@Driftwood @onionbrain I loaded drewnet soft and decided to give it the ultimate test. I was supposed to video a biker get together tonight. The light is bad and erratic and it always gets......exciting. I couldn't believe my eyes when I reviewed the video. Nick...Chris...you're both fricking geniuses !!! You damn sure earned this donation! Standard -2 iso 1600 Samyang 85mm 1.7 1080-24. Exposing by eye for the highlights. 3 grabs

@007geography No, there is zero difference between transcodes at 422HQ and 4444. Already tested it with AN 444.

@Sangye Thx i think so too

@Driftwood for Nokton 25mm...sharp or soft wich is better ? ps: thanks for the great patch

at the moment I am using soft and it runs super stable and has a great quality

@janis Ive seen that problem with AVCHD (and stock recordings) files played back thru VLC & Quicktime and screengrabbing. I refuse to use them sticking to only true ffmpeg/decent AVCHD codecs to play back footage. If you use Mac OSX use Movist and try it out. If youre Win7 etc... use WMP with a decent codec pack like K-Lite Codec Pack 9.2.0.

A lot of visual artefacts happen when;-

A/ you don't copy over the entire private folder which includes all the hi-bitrate AVCHD files and their metadata and the result is choppy/artefact footage from a slow sdcard reader

OR

B/ You aren't using a decent enough codec based player (like the ones I mention above). Either download/buy one (K-Lite is free) or use your NLE to check footage.

Please check thoroughly again.

Thanks

Nick

@JDN

LOL +1 :-)

@onionbrain My only intent was to examine the hack in a situation I deal with frequently and that is talking heads. You're right in the assessment that I don't necessarily "need" a hack for what I do and so I don't really do a lot of hack testing. However, Apocalypse Now seemed intriguing as it promises simulated 444 color and the limited color space has always been one of my biggest complaints with DSLRs.

I'm sorry if you found my test pointless but I appreciate your feedback. Hopefully it helps some people and if not, then I apologize for wasting their time. The trees and bushes comment was made in jest and only meant as a joke. I understand the reasoning for shooting such objects but don't find them very valuable to my work and I'm sure others will do those tests anyway. I only meant to provide a test that evaluated my needs and maybe the needs of others.

I think the hack work is amazing and far beyond anything I could hope to attempt on my own. The knowledge of @driftwood and others is invaluable and I respect their contributions greatly. I think almost every hack on this site improves the camera to some extent and I am very thankful for that.

@onionbrain Thanks! I had it backwards. I'll reload and have at it again. The Rino's aren't the best test anyway.

@Xenocide38 From the objectives you describe at your "blog," I don’t understand why you want a hack. Just stick with the stock. Your "test" was so limited I don't understand how you could reach any conclusions. Finally, people who shoot "trees and bushes" (which, apparently, you have some kind of problem with) do so to evaluate detail handling and motion of fine detail. Were you able to evaluate any of that from your test? Were you stressing the recordings you compared with your beard?

I don't mean to be harsh -- but I am being honest. You drew some pretty hefty conclusions from a few seconds of a nearly static headshot that contradict serious work from serious people.

@peternap Use the "soft" with micro-four-thirds lenses. Use the "sharp" with classic film lenses. The results of these settings are amazing and superior to anything I’ve yet seen from a GH2.

I tried the nebular 444 soft and compared to flowmotion 2.02 or cluster v.6 nebular it feels like i have a bit more noise in lowlight even at lower isos. In a well lit scenario it looks good though.

I am planning some green screen using the 14-50 leicasonic. It is not as edgy as the panasonic lenses but I would not call it soft. Any suggestion for soft vs sharp against green screen improvement would be appreciated. I guess I am asking, especially @driftwood or @cbrandin, if color space improvements are greater in the sharp or soft versions.