background is so out of focus that it is unrecognizable, it is probably too shallow. An exception to this is when extreme shallow depth of field is used for a reveal shot where a subject that is indistinguishable in the background is revealed by changing the point of focus. But that is an exception, not the usual shot.

From the perspective of maximizing the film look, micro 4/3 is closer to 35mm film than a full frame sensor is.

Super16 is 12.52mm, so 4/3 is closer to traditional 35mm motion picture frame size.

Indeed, a location carries information about the characters and the world about them, so losing that to a degree that required story elements are lost can make a big difference. I had that happen with 35mm film short I was directing, on which we to shoot at T1.4 for light level reasons; so that one of the locations didn't have as much detail in depth as would desirable to make the scene really work.

4/3 is way bigger than 16mm film. http://www.hotrodcameras.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/sensor-size-chart-web2.jpg

I have a feeling that when this camera is released, it's going to be HUGE. RED is planning to make a Scarlet announcement in mid-May, and unless they alter their original plan by either reducing the price OR making the fixed lens version a Super-35 sized sensor, I think the AF100 is going to be very, very popular. I've gotten fantastic imagery from my GH1, and all my beefs with that camera will most likely be solved by the AF100...XLR audio inputs, HD-SDI and HDMI outputs for monitoring and external recording, etc, etc. It's going to be great!