Turin Brakes Music video shot on AF-101

[Phil Bloom]

In depth blog post coming soon!

“Ascension Day”: TURIN BRAKES music video shot on the Panasonic AF-101 | Philip Bloom

[William Hohauser]

Very, very nice.

Did you encounter any gradient banding on the master footage that another person here has seen and posted with their AF-100 footage?

[Phil Bloom]

Not on this footage that I could see. I did in Japan a bit. it certainly suffers from it sometimes.

[William Hohauser]

So for a fence sitter, like me, who is judging their next purchase; what are the benefits of the the AF100/101 cameras over the GH2 specifically in the imaging area. It's clear in other areas (audio connectors, SDI, ND filters) why the AF cameras have distinct working improvements over the GH2 but I am not clear if the images produced are much different. Certainly looking at online work such as yours (I get this feeling that you could make a $99 video camera look great), I see little difference.

[David W. Jones]

Originally Posted by William Hohauser

So for a fence sitter, like me, who is judging their next purchase; what are the benefits of the the AF100/101 cameras over the GH2 specifically in the imaging area. It's clear in other areas (audio connectors, SDI, ND filters) why the AF cameras have distinct working improvements over the GH2 but I am not clear if the images produced are much different. Certainly looking at online work such as yours (I get this feeling that you could make a $99 video camera look great), I see little difference.

My thoughts... The AF100 takes what the GH2 can do, and wraps it into a professional package.

As far as image quality goes... We shot some like footage with the Red One, AF100, GH13, T2i, 5DII, and cut it together. Clients could not tell the difference between the cameras in the finished edit. And most had no clue that multiple cameras were used. Now granted I'm not shooting big screen dramas, as 90% of what I do is TV commercial production. But the point is, the quality of modern cameras has gotten so good that even low cost consumer models can make great pictures in the right hands.

As for me... IMHO, the AF100 is a great little tool, which has paid for itself the first week of ownership.

All the Best!

Dave

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by William Hohauser

.........what are the benefits of the the AF100/101 cameras over the GH2 specifically in the imaging area.

From specs the main obvious difference should be that the AF100 has an optical low pass filter - hence a much lower level of aliasing. The big significance of that is the difference may not be very marked on straight side by side original footage comparisons - but high aliasing can badly affect later compression systems.

From what I'm seeing, the real question prospective purchasers need to ask themselves is how important they see the shallow depth of field offered by a large sensor? Because that is the big plus selling point of the AF100. In that respect, it offers what DSLRs do - without their worst drawbacks.

At the moment it's in a market of it's own, but likely to be joined by the Sony large format NXCAM in a few months. That's when things will start to get interesting, since the Sony seems likely to take the edge with better ergonomics and a designed for video sensor. Let's wait and see.

If you DON'T think the shallow depth of field issue is as important, then increasingly the AF100 is looking like a poor choice. The image quality seems substantially down on cameras such as the Sony EX or the Canon XF300 in terms of sharpness, dynamic range etc, to say nothing of lesser low light sensitivity. Then there are usability issues such as the absence of a decent servo zoom lens with a good range, and poor handheld ergonomics

That's not to say it's bad - but it's easily outperformed by other cameras in respects other than the shallow depth of field.

[William Hohauser]

Originally Posted by David Heath

From specs the main obvious difference should be that the AF100 has an optical low pass filter - hence a much lower level of aliasing. The big significance of that is the difference may not be very marked on straight side by side original footage comparisons - but high aliasing can badly affect later compression systems.

From what I'm seeing, the real question prospective purchasers need to ask themselves is how important they see the shallow depth of field offered by a large sensor? Because that is the big plus selling point of the AF100. In that respect, it offers what DSLRs do - without their worst drawbacks.

At the moment it's in a market of it's own, but likely to be joined by the Sony large format NXCAM in a few months. That's when things will start to get interesting, since the Sony seems likely to take the edge with better ergonomics and a designed for video sensor. Let's wait and see.

If you DON'T think the shallow depth of field issue is as important, then increasingly the AF100 is looking like a poor choice. The image quality seems substantially down on cameras such as the Sony EX or the Canon XF300 in terms of sharpness, dynamic range etc, to say nothing of lesser low light sensitivity. Then there are usability issues such as the absence of a decent servo zoom lens with a good range, and poor handheld ergonomics

That's not to say it's bad - but it's easily outperformed by other cameras in respects other than the shallow depth of field.

That is good info and well understood. As someone who owns a good standard servo zoom lens HD camera already and rents better equipment to job specs, I would like a shallow DOF camera for jobs that could use it. It's just that the AF100 doesn't have enough to warrant the extra thousands of dollars if all I am getting is a low-pass filter that might be adding gradient banding. Don't mistake me, I understand the use of the extras that the AF100 provides but I can certainly work around the limitations of the GH2 with minimum effort. Perhaps it'll be worth waiting for Sony's mystery camera in a few months as the NEX-VG10 is not worth the money versus a GH2.

[Andrew Allsbury]

First off...
Gorgeous work Phillip, this music video shows that at least in your hands the AF100 can produce images on par with any camera out there. As far as the commentary above saying the the AF100 only has shallow DOF going for it, I would like to know how you came to this assumption? Especially when considering that the EX1 produces 10 stops of DR and the AF100 produces 10.5-11 stops, and both cameras resolve above 800 lines of resolution with breakup around 1000? The only plus I can see going for the EX1 in a head to head comparison is that it does have HD-SDI 10bit out. As far as banding goes I have now shot several projects with our AF100 and not experienced any unacceptable banding (or unacceptable noise). I'm not saying the EX1 is not a great tool and I'm not saying the AF100 does not have its downfalls. But I can assure you that most professionals did not purchase the AF100 simply because they craved shallow DOF, this could have been achieved easily and much cheaper with a GH2 or 7d. My order was in the first shipment because it is the ONLY camera besides the Red One that offers the experience and results of a professional HD cinema camera at a reasonable price.

Bottom line (from my POV):
EX1 is a great ENG camera with servo zoom, great autofocus and very deep dof. (Perfect for live events and news gathering)
AF100 is currently the only sub $20,000 professional HD cinema camera (Perfect for films and advertising)
Red One is a Ferrari and if I could have justified it to myself and my cleints...well I probably would care a lot less about the AF100 :o)

Done.

[Olof Ekbergh]

I have both the EX3 and EX1R cams, 5DmkII, 7D and now the AF100.

They are all great cameras with a few problems of their own.

The EXcams have very poor tripod attachements, this is easily fixed with after marker plates like the ones I make (Westside A V Studios WEB Store), they also have problems with their zoom lenses being jerky at slow speeds, not all of them are bad, and Sony is dealing with the problem by calling a certain amount of jerkiness normal. My EX3 had a replacement lens that now works very well my newer EX1R is OK "within specs" but not as smooth. I love the images I can get from these cams and the ergonomics the way I use them.

The DSLR's are also great but not very easy to work and they suffer from really bad moire. They can be set up for better ergonomics but are really still cameras. The 5DmkII is in a class of its own I really like what I can do with it. Audio is problematic, but you can work around it.

The AF100, I am still dialing it in. I am very impressed with this camera, and it definitely replaces my 7D, I will still use the 7D for stills and time lapse. I am having a slightly hard time coming up with the exact scene files I want to use. Partly because the last Pany I had was a DVX100, sold it years ago. So it is very different using Pany lingo than Sony PP lingo. But I am getting very good results. I will be posting more details soon, with scene file settings. There is a delicate balance between noise and banding, and you really have to watch out for HL clipping in the AF100.

I will not be selling my EXcams or DSLR's, they are different cams than the AF100. I see the AF100 as a fantastic addition to my kit. It is definitely not an ENG cam, but a really fun to work with camera. I love being able to use all my Canon glass dating back to the 70's. It makes it easy to shoot SDOF with the ergonomics and audio of a video camera. And another real plus for the AF100 is the rugged bottom and very customizable camera body. It has a lot of attachment points that are very rugged.

So the AF100 is a very definite thumbs up in my opinion. And the price is very reasonable.

And as can be seen in this excellent video by Philip Bloom. It is capable of fantastic video. Nice job Phil.

[Dennis Hingsberg]

Originally Posted by Phil Bloom

In depth blog post coming soon!

“Ascension Day”: TURIN BRAKES music video shot on the Panasonic AF-101 | Philip Bloom

Cool look! How are you, or other people finding working with 2x crop factors? You find you have to use lenses wider than 50mm for a lot of shots... ? That is one thing that concerns me, but I love the fact the AF100/1 has brought together the best of so many worlds.

[Olof Ekbergh]

Dennis, bear in mind that the MTF sensor is very close to a 35mm film camera (not still) imager size, and it is bigger than a 16mm. The crop from a super 35 is 1.2 I believe.

So if you want to use film style lenses it is perfectly sized.

A typical 35mm film kit is 35mm, 50mm and 85mm lenses.

So a kit with 24mm, 35mm and 50mm primes is very close to this standard setup.

And you can get lenses as wide as 7mm for the AF100. It is really very versatile. In my kit I have lenses from 14mm to 400mm.

It is actually nice to have a little more DOF than the 5DmkII in a lot of situations.

Take the 25mm f.95 Voightlander for example. It has a DOF equivalent to a 50mm f1.8 on a 5D, but it lets in almost 4 times as much light. And f1.8 on a 50 is very narrow DOF.

Now a 50mm f1.2 on the AF100 is really shallow, if that is what you are after.

I kind of think this size imager is a real sweet spot.

[Dennis Hingsberg]

Hi Olof, thanks for the reply. I've read many of your threads on AF100 and always interested to learn various DOF & FOV systems.

I am very familiar with relation to sensor size and DOF as I shot specifically with the PS Technik mini35 system up until 2008 when I decided to leave the 35mm video scene to focus more on my 35mm still photography work (can be seen on Flickr: hingsberg's Photostream - all shot with Canon 7D). Back in the day I studied various 35mm systems immensely right here in these forums in fact, talk about evolution!

Oddly enough I bought the 7D when it came out but had absolutely no intention of shooting video on it, and over the last year or so have not even tried. (I'm sure I will one day) Call me traditional, but there is something I like about a rig that weighs over 12lbs, and what I always loved about the mini35 was the fact the adapter was the rig in itself. The rods were there, the handle, V/F holder if you shot with Canon, and although it was an expensive system I got use to it and would work with something similar to that in a heartbeat which is why the AF100 now interests me.

Since I was using the PS Technik mini35 with SLR lenses, I believe I've become accustomed to a crop factor of between 1.4 to 1.6 (not sure because I don't know what frame size mini35 was capturing - I think it was Academy frame). I also shoot 35mm stills with the Canon 7D so again I am use to x1.6. As a matter of preference however I do not like to go below 50mm when shooting people in general and already find it difficult to work in a small room depending on the subject framing. I can't imagine what x2 would be like working with in my case.

To Super35 however, AFC-100 is more like x1.5 than x1.2. I've put the following together please someone review it to make sure it's correct:

With reference to a full 35mm film frame of 36mm x 24mm I've calculated various crop factors:
AFC-100 17.3mm x 13mm 2.08
Super35mm 24.89 mm × 18.66 mm 1.44
Academy 21.95 mm × 16.00 mm 1.64
Canon 7D 22.5mm x 15mm 1.6
Canon 5D mkII 36mm x 24mm 0.00

If you're use to shooting on Super 35mm however and using 24.89mm x 18.66mm as reference, note the crop factors:
AFC-100 has a crop factor of 1.43
Canon 7D has a crop factor or 1.11

Referenced to Academy size 21.95mm x 16.00mm:
AFC-100 crop factor 1.27
Canon 7D crop factor 0.95

[Olof Ekbergh]

Barry Green put this chart together on another forum.

With these comments:
B&H has a nice chart for stills cameras on their site to show the relative focal length needed on various stills cameras to achieve certain fields of view. But it's not very adaptable to the AF100 or cinema cameras.

Here I've put together a chart that shows the sensor sizes of common video and film formats, their Cinema Crop Factor as related to Academy Aperture 35mm Cinema Film frame size, and normalized for 16:9 image shape. It's not all that easy to put together a field of view chart when comparing different aspect ratios, so I normalized all the sensors for their widest 16:9-shaped field of view.

Without further adieu...

[Dennis Hingsberg]

In my own mind (where I debate the benefits and differences between various 35mm video equipment and solutions) I still struggle to find how comfortable I would feel as a DP using this camera for a professional production. It has it's limits is what I'm trying to say, and to me that x2 crop factor is still a killer in my opinion.

I mentioned in my post earlier I don't like using less than 50mm glass and my main reason for this is because of the image distortion that you start getting when you go below 50mm and put your subject close to your lens. Working with x2 really means you are using a wide angle lens like 24mm, bringing your subject closer to get in frame what you would have without the crop on a 50mm lens. This means perspectives are not compressed, and the subject and surroundings inherit the curve of the lens.

For example, in Phil's video "ascension day" if you look at the dolly move with combined head pan (0:12 - 0:20) it becomes extremely obvious what happens when you shoot with an extreme wide lens - the perspective and shape are changing due to the camera movement. I know I am being pickey bugger, but I'm just saying to me that is not acceptable if up against shooting x1 or x1.2, maybe even x1.6 max.

[Guy McLoughlin]

Originally Posted by Dennis Hingsberg

...and to me that x2 crop factor is still a killer in my opinion.

It's only 2x crop-factor when compared to a Full-Frame 35mm STILL PHOTOGRAPHY camera like the Canon 5DMK2. If you compare it to to the 3-perf 35mm motion-picture camera, then the crop becomes 1.2. Big difference here. Effectively the AF-100 can be treated much like a 35mm motion picture camera when thinking about lens focal-lengths to shoot video with.

Originally Posted by Dennis Hingsberg

I mentioned in my post earlier I don't like using less than 50mm glass and my main reason for this is because of the image distortion that you start getting when you go below 50mm and put your subject close to your lens.

This is all about putting your subject close to the the lens and nothing about the focal-length of the lens. A 50mm lens is a very wide angle lens when used with a 6x7 still photo camera like the Mamiya RZ67, because with the 6x7 format a 50mm lens has a field of view equivalent to a 24mm lens would have with a 35mm full-frame still photo camera like the Canon F-1 or Canon 5DMK2.

20 years ago I was a professional stills photographer, shooting lots of studio and location work. I know from experience that ANY lens will start to distort a person's features if you place them closer than 5 feet from the lens. So in shooting portraiture with a 35mm Full-Frame camera, if the subject had a "flat" face I would use an 85mm lens and have them sit about 5 feet from my camera, and this combination would help to "expand" the person's "flat" features and result in a nicer photo. If the subject had a "big" face ( usually this meant big nose and protruding ears ) I would use a 135mm lens and have them sit about 7-8 feet away from the camera, and this would have the effect of "compressing" the subjects features and result in a nicer photo. Simply by changing the distance that the person was from my camera, I could greatly change how the camera photographed them. I would use different lenses so that my crop would be the same a two different distances. ( 5 and 8 feet away )

So using a 25mm lens with the Panasonic AF-100 has the same field-of-view as using a 50mm lens with a Canon 5DMK2 if the subject you are shooting is the same distance away.

So if you are used to thinking in Full-Frame 35mm still photo camera terms ( i.e. Canon 5DMK2 ), a 50mm lens on the Full-Frame Canon has the SAME field-of-view as a 25mm lens on the Panasonic AF-100.

If you are worried about distortion, then position your AF-100 camera EXACTLY the same way you would position your Full-Frame 35mm camera, but use a lens with HALF the focal-length of the Full-Frame 35mm camera. The field-of-view will be EXACTLY the same.

...One more worm to add to your over-flowing can is this: To have the SAME depth of field ( bokeh ) when comparing a Full-Frame 35mm still-photo camera ( Canon 5DMK2 ) with a Micro 4/3 camera (Panasonic AF-100 ) you must close down your equivalent Full-Frame 35mm lens by 2 F-Stops.

So if you were to shoot a video with the Panasonic AF-100 using a 25mm lens set to F-Stop 2.0, then you would need to shoot video with a Canon 5DMK2 using a 50mm lens set to F-Stop 4.0 to create a perfect match to the video shot with the AF-100. The two videos would have the SAME field of view, and the SAME depth of field. ( bokeh )

So the bottom line is:

Canon 5DMK2 with a 50mm lens at f/4.0 produces EXACTLY the SAME image as a Panasonic AF-100 with a 25mm lens at f/2.0

Hope this helps. ( from a fellow Canuck living in Toronto )