I upgraded from the old "apocalypse intra" to the new "Moon T7 intra" one hour ago and it looks fantastic! More details, same sharpness, AWESOME! - See the testscreen at the bottom. GH2, ISO 1600

In the next days, I testing some other stuff.

@Maya There's two variations to try out. One at 24p the other at 23.976. 25p on a 24p setting? Its not a stupid question but within the confines of the ptools we have - its unlikely. Its just a timing trick to round to 24 frames. Syncing with other cams could be a problem, some NLE's may have problems interpretting it - try it out and report back. We already know its fine for bluray.

@the_cubaner Good lill' test - which version of Apocalypse did you use? FYI moon T7 has a better quantisation spread over the Apocalypse settings.

@T1000 None much visibly with the Cluster X Series! It's all dependent on which side of the fence you stand.

Simply put, some people adore Intra for motion and a fresh compressed frame for each frame but it consumes more bitrate than over a greater GOP like 3, 6 or classic 12/15. Long GOP (from Spizz to DREWnet) employ predictive p/b frames to 'sample' along with motion prediction where macroblocks should be reused from the previous frame. This understandably saves on memory.

Modern encoders like that of what is in the GH2 (h264) do a great job of prediction with its rate control and quantisation and can achieve almost identical looking pictures at half the bitrate (e.g. moon T7 uses around 147Mbps on average wherever it can - whereas DREWnet only uses 78Mbps to achieve the same quality. Most people can't tell the difference. But motion is defo better in moon/Intra. Both moon T7 and Drewnet plus all the new Cluster X settings coming are balanced on similar levels to each other but according to their GOP structure. However, Long GOP is definitely more computationaly expensive than moon on the processor - so there's only so far you can push it in the GH2. The greater than GOP the more computations. The lower the GOP the more bitrate expensive. :-) Hope that helps.

@Driftwood Wow awesome! Thanks for all you!

@Driftwood @BurnettRhoades I'm a little confused at the 23.98 and 24p talk here. What is the advantage of one over the other? Which one is best suited if my end goal is to project in a movie theater? Is one better for Bluray than the other?

Ah, the horror show that is NTSC, 3:2 pulldown, etc! Probably hasn't been a good thread on that since, what, the early DVX100 days...

@T1000

The film standard has been 24 fps exactly for a very long time now. Video trying to emulate film in the days of NTSC and CRT televisions came up with 23.976 because it worked with the scanning frequencies of the older CRT sets.

Newer flat panels don't have a lot of the limitations of older CRT sets, and indeed the developers of the ATSC and Blu-ray specifications were foresighted enough to include 24 exact in their specs.

Given the perceptible improvement in motion with 24 fps, I'd recommend using that for something you want to show in a theater.

T1000 - you may be putting the cart before the horse a little, don't start worrying too much unless you're thinking film out (who does that nowadays) or maybe DCP. Have you seen, say, THE MASTER on blu ray? Looks pretty good right? 23.976. * edit: Jim and Nick beat me to it and more informatively

@driftwood: thanks, I'll try asap, just need time to "compile" ptool on Mac... Edit: no changes, still the same problem. I tried with a new clip...

Cluster X Series 'Nebula T7' incorporating all the latest findings released shortly.

@driftwood That Cluster X DrewNET T9 1080/24 screengrab looks great - quite a bit of detail from foreground to background. Great for documentary work I bet.

@jeffharriger Did somebody say "DVX100"?...damn, I'm not the only one who remembers that one! It was a pretty cool cam. Heard some guys hacked it back in the day, but even unhacked it produced a pretty decent image.

@danielvy https://www.personal-view.com/faqs/gh2-hack/ptool-software