Personal View site logo
Make sure to join PV Telegram channel! Perfect to keep up with community on your smartphone.
Official Low GOP topic, series 3
  • 1008 Replies sorted by
  • @driftwood

    Thanks for the new beta. Can you spot the AQ4 among the VGA MJPEG? :)
    P1030709_00000.jpg
    1920 x 810 - 682K
    P00018_00000.jpg
    1920 x 810 - 689K
    P1030709_1_00000.jpg
    1920 x 810 - 849K
  • @johnnym
    My bet is on the 2nd picture
  • I'm thinking second one too.
  • 2nd, in the way youve named them!!!! Go on tell us then! Don't you think the new MJPEG settings are any good then?! There's more to come :-)
  • @driftwood

    So you think VGA is worth it? I stand corrected!

    @driftwood @ehr @sohus
    2nd it is! You could probably only spot by the name, right?
  • yep!
    @driftwood
    Thanks Nick!
  • @Driftwood

    I needd a 2, 35 without having to use special lenses anamorphic.

    Driftwood thank you
  • @Driftwood, it's probably best if I just tell you my lenses. This hurts my brain.

    I have 1.33x, 1.5x and 2x adapters. I believe there is also a rare 1.75x .. I have never seen one.

    It would be extra nice, if we had settings to make a 2x adapter record only the center 2.39 and center 2.65 throwing the wastage away at point of recording

    Cheers

    Kevin
  • I have 1.33x, 1.5x and 2x also. 2x is too wide though, so I'd be interested in the above suggestion, although I highly doubt it will be possible.
  • So, to be clear.

    2560 x 1080 (1.33x)
    2880 x 1080 (1.5x)
    3840 x 1080 (2x)

    Or, any smaller derivatives of the above that are stable. Having said that though, I'd rather stretch in post instead of losing vertical resolution. So if we can't get 1080 lines stable, then I think it might be a bit pointless. Very keen to see how far you can push this though Nick :-)
  • Hey guy's here is a new video that I just uploaded on youtube using @driftwood latest patch Quantum v2..
    Lens Pany 20mm f1.7 Iso 320-1250
    Profile Cinema (-2-1-0-2)
    No color corrections
    Custom W.B (3400K) to neutralize between halogen & fluorescent softbox lighting..
  • @driftwood, Quantum Beta 3 MJPEG HD and VGA settings for this anamorphic experimental user are proving far superior to AVCHD 1080p24 24H. Using the correct San Disk 30 MB/s SD card, MJPEG HD was almost totally unstable, only a few records with lots of rapid pan/tilt at the start sustained. MJPEG VGA was fine. Truly amazing quality difference for anamorphic users, imo, yet not sure why such a defference, not sure how the magic under the hood makes it so much better. Any prospect of MJPEG 23.976p, 24p and 25p flavours? Thank you @driftwood, report will be on the way to you soon.
  • @WhiteRabbit, thanks for that report. Was the VGA mode what you would call superior to AVCHD for anamorphics? Or MJPEG?

    I've always thought MJPEG looked harsh/nasty/digital versus AVCHD, but I'll have to give it another shot. Of course 30fps still pretty much kills it for me, but for certain things I might be okay with conforming to 24.
  • @Oedipax, my attempts to record AVCHD using an anamorphic attachment on the front of a long enough lens, say, over 50mm, has resulted in footage that looks rather soft. I recorded some footage out the window today, terrible dull grey sky, however, I was pleased with how much clearer the MJPEG footage was compared to the AVCHD I had previously recorded. I agree, the footage does have a 'harsher' look, whereas the AVCHD has been soft enough to remind my of my 35mm lens adapter days. It is great that the MJPEG footage is recorded without the need to transform the height (default value down from 100 to 56), as I do with the 1080p24 24H AVCHD footage. I will later try and find a few very short snippets and upload them to Vimeo or Youtube as comparison. I just now finished recording some potential 'skin tones' submissions, I want to look through that footage now. I will revert, as soon as practicable. Thank you.
  • @Oedipax, after looking at my skin tones test footage, and comparing head and shoulder shot footage using three different Quantum Beta 3 settings, namely:
    1. MJPEG 2160x810 VGA with Isco anamorphic attached to taking lens;
    2. AVCHD 1080p24 24H with Isco anamorphic attached to taking lens; and
    3. AVCHD 1080p24 24H with Lomo 75mm lens attached,
    I found that number 3, Lomo 75mm, was clearly the sharpest, most detailed, and smoothest looking footage. As for the anamorphic setups. both 1 and 2 were softer than 3 when comparing, of course, as the Isco is chaining more glass on existing glass. Then 2 being sharper than 1. For the close up shot, MJPEG was perhaps slightly sharper, yet harsher, as you clearly observed and pointed out. Earlier today, I shot some wider shots, focus on infinity, and the detail in more distant shots make the MJPEG anamorphic footage appear sharper and detailed, as opposed to AVCHD which is smoother and less detailed looking footage. These are my objective views after installing Quantum Beta 3 today, and only using the GH2 for a week or so, and only two days with minor testing of the anamorphic attachment. I would like to shoot some more experimental footage over the coming days and make further observations instead of uploading any of my poor quality 'out the window' footage I recorded earlier today. As for my skin tones footage, I am submitting that now to @driftwood. Perhap Mr D can share some observations from my skin tones footage, or the matter in general, in due course. Many people to thank on this forum. Thank you.
  • @WhiteRabbit, thanks for all that great info! Not much to add yet as I haven't shot any anamorphic with Quantum beta 3 yet, but hopefully soon.
  • I hope anyone proves me wrong saying the VGA mode is lacking resolution.
  • Hello, new poster & GH2 owner.

    To being with, immeasurable thanks to all those developing and testing new patches - you know who you are. I will be making a donation shortly. Also want to make it clear that my end goal is to shoot narrative film, not get caught up in pixel-peeping or attaining digital video data nirvana. But I appreciate the efforts of those who do.

    I want to share the following observation: I did a low light test yesterday night to compare stock and Quantum. I was surprised that the stock firmware was less noisier. Anyone else have the same results? What patch is currently best for low noise, SeaQuake?

    Thanks for in advance for any info/advice. Cheers.
  • @spacewig,
    Since you're new, you may want to read up on this topic.
    The reason you're not seeing as much noise with the stock firmware is due to it's being smeared by macroblocks due to more aggressive compression.

    There's nothing magic going on here. It's not like Vitaliy added code to produce noise ;)
    The bottom line is the hack now allows us to capture more of what the sensor is really seeing.
    Also, you are now able to make a better model of noise and remove in post opposed to murky smeared swarming compression artifacts.

    Also, driftwood always improves his 24H, so if you're after the latest and greatest, "currently" it's Quantum V3.
  • @proaudio4 Thanks for the quick reply. I wasn't aware of that, though I've spent hours reading here and elsewhere in an attempt to learn about the Gh2. I saw a youtube video doing a low noise test with driftwood's seaquake and there was a remarkable difference between his patch and stock firmware. There was no mention of post denoising. I assumed that the images were straight from the camera. Speaking of which, what is the preferred denoising software?

    Cheers
  • @spacewig, Neat Video is the current favorite for noise reduction. It's great!
  • @spacewig Also check out and read about the ISO bug, which on certain settings gives more noise due to the bug. People have identified methods of going up and down and which ISO settings work best. Do a search on the top right of Personal-View.
  • @oedipax I'll have to try it out, thanks. I've heard about it on a numbr of occasions.

    @driftwood Great to know, thanks. I'll definitely read up on that.
This topic is closed.
← All Discussions