Alan Roberts BBC report on the AF101
 

Link to the report is here: http://thebrownings.name/WHP034/pdf/...onic_AF101.pdf

Re: Alan Roberts BBC report on the AF101
 

Interesting. far short of a ringing endorsement. Oh well. Good thing I'm not producing a project for BBC!!

So far so good for me. We're using the AF100 out here NASA/JSC on the Engineering Science Contract with really good results for shooting in low light. (Shooting in flight similators last week which is like shooting in a dark movie theatre). So there you go. Nothing is perfect. :)

Re: Alan Roberts BBC report on the AF101
 

Thanks Gary, seems like the AF100/1 might have been somewhat rushed to market with development in some areas but not in others. Witness a software update before some first customers got their machines.

Alan Roberts might have rushed his report too, pages 12 and 13 are not finished.

Cheers.

Re: Alan Roberts BBC report on the AF101
 

Its strange to me that it says they were production models but didn't have serial numbers... Were they really pre-production models? Seems like a huge oversight, but...

Re: Alan Roberts BBC report on the AF101
 

This kind of confirms my feelings about the AF100.

I still think it is a great camera and I am now using it in production. But I found that my EX3 and EX1R are much sharper, I spent a lot of time trying to make the AF100 look as sharp, and I never really could (lots of different lenses and lots of trying settings). The less than 800 (680) vertical resolution seems consistent with my findings.

There are also some really strange things that happen with banding, but I have not had a problem with aliasing at all.

I find that I can create beautiful images with the AF, just always a little soft. This is not a bad thing, you just have to be ready for it. The DSLRs are way to (artificially) sharp for my taste, this can be dialed down and fixed in post.

At this time I think in this price class the AF100 is the best you can do for image quality and SDOF, with reasonable working ergonomics and features. It is a big step above the DSLRs. And I bet that Pany will improve some of the codec problems with future FW updates.

I don't think we have to be evangelical about this camera just because we bought it, but we do have to work around the short comings and appreciate the innovative design features. I think it is the first in a whole new class of camera and a very good one at that.

Remember the BBC compares this with cameras costing many times more. This is really a very affordable camera. Personally I will always rather use the AF100 than an EXcam and a SDOF adapter, and in most cases a DSLR, I have both a 5DmII and a 7D. Most of all I love being able to use my old, and new Canon lenses with the coming Birger adapter (really great for remote focus pulling on jibs and Stedicam). And the Voightlander 25mm f.95 is almost worth getting the AF100 by itself, a wonderful lens (all I want is to now de-click its iris).

The bottom line is I like this camera a lot for many reasons, it has some problems but so does every camera. I am glad I have it and I will use it until something better comes along that makes sense for me, but for now this is my SDOF camera.

Re: Alan Roberts BBC report on the AF101
 

I don't think there should be any surprises here. You really do get what you pay for. These cameras are 95% aimed at the prosummer market (which is huge and lucrative) and the current trends that drive it. But I don't think anyone should get hung up on resolution, it looks perfectly sharp to me, too sharp infact. I think someone needs to come up with some good settings for it more urgently. As Alan pointed out his filmlike settings are only a starting point. My main concern with it is a quite video look to what I've seen.

In any case it is an interesting product that offers some of the advantages of the DSLRs with improvements and proper video ergonomics. People will start making great things with it I'm sure and that's all that matters. Alan is critically testing it within a severe broadcast (BBC) context and against the standards of much more expensive equipment. He was quite positive about the colour and motion aspects of the camera though, however he did conclude it definitely does not skip lines but there was little or no OLPF at work, which maybe answers some of the conundrums questioned over this model. (This in theory should be easy and cheap to rectify in future versions though.)

But again I would say not to worry, go out and make good stuff with it (and all cameras). That's the only way to test them in the end.

Re: Alan Roberts BBC report on the AF101
 

I’m afraid even that understates the issue.

I reported tests I’d seen on the AF101 several months ago which gave figures for basic resolution and aliasing very close to what Alan is now confirming (to within 2% accuracy).

Alans report makes clear that the alias circles are centred on 2350 (hor) and 1322 (vert). Those must be twice the Nyquist frequencies. (By definition.) This shows the effective system resolution is symmetrical, and must be based on a figure half that – 1175x661. Anything greater than 661 TVlines/ph must therefore be aliasing.

In terms of actual resolution, it would be wrong to claim even 661 TVl/ph – the actual figure must be somewhat under the Nyquist limit. About 10% less is a generally accepted figure, so more like 610, maybe up to 630 – certainly not as high as 680. (In practice, it tails off, so a precise figure isn’t very meaningful.)

Effectively, this means that in resolution terms it’s a long way short of what would be expected for a 720p camera – let alone for 1080. And low fundamental resolution tends to mean detail enhancement levels have to be set higher. That tends to mean a more “video” - edgy - look to images.
Yes, I agree. But “at this time” is likely to mean a very short period. We’re expecting to see the large format NXCAM on March 23rd, and initial reports are that it will use the (much better) F3 sensor, yet still be around the same price as the AF101. The question is not really “is the 101 good or bad?” – that’s highly subjective – but more a question of “will the new NXCAM offer me more for about the same money?”
The BBC may test a large variety of cameras, but this is likely to have been head to head with other cameras in similar price brackets. Obvious likely models are the EXs from Sony, and the Canon XF305 – all of which the BBC use extensively. (And are fully approved for BBC use, at with a nanoFlash in the case of the EX.) By the time you take lenses into account for the 101, and something like a nanoFlash for the 101 and the EX cameras, they are all around the same price.

Yet the EX and the XF305 give a resolution to match the 1080 system, the AF101 isn’t that good even by 720 standards.

Since part of the current broadcast expectation is decent 1080 resolution, I don’t ever expect to see the AF101 get full BBC/EBU approval (even with external recorder) in the way the XF305 and EX with nanoFlash have. The big question will have to be how the new NXCAM fares.

Re: Alan Roberts BBC report on the AF101
 

Hmmm. Before you point it out Olof, I now note that Alan himself claims "up to 1210x680, which is not good, given the strength of the aliases" - I assume that is where you derived the 680 figure from? But there seem to be inconsistencies in what he says.

From the report, the most significant point is :
which is verifibale from the zone plate images. The alias circles are centred on 1.224x1920 and 1.224x1080 (2350 and 1322). But he then goes on to say:
And this cannot be true. Alias circle centres show *TWICE* the underlying resolution, not the underlying resolution itself. The underlying resolution must therefore be 1175x661, so in no way is 1210x680 possible without giving rise to aliasing.

I also note he says:
That's not true. The area dimensions of the AF101 sensor are 8x that of a 1/2" chipped camera, which means a 3 stop difference, not 1.5.

Hence, compared to a 1/2" camera at f1.6, the same dof will be obtained with an AF101 at about f4.8 - not f2.8.

Re: Alan Roberts BBC report on the AF101
 

This I cannot agree with. I quote Alan himself about this camera: "I suspect the official position will be that it's an HD camera, but not top grade. So, it'll get approval for use in film-style shoots but not as the main camera. I guess it's footage will be classed in the 'non-HD' quota, including archive and SD footage. But, I don't make the rules or the decisions, I only measure and report (and get paid for so doing)."

The BBC does not use EXs and X305s extensively. They are approved for a certain kind of use but the BBC would much prefer you to use 2/3" broadcast quality cameras for major programming. His job is to test and measure cameras against that standard and there is never usually a question or a need on the majority of mainstream programming to have to use anything less. Whilst I agree he can knowingly compare similar cameras from this category the requirement will always be to determine whether the BBC can accept a particuler model into the fold set against the highest standards they would ideally prefer. They are realistic to the likely increased use of such cameras but not overly enthusiastic either.

Re: Alan Roberts BBC report on the AF101
 

John, I think the most revealing bit of what you quote from Alan is the phrase "I guess it's footage will be classed in the 'non-HD' quota, including archive and SD footage."

In other words, he's expecting them to look at it in the same light as an SD camera. Use it if you must, but...... That's tantamount to saying it will not get full approval for unrestricted HD use - as such as the XF305 has. (Let alone more expensive cameras.)

Equally, what about the new large format NXCAM? If - *IF* - it offers much better quality than the AF101 at about the same price, then why or earth would the BBC (or anyone else) use an AF101 in preference to that? That will be especially true if the NXCAM DOES get full broadcast approval, at least if used with an external coder.

Re: Alan Roberts BBC report on the AF101
 

In other words, he's expecting them to look at it in the same light as an SD camera. Use it if you must, but...... That's tantamount to saying it will not get full approval for unrestricted HD use - as such as the XF305 has. (Let alone more expensive cameras.)

Precisely David. I would just like to also clarify, because I've done a lot of work for the BBC, that when they say unrestricted use that does not necessarily mean they are happy for main stream programming all to be shot on these cameras (like the X305) merely that HD from them can usually be classed as true HD (unlike say the Z1). Again the vast majority of programmes are shot on full blown 2/3" broadcast cameras.

Re: Alan Roberts BBC report on the AF101
 

No argument with that at all - but if you're saying that they will effectively tolerate for some programming a lower end (albeit approved) camera like the XF305, even if not 100% happy about it, where does that leave the AF101?

It seems extremely unlikely the AF101 will even get the level of approval of the XF305, so surely they can be expected to be even less likely to agree to it's use than the XF305?

Re: Alan Roberts BBC report on the AF101
 

The XF305 has a good codec (50mbps 4:2:2) and proved surprisingly high quality for it's category in Alan Roberts tests. It is capable of producing footage in the right hands that would cut into broadcast material without too much issue particularly for the encoding to air. Still you are going to normally use 2/3" broadcast cameras in day to day main stream progrmming where there is a pro cameraman.

From what I can gather from his test results for the AF101 there is an issue with the way the camera downconverts its megapixel cmos to 1920 x 1080 that is less than perfect. It doesn't pixel skip as was argued here but its OLPF is either less than perfect or non-existent and so the useful resolution is curtailed because of resultant alias artifacts. Combined with a 4:2:0 AVCHD codec of 21mbps (can be fixed with Nanoflash say but still leaves the 1st problem) it doesn't meet the required standards. Remember that the encoding concatenations through post to air in either Mpeg2 or Mpg4 (BBC's current HD) dictates here not how it looks on Vimeo. But also as he says he doesn't write the rules.

I return to what I said earlier, it does not surprise me as you get what you pay for (even with the XF305 they are not giving it you in a shoulder mounted interchangeable lens package). But this will not stop people using it, even for broadcast, and even at the BBC, the dam has opened and I expect to see many fine productions shot with these cams so I don't think people should worry too much.

Re: Alan Roberts BBC report on the AF101
 

I thought a key element of the XF 305 was the combination with the built in lens, so it was an overall package that created a camera that the BBC are happy with.

Re: Alan Roberts BBC report on the AF101
 

I thought a key element of the XF 305 was the combination with the built in lens, so it was an overall package that created a camera that the BBC are happy with.

That's what I meant Brian by 'surprisingly good quality'. When used by DV Directors and APs, or when used as 2nd multiple cameras, say on something like Top Gear, or less accessible current affairs and news, it produces footage that is considered true HD (unlike the Z1 which is still widely used). But where you shoot drama or studio, or high end documentary then the main camera is and will most of the time be a 2/3" broadcast camera. Something like the XF305 (or any other fixed lens camera) can never be a realistic substitute for these.

Re: Alan Roberts BBC report on the AF101
 

I said six weeks ago it DID NOT pixel skip, but rather use a binning technique, and all of Alans results match that latter basic theory very well.

At the time, the explanation suggested by me was:
Because of a scaling error, I now realise the exact values I suggested were too high (1244x700, and should only have been 1175x661), but the basic theory stands up extremely well. That's in respect of resolution (1/4 each horizontal and vertical of total sensor), symmetry (equality hor and vert), lack of coloured aliasing and relative colour/luminance resolution.

In the report, Alan says (p9):
That's exactly what 4x4 pixel binning would give. Think of the 4x4 block as a "super-pixel", with photosites as:

G R G R
B G B G
G R G R
B G B G

R, G, B binning such a block will give equal red, green, blue resolutions, each at a resolution one quarter that of the total no of photosites in each direction, and no differential colour aliasing. Exactly what the test results show.

It's the absence of colour aliasing that Alan uses to discount pixel-skipping - ("It is very obvious that the scaling has not ignored (skipped) sensor pixels, since that would have invoked coloured aliasing, both horizontally and vertically.")

Alans argument ENHANCES the theory in favour of pixel-BINNING, whilst showing there is no pixel-SKIPPING. But I'm open to alternative theories?

Re: Alan Roberts BBC report on the AF101
 

Oh, really?

Ever seen the opening segment of the 2010 Emmy Awards TV show? The Emmys was shown in prime time on a major network, watched by over 13 million viewers. The producers could have picked any camera for the opening comedy skit, and they chose - the XF305.

It's been cleared for FULL acquisition for the BBC. The BBC bought 50 XF305s for themselves. Talk about putting your money where your mouth is.

The AF101 was put through the same tests that all the other cameras go through. No biases, no favoritism. It did what it did.

Re: Alan Roberts BBC report on the AF101
 

It's been cleared for FULL acquisition for the BBC. The BBC bought 50 XF305s for themselves. Talk about putting your money where your mouth is.

For the very uses I have outlined (do you know how many cameras they have in total at the BBC?). Look believe me and I don't mean to burst your bubble Glen (politely I mean) when I say to you no serious cameraman that I know is going to dump his 2/3" camera and only use an XF305 from now on, he'll lose a lot of broadcast work. It does not matter where it was used they will not replace studio and major programme use cameras for the BBC or ITV or SKY in the UK (I can't speak for the US). If you don't believe me take it up with the BBC and ask them what they mean by FULL(or Alan) not me that's not my purpose here, only to comment on the reasons behind approval testing from my own understanding of working in UK broadcast. E.g last month an Independent company producing a well known property series for the BBC asked me here in Spain to shoot with HDCAM for main and yet they had brought 2 XF305s, presumably they or I could of used those, but they were insistent.

Like I said talented professionals will use all these cameras at one time maybe and we'll see, I'm sure some great things. I don't really want to get into any arguments here. :)

Re: Alan Roberts BBC report on the AF101
 

My bubble isn't burst. As a matter of fact, I did sell my 2/3" cam for the XF305. And I am a professional cameraman (kinda serious). And I still get work. You're gonna have to trust me on that. :-)

Sure, I would rather have the new HPX3100. But for the money, the XF305 is a great little cam.
I did look at the AF100 before I bought the XF. I really liked the AF, it had a lot of nice features, and fitted with a PL mount, it was sweet! However, for my needs, the XF fit better. I don't know why some of you are dissin' on the XF305, but it is a really nice cam.

Re: Alan Roberts BBC report on the AF101
 

I think there are going to be a few cameras in this price bracket later in the year, some of which will meet full broadcast HD spec, while others won't. The choice will range from 1/3", 1/2", 2/3" to S35, with standard video type or RAW workflows depending on the manufacturer. The right camera being the one that works best on the type of productions you're shooting.

That's quite a range of choices and not everyone actaully needs a camera that meets the broadcasters' full HD requirements.

Re: Alan Roberts BBC report on the AF101
 

Glen why should I not trust you, I don't know you :) I am only talking of the situation as I've experienced it in the UK market up to now, as Brian says it is changing. But I still hire out my DSR 570 (here in Spain for broadcast and Sky news occasionally), a HPX 500 (I know, I know the XF305 has a better picture but..so does my HD101 but they never believe it) regularly am asked to get Sony/Panny 2/3" HD for other jobs. I know I could hire out a XF305 too and I am seriously thinking of getting one for the quality and the Handycam form factor, it is top of the list for me. But I would lose a lot of work, at the moment, if I just had an XF305 here because of many other factors than pure picture quality, that is all I am talking about, obviously YMMV and I respect that.

I am not dissing the XF305 for sure. It is the best camera in that form factor bar none and the picture/lens/codec quality seems to be excellent even compared to much more expensive cameras, though I have to be honest I have not personally used one. Let me say categorically as well infact I truly hope that the XF305 becomes widely accepted because I'm finding it finacially painful to keep up. But as you say you would rather have the HPX3100 and I am sure you would concede it is a much better camera, recognized as such by major broadcasters. I don't write any rules either I just have to follow them sometimes.

Re: Alan Roberts BBC report on the AF101
 

Indeed no. But given the choice of a fully approved broadcast camera, and one which doesn't meet minimum HD standards, then if roughly the same price, and assuming similar basic features and facilities, then there's nothing to lose by going for the approved version, but potentially a lot to gain.

And the real point is that the 101 is up against other cameras of comparable price, which do meet the spec. (Albeit if needing a nanoFlash in some cases.)

Even if you don't actually need the approval, it's still a good marketing point - "I use equipment which is fully approved to latest broadcast spec".

Re: Alan Roberts BBC report on the AF101
 

Although, for some people it could come down to a shallow DOF driving the purchase, rather than other factors.

Re: Alan Roberts BBC report on the AF101
 

I've had an AF100 on order since December, but have been putting off delivery. Every day there is another nail in the AF coffin.

It seems that Mr Roberts was truly disappointed with the outcome of his tests.. I think, from the tone of his comments, that he really wanted it to perform better than it did.

In my case, I do make documentaries intended for broadcast. My trusty HPX500 is now considered obsolete (although I still like the picture personally).

As an independent documentary filmmaker, I refuse to spend another 20+ grand on a 3100. So, I've invested in having Leica-R lenses Cine-Moded, bought Cineroid finder, and even acquired a Zuiko lens - all in anticipation of getting the AF100 for my next project, which starts in April. If these tests were better, I'd even consider a Nano.

But, all in all, the Canon looks like a better choice. I'd be happy if someone could convince me otherwise.

Re: Alan Roberts BBC report on the AF101
 

I'm pretty sure Panasonic has been very clear about where this camera falls in the marketplace. It has better ergonomics and fewer issues for moire and such than DSLRs shooting HD.If you don;t like shooting with a DSLr then the AF100 is a very good option for you. Personally I think it is a little stupid for everyone to consider the BBC to be the judge and jury on what camera one should use for documentary production since very few of us will actually have something air on the BBC. If you are in fact shooting for the BBC
then shoot 2/3 broadcast.

Okay. Have fun debating while I go to work tomorrow and shoot more footage on our AF 100. And don't forget to clean off the smudge marks from your computer screens from your noses being too close. :)

Re: Alan Roberts BBC report on the AF101
 

Perhaps it's best to wait for the BBC to decide, which probably be a marker for Nat Geo, Discovery Gold HD etc. If your market isn't one of those high end HD broadcasters, the AF100 could be a possible camera for you.

The EX series into Nanoflash and the Canon are non 2/3" options if you do.

Re: Alan Roberts BBC report on the AF101
 

I don't agree. They are marketing it as a 1080p camera, when it clearly isn't capable of even doing 720p well. Say what you will about the BBC tests, but they do show, in an official measured form, the true performance of the camera. Some here were not that happy at the chart I posted previously. Jan claimed on that thread that the results shown on that chart were nothing like the ones that she and Barry Green had measured. She claimed that the camera showed 800 lines on her chart. We still haven't seen this chart, and now we have this BBC test that confirms the low resolution of the camera.

What I'd like to see is some transparency. If Panasonic were open about what the camera is doing instead of going about it with cloak and daggers there wouldn't be a problem. But they do, and they try to sell it as a 1080p camera that solves all the issues of aliasing etc that the DSLRs suffer from, when in reality it does absolutely nothing of the sort.

Re: Alan Roberts BBC report on the AF101
 

Simon without knowing the circumstances around your findings, I am willing to give Jan Crittenden the benefit of the doubt until she responds.

I think you have to put this in the context of the whole development of the AF-100/101. Jan had put herself out there unlike any product manager to date in the development of the camera. The user input on the camera was unparalleled. She stated the criteria for the camera was to give the best camera they could for the target price which turned out to be 6 grand USD. They responded with changes to the camera from the user input on forums like this and others, the camera was released to great fanfare and the momentum for the camera took off and the momentum was largely user/forum based. The expectation for the camera was huge. Everyone thought they were getting away with the farm. Now people are finding out the camera is now not like the $20,000 that they had hoped but a $6000 camera.

I feel a lot of sympathy for the AF owners right now. It is like they have been kicked in the gut and it's not pretty but it has to be put in perspective. Granted if Jan has made a claim about a chart on a public forum she should in the light of this report put up the chart and quell the anger.

She's banked a lot of karma, I would give her some time. There is probably a lot of corporate fallout from this and she is answerable to more than just herself.

Re: Alan Roberts BBC report on the AF101
 

Andrew, I think you are missing the point that my chart matched almost exactly with that of the BBC research document. Where mine came from and the circumstances are now an irrelevant question as you can see the BBC conclusions.

Which could buy a GH2 with a load of accessories and seriously good glass for the same performance. Okay, not the ergonomics, but for that price difference are ergonomics alone worth that amount of money?

I agree. But this seems to be a continuing theme. I only ask for one simple thing. For Panasonic to open up and stop being so coy about their camera specs and performance. As you can see from the people who contribute to these forums, we aren't stupid, and can quickly find out if there is an issue, or of the camera under performs compared to how it is marketed. The solution is to square with us in the first place.

Re: Alan Roberts BBC report on the AF101
 

I commented on this at the time - as far back as early Feb. ( http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/panasoni...ml#post1614658 - also post #58 in that thread)

I now feel even more certain of what happened in the case of a lot of people. Cameras were pointed at charts with only horizontal and vertical lines, a response was seen at the 800 line blocks and the conclusion drawn "oh good - it's resolving 800 lines".

A reasonable assumption to make - but unfortunately completely wrong, as we now know. What they were seeing was aliasing. That's why I went on to say that these sort of assessments need to be done with a zone plate (as Alan used) or at very least a circular res chart with bands (as Simons examples). With such, it's impossible to mistake real detail and aliases - the alias circles have a false centre.

Unfortunately, the high levels of aliasing in this camera made the mistake even more difficult to spot. I suspect Panasonic may be putting in an order for zone plates to replace their old charts to prevent a repeat embarrassment!

Re: Alan Roberts BBC report on the AF101
 

That "expectation" was based on claims made by Panasonic and their "assigns" that the AF100 is a professional camera that offers the possibility of using quality prime cine lenses as well as optically superb still lenses in a variety of mounts. Also, that it offers multiple frame rates at 1080, a feature which no other affordable camera offers. The obvious implication was that the camera will deliver quality consistent with those lenses and with 1080.

Those of us who have used, owned and swear by Panasonic cameras were immediately fascinated and placed our orders. We were concerned about the codec from the outset, but were assured that Panasonic had somehow tweaked AVCHD and that the AF100 is vastly superior to other AVCHD cameras. We were also disappointed that it doesn't use P2 cards but were told it couldn't be done for the price - that should have been a dead giveaway.

Most of those I know wish Panasonic hadn't held their price ceiling at $6000. A little more R&D, and a little more initial feedback would have produced a better, albeit more expensive, camera. Unfortunately, the rush to market may have killed chances for a sequel.

Re: Alan Roberts BBC report on the AF101
 

Key to understanding this would be to understand how the R&D departments in Japan think and work. I don't mean this as derogatory, but as factual. Jan is a product manager and it is her job to promote the products to the hilt regardless of defects. She isn't a camera engineer, and it isn't her job to understand resolution charts and zone charts. Speaking from direct experience of a multitude of other companies product managers from companies all over, they often do not know the details of what they are talking about.

Occasionally some do, one in particular I could mention who used to work for one of the majors really did have a handle on things. But most often they don't. They know just enough to get by.

But as far as results are concerned, they are there in front of us. It does make me chuckle when people keep trying to pick holes in the charts. They tell the truth, good or bad, they don't care. Some may not care about the performance deficiencies. More power to them. I'm the first to say that cinematography and skills count first. Here's the thing though. I *do* care about these issues, because they can come back and bite you in the backside just when you are least expecting it. They can significantly reduce the resale value of your gear when something much better comes along by a rival company or an upgraded product line. This last point I think is quite important given how fast things are progressing.

Re: Alan Roberts BBC report on the AF101
 

I've had this camera for a month and it's paid for itself. Any money I would get by selling it today would qualify as profit. That works for me.

Re: Alan Roberts BBC report on the AF101
 

"They can significantly reduce the resale value of your gear when something much better comes along"

There's probably a high resale value for Yugos now, though.

Seriously, I don't care much for charts, but I do like a good image on the screen. My current camera (HPX500) has been undermined by charts, as has my old super16 Aaton, sitting alone and neglected in my closet. Both of those cameras are capable of stunning images.

However, at this point, getting started on a new documentary that will take over a year to shoot, I have to hope that the AF100 can overcome it's apparent handicaps and produce images that belie the charts.

Re: Alan Roberts BBC report on the AF101
 

Even though I'm nowhere near the level of understanding these technical aspects of camera engineering as many of you guys, I understand most of what was discussed here.

I thought that the one advantage that the AF100 had was true 1080 overcranking, but basically the NXCAM super35 (FS-100) is superior in every aspect because the AF100's 1920x1080 @ 60p is really nothing more than 640 lines of resolution?

Will the 1280x720 @ 60p from FS-100 be just as good as the fake 1080 overcrank from the AF100?

Re: Alan Roberts BBC report on the AF101
 

Lawrence,

I would not judge any camera based upon measured numbers alone. To give Panasonic some credit here, a lot of people are thrilled with the performance of their AF-100, many of which are very experienced in the industry.

To comment on a camera that is not even released yet (NXCAM) is not wise as there are many factors to a pleasing video image.

I do not own an AF-100 so I do not have a dog in this hunt, but I am quite surprised by these tests. This does sort of highlight the need for communication as advertised 1080p is not always 1080 lines of reslution which can be misleading. I am just surprised that his far into the HD era that Panasonic would release a camera which has no more resolution specs than their first 1/3" chip HD camera. Not much in the way of progress on the resolution front.

In the end, personal testing and first hand knowledge (even if it costs some money) is the only way to know which camera is best for your needs.

Re: Alan Roberts BBC report on the AF101
 

Where did you get this info? We know next to nothing about the so-called FS100. We don't even know what it looks like, much less its resolution capabilities. Sony claims it'll do 1080/60P, but until it lands in our laps and we can shoot in that mode, it's all conjecture at this point.

If the AF100 suits your needs and you can make money on the investment, then it's a good camera.

Re: Alan Roberts BBC report on the AF101
 

Zone plates are demanding and they may not have been used here.

However, for people who are worried, the review is positive towards the camera. There are and will be other camera options for broadcast HD work.

Re: Alan Roberts BBC report on the AF101
 

True, but I would expect a 1080p camera to deliver good resolution, especially when the company that makes it has gone to great pains to tell us that all the deficiencies of DSLRs have been overcome with it, when quite frankly they haven't. Forget the resolution numbers, the AF101 clearly suffers from horrendous aliasing issues, one of the main problems people have with DSLRs and the main problem that Panasonic told us that the 101 doesn't suffer from!

Re: Alan Roberts BBC report on the AF101
 

7D has A LOT more aliasing than this camera and as I understand it it can resolve a somewhat similar number of lines right?

All of this got me thinking too. I'm selling my HPX171 for a higher resolution camera but judging from this topic here I'm inclined to reconsider.

The camera costs 5k so I can't really say that this is a surprise...!