Personal View site logo
Make sure to join PV Telegram channel! Perfect to keep up with community on your smartphone.
Cluster X: Series 1 - moon - ЅріzZ - nebula - drewnet - Slipstream
  • 1008 Replies sorted by
  • @driftwood, Did CLX Nebula trial 4 have any NTSC adjustments? looks like GOP tables were changed.

  • @Zaven13 Yeah, can you give it a trial run? I'm still pondering...

  • Just some test files with Diftwood Cluster X Trial 2 settings. My sd card was too slow to HBR, so this is 24p (24p worked without any problems). There is no story behind this one just some test shoots. No grading all straight from Cam.

    Panny 14-140 GH2 VK hack Diftwood settings (Cluster X Trial 2) Sandisk HD video Vibrant -2 -2 0 -2

  • If you ask me, all these different settings are just a big hoax. There's absolutely no real difference that the end user will notice. Random videos from random users, usually with no comparison to anything.

  • @tonalt Thats absolute nonsense. Measured tests prove there are many benefits in editing the settings to achieve better quantisation and PSNR signal to noise ratio- which combine to offer superior grading, motion, etc... over stock - and these can differ between settings.

    I could produce a bluray styyle bitrate and okish matrix that is below stock settings that will look good until deeper analysis.

    Cluster X is looking at all aspects using different GOPs. Summaries will arrive when trial and testing is complete.

  • @tonalt

    You have absolutely no clue ! Or maybe you're blind ^^

  • I think tonalt does make one good point. There's no baseline here for testing, which makes it very difficult to compare various settings. And much of the stuff uploaded here would look outstanding with any number of hacks, so it does seem a bit silly to see such a clip and hear how amazing a new patch is without the same scene shot with the same lens using the same camera settings but a different patch.

    I think patch testing needs a set of guidelines so that anyone testing a patch can use those guidelines, thus eliminating many of the variables which can and do affect the subjective image quality.

    For example, one such guideline might be 24H, 1/50 shutter, with the either the 20mm or maybe the 25mm lens, as they seem pretty common and offer a decently wide aperture.

    And of course a set for HBR, 1080i and 720p as well.

    And while it's not the most commonly used, I do think the Cinema profile should be used for all testing as it is the most linear. All the other settings either boost the curve or the colors. Cinema is the 'flatest', most neutral, and should be used for all testing at 0, -2, 0, -2.

    Whatcha think Nick?

  • @tonalt nobody asked you about your opinion. Besides that there is no proof or scientific thesis, just rant. There were several threads about whether hacks work or dont work. If you want to join those discussions on a constructive basis, do so. But dont hijack a setting thread with your mumbo jumbo crap. Also you are free to shoot with the camera in stock mode. Nobody gives a donkey what you see or dont see.

  • Guys be fair. One see differece someone else do not. There is also question what monitor you are using. Others show what actually is in the picture others do not. And there is also lot of beginners among us. Maby tonalts too agressive comment was just accident, and if it was not then......

  • Guys.. How are the Nebula 720p settings holding up? I´m handing out my gh2´s for music video shoot this weekend (daylight winter landscape and night / lit field) and I´m thinking about switching from the very reliable DREWNET.. Maybe a bad idea since I won´t be there to take care of the cams myself. Would you be confident with the Nebula on set as it is right now? (on 64gb sandisk 95mb/s cards)

  • @RRRR, The Nebula 720p SH mode is unstable because it records in high bitrates of 60-70MB. However, the 720p H mode has been very stable at around 40MB and image quality is very good.

  • @driftwood. I did my routine test with Cluster X Nebula trial 4 under the same testing guidelines. I like the first release of the CLX Nebula 6GOP better because it maintains higher and more consistent bitrates and also higher frame sizes. Picture looks slightly crisper specially when recording using TV screen as the source. Cheers.

  • @Zaven13 Thanks for this.

  • Cheers Nick. Is GOP 6 as far as you will go, or do you have plans to develop a loooong GOP?

    Thanks for all the work.

  • @duartix The latest 12/15 GOP Trials are still on the other thread. 12/15 GOP next trial will be found here.

  • @otcx that looks amazing. Unreal detail.

  • All forums unfortunately have occasional trolls. Lol

  • @otcx, I keep seeing the Panny 14-140 produce such a clean and sharp image, coupled with Mr D's CLX. I would like to try the Panny 14-140 with my anamorphic attachment. I am currently running Cluster v7 Sharp2, and this Cluster X looks good, although I am not pixel peeping or comparing patches in a repeatable environment until I isolate the ideal and sharp taking lens for the anamorphic combo. You recorded some very detailed footage, indeed.

  • @cjdincer

    what were your export settings? because even in 1080 it isn't looking to good. could be youtube compression, and if so it may be the worst case of compression I've seen yet.

    @otcx i'm not sure if it's the "vibrant" setting or the lens, but long shots seem slightly out focus. The close up shots of the tractor backing up look really good. I'm basing the out of focus from the bark of the trees.

    @rkm A+

  • @driftwood. I did get some time to test the spanning with Cluster X Nebula 6GOP using Panny 14-140 with Sandisk 64GB 95MB card recording from TV screen at night. 24H spanned 4 times before I stopped it. HBR froze after 3 minutes, FSH froze after 5 minutes, SH was failing after 5 seconds but both FH and H modes spanned with no problems. I am using NTSC mode. Cheers.

  • @driftwood. I loaded your Cluster X Nebula trial 4 and tested the spanning with the same test scenario as the post above. The adjustments you made did make a difference and both FSH and HBR that failed in the earlier setting, spanned with trial 4.

  • Hi guys. I'm shooting a lot up in the jungle under difficult conditions and have been using FlowMotion exclusively, but I've wanted to try some Driftwood hacks, so I loaded up 'Spizz' yesterday and gave it a whirl.

    Overall I like it, I don't have a scientific baseline but I think it has a discernible look with a nice grain structure.

    It doesn't seem quite a sharp, and I may switch back for now because I only get 31 minutes on a 32GB Extreme Pro vs 41 mins with FlowMotion and I'm waiting on more cards to get down to Panama.

    We are looking at the 20mm Pancake with a Tiffen fixed ND and the LA7200 in the pouring rain, so it isn't the sharpest setup in the world, but I do notice a slight difference between hacks.

    Screen Shot 2013-01-25 at 8.19.46 AM.png
    2880 x 1228 - 5M
    Screen Shot 2013-01-25 at 8.23.59 AM.png
    2877 x 1233 - 6M
    Screen Shot 2013-01-25 at 8.35.05 AM.png
    2880 x 1227 - 5M
  • Forgot to say, these are screenshots from FCPX, not proper export frames as the program is having a bit of trouble chewing on the footage, no grading and no transcoding.

  • @GravitateMediaGroup

    Out of focus was because of me. I was also working with those trees, so i had only relly short time to shoot.

  • @kellar42 Spizz has intentionally a nice filmic looking grain as you noticed.

This topic is closed.
← All Discussions
Start New Topic

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In with Google Sign In with OpenID

Sign In Register as New User

Tags in Topic

Top Posters