Did the one you did have post work? Sounds like Color Grading and 24p is what you are looking for.

@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?

@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".

"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.

@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 .

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.

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.

"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.

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. :)

Every classical film camera with a rotating shutter has some RS too…

I read that Vitaliy is working on an AF-100 hack. Is this true?

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.

@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...