Personal View site logo
'Apocalypse Now' Experimental Series 1 Thread - BOOM, Intravenus - cbrandin/driftwood AN Soft/Cinema
  • 1089 Replies sorted by
  • @LPowell for sofar i can see it, is the scaling table in soft and sharp exact the same.
    but the deblocking tables are different.

  • @oscillian Than-kyou-ve-ry-much ! :) Ils sont de Marseille, France.

  • @mozes The original pairs of "sharp" and "soft" Apocalypse Now variants contain Chris Brandin's pseudo-444 matrix. The recent "sharp2" Apocalypse Now variants contain Nick's flat-style matrix listed above.

  • @Lpowell, all this number:
    004 004 004 005

    004 006 005 006

    004 005 005 168

    005 006 168 255
    a joe guy like me no care.. So what is your opinion to use Driftwood's setting?

  • I love the GOP 6 Apocalypse + Brandin Soft Setting. I can finally use Panasonic lenses again without all that nasty sharpening.

  • @tinbeo I haven't tried out Nick's recent "sharp2" matrix. I was interested to see what kind results Chris Brandin's "pseudo-444" matrix would produce. From what I've seen, it does appear to soften the details as he predicted.

  • @lpowell: Pseudo sounds rather negative. Do you think its a success or do you think its impossible to simulate 444 on a gh2?

    I would also be curious about the outcome of a possible test you do with the sharp2 matrix.

  • Quick little test with soft I believe.

  • @LPowell oke thx for clear that up.

  • @Mirrorkisser "Pseudo-444" is the term Nick initially used to describe Chris Brandin's 3x3 matrix. As Chris described it, his concept was to simulate a 4:4:4 color space by degrading the resolution of the luma channel down to a level similar to the low resolution of the chroma channels in the GH2's 4:2:0 encoding. In other words, he was trying to simulate what a 4:4:4-sampled 960x540 video mode would look like. My hunch was that it would produce results more akin to a 3:3:0 color space. But if you prefer a soft, low-resolution effect, Apocalypse Now may be what you're looking for.

  • @lpowell: thanks for your reply. I am just looking for the hack that looks the least videoish. The hype and quest for super duper shallow depth of field is a bit overdone in my opinion, but videoish is even worse. I like flow motion a lot, but i am always curious to try out new things and also like some of nick's settings.

    Which patches do you like the most for their cinematic (silly word, because cinematic can be a lot of things, but i guess you know what i mean, i mean it in the sense its used in this forum the most) looks?


  • @LPowell that would explain the appearance of noise in the green channel, mostly prevalent on green objects which I had never seen before. I thought I had done something wrong, but apparently it's the patch.

  • @Tobsen Two tests with Valkyrie 444 soft HBR mode 25fps (Pal). First stopped on its own initiative at +/- 23 minutes (2 times 4.29GB + a bit more in a third file) and second stopped at the very end of the second 4.29GB at +/- 18 minutes. Not really spanning, at the end !

  • Thx @shian i was thinking the same...
    Its in the deblocking table, i change it, in my setting, and now it looks better..
    But i have still a lot off testing to do....

  • @ValentinDeluy That's some sick editing! Great music video btw! Those guys are great!

  • @ValentinDeluy chouette mes compren ke dalle! Parole stp?

  • @ValentinDeluy Awesome stuff, amazing footage !!

  • .@LPowell Are you going to try to incorporate Chris's matrix?

  • @lpowell I was curious about any side effect from losing half of luma info, too.

  • @Mirrorkisser

    Pseudo sounds rather negative.

    Just part of the pseudo-branding hyperbole we're getting with settings. I think that in this hi-commercial world we're getting pushed to find names which get noticed and remembered.

    To this end, Pseudo 444 fills the bill, but has the unwanted connotations we both mention.

    AT the expense of creative freedom, I'd like to see something like a nomenclature for each settings family, plus an alphabetized nickname for each major increment, like Canonical does with:

    • Dapper Drake
    • Edgy Eft)
    • Feisty Fawn
    • Gutsy Gibbon, etc
    Add to this a standard Version Control and we've gone full-conservative. (Anywhere in-between would suit me). image
  • @peternap No, I think the results from Apocalypse Now have confirmed my hunch that Chris' pseudo-444 matrix would produce soft images.

  • I don't think it looks anywhere near as low as 960x540. I've been testing with cbrandin's settings because I want to use the la7200 with Panasonic lenses without sharpening. Here's a still from the 4:4:4 GOP6 Soft.

    20mm + la7200 (and the LA7200 is an extremely soft anamorphic)

    1920 x 797 - 249K
  • The setting would add 50% more color information, and that might be useful in certain situation. People like me who mix Lumix lenses and MF lenses are in conundrum.

  • @plasmasmp @stonebat What the AVCHD encoder is actually doing is recording the luma channel at 1920x1080 and the two chroma channels at 960x540. To fully emulate a 4:4:4 color space, you'd need to downsample the luma channel to 960x540 and encode all three channels at the same quality. Athough this can't be actually be done on the GH2, Chris' 3x3 matrix does eliminate most of the finest detail from the luma channel, which he figured would degrade the luma resolution to somewhere between 1080 and 720 lines.

    Chris' matrix doesn't really add "50% more color information", it just encodes the chroma channels as finely as possible, while eliminating the finest details from the luma channel to take its resolution down closer to the chroma channels. With over-sharpened Lumix lenses, this might well produce a look that you prefer for its softness.

  • If I have extra Gh2, I'd have it with this new setting for Lumix lens only...

This topic is closed.
← All Discussions