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 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

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

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-cont...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!

4:2:0 kills this camera for me. I'm sure a good key can be pulled, but for CC, it will fall apart if pushed far. That means using an external capture device, which start at another ~$3K. Cineform and a PC it can be less, but then I'm tethered.

The codec kills this camera for me.

I am thinking just the opposite Peter. Does ALL of your work ALL need to be in 4:2:2 or greater color space? Perhaps it does? For me, I shoot a lot of material that doesn't need to be in the highest color space. Stuff that is shown as web clips or only on SD DVD? Heck, one of the best looking shows on TV, Anthony Bourdain: No Reservations is shot on HDV, which is also 4:2:0 and shot on a format that is lower quality than AVCCAM. They color correct the heck out of that show, it looks great, sometimes amazing and won the Emmy last year for best non-fiction series cinematography. Even though I enjoy shooting with my HPX170, the 300s and 2700s, A lot of the time for my clients, it is overkill.

For the few times I shoot green screen, or footage for theatrical display, I could live with renting or buying a Nanoflash or an AG-HPG20. I think that this camera is a very smart move on Panasonic's part. If MSRP is around $6k as has been mentioned, retail might be in the low $5k range. I will use most of my existing Nikon AI and AIS glass, my Canon glass and just hunt down perhaps one micro 4/3 mount fast wide angle lens and life will be good.

I have a feeling that I will be buying one of these cameras. I think it is going to be huge. I wish it had P2/AVCINTRA but this is a good start. I am sure if they sell the heck out of them, they will come out with a higher end version of it eventually. I have to say, I have shot with the RED One twice and worked on several projects this year and I personally hate the RED post workflow, it is cumbersome and time consuming. I much prefer P2/AVCINTRA and DVCPROHD. For me, speed and ease of use trumps ultimate resolution and color space in most cases. I have only shot AVCHD once and it didn't seem any different functionally than the projects I shoot on AVCINTRA, it all ends up as ProRes anyway so why not? If 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). I think that including the AVCCAM and an SDI out is a good compromise.

Cheers,

Dan

I agree with Dan.

In my view, the only way Panasonic could mess this up is to hamper the resolution as to protect the higher end model(s).

If it is full raster 1080p without the DSLR image issues this will be a hit. I know I want one.

Dan,

It happens enough (yes I can push it and get fanatical little bit too much) but I don't want to be stuck in a situation where the next camera I buy is not giving me what I need so I have to rent. Also the 4/3rd's frame is great, until you want to deliver 16:9, then there will be a lot of cropping.

It's a very nice camera and will work amazingly well for a lot of jobs. But I also can't help but think it's using a color depth that I want to get away from and it's aspect ratio that (while new for sensors) is kind of retro.

Current HDV resolution is 1440X1080, which by itself is a 4:3 image aspect ratio. This is corrected by the use of anamorphic lenses, so I don't see that as being an issue if you're recording 16X9.

Also, if 4:2:0 color space is that big of a problem, you probably wouldn't be considering a camera like this in the first place. Panasonic's new HPX370 records 4:2:2, and several other makes and models offer that feature as well. Keep in mind that every camera out there compromises on something. This is especially so for anything below $10,000.

I'm curious to see what kind of images this thing is capable of recording, and how it will fit into its own little niche.

Shawn, I would hope that there is improvement over HDV. Most of the new cameras are recording full size HD, not 1,440. BTW, HDV records anamorphic by using rectangularly shaped pixels; none of the HDV cameras use an anamorphic lens.

And the new Canon XF is 4:2:2.

I'm sure this new camera will work wonderfully for a lot of productions; but it doesn't seem like it's for me. Perhaps I've been poisoned by the marketing surrounding the ever delayed Scarlet.

Just to say that Arri D21 uses a 3 x 4 sensor, so for other aspect ratios you need a crop - the advantage being you can use standard film anamorphic lenses. I suppose it comes where in the process the crop takes place and if you are actually losing vertical resolution when shooting 1080p on the Panasonic.

You seem to be assuming that the 4/3rds in the AF100 sensor is a 4:3 shape. There is nothing in the 4/3rds standard which stipulates that a sensor must use this aspect ratio; the only measurement it has to adhere to is the diagonal of 22.5mm. The sensor used in the GH1 is actually a bit different - it is larger than it needs to be with extra pixels on the sides and top and bottom so that at any given aspect ratio - 3:2, 4:3 or 16:9, it still produces an image circle with a diagonal of 22.5mm.

BTW, the new Alexa EV is 16:9, although they will be coming out with a 4:3 version and an optical viewfinder one as well. That said, I really doubt that Panasonic 4/3" users have anamorphic film lenses sitting around.

John, you're right I am. And I've heard it described as being very close in size to a standard 35mm frame (not S35). But I could very well be wrong.

Almost everyone will be shooting 16;9, because there isn't a HD 3 x 4 standard, so it's the number of pixels within the 16:9 on the sensor that's important, rather than those outside that area. Could be the sensor may be also being used in a stills camera, so that could be their reasoning for using that size sensor. The important part is that it achieves a full 1080 vertical resolution in 16:9 after debayering. That resolution isn't dictated by the unused areas of the sensor.

But having large unused areas of the sensor makes the 4/3'rds size misleading. 4/3 is twice 2/3, but not if a significant portion is subtracted from 4/3.

I'm not saying the camera will be bad. I'm sure it will be very good. I just think some people are forgetting that 35 is not S35. But like was said above, maybe the sensor will be a 22mm horizontal but not a 4:3 ratio, rather something closer to 16:9.

35mm motion picture film has large unused areas when shooting 1.85 and 16;9 on 4 perf pull down, which is the case on the majority of film cameras,

I believe the many of references earlier were mostly for standard 35mm (width 22mm camera/21mm projection), which is how most film productions are shot.

You're not going to have as shallow depth of field using the same stop, but you can pretty much achieve it by using a wider stop than most DPs actually use when shooting 35mm film (which usually isn't f1.4, more the f2 to f2.8 range or even a f2.8 to f4 split when using a zoom) .

To be fair to Panasonic & Sony, these cameras a huge step into unknown territory.

This camera is an evolution from a $1,000 DSLR which is popular with almost no-budget shooting. They can not stray too far away from that price or they will lose the market that was calling for this camera.

They are making a $6,000 camera that will for all intensive purposes deliver a high percentage of a 35mm camera. What percentage is yet to be seen, but if one takes the Zacuto tests into account, it will most certainly be over 50%.

So to get over 50% of the 35mm workflow for $6,000 is quite a bargain considering 35mm workflows adds zero's to the number.

About the Codec. AVCHD has been shown to be quite nice. I use Edius and I can now edit three streams in realtime. Sure it is not 4:2:2, but there are not many (if any) cameras with 4:2:2 for under $6,000. I think it is a logical choice for this pricepoint. You could always buy or rent a Nano for greenscreen or important work.

I really think this will be a big hit as the efforts people have gone through to get this "look" have been monumental and im-practical. This will fill a lot of niches and is at a price that many can afford to add to their lineup.

John, can I ask stupid ?? FWIU, the sensor size refers to the length of the diagonal. So 1/3" sensor is 1/3" across, 1/2" 1/2" across and so on. But if I take 4/3" and multiply it by 25.4 I get 33.87mm. This is not 22.5mm.

So what exactly is 4/3 measuring? Thanks much!

4/3" is measuring the circle that could be drawn around the four points of that rectangle. It's a holdover from the old days before image sensors, when tube cameras prevailed. 4/3" is the diameter of the tube that's big enough to produce the rectangular image area within it. It's an archaic, antiquated convention that should have been done away with many years ago, and yet it still persists.

No, that's wrong. Those actual sensor sizes are a bit smaller than 1/3" and 1/2" for the extremely outdated reason I've stated above.

Who needs Wikipedia? Thanks so much Chris.

So it seems to reason that a 4/3rd's sensor does have a diagonal twice as long as a 2/3rd's sensor. It's just that both are smaller than a straight inches to mm conversion would lead you to believe.

I am (was) certain that panasonic is talking about using the 4/3 still camera standard. That would be the mount too.

"The design of the AF100’s micro 4/3-inch sensor affords depth of field and field of view similar to that of 35mm movie cameras in a less expensive camera body. Equipped with an interchangeable lens mount, the AF100 can utilize an array of low-cost, widely-available still camera lenses as well as film-style lenses with fixed focal lengths and primes."

Are we sure 4/3 is an actual measurement? Arri also list 16:9 sensors.

The ARRI chip is close to still APS-C size. That would be Super 35 and designed to take those lenses.

Edit: From wikipedia:

Thus "The Four Thirds refers to both the size of the imager and the aspect ratio of the sensor".[5] Note that actual size of the chip is considerably less than 4/3 of an inch, the length of the diagonal being only 22.5 mm. The 4/3 inch designation for this size of sensor dates back to the 1950s and vidicon tubes, when the external diameter of the video camera tube was measured.

So 4/3 isn't a meaningful size reference.

Validates what I was saying above... thanks.

And neither is 1/4, 1/3, 1/2 or 2/3, for the exact same reason.