Personal View site logo
Driftwood Quantum X Settings, Series 2: Sedna A, B, C
  • 1030 Replies sorted by
  • Currently running Driftwood Quantum X (v4b Orion) now and again I'm getting terrible interlacing lines in HBR mode and I don't know why. I can't seem to replicate them, they just appear in video files now and again. Could anyone tell me why I'm getting these lines and possibly how to avoid them?

    I'm doing a pretty important shoot tomorrow and I'd like to know I'm using the best possible hack.

    1571 x 930 - 285K
  • @graphicism I think that's probably a result of whatever media player you're using and not the actual files. I recall seeing something similar a while back when I was using VLC on a certain computer. Or could be a codec issue?

  • @driftwood Best wishes and health to your daughter.

  • @graphicism computer monitors are progressive. Have you player use a "deinterlace" method (VLC has one) and you won't see the interlacing. Or, play it to a NTSC/PAL monitor that'll handle the interlace.

  • @molloy1011 Thank you! You're bang on. I told myself it was in the file as all other clips played fine in VLC but once imported into Premiere the video plays fine. Thanks for the quick response!

  • @Driftwood Thank you Nick, I appreciate. @Stray Obviously there is an issue on macs when it comes down to mts files analysis. For quality, it is subjective indeed. For me it is film stock emulation: clean file, with the most infos, and widest latitude (D.range) S-log style looking as more as possible as a film stock. That's what I mean when I refer to "Quality". So, I guess that Dark matter v3 is the closest thing to a film stock we've seen so far, would you agree?

  • @driftwood There will be an update for the pictoris patch? a dark matter patch? it wood be nice

  • @driftwood Best wishes and health to your daughter

  • @terry2 ooh, god no I wouldn't agree, to get the look of film stock would require being able to have a lot of control over the film profiles more than altering the matrix. As would a better colourspace than 4:2:0 obviously. Promoting the cameras output files to 4:2:2 or 4:4:4 does help considerably with processing in post (though why some ppl are transcoding it into a 1.8 gamma space is beyond my ken. It would make more sense to try and pump it into a linear space and then you can get closer creating the log curve that you want), but it's still not really 'it'. It will still fall apart when really pushed in post. The dynamic range just isn't there to really take advantage of that kind of approach, and isn't likely to be. I have seen nothing that indicates to me that the latitude has increased with these new settings, it is just encoded differently/better. Things may shift about a fair bit, but theres no new 'things'.

    The dark matter matrix creates a unique look, speaking for myself I prefer the previous matrix tbh. Its a very good look that mitigates some old problems, and as far as it goes with the dark matter matrix I prefer v1 over v2 or v3, but thats a personal taste thing. These new matrices of driftwoods make the output look quite a lot different to a GH2 without them, all I can say without seeing tests (particularly colour related tests) is that they're different. Its a difference I like, and its very cool experimenting with the camera again and seeing a whole new area available to us for creating specific atmospheres/looks/mojo, whatever. If it looks like film then say its a film look. Some of the stills driftwood posted from the beach at Brighton (particularly the boats) did make my twitchy film stock senses tingle and grin. Anyway, why chase the look of film stock at all, why not create something fresh with completely different responses ? We are, for the most part, digital film makers after all, we should be putting up our own flags.

    @driftwood Best wishes, hope all is okay.

  • Since someone requested Vimeo earlier, I'll try to accomodate.

    EX SH (1280X720 50P)

    Update: Uploaded file now plays all of the 50P frames back at 24P to make web viewing easier (so it looks slowed down).

    Password: driftwood

    Note: - This file may only be up for a short time and is likely to be replaced by a different comparison file later in the week.

    • The focus point, lighting and crop change. This is not the scientific test many would prefer (including myself) but this is due to the fact that I tested 17 patches (16 included here) over the course of about 6 hours instead of the 4 or 5 quick ones I had originally planned (and the unexpected appearance of an opossum).

    • The lighting for the Rocket patch in particular is REALLY different but I've included it here just in case it still is of interest to anyone.

  • @Stray

    As would a better colourspace than 4:2:0 obviously.

    I think the biggest problem is that it’s 8-bit, rather than 4:2:0.

  • Here is a similar comparison, without EX teleconverter mode. Shooting settings are otherwise the same as the above. The previous comparison included Dark Matter V3 - this one swaps out Firmware 1.0 with factory defaults instead.

    Cineform AVI file for download is 1280X720 at 50P (played back at original rate) with an avg. bitrate of 133 Mbps. Total file size 1.19GB.,000%20j%20SH%20CF%20Higher.avi

    Also, I just tried copying and pasting the link into my address bar and it works here: so you should be good this time. :)

    If you don't have a version of Cineform, you can download Cineform Studio (which includes the full decoding side and limited encoding side of the codec) for free at the link below.

  • Since the above comparisons cover a (rather unruly) 16-17 patches, I would like enough feedback to narrow down my next comparison to 4 patches.

    This should make it easier to do a more tightly controlled and scientific comparison.

  • @driftwood Genuine prayers for your daughter. Facing health issues with kids is tough stuff (I can only hope it's not too serious), and I send prayers for her perfect recovery and strength to you.

  • @Driftwood all my best wishes for a prompt recovery.

    @Mr_Moore I agree, 10 bit would be almost more important than 4:2:2.

    @Stray Because the idea is to have a camera who produce the flattest footage as possible (log style) to play it around and push it later in Resolve. The idea is using the gh2 like as a "super16" camera to shoot music clips. I mean, Philip Bloom test showed the gh2 outperforming the fs100 and to compete with the f3.

  • Hey, I am a bit new to this stuff guys. I keep seeing that people post videos that look great with a really low aperture. I have the 14-42 Lumix lens, and when I set the shutter to 50, aperture 5.3 (the lowest it goes) and iso to 800 things are extremely dark in a decently lit room. whats up with that? should i just leave it on Program AE?

  • @leejb4 Your Lens is to slow (5.3); you need to work with faster glass like 1.7 or 1.4 aperture. Just in case, here's a better understanding of aperture:



    Hopefully that helps?


  • @leejb4 you really need to get to the beginners thread and maybe get yourself a book on photography.

  • @leejb4 also, learn those 3 things well (that I listed above), watch online tutorials; go out and shoot and experience with the GH2 (un-hacked) before you start with the new settings in this thread. And have fun!

  • @terry2 yep, but tweaking the matrix doesn't/won't give you flat I think (it does bug me now that log means flat, when log most definitely isn't, in sensitometric terms, historically flat), thats going to be down to altering the film profiles. The Philip Bloom test showed it outperforming mainly in resolution/detail terms, not so much in colourspace, dynamic range terms. Super 16 is a good comparison though, a lot of footage I've seen and shot with the GH2 strongly remind me of Super 16 (which I do have experience of shooting with).

  • EDIT: When I started typing the above responses had not been posted yet.

    @leejb4 Unfortunately, there's only so much that can be done without a "fast lens". Essentially, all you can do in your situation (without breaking the 180-degree shutter rule) is to up the ISO.

    In my experience, ISO 1250 (not ISO 800) is a better bet in that situation if you are shooting color. If you are shooting black and white, you can scale the ISO all the way up to 10,000 or 12,800 if you like a grainier look.

    Keep in mind that every 1 stop of aperture is equal to 1 stop of ISO in terms of light gathering.

    So (to oversimplify a fair amount) in terms of the brightness of the scene you would find:

    Shooting with aperture f/1.4 shutter 1/50 at ISO 800 gets the scene as bright as shooting with aperture f/5.6 shutter 1/50 at ISO 12,800!

    In other words if you got an f/1.4 lens, you could get a little less than 16 times as much light at the same ISO setting. I couldn't get an exact value for f/5.2 or f/5.3 since that's a quarter stop increment and GH2 ISO are listed in 1/3 stops.

  • @Stray "The Philip Bloom test showed it [the GH2] outperforming [the more expensive cameras] mainly in resolution/detail terms, not so much in colourspace, dynamic range terms."


  • @leejb4

    I suspect what you think is a decently lit room is perhaps just a room at home with the house lights on? Or even a room in daytime on a fairly bright day? I may be wrong, but if that is the case at f5.3 and ISO 800 things are gonna look pretty underexposed. You can try dropping the shutter to 1/25 to catch some more light, but it's not ideal and should be limited to when you don't have much movement in your scene. Other than that you can get a faster lens or add light to the scene.

    All the best

  • @Pop24 "someone should test the dark matter patch with 3200 iso please, i will test it in the next days"

    I also shot that test at ISO 1250, 2500 and 5000 (not ISO 3200) but since no one has commented on the ISO 10,000 comparison I did above yet I don't see much point in finishing compiling and posting those.

    480 clips is a fair amount to sort through and label for something so (relatively speaking) boring. :)

  • @leejb4 get an fd adapter and find some canon fd lenses, you can get a 50mm 1.8 for $50. That will be a good way to brighten it up for cheap!

This topic is closed.
← All Discussions