Yes, really scary. The codec writes near the half peak bitrate if the card is too slow. If you would take a Sandisk Extreme 30 mb/s, you could use Lpowell recommended 100mbit settings. But I don´t see differences between 80 mbit and 100 mbit, it´s okay for me.

I don't see how Uwe's clip settles whether or not the 1080P MJPEG is upscaled since there is only a 720P version available for download.

re: Uwe Lansing vimeo clip

I dunno. Myself and another person watched the download file 3 times and we independently agreed that not much different on some of the clips but about2/3 of the time liking the avchd side more than the mpeg side, although we both agreed, watching a story, the differences are not going to be noticed by 99.9 percent of the peeps. Anybody know what the data rates for the clips? What were the avchd settings?

Put me in the "of those two, if one of the settings was more stable or used significantly less disk space or was easier to color correct or edit in post, I'd use that one. No playback on camera would be a deal breaker for me.

Do the first few frames play back ok on the mjpeg hack? Does it roll over into 2 2nd clip automatically after 4gb?

@Lpowell

In my opinion this patch is the best looking footage I have been able to achieve from the GH2. So, thank you for working on it. Do you think it will ever be possible to run at 24p frame rate? Is it even a possibility?

Been messing around with all of the avchd patches for the last few days with okay results. Nobody was blown away. Then I was playing back some footage from your patch and everyone was asking" What did you do different?" In a good way! Much more organic.

We've been loving MJPEG with the hack but seem to be suffering from a new problem. Some of our shots start looking good, but then get macroblocky after a couple of seconds (see provided 2x jpegs) Anybody else having similar problems?

Uwe Lansing recently put together a detailed series of comparison shots between GH2 AVCHD 1080p24 and 100Mbps MJPEG 1080p30 footage. I think he just may have settled the question as to whether 1080p MJPEG is actually upscaled from a 720p frame:

if i had avchd 24p clips in my timeline ,how much difference would that be when merge with this new 100mbps mpeg 30p clips after render

Confucius say, "Man who complain about SEEING noise, not using his senses and sensors properly, but will be HEARING from the censors soon."

I would say that any settings that work and deliver something stable / production worthy are a benefit to the community. The more the better and be it Low GOP or MJPEG 100mbit it all comes to choice in the end.

It is of no ones business to pitch one over the other. Every research gets us closer to a better goal and not to individual fame. I believe credit should be given to every patcher where its due but the kind of kid brawl here is uncalled for.

Please lets get back to testing all of these great settings and leave the fights out of this forum. Thank you!

Yes, you can set the MJPEG HD width and height patches to any dimensions you prefer, up to a maximum of 1920 wide and 1080 high. For best results, use dimensions that are evenly divisible by 2, and with an aspect ratio of 16:9.

If you are using high ISO values the hacked values will show more noise (actually, they will show more of everything). Good noise reduction plug-ins will be able to differentiate between increased noise and increased detail much better than the camera, though, so the end result (especially with good post processing) will be better.

Chris

@cbr, thanks for the reply, did you by chance post any of your tests on vimeo or some such place?
I know it's early in the process, and there's a lot of excitement and maybe it's too early for shootout type footage posts.

@butt
>>>why make do not an AB comparison test?>>>>

Not sure what you mean here. If you mean why make an AB test, I'd like to see how much difference the hack makes over a stock GH2. So far it sounds like the hack provides a clean motion signature but introduces more grain.

@brianluce

I have done AB comparisons under controlled circumstances. Higher bitrates definitely improve temporal behavior in a measurable way. Higher bitrates also improve detail because lower quantization values can be used (also measurable). We haven't figured out how to get even lower quantization values in 24H yet, but that will come.

The way this particular codec works is that it estimates how detailed macroblocks should be allowed to be. Sometimes it gets the estimate wrong. The result is that lower in the frame you will see mud or stuttering motion because the codec had to abandon additional processing because it ran out of bandwidth.

This is all measurable. Furthermore, I have seen clips posted that showed all this.

As for subjective analysis. Well... subjective analysis can always add to technical analysis. Ultimately, though, you'll never "see" anything a codec is not capable of producing. Nothing gets fixed without some sort of controlled technical analysis. Also I find it unlikely that something that is measurable and repeatable won't be visible - it's just a lot harder to find strictly visually, especially if you are looking for something that is missing rather then something that is there. I've seen lots of footage that "felt" better or worse, although it was not obvious why. Controlled technical analysis usually got to the issue. Note that I am not talking about pixel-peeping, that's still pretty subjective.

Chris