@vicharris The best output in 1080p24 maybe, not in 1080p25, yet. Personally I think that among all the settings that have been developed the GH2 still looks like a GH2. It looks much better than with factory firmware settings but all settings share the characteristics of the GH2 which have advantages and disadvantages. To me the differences are not revolutionary, it's not like switching to a different camera model when switching from i.e. FlowMotion to Cluster V7.

@cbrandin I understand that and one should always test the settings one is intending to use. I would not be surprised though if someone reads in the setting descriptions that everything works fine and gives great quality in HBR etc., then reads some glorifying report without any indication regarding the mode and then goes out and ruins a shot. It would be their own fault of cause, but calling for some caution would be a reasonable thing to do. Unfortunately there seems to be an ongoing competition for "who develops the greatest settings" which leads to some sort of product marketing language which can be misleading.

@kodakmoment I mis-spoke, not raw but untouched and CC'd

@cbrandin Yes, it was HBR 25p, so it was interlaced. Thanks a lot for the clarification. I think @driftwood might want to post a warning for the 25p guys to wait with using the smooth 444 settings because it would cause them severe problems when using them for an important shoot. I have not yet tested the sharp2 settings and will report as soon as I have. Anyone intending to use them for serious work better check first.

@vicharris I am exaggerating but I was thinking of a "first review by some crazy guy" that Driftwood mentioned some pages earlier in this thread. I think people are getting a bit too carried away.

The "stuff" the patched GH2 puts out is AVCHD 4:2:0 8bit at a significantly higher quality than the standard AVCHD specs but it is incorrect to call it raw.

@kodakmoment Who on here is saying this turns the GH2 into an Alexa contender? You seem to be putting words in peoples mouths. All we're saying is this is the best raw stuff we've seen out of this camera so far.

Since we're talking about meaningful and meaningless comparisons, the other issue is, should anyone really care what comes out of the camera, if the footage produced by other settings can be made to look much the same in post? Are the differences truly qualitative, or just incidental (or imaginary)?

It matters, because if you can get the same results using settings which require half or two-thirds of the data rate and are more reliable, why waste the bandwidth and risk shooting failures?

@Zaven13 wish you would of done the test the same day one after another. It seems like the white balance settings where changed and/or its clear to me and anyone else that examines the screen grabs that the time these where taken are not the same. The FM shot looks more like noon because the mountains are lit to where they're no shadows, and the AN shot looks more as if the sun is going down due to the way the shadow casts onto the mountains. I've done tests myself between these two patches and can say the difference is not as dramatic as it shows with yours.

Hi everyone, I am noticing strange artifacts in every I-frame of Nebular and DREWnet. Every 6th respectively 12th frame I get jagged edges on contours. I uploaded an example of a frame with artifacts and one without. I used both AN soft versions of the settings with the ptool 3.66 beta. The lens I used was the 20mm Pana prime. I shot in HBR 25p mode with Standard all -2, copied the private folders to my computer and compared a 5DtoRGB transcode with a FCP7 log & transfer import. In both cased I get the same artifacts. I have tried changing the timeline settings from upper to lower field because of the interlaced footage and it makes no difference. Also the original mts files viewed in the VLC player show the artifacts. Does anyone have an idea what is causing this and how it can be prevented?

@peternap What are you using to view the file? I'm on Media Player Classic with the CCCP codec pack. Looks fine to me.

@Zaven13 Already from the shadows on the mountain range I can clearly see that your "comparative test" is a complete waste of time for you and everyone else. Please think before posting such none-comparable images.

@zaven13 your telling me that is flow motion 2 verses apocalypse now 444 soft both UNGRADED?!!!! wtf thats such a difference if these are straight from camera , same lens? same time of day? it looks like the light has totally changed or the haze just vanished in the AN shot i just can't believe there is this much difference in colour .... screw the resolution i can't see any difference with my eyes glancing at them...