@bkmcwd
Yes, your English is a little difficult, but I think I understand your question. You're asking if the frame I used happened to be a B frame, then the noise would be smeared more than if it were an I frame. That's a good question, and to answer it, I went back to the original footage and grabbed three consecutive frames! Three from Q=10 and three from Q=12. Here they are in a zip file.

[url]http://www.sendspace.com/file/7qumoi[/url]

And you're right, Q=12 does indeed have some smeared frames. However, I think the smearing it a little worse in Q=10. But, it's close. You decide!

@proaudio4
I tested driftwood's 176M one page back in "Battle of the Titans".

Ralph_B thanks again man! Another great test.

It's real close, both of them - that is to their HDMI RGB frame bottom layer.
There is a difference, and it's not just white balance. As you know of course..

I tried matching colors (which is almost impossible under these conditions where it's hard to define black, middle gray, and white)
When you zoom in and toggle layers, there's no doubt the blocks are more visible with the AVCHD. (Damn pixel peepers! ; )

Ralph, I'll need to hunt down your low light high ISO test on driftwood's 176M GOP1. I can't remember if you layered the 176M tests?
Also, did the 176M hold up better to it RGB comparison under this low light shot? I believe it did, but it's been awhile?

Everyone, remember to load into Photoshop and toggle on and off the AVCHD top layer, the backgroud layer is the HDMI RGB comparison.

You can of course zoom in for even more of a comparison. Of course, you don't need to zoom in to see the RGB frame has better shadow detail. Look at the back pine tree in front of house and tree to the left of it. The RGB does visually hold better shadow detail. Also, looking at the top front side of house you can see there is more detail in the RGB frame. Even the noise seen on the wall has more clarity. It's not a large difference, but it can be seen at normal frame size.

Having said that, this is an extreme example. We can thank Ralph for this!
The low light is an excellent test since we know detail in the shadows are the first to go. Also, remember that this is ISO6400, so it'a using bandwidth for the vector motion created by the high noise. Granted it's GOP3, it still gives up some i-frame size to share with the other two vector motion frames. Again this is due to noise is seen as motion.

That aside, I imagine under normal low ISO settings the 154M GOP3 i-frames "may" be large enough to be even closer to it's RGB frame comparision. Nice job bkmcwd!

bkmcwd, if is real close between your Q10 and Q12.
If Q12 seems better here (i'm not real 100% sure), it may be due to Q12 offering better motion rendering due to the excessive noise.

driftwood (Stray, or anyone else heavy into testing), could this explain this assuming there is a difference seen here between the Q10 and Q12 frames?

Our Transcend 16 GB cards have worked well with the older 132 gop 3 for the most part, but fail with 176 too. We've now moved on to Sandisc 30 MB/s and are having now problems (though we now have new problems with Henry's insane new patch).

@olegkalyan A lot of 64gig cards are lousy some only working at 10-14mbs only. Jardly useful for any hibitrate settings and quite probably incompatible. Why use them without testing first?
Im still waiting for sdhc cRds to come thru for evaluation.

Major failure on a project with two 64Gb cards Transcend class 10.. with Driftwood 176 mbs hack. A few hickups still, when switched to 132 mbs gop 3 hack.. Not stable in my experience. Had to shoot interlaced.. and go to 44mbs hack..

So far 44 seems to be a best reliable version. there only Transcend cards available in Russia in 64 GB size..
Have to figure out best settings. (kae settings, never had any problems)

@driftwood
Thank you always!
I try on later. :-)

Always check your resuts of Q and IQ on Streameye - check your QP results and scan the macroblocks.

@bkmcwd
Here are the results of comparing your 154M Q=10 and Q=12 to lossless HDMI.

[url]http://www.sendspace.com/file/jz657q[/url]
[url]http://www.sendspace.com/file/py5hzb[/url]

IMHO, Q=12 is better. The finest details are better preserved. Examine the noise.

@Ralph_B
Thanks! :-)

BTW, I do not learn how to use ISO6400 with GH2.
Would you teach usage?

@Ralph_B
I am sorry that my English is strange! ;-)
As Stray followed up, my latest patch is Q=10.
Since it was Q=12 that you tested, I asked a question whether you tried Q=10 version.

"Does "Q setting" refer to both of these parameters?"

Yes! However, I am not sure whether "Initial quantizer=10" is required.

"And does he feel 10 is better than 12?"

Yes!!! It is AT LEAST FOR ME.
Q=10 is because frame size becomes large rather than 12 under lowlight.

@Stray
Thank you for explaining instead of me.

@Ralph_B bkmcwd means the first setting here, he changed the Q setting for higher image quality http://personal-view.com/talks/discussion/comment/20179#Comment_20179