@lpowell - I looked up the reference you linked. My formula calculates what he calls QP. It's a little confusing because that number is a product of various parameters included in H.264 headers and the scaling matrix. And then there is PTool's "Quantizer" Parameter. Let's agree that the index into the table is "QP", the indexed entry is "Q", that PTool's parameter is "Base QP", the frame's base QP is "Frame QP", and that the macroblock QP offset is "macroblock QP offset" - that should eliminate the confusion.

An avid lurker here -

Can somebody point me to the discussion where it seems to have been explained that 25p is really 25i ?

Lpowell, regard the scaling matrices, I wasn't aware of that. Thank you for the information. After trying both settings my self I see advantages and disadvantage on both FL and soft 444 so to speak. But I some how tend to like the feel of AN 444 soft. btw, the fighting comment was not meant to you alone, so no hard feelings. 

Flaschus, Some how the cables in the background seem overly sharpened on AN? Tend to like the FL in that regard. Than again.. There seem to be less noise in the shadows regard the AN. Confusing stuff... 

hello... i needed to see for myself, so here is my comparison of the two matrices:

flomotion 2.02 & Valkyrie '444 Soft',

both 3gop 24p high bitrate patches

if you were to zoom into details (such as the ingmar bergman box set, or butch cassidy and the sundance kid case...)

u can see how the two are different, hope this helps!

24p mode, 14mm@2.5, 400iso, cloud WB,

@LPowell - I can see some differences - Flow Motion is a little sharper, and the 444 stuff has somewhat smoother gradations. I think it depends on the subject. The one you show is pretty contrasty and monochromatic. Other subjects may show more or less of a difference.

Your point about matrices not being interchangeable is well taken. Changing matrices changes everything else too, and it's a lot of work to get right!

@fix - "Would love to see this Soft 444 matrix implemented in [Flow Motion v2]..."

Scaling Matrices lie at the core of the encoding engine and are not mix-and-match components that can be easily transplanted into different patches. Replacing FM2's custom Scaling Matrices with the Soft 444 matrix would convert it into a new patch that was no longer Flow Motion, and it would require its own bitrate balancing and stabilization. Judging from my comparison footage, the results would not justify the effort.

As for "fighting", since the insults and bullying have ceased, there is no longer a need to defend myself.

@cbrandin I have a working theory about HBR mode encoding which seems to account for its idiosyncracies. I picture each GOP as divided into a pair of separate video streams comprised of 1920x540 fields derived from each GOP's initial I-frame. Each GOP in the upper-field stream has an IBBPBB structure, while GOP's in the lower-field stream have a PBBPBB structure. The initial P-field in the lower-field stream is derived from the initial I-field in the upper-field stream.

What this means is that the Scaling Table matrix is applied to macroblocks comprised of alternating scanlines from each progressively-scanned frame, separated out by the interlacing algorithm. That cuts the effective vertical resolution of each 1920x540 field in half, which will likely exacerbate any vertical aliasing artifacts.

@lpowell - if you are saying the effective Q offset = QP * (Matrix_Value / 16) for each entry, then right. Or, in other words - if QP is 16, then the Q offset values used are whatever is in the matrix. Also, what I mean by QP is the value used for each frame - not in PTool (e.g. typically I frames are QP-2, P are QP and B are QP+2)

[edited - sorry Lee, I was being a little sloppy when i left out "offset"]

@lpowell: as i said aswell on your thread, people would be more interested to see a comparision of 24p between the two settings.

@cbrandin My understanding is that the QP value is used as an index into the H.264 Qstep table, outlined in this pdf:

http://ce.sharif.edu/courses/87-88/2/ce342/resources/root/H264%20Standard/h264_transform.pdf

So for example, a QP of 18 produces a Qstep of 5, which is used as the quantizing divisor. Each calculated macroblock component is then mulitplied by the corresponding Scaling Table coefficient and divided by (16 * Qstep) - which normalizes the Scaling Table coefficients to 16. So in practice, you can calculate the effective quantizer of each component as (16 * Qstep) divided by the corresponding Scaling Table coefficient.

@cbrandin Ah, right you are, I edited the original post with the DC quantizer ranges.

My apologies for stirring some controversy by posting the earlier two pictures. You are all right. Although they were both 24H using Panasonic 14-140, straight out of camera but they were shot at different days, I only have one GH2, but I will re-shoot the same scene one after another with a few minutes difference because I need to reload the second setting. However, I am sure of one thing. I have done a lot of comparisons and when I do this one too, you will find out that, Cluster v7 444 soft picture will come out more colorful and soft and other settings like FM2 will be more video-ish but sharper. By the way, I am not biased towards any particular setting or person. I am a fan of FM2, Cluster, Sanity and GOP1.

@kodakmoment thanks for info. Driftwood wrote that this matrices are for 24p but he used them for all settings to see what people thinks. What is good cos is easier mixing formats 24p-25p-50p