Personal View site logo
Panasonic AG AF100 / AF101
  • 141 Replies sorted by
  • Did the one you did have post work? Sounds like Color Grading and 24p is what you are looking for.
  • @griplimited

    Oh yea, definitely graded in post. And yea, I've always used 24p for cinematic-esque work...

    I just thought that the discussion was about which cam could achieve the most cinema-like look. So I assumed that the examples were shot in 24p already, which is probably why they looked weird (motion wise, not skill level or anything like that).

    There's no doubt that the AF-100 is the better camera for video work. I was just saying that I still think the GH2 looks more like cinema with the increases latitude and true GOP1 24p motion.
  • @bwhitz - I think we're comparing apples to oranges here - all the AF100 clips I've posted were raw, ungraded. Once you grade them all bets are off. See, I found myself having to grade all the output from the GH2, which is something I don't want to do. Let's see some raw footage. Again, the AF100 gets the WB much better not to mention you actually have many different meters telling you your exposure levels while recording. Doesn't it drive you nuts how much the GH2's screen changes color after you hit the record button?
  • lens choices could play a part,
    the stuff I've seen shot with the some of the Panny lenses looks a little too sharp to me,
    I shoot with the AF101 and FD lenses which give me a softer look, I do corporate work and for talking heads they're much more flattering
  • @bwhitz

    After watching your examples, I think that "I'll have what she's having" is even more apt a metaphor for this debate than I first thought:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=F-bsf2x-aeE#t=85s

    The wicked point that Meg Ryan's character makes is not merely that she can convincingly fake an orgasm. It's that what Billy Kristol's character thought he knew is bullshit because when it comes to female orgasms, he has no way to be sure what's real and what's fake.

    In this case, the "real orgasm" is the film look, which for you stands out unmistakeably from the AF100's fake-orgasm video look. But this claim fails to impress those of us who know how common it is not only to fake orgasms, but to fake every other aspect of movie production as well. That's why, when something is faked especially well, our reaction is not to gush over how "filmic" it is, but to say frankly, "I'll have what she's having".
  • Can the GH2 fake orgasms? This is confusing.
    Perhaps we should start an orgasm thread.

  • "This is confusing."

    Yea, I'm still confused... is it that you think I can't tell... or that you guys can't tell? There is also no "fake" or "real" film look. Something either looks like something from a movie... or it doesn't. I don't know what "faked especially well" means... ??? The audience doesn't care if you faked something during production or not... all that matters is the image in the end. You could spend a million dollars shooting something on the Arri Alexa or Red, but if you used an open shutter (1/24th at 24fps), the audience's reaction is just going to be "student film" or "soap opera". So the process is really irrelevant in the end in comparison to what the final image is on the screen. I don't know what there is to "fake".

    The examples I posted both show off what I consider the "film" look (motion and contrast rendering). The skin tone comparison Shield posted looked like straight up video, even though it was well shot, and the FS100 vs AF-100 looked cinematic, but still didn't show off any film-like skin tones (because the skin wasn't lit) besides the back side... which tells us nothing.

    I think this is the same argument we're running into with the long-GOP motion vs short-GOP motion. Some people just don't see it, where others said it made worlds of difference in the "feel" of the footage.
  • @bwhitz - Please show me some raw GH2 footage that has your cinema look, since the hack made that possible. I mean no grading, color correction at all. Otherwise, I'll pick the device that has more tools to help me shoot and more features every time.
    You do know the GH2 has more moire as well don't you? I've seen it first hand when I had both; same lighting, same day, same shot. Not saying it's a huge problem with the Gh2 though.
  • @Ian_T I see that I was not the only one that was waiting for the test between the two. I am perhaps speculating too much here, but I bet if the Af-100 was indeed better than the gh2 we would have seen the test. To see how he has defended the Af-100 against the Fs-100 for example, I am sure he would have published the test because so many have been questioning the image quality of the Af100 vs Gh2 .
  • @bwhitz
    The problem is that "Film like" is a nebulous term, similar to the claim that a camera is "Broadcast" quality. It's imprecise, vague and means different things to different people. No one can ever agree what film like means, the discussion goes no where.

    Lastly, I'll once again invite any unsatisfied owners of either the FS100 or AF100 to donate their cameras to me. You can even deduct the donation on your taxes and I'll say something nice about you on Facebook.
  • AF100 gives wider margin of error than GH2 where GH2 is capable of awesome raw footages. AF has a bunch of features that helps nail down good footages. I don't own it. I just read the operating instruction. GH will never have such advanced features.

    It's pointless to compare them. It's apple vs orange.
  • "You do know the GH2 has more moire as well don't you? I've seen it first hand when I had both; same lighting, same day, same shot."

    @Shield My thoughts are this...the GH-2's sensor is just sharper (more detailed) than the AF100's. So, with the latest discovery of how the kit lens (or what seems like ANY Pana lens) adds artificial sharpening to the overall image then I'm not suprised we see this problem. The question remains...what kind of lens did you use during your test? I was shocked to see on many tests that the AF100 produces aliasing...especially after Barry made it clear that a purpose built professional camera like the AF100 would not produce anamolies like that. Others went on to say that is what seperates a professional look from a consumer look. Truth is...The EX-1, AF100, F3 etc ALL produce these anamolies (some more than others).

    @danyyyel Right!!! However, I don't think that test will come. Or..if it does...we might see it swing like how the AF vs FS was done. They are both great cameras. But I think the FS100 would of handled itself better in a more demanding environment (IMO). Like someone mentioned...they were in their comfort zone in that test.
  • I think that most camera if not all would alias, but the thing is that it is so low in general that nobody was bothered by it. Then come the days of the DSLR where it was a real problem and most of us have become aware of it to a point of looking at it and scrutinizing every camera coming out. In five years it will again be a non issue and except being a pixel peeper we won't see it in the rare occasion it will pop. I think either camera is good in this domain that it won't show up in 99.9 % shots.
  • "Sure... here's the first clip I did with the GH2"

    Looks nice but... there is some (a lot actually) noticeable and ugly rolling shutter in the GH2 video...
  • "Looks nice but... there is some (a lot actually) noticeable and ugly rolling shutter in the GH2 video..."

    Well... I guess I should sell my GH2 then. Oh wait... nobody gives a f***.

    Gamer had tons of rolling shutter. Nobody cared.
    Kevin Smith's Red State had rolling shutter. Nobody cared.
    Everything shot on Red (even the Epic) has rolling shutter. Nobody cares.

    Rolling shutter is just a last-ditch scapegoat used by "film-hipsters" (who's films still don't look good, but constantly dog on rolling shutter, shallow DOF, and XLR inputs) and old pro's who are pissed off that their HVX/Varicams are worthless now.
  • @bwhitz completely agree! Further more even without rolling shutter, fast camera movement makes audiences feel like puking, so if you are achieving rolling shutter think twice about how you are filming...
  • I have to agree I totally hate the shaky-cam epidemic thats going on.

    @bwhitz
    If you think thats a reason to sell your GH2 then by all means do so. I just try to avoid shooting in ways that it becomes visible in regards the camera I am using for the shot. Some cameras are less prone to it some more. No need to heat up on the subject. As I said it was good looking piece of work. Btw I newer liked my HVX200 and was very happy when I replaced it with my first GH1. I think it wasnt really that good a cam to begin with.

    Camera manufactures are trying their best to get rid of rolling shutter so I guess somebody cares... but maybe thats just me then. :)

  • @bwhitz
    I use Mercalli plugin to get rid of the rolling shutter effect and it does wonders to me.
    I dont know if you have tried it but if not then give it a try.
    It cant fix the worst run-n-gun shots but removes very well slight rollers.

    http://www.prodad.com/home/products/videostabilizing/300391667,l-us.xhtml

  • Every classical film camera with a rotating shutter has some RS too…
  • They do, but its some bit a different than in cmos though and most of it is masked by motion blur. Depending also on the shutter angle being used.
  • I read that Vitaliy is working on an AF-100 hack. Is this true?

  • @revitdazio

    No, it is not.

    Also check the date of this opus.

  • Ah ok I see, it was from January of 2011.

    If you added up the potential commitments, it's a substantial amount of money... What are your reasons for not hacking the AF100? I'd be willing to send you money as well for this.

    Thanks again for everything.

  • I'm sure the AF100 would be one hell of a camera if Vitaliy had his way with it. It has all the features we would love to see in a GH2.

  • @rigs

    Simply record the HDMI output of the AF100. Other than that- there is lots of 8 bit issues still- and that can't be fixed any firmware way...