Personal View site logo
Make sure to join PV on Telegram or Facebook! Perfect to keep up with community on your smartphone.
Please, support PV!
It allows to keep PV going, with more focus towards AI, but keeping be one of the few truly independent places.
Driftwood - Experimental Series 2: Low Rider, Cluster v8, V9, Intravenus II, GH3onaGH2, AN, Boom
  • 1008 Replies sorted by
  • Thanks! Anyone know the average bitrate for 24p? I feel like my nitrates are too low!

  • @driftwood Just tested Intravenus II with both day and night at 24P, and no problems, spanned fine, in-camera playback fine. Image quality was very impressive used on Smooth -2,-2, 0,-2. The only way to describe it would be "professional film image". With no grading, the image was what the eye saw...basically very accurate, and looking like a proper professional film image. Thank you. My question: I looked back on this thread but didn't see any consensus after testing if Intravenus II was considered stable, or basically what you consider the strengths and weaknesses of this setting are? Didn't know if it was merely an experimental setting, or one you would consider stable enough to work with over the course of filming a feature? Thanks for the continued great work - you've got skills.

    @cbrandin This Intravenus II setting that I have discovered a bit later than most, is really quite good. A very professional film image. Very accurate, smooth, and good with skin tones. Produces what the eye sees. Thank you.

  • Yes, the IV2 hack is still a damn good one and the grain in awesome. I shot some stuff with it and brought it over it over to an editor and he was wondering where all the grain came from in my footage. It was pretty funny when I told him that's what I was aiming for and he didn't think it was digital noise at all. I'm actually thinking of going back to IV2 and Sedna as my main hacks.

  • @vicharris Yeah, always interesting to put a fresh set of eyes on the footage for feedback - very cool that a professional editor just took nicely to grain produced in your IV2 footage. I'm shooting on Smooth with it - do you have a preference you like best with IV2? I'm really quite stunned just how professionally filmic in nature the image is right out of camera with IV2. Always amazed to see the differences from one setting to the next - that's what I consider one of the great things about the GH2 now that Vitaliy has hacked and Driftwood and others have created can do a variety of projects with different looks, and you have the power to alter the baseline look(image type) created by the camera.

  • What is the difference between Intravenus 1 and 2 and why do you prefer 2?


  • I'm not sure of the technical differences between IV1 and IV2 (there is some discussion on it by @driftwood on the paragraph that accomopanies the intro/release of IV2).

    I prefer IV2 (set at Smooth -2,-2, 0,-2) as it has a look of film to it. IV1 can look great, particulalry when lighting is dynamic, and some guys are getting great results, but to me those are more "modern looks". You might say IV1 emulates the best in professional HD for narrative film, particularly horror, scifi, and thriller...while IV2 is a classical film look.

    But this is really just the way it hits my eye and what I prefer for what I'm shooting now. A lot of people love IV1 and only use that.

  • @matt_gh2 Have you tried Cluster moon 1 GOP trial 5? I would like to hear your opinion about it and how it compares to IV1 and IV2.

  • @Meierhans I tried Moon trial 4 and it was too sharp for me. I understand trial 5 and 3 aren't as sharp. But I have looked at many of the samples of Moon trial 3 and 5. IMO, best use of Moon trial 5 was the rap video done by @DeShonDixon. I think that highlights one way Moon trial 5 can really shine. @kellar42 did a nice test shot of trial 3 that had some images that looked like great professional landscape establishing shots you might see in a hollywood film. To compare them and IV1...Moon (trial 3 and 5) has a unique imaging characteristic to it, and in the right hands can produce gold. IMO the best use of IV1 has been from @shian who's put up a few videos that really show how IV1 can be special when in the right hands.

    For me, IV2 (on Smooth -2,-2, 0,-2....Standard is too harsh for my taste with IV2) is like handing a kid a 35mm camera. Everything he shoots will just have the texture/look of film. Now all he needs to do is learn filmmaking and all that involves. It's almost as if the "film-look" issue is now solved for me. What shocked me was I brought IV2 footage into editor and started doing some things I often do to get film-look (luma curve adjustments etc.) and it made the footage worse...and I realized the footage was great/correct straight out of camera. Some of that I attribute to my DP - I think she just nailed the shooting that afternoon...but the base image texture/type/nature of IV2 on Smooth just happens to hit my eye as "35mm film".

    It's all what you're going after. If you want an energetic/dynamic and modern look that can be really special I think you can get that with Moon 3, Moon 5, and IV1. If you want more classical 35mm film look, I think it can be acheieved with IV2. (I also like footage I've seen with Quantum v9b, which I also consider a modern look).

    Gotta love this damn GH2 - it's a gift. Bigtime thanks always go to cinematic geniuses known as @Vitaliy_Kiselev @Driftwood and @cbrandin

  • Thank you for your very detailed reply @matt_gh2. Really helpful! I havent had the time to test trough all these settings, but its kinda seems that after using Sedna AQ1 for quite a while I will now settle down to Moon 5 for business stuff and give IV2 a try for anything that goes into the direction of art.

    I second your praises to the masters of GH2. ;-)

  • @Meierhans Sounds like good choices. I like Sedna but felt grain at times was a bit too pronounced. I would def try IV1 as many rave on it, and this all comes down to how it hits your eye and personal taste.

  • AN 444 soft is incredible with Panny glasses. Thanks Driftwood to make this happen.

    Also work well with Canon FD´s as you can see in the video.

  • @nachelsoul, looks good. I was testing AN sharp 444 prior, as I am a legacy glass addict. Hard for me tell any substantial difference between the patches, as I have not tried any form of relatively controlled test to compare. They are all so great to me. Cool edit and music. What is the name of that song?

  • Thanks @WhiteRabbit. The name of the song is "end of the line" by Daft Punk (remixed album). A superior theme and soundtrack. I have seem that the soft version makes the Panny lenses look alike older glass, less "plastic" sharpness. I found it very usefull 'cause the 20mm and 14mm are great glass, classics I would say, and I like to mix them with legacy glass. Thanks to Driftwood to make it possible.

  • Here's a music video for a friend's cover I just did. Shot with Intravenus II 'cinema smooth'. I think it's the best patch I've ever used. I was shooting at ISO 1600 in 60fps 720p mode for some scenes and there was BARLEY any perceivable noise. So awesome!

  • @bwhitz Awesome video! I just found Intravenus 2 a month ago and fell in love. Mind sharing what lenses and settings (standard, smooth etc -2s etc)? This Intravenus 2 is crazy...footage comes out of camera perfectly. Great video really - visuals great, story great, and performance great. Thanks for posting.

  • @bwhitz really nice video, congrats!

  • @bwhitz Great cover man! The video was exellent!

  • @matt_gh2 @bumsklumpen @x_worpig_x

    Thanks for watching! Glad you liked it!

    And yea, as far as setting go...

    Profile: Standard (-2,-2, 0,-2).

    Lenses: Sigma 30mm 1.4 (on the Glidecam HD-100 Shots), Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 (for the Jib shots), and Canon L-series 50mm 1.2 and 24mm 1.4 (on the slider and close-ups).

    For the color correction, I used the standard FCP7 3-way corrector. Exposed and lit the sets for about a stop over what I wanted the final image to look like, then dropped the mids quite a bit in post. I've always like the look the dropping the mids gives the footage... much more cinematic/film looking gradation.

  • @bwhitz, great video men! Great work. You mentioned you use FCP7 for editing, I am having a problem with it maybe you could help. After color correct and everything is done and I export my project using quick time conversion, the quality don't looking as how it is on FCP7, it's degraded a lil. Are you having sure a problem? If not any suggestions on how I can fix it? Thanks.

  • @bwhitz looks good, may i know what profile u used?? std or smooth?? nokton lens or nikon???

  • @rajamalik, I think he has all that info in the post above mine :)

  • @HillTop1

    the quality don't looking as how it is on FCP7, it's degraded a lil.

    Oh yea, never use "quicktime conversion". Always export "current settings" and then transcode with another app like mpegStreamClip or Compressor...

  • @HillTop1 You have not added grain to the clip? Do color correction? In some frames visible fibers, like bristles or hairs on the film.