Thankyou Chris for the explanation that I did request you write to avoid this kind of thing.

For the record Lee, 'pseudo 444' was used to 'glamourise' the market launch of the AN setting but was title changed to the word 'simulate' very soon after. You took it very deeply. Well it certainly pulled you in. We're all walking around with 'hunches' that assumed it would soften the look of Pany lenses and that it proved correct.

The 3x3 luma matrix works well. And we are noticing better chroma control for chroma red and chroma blue in the 4x4 part of the matrix.

Changing the values of the luma 3x3 original values into a 4x4 matrix has proved interesting and one that is still 'out for results'.

I did some sharpness measurements for the soft 444 matrix versus the factory matrix using sharp Panasonic glass at an optimal aperture. The soft 444 matrix has a resolution of about 860, and the factory matrix has a resolution of about 920. That's about a 7% loss in resolution - which isn't very much. The reason for this is that the CODEC in the GH2 doesn't actually resolve the theoretical limit for 1080p. What you get in return for that 7% loss is much better gradations and color rendering.

It's hard to characterize these color subsampling models as 4:2:0, or 4:4:4, or 3:3:0 because those color model numbers don't really relate to how color is sampled in any sensible way. 4:4:4 is where luma and colors are rendered the same, 4:2:2 is where there are twice as many luma pixels as chroma pixels per channel, and 4:2:0 is where there are four times as many luma pixels as chroma pixels per channel. So the numbers don't really work in an intuitive way.

What I discovered is that because of the way the GH2 codec works there is a loss of resolution (vs the theoretical limit) in the luma channel, but not in the chroma channels. By using a 3x3 matrix for luma, and 4x4 matrices for chroma they actually come out closer in resolution than theoretical calculations would indicate.

I finally get in after a long day travel to France and switch on the lappie to see @lpowell here once again determined to have his moment of glory.

So let me clear up a few things first.

Chris told all of us his mattix ideas - he probably told u at the same time - so fuckin what? We went out and put them to the test. Do u want me to publish mine and Chris's conversation?

The 444 Soft matrix IS INDEED Chris's Matrix setting - the p and b frames are from our work.WHEN did we EVER state otherwise?

Chris's settings have then be elaborated, experimented (call it what you what u will) to produce tad sharper settings based on research & testing from use with some of my soft lenses and then recommended as tryouts as beta candidates. This should have been the original SHARP release - a edited version of chris's base settings. Thats why I still credited the man who I respect very much.

He came to you LAST July or this July just gone? Did he talk to you first? Who fuckin cares? The AN settings tested by our beta team which included Chris's prescence & certainly participation. Does that make you feel better? Do you think we're miscreditting him?

Honestly Lee I dont know whats got into you lately?

Is it hurting you that we put out some settings with this matrix? Besides, its a good mattix for a certain job, but its NOT neccesarily the be all and end all. Its just another setting (not patch btw)

Finally we (the beta team) have spent a lot of time developing and testing settings - Im talking fucking days of testing here (do you know what pain is?) so how bout you get off your little high horse and get cracking on a flowmo version? Or I can make you one if you like?

Rant over There I feel better now Lee :-). Back to my holiday. No hard feelings mate, but you really are getting to be annoying.

Ill reply to questions asked here in my own time. I dont NEED you to step in before I even get a chance. If you wanna wade into quant stuff lets do it. I certainly would love some answers about one or two of your numbers in Flowmo.

Wanna play?

bkmwcd's 3 GOP 24p renders better than Flowmo - you should give it a try :-). Thats with my testing and its MY personal view. Thats all.

Also Ive tested my settings against Flowmo and Im very very happy with Nebula and DRewnet. Very happy.

@peternap Yeap. I think this new setting is quite interesting. Less perfection. More character. Wabi-sabi :)

@stonebat People like me who mix Lumix lenses and MF lenses are in conundrum.

I couldn't agree more!

As usual though, I'm going back and forth. Flow Motion 2.2 is my does all with all....setting. It's not necessarily cinematic, but neither am I.

I have to admit though, that what I've done so far with Apocalypse Drewnet soft is exceptional, at least to me. There's something special about it.

Lots of comparing to do.

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

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.

@peternap No, I think the results from Apocalypse Now have confirmed my hunch that Chris' pseudo-444 matrix would produce soft images.

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

@ValentinDeluy Awesome stuff, amazing footage !!

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

@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 !

@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?

Cheers