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.
'Apocalypse Now' Experimental Series 1 Thread - BOOM, Intravenus - cbrandin/driftwood AN Soft/Cinema
  • 1089 Replies sorted by
  • BlueBomberTurboBlueBomberTurbo

    @mastroiani An intra hack is scheduled to come out sooner or later. Right now, there's GOP 3, 6, and 12/15 available. Some have the option of a soft (for Panny lenses) or sharp (other lenses, especially old ones) profile.

  • mastroianimastroiani

    @peternap thanks, do you mean that Mysteron is good for low light shots? Also, do you know if the Apocalypse is an INTRA hack like Mysteron?

  • peternappeternap

    @mastroiani I use Mysteron right often but only have about 80 low light clips and another 50 or so of Apocalypse Drewnet Sharp (when I should have been using Soft) My opinion FWIW, as good as Mysteron is, Apocalypse blows it away.

  • exilenorthexilenorth

    Ok everybody, here it comes. Dumb fuck question, What Ptool are we using? 3.65 or 3.66 or does it matter. You see I have been reading and admiring and realized, hey stupid get into it. Be nice.

  • mastroianimastroiani

    Pardon for potentially ignorant question: Is "Apocalypse Now" an Intra hack? I've been using Mysteron hack for sometime and like the results very much - minimal, almost non-existent noise, minimal banding, smooth gradation. I'm wondering if anyone else uses Mysteron and how it compares to Apocalypse?

  • jherojhero

    @producer Yea :) hence why I put corrected in hypens!

  • LamboLambo

    @producer i think so too

  • producerproducer

    Hmm, am I the only one who like the first photo straight out of the camera?!?

    It looks much more cinematic to me somehow.

  • jherojhero

    Ok, I'm fairly impressed!

    14-140 at 35mm, vibrant -2 all, 800iso

    ProRes422 HQ output - first photo straight out of camera, second is 'corrected'

    Screen Shot 2012-08-30 at 1.45.19 PM.png
    1917 x 1075 - 3M
    Screen Shot 2012-08-30 at 1.45.19 PM.png
    1917 x 1075 - 4M
  • peternappeternap

    @Mirrorkisser I don't even pretend to know the inner workings of these settings, which is why the advice from Driftwood, LPowell, Onionbrain, BKmcwd, Ralph_B and of course Vitaliy_Kiselev, is so important. Like the country folks here say "I just take pitchers".

    The way I understand short vs long GOP is that there are theory's such as the need to cut exactly at the I frame (Long GOP) or Long not handling motion well because only the I frame contains the image data.

    These arguments are highly debated.

    Best thing to do is try them all and see what works best for you.

  • bkmcwdbkmcwd

    @driftwood

    Many thanks always mate! :-) As you also noticed, I am going to improve except 24p after this.

    @shirap

    I love your works! :-)

    @Mirrorkisser

    "For which situations is a gop3 and for which situations a gop6 more useful if you leave aside the size of the files?"

    It is just dependent on your liking. In the settings of GOP3, signs that a noise appears are close to Intra, and since the upper I frame size can be enlarged, I have stuck. However, settings of GOP6 are also very rational.

    "Longer Gop-structures have sometimes problems with fast movement?"

    I think that it is a liking difference rather than there is a problem, IMHO. :-)

  • MirrorkisserMirrorkisser

    @botha: You are right :-)

  • bothabotha

    @Mirrorkisser: Plz just ignore kazuo, cause i don't want to read his stupid insults!

  • LamboLambo

    what's going on here, we're all buddies, so please stay calm.

  • kazuokazuo

    @Mirrorkisser

    And you are as your name suggests, a pompous narcissist. Kiss my arse

  • MirrorkisserMirrorkisser

    @driftwood: @bkmwcd:

    For which situations is a gop3 and for which situations a gop6 more useful if you leave aside the size of the files? Longer Gop-structures have sometimes problems with fast movement?

  • LamboLambo

  • driftwooddriftwood

    @bkmwcd Your new setting looks stunning. Please people give the new GOP3 setting from bkmwcd a tryout - best 3 GOP 24p Ive ever seen - its downloadable under my settings (see bkmwcd section) on page one.

  • andyharrisandyharris

    @Mirrorkisser -- I use mostly FD Glass. The 50 f1.2 is good and I have a 20-35 f3.5 that is pretty sharp. I do have some primes @24, 28, and 100mm but I can't remember the last time I used them.

    The FD glass I have is pretty much pristine, however I can really tell the difference between this and EF (L) glass when I shoot into the sun.

    I do have an adapter for EF lens with a manual iris but this hasn't worked out well.

    I'm reading this thread wondering if this patch is good for my sweet old FD lens as well. Sedna worked out well for me with just the odd drop out on Duracell Class 10 32GB cards.

  • JeffGibbsTCJeffGibbsTC

    I am really looking forward to trying out these new patches. I have been using the hacks way back to the GH1 and find they are amazing. I am seeing an interesting look with the Apocalypse patch, a good option for people to have, but the softness of a lot of what's been posted so far doesn't look film like to me, it just looks soft. I just want to offer a different view on sharpness from someone who has helped post movies that have shown in theaters around the world. I do not believe sharpness is what imparts a video look at all, I think it's the color tones, the dynamic range, the way a scene is lit and other factors. I think a really well-timed film print-as opposed to the watered down el cheapo prints of the past thirty years--usually had far more detail, color, SHARPNESS, than most modern day filmmakers can imagine. Apocalypse Now the movie has immense amount of color AND detail that if we seek a less sharp image we are not moving toward but away from. I think soft, flat, drained of color and detail has become what indie filmmakers assume is as the "film" look and I think that is a problem. For me and I believe the cinematic experience of the audience (as opposed to the sensibility of the filmmaker) a softer image is in all cases a worse image. Some very sharp lenses have issues that render them less pleasing for other reasons but a high level of detail is in my book a very good thing. My two cents, I value this forum a lot and have learned a lot and just want to add a different POV on this latest patch, which I look forward to trying out.

  • SoupSoup

    So yeah no Sedna 444? Or not needed/wont apply? :P

  • MirrorkisserMirrorkisser

    Does anybody here also use canon fd glass? By the explanations on top "sharp" would probably the best choice. I still like soft, too and still have to look hard to see a difference to sharp. Maybe the real difference appears when i start grading?

  • MirrorkisserMirrorkisser

    @ shirap: looks really awesome. Do you like soft or sharp better? Maybe my eyes are not schooled enough, but i hardly see a difference. Both look terrific! And the music is excellent and fits really good.

  • willardjwillardj

    walk in the woods test with Mir 10-A lens

  • shianshian

    Whatever the last AN 444 matrix beta test was (preset "j") that we were given before IV beta. It was a last minute gig, so it happened to be loaded on my cam as I grabbed my gear, and ran out the door.

    I was a last minute replacement - just a hired Camera gun, and Gaffer for a DP friend. I liked the band, and video concept... and getting paid doesn't suck. It turned out to be one of the most fun shoots I've ever been on. Plus it was kinda cool: the "Mad Men" crew was on a tech scout, and they saw how much fun the video was, and decided to hang out for a while. I guess the building we shot in is one of their main locations.

This topic is closed.
← All Discussions