Personal View site logo
Make sure to join PV on Telegram or Facebook! Perfect to keep up with community on your smartphone.
Please, support PV!
It allows to keep PV going, with more focus towards AI, but keeping be one of the few truly independent places.
Driftwood Quantum X Settings, Series 4: Cluster v2, Mysteron, Sedna, Orion...etc...
  • 1015 Replies sorted by
  • modernhumanmodernhuman

    Some thoughts about Picture Profiles:

    I've been testing Vibrant (-2,-2,-1,-2) and Smooth (-2, -2, 0, -2), with Sedna A AQ1 (24H). I've pretty much come to the conclusion that Vibrant has more accurate (Canon like) colors, but Smooth might have a tad (1/4 stop) more dynamic range. But Smooth does weird stuff with greens and reds, it's also a lot more desaturated, and in general the color rendition is strange.

    Based on tests Vibrant appears to hold up better in grading too. Using this logic: 1. Underexposing when capturing, to preserve highlights 2. More extreme grade to push up low level details (from underexposed image) 3. Colors desaturate when pushed 4. Vibrant has more color to begin with, so it holds the color better

    If you do the same thing with smooth you lose more color and have to add it back in, this seems backward to me. Always cut or take away, before adding back in.

    Anybody have any thoughts on this or perhaps have discovered similar and/or different results?

  • blackspotblackspot

    @driftwood Hi! Is it possible to decrease Mysteron Burst-set. bitrate a lil bit to get record times like 30sec? or does it "screw things up" someway?

  • rajamalikrajamalik

    @driftwood is it true until april last we wont be getting canis majoris,.,. i thought u had set this between april 14 & april 20??????????????

  • rajamalikrajamalik

    @adamquesada most prefer sedna c and some prefer sedna b,.. i prefer sedna A,.. but all of them prefer the Aq1 versions of sedna,... ;)

  • peternappeternap

    @adamquesada Overall, yes. I'm still on the fence about 720 60 since I shoot that the most. There just isn't a lot of gain over Sanity.

  • adamquesadaadamquesada

    So it looks like most prefer Mysteron.

  • jvalaljvalal

    @yeehaanow the footage is smooth. I thought it was a dolly at first. A bit pricey for my wallet right now, but something I'll keep my eye on as prices drop.

  • luxisluxis

    @thepalalias yeah i totally agree for the mysteron...i went back to it from sednaAQ1_B...the image is soo freaking nice is scary.and the bit rates are sometimes half of sedna which has better grain, etc but the jump in size and and all the issues i had with it stopping on the 720 50p are just not worth it for me at this moment...when i have all the 95/65 san disks i need i might reconsider but the end of April(Cluste v2, Canis;) will be sooner than that for sure...

    @awasome,thanks for the flight...wait, do i feel a little envy for the hexacopter?... ; )

  • thepalaliasthepalalias

    Here is an update from @Driftwood (Nick).

    "Cluster v2 is almost finished, Canis is still undergoing tests... Ive had a busy few weeks and will continue to be filming projects until end of April so I have little time to finish my testing until last week of April. Plu wiki and so much else! "

    He asked me to pass that long to everyone, so there you go.

    So no pestering for new settings until the end of April, got it? ;)

    Seriously, the settings Nick has made so far are already really, really great. The other day I was filming Muay Thai and I shot some of the footage with Mysteron in 50 or 60P on a GH2 and some of it with the stock settings on a GH1 in 60P. What a difference.

  • yeehaanowyeehaanow

    @jvalal Quadrocopter.us It's the cinestar 6 kit with a gimbal of my own design. I plan on doing some back to back flights with Sedna vs mysteron soon. Trying to figure out a good 60p patch to pair with them too.

  • No_SuRReNDeRNo_SuRReNDeR

    -

  • thepalaliasthepalalias

    This weekend I did some testing by the observatory - shooting the same shot with various ISOs in a situation where light could not be compensated by aperture, etc. I hope to post some shots today or tomorrow that give a sense of the underexposure noise vs high ISO noise for people that have not tested themselves. But my memory is that I stopped at ISO 640. I did the testing with either Sedna or Mysteron and cannot wait to look at my notes and find out which one. :)

  • shianshian

    Dude, chill. I know. That's why I said it was accurate.

  • No_SuRReNDeRNo_SuRReNDeR

    -

  • jvalaljvalal

    @yeehaanow where did you get your hexacopter?

  • shianshian

    @yeehaanow Dude, that's awesome. I gotta get me one of those!

  • modernhumanmodernhuman

    @shian yes, coming down the middle row and then up to the top row destination. I may do more testing, but it make sense that 320 and 160 would be cleaner than 640.

  • yeehaanowyeehaanow

    @shian That test you referenced was done by selecting 320 from 640, in other words, NOT avoiding the iso bug. I have since learned to select 400 before 320. My current philosophy is that noise simply increases as you up the iso and there are no real native iso's.
    Here's a low light test of Sedna B Q1 at 400 Iso on my hexacopter. Some smoothcam and color correction applied but it seems like the banding is no where to be found like it normally would. Loving it!

  • shianshian

    @modernhuman did you take the necessary (and inordinately complicated) steps to avoid the ISO bug?

  • modernhumanmodernhuman

    @thepalalias Thank you and look forward to your tests!

    @soulkeeper @No_SuRReNDeR @shian 640 ISO is in no way the cleanest. I recently did some iso tests with Sedna A AQ1 and stock and from 640 on, noise was definitely visible. Granted, the patch makes good use of the noise, producing nice grain, but 160 and 320 are definitely cleaner.

  • shianshian

    @No_SuRReNDeR 320 is an accurate assumption. But the 640 number is referring to a test done here by one of the PV users that showed that 640ISO actually had the least amount of noise in it.

    http://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/comment/37438#Comment_37438

    The problem being that 640 is also one of those buggy ISOs that suffer from the ISO bug. So while it may be the cleanest ISO, it is not always the safest bet to shoot in.

  • No_SuRReNDeRNo_SuRReNDeR

    -

  • soulkeepersoulkeeper

    @Mr_Moore,@LumixUser thanks..

  • rajamalikrajamalik

    Video is private again I will improve grading and repost it,.. ;) suggestions from friends

  • Mr_MooreMr_Moore

    @soulkeeper

    is 640 the base iso for GH2?

    We don’t know for sure, but I believe the reasoning is as follows. The base ISO for the GH2 in stills mode is 160. Assuming that one video pixel is interpolated by using four stills pixels, 160 × 4 = 640.

This topic is closed.
← All Discussions