Panasonic AG-AF100 series

Don Miller · April 24th, 2010, 02:51 PM

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

APS-C is 24 - 25mm wide

Jim Snow · April 24th, 2010, 03:10 PM

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

Graham Hickling · April 24th, 2010, 04:37 PM

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

Brian Drysdale · April 25th, 2010, 03:29 AM

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.

Don Miller · April 25th, 2010, 08:38 AM

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.

Tim Polster · April 25th, 2010, 09:35 AM

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.

Jim Snow · April 25th, 2010, 10:00 AM

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.

Brian Drysdale · April 25th, 2010, 10:17 AM

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.

Graham Hickling · April 25th, 2010, 11:03 AM

4/3 is way bigger than 16mm film. http://www.hotrodcameras.com/wp-cont...chart-web2.jpg

Todd Norris · April 26th, 2010, 02:05 PM

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!

Peter Moretti · April 26th, 2010, 02:40 PM

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.

Dan Brockett · April 26th, 2010, 05:37 PM

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

Tim Polster · April 26th, 2010, 08:49 PM

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.

Peter Moretti · April 26th, 2010, 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan Brockett

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? ...

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.

Shawn McCalip · April 26th, 2010, 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Moretti

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.

April 26th, 2010, 02:40 PM	#101
Peter Moretti Trustee Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Sherman Oaks, CA Posts: 1,259	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. __________________ Avid Media Composer 3.1.3. Boris Red and Continuum Complete. Vegas 8.0c. TMPGEnc Xpress Pro 4.0

April 24th, 2010, 02:51 PM	#91
Don Miller Major Player Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Chicago Posts: 706	well, I may have it wrong S35 is 24mm wide and 4/3 is 17mm wide? APS-C is 24 - 25mm wide

April 24th, 2010, 03:10 PM	#92
Jim Snow Trustee Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Santa Clara, CA Posts: 1,104	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

April 24th, 2010, 04:37 PM	#93
Graham Hickling Trustee Join Date: May 2004 Location: Knoxville, Tennessee Posts: 1,669	My bad ..... I think I had APS-C and 4/3 confused.

April 25th, 2010, 03:29 AM	#94
Brian Drysdale Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Belfast, UK Posts: 6,152	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.

April 25th, 2010, 08:38 AM	#95
Don Miller Major Player Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Chicago Posts: 706	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.

April 25th, 2010, 09:35 AM	#96
Tim Polster Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Arlington, TX Posts: 2,231	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.

April 25th, 2010, 10:00 AM	#97
Jim Snow Trustee Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Santa Clara, CA Posts: 1,104	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.

April 25th, 2010, 10:17 AM	#98
Brian Drysdale Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Belfast, UK Posts: 6,152	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.

April 25th, 2010, 11:03 AM	#99
Graham Hickling Trustee Join Date: May 2004 Location: Knoxville, Tennessee Posts: 1,669	4/3 is way bigger than 16mm film. http://www.hotrodcameras.com/wp-cont...chart-web2.jpg

April 26th, 2010, 02:05 PM	#100
Todd Norris Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 48	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!

April 26th, 2010, 05:37 PM	#102
Dan Brockett Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Los Angeles, California Posts: 2,109	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

April 26th, 2010, 08:49 PM	#103
Tim Polster Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Arlington, TX Posts: 2,231	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.