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.