Why the FZ100 sucks...

After checking out the video sample ( http://img.photographyblog.com/reviews/panasonic_lumix_dmc_fz100/sample_images/panasonic_lumix_dmc_fz100_01.mts ), the interlacing look really bad. Check out the cyclist passing by which is most obvious.

Furthermore there isn't 24p or 30p option which sucks (hardware is capable, but software limited). The sensor outputs 50/60fps respectively but encoded file is just interlaced for playback compatibility.

Btw the corner softness seems to be the luck of the draw with these FZ100's. The sample photos with the one used at photographyblog.com has sharper bottom-left corner than dpreviews.com, but the top-left is worse. This is even apparent with the F8 samples so it seems very likely to be poor tolerance for lens alignment during manufacturing process.

The tripod has been intentionally located to NOT be tripod friendly. There is no reason for Pany to have placed the mount so near the battery cover door. Furthermore, it's not even symetrically weighted at that position. Just a cheap way for Pany to artificially limit the usability of the FZ so people will have to move up to the G series. Bad Panny.

Can't we just use a deodorant when a camera sucks? It will be much easier then keep insisting, especially on a new threat full of déja vue comments.
Sorry, but it is to much to my odor.
Best regards

x2x3x2 said:

After checking out the video sample ( http://img.photographyblog.com/reviews/panasonic_lumix_dmc_fz100/sample_images/panasonic_lumix_dmc_fz100_01.mts ), the interlacing look really bad. Check out the cyclist passing by which is most obvious.

Click to expand...

I am sorry. You are totally incorrect. You need to make sure that your computer software is de-interlacing using a decent algorithm. I have had no trouble getting clean 30p frames from the FZ100 AVCHD using BOB de-interlacing, Virtualdub and AVIsynth.

The video format and storage is working well, but it may be a while before consumer level tools catch up with handling AVCHD
.

Why does everyone call the FZ100 "full-HD"? It is 1080i correct? The FZ35 (720P) is also full-HD.

ftlee said:

Why does everyone call the FZ100 "full-HD"? It is 1080i correct? The FZ35 (720P) is also full-HD.

Click to expand...

Panny is using a "FullHD" sticker on those cameras which do 1920x1080 video and HD for those which do 1280x720

That is also the industry nomenclature, AFAIK.
.

ftlee said:

Why does everyone call the FZ100 "full-HD"? It is 1080i correct? The FZ35 (720P) is also full-HD.

Click to expand...

FZ100 IS full HD....FZ35/38 is NOT full HD

FZ100 has a resolution of 1980 x 1080

FZ35 is much lower.

Both are HD....but FZ100 is full HD and higher resolution.

Hope this clarifies

ANAYV

Your direct link to the video does not work for me (403-Forbidden) so I'll put the address of the link page below

http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/panasonic_lumix_dmc_fz100_review/sample_images/

I've just played the video in VLC media player and jaggies are well prominent on all the moving objects, they are distracting and can not be ignored. The same is true in pause mode too. Very disappointing indeed.

I wonder if the 720p mode would be better, lower resolution but no jaggies? But that defeats the price premium of having a full HD camera.

The manual says the sensor outputs at 50 fps.

http://www.panasonic.co.uk/html/en_GB/Products/LUMIX+Digital+Cameras/Super+Zoom/DMC-FZ100/Manuals/5435678/index.html?trackInfo=true

I think it is pretty unreasonable to suggest the FZ100 "sucks".

There is no point in throwing our toys out of the cot because this camera doesn't do everything perfectly.

The expectation many people are putting on this equipment is getting out of hand.

This camera is an exciting new development from Panasonic, once image quality is refined it will be an excellent photographic tool.
Actually, it already is.

The FZ18 was something of a breakthrough design with a few image quality issues that were progressively dealt with and refined in the FZ28 and 35.

I think the FZ100 is a bit like the FZ18 in that regard, an exciting new line of cameras has been born.

The only question people have to ask is whether or not the want in on it now or in subsequent generations.
The concept is brilliant.

U see, in anticipation of the FZ100 I think any reasonable person would at least wish to have it be better performing as compared to the FZ35 which is not only one generation older, and is also a tier lower in the Pany's product range.

The thing is, I'm not seeing any justification for the $499 vs $299 cost. Yes the FZ100 has additional features like hot shoe, swivel screen, longer zoom and burst speed. But where are the improvements where it counts? Interlaced 1080i video is horrible on and commonly used media player by most audiences (WMP, MPC, VLC, etc.). Not sure if it's any better played thru HDMI to a TV. Image quality shows no improvements, actually has worse edge definition than the FZ35. No better low light or high ISO performance.

I very much liked the FZ35 and have been using it extensively for the past 11 months. But the FZ100 is really disapointing. I know people always say never pass final judgement until you've actually used it, but some qualitative results can clearly be judges from the samples as seen from different sources.

There is some hope for the movie mode though. We know the hardware is capable. I can only hope that there will be some kinda hacked firmware developed like those for the GH1.

All I get is "403 - Forbidden"

x2x3x2 said:

Interlaced 1080i video is horrible on and commonly used media player by most audiences (WMP, MPC, VLC, etc.)

Click to expand...

The videos I take in AVCHD, edit in Vegas, and send to YouTube or Vimeo are perfect.

How can a tradesman blame his tools for not bothering to understand a simple concept like de-interlacing?

In VLC, try pulling down the menu labelled "Video" and then selecting "Deinterlace Mode --> Automatic"

That will get you somewhere near the mark. I can do much better than that with BOB and other advanced de-interleave methods, but at least VLC's 'automatic' de-interlace should get you started
.

.
Here is the cyclist, as I see him...
.

Tried that. Instead of seeing jaggies at the edges of moving objects you now see undefined outlines at the edges of moving objects. In other words it's a fudge and it don't work or fool anyone.

toenails said:

Tried that. Instead of seeing jaggies at the edges of moving objects you now see undefined outlines at the edges of moving objects. In other words it's a fudge and it don't work or fool anyone.

Click to expand...

The compression of moving images using MPEG requires different algorithms from compression of still images, using JPEG. Compression artifacts are vastly different with MPEG, as they are aimed at the way the eye perceives motion.

If you don't want to join the movement to video, then that is your choice. YouTube, etc, will survive perfectly well with those of us who can deal with the necessary paradigm shifts
.

trevmar said:

toenails said:

Tried that. Instead of seeing jaggies at the edges of moving objects you now see undefined outlines at the edges of moving objects. In other words it's a fudge and it don't work or fool anyone.

Click to expand...

The compression of moving images using MPEG requires different algorithms from compression of still images, using JPEG. Compression artifacts are vastly different with MPEG, as they are aimed at the way the eye perceives motion.

If you don't want to join the movement to video, then that is your choice. YouTube, etc, will survive perfectly well with those of us who can deal with the necessary paradigm shifts
.

Click to expand...

You've lost me mate. The problem here is that the Z100 HD video experience is substandard. The flow of motion is more like that of jerky silent movies and the edges of moving objects full of jaggies.

toenails said:

The problem here is that the Z100 HD video experience is substandard. The flow of motion is more like that of jerky silent movies and the edges of moving objects full of jaggies.

Click to expand...

The jaggies are not present when the film is processed correctly. Either through movie-editor-software or a player which has de-interlace (like VLC with the deinterlacer enabled).

Smooth motion is achieved when all moving objects blur, preferably blur over the continuous change of the object's position from frame to frame. Camcorders achieve that by using a fixed shutter speed, eg 1/30 sec for 30fps, and a high f-stop, usually achieved with a variable neutral-density filter wheel. That way the shutter remains open for almost the complete 1/30 sec and the motion blur is complete. Surprisingly, this is what the eye loves to see, the so called "motion-blur"

Panny's P&S cameras have not had a wide aperture range up until now. My ZS3 has only a couple of f-stops range. That means the ASA and shutter speed have to be varied in order to get the correct exposure. The shutter will be much faster than 1/30 sec, giving that 'jerky' look you mention.

The new FZ100 and the FX700 have a special f11 aperture during video, allowing Shutter-Preferred mode to vary aperture and ASA to try and get the correct exposure, leaving the shutter at 1/30 sec. This will not work out of doors, f11 is not enough, but should work fine indoors and in dim light. An external neutral density filter can be used out-of-doors.

At least, that is what I have figured out from the product specifications, let's see what they deliver To this point the FZ100 has not been in the hands of anybody familiar enough with the video medium to produce decent footage
.

trevmar said:

How can a tradesman blame his tools for not bothering to understand a simple concept like de-interlacing?

Click to expand...

Bro, I know you can deinterlace video thru editing etc. That's not the issue. I clearly stated for use with common media players which are used by most end users, that is he poor result you're gonna get. To get any amount of quality you'd have to re-encode them to progressive, not just applying a setting in AVC.

x2x3x2 said:

I clearly stated for use with common media players which are used by most end users, that is he poor result you're gonna get.

Click to expand...

Windows XP was designed in 2003, Windows 7 and MacOS X in 2008, while AVCHD is still evolving. These newer video formats will be supported by mainstream OS eventually. Perhaps. It really is not fair to blame a camera for having more advanced features than the currently available software can use. This would have counted out HDR, for example, and even RAW

.

ps: If you were using a Linux OS, then that uses VLC, and there would be no problems. Or if you were to download the free VLC player for MacOS X or Windows then you would have no problems, either

Or you can download the free FFmpeg codec, and then Windoze will be able to play your videos in Windows Media Player.
.

So are you saying that the video as played by the camera via HDMI lead to a full HD screen will still be like this jerky jaggie ridden example and the only way to get a video that looks natural is to faff about with computers and editing software?

.

A lot depends on the Television set. Is it a 60Hz set, or 120Hz, or 240Hz? (in PAL 50Hz, 100Hz, 200Hz). Each uses different methods of interpolation from frame to frame. A lot also depends on whether you have shot the video with the correct shutter speed for smooth video, 1/30 second.

HDMI certainly looks very nice on my 100Hz set with the output from my Panny ZS3, as indeed it does from my Canon camcorders. Not a trace of the 'jaggies' one often finds with older computer viewing software.
.