I was filming with Cluster v5 at 720p, in a park with tress and windy day no one failure. But on a 64GB 95mb/s card. Looks great!

"Hang on. It says sausages up there. Where's me other bloody sausage then?"

@brant_moore Thanks for the report, its back to the drawing board then. I developed on 20Mb/s cards and 30Mb/s cards which passed ok all the initial destruction tests. If there's any chance you could report with streamparser the Total GOP Size achieved for any files which did record I would be interested. Its important. And sorry to hear about the no recs. Also, did you try 24p?

At the moment the concensus is that users emailing me prefer the look and quality of 720p60/50 of Cluster 3 6 GOP with Sedna. So I'll be looking to combine that with current 12/15 GOP on 24p/HBR25p and spend more time on developing HBR30p/1080i60. Any input from Cluster users for HBR30p is much appreciated.

ok, perhaps this is not pertinent...

but, comparing 3gop footage(flomotion) to 12 gop(clusterv5) is like apples to oranges;

they are so different in a multitude of other ways when i watch them,,, like instead of the 3gop's:

tick tick BOOM

(ticks being B frame and BOOM being i frame)

the 12 gop goes....

tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick BOOM....

so they are apples and oranges...

or;

am i off from the centre and on a different circle from ya'll completely??

thanx 4 any opinions others have on this...

Stay with the plan Lee. I don't think Ive ever played the self-aggrandizing personal view? Have I? Could you show me? I think Ive done a year of solid labour and support around here and I am certainly not on the offensive.

it's clear ,..I will keep idynamics and iR off in video mode.

@driftwood It's not "sillyness" when you accuse me of misrepresenting test reports, it's a lame personal attack that you haven't backed up with any tangible evidence at all. I'll stop defending myself with real evidence when I see you publicly retract that bullshit. Until then, you can play self-aggrandizing games with Stream Parser to your heart's content.

@driftwood Movist might help BUT: I have the same glitch in FCP7 ,Clipwrap, Premiere 6. Maybe someone else could also check fine detail.

@LPowell People can look & test for themselves. Stop repeat posting your tests recorded at different times. Like I said I merely mentioned the differing light between the two) My tests were conducted at the same time on two different cameras carefully pointing at the same subject matter, conditions etc...

There's no sales pitch either I've demonstrated detailed fact using Chris Brandin's Streamparser.

I really don't want to continue this sillyness.

@driftwood I'm not "spamming you", I'm replying to direct comparisons between Cluster and Flow Motion v2 that @mo7ies posted earlier in this thread, as well as your bogus claim I "carefully massaged" my test data. As a rebuttal, I've uploaded the actual, unedited footage to enable anyone who wishes to download and evaluate themself. I'm also calling bullshit on your simplistic "my numbers are better" sales pitch. Instead of these petty attempts at one-upmanship, how about posting some real footage and let that speak for itself?

Globular v.5 does not seem to handle fine detail well - but I do not know how much mac-based software is involved. But I have the same glitch in VLC, Realplayer & Quicktime: Image one shows you the filming situation (somebody painting a canvas) , Image two shows the glitch some kind of "draining watercolour" effect (this was NOT the artist), when Canvas got in focus and shows fine detail. 24H, Nostalgic, all-2 except colour +2 / 14-140 Iso Auto, Shutter priority

@rajamalik http://personal-view.com/talks/discussion/1110/idynamic-range-possible-to-hack/p1

@rajamalik One of the reasons I keep them off is because they are very unpredictable about when they do and do not kick in. Several stills photographer reviewers on different sites commented on how they were unable to reliably get one of them to kick in - it sounded like that was the case even when they stayed in controlled environments, but I may be inferring too much.

However, if you go look at the various reviews (I think CameraLabs and DPReview may have been two that had examples) you can see what the stills look like with and without.

As for me, I leave them off so that I can have consistent results.

@Driftwood I do not think LPowell massaged his results. The scene tested is the one he normally uses as a torture test and he appears to have been making an effort to optimize the setting to handle it for some time. It would be natural for Flowmotion to be able to handle it well given comparison to other settings within a similar GOP and bitrate settings and at the same time there can be a lot of variation in water scenes.

This does not mean that the results will be consistent in all other types of scenes.

Your settings are great, and I use them the overwhelming majority of the time. But just because the two of you are getting different results in your testing does not mean that either of you are doing any massaging and LPowell has not done anything in the past to draw suspicion - quite to the contrary. :)

Honestly, the best comparisons (for all settings authors) should be done independently. Trying to be fully objective about comparisons of your own settings can be like trying to be objective about someone rating artwork by your kids. :)