Personal View site logo
'Apocalypse Now' Experimental Series 1 Thread - BOOM, Intravenus - cbrandin/driftwood AN Soft/Cinema
  • 1089 Replies sorted by
  • So far I'm liking images from the Lumix pancakes with the gop6 soft setting. I wouldn't say it's better or worse than original matrix. But it did feel different look and feel.

    Same gear. Different look and feel. No complaint :)

  • IntraVenus and Boom??? wow its gonna rock!!

  • @peternap What is wrong here?

  • @peternap: it plays just fine on my pc. Maybe you should try another video player or your cpu, memory etc is too slow for playin back such files? My cousin hat the same problem.

    Apart of the footage being shaky and not being shot from a tripod i cant see any problems at first glance.

  • AN Nebula 444 Soft Voigtlander 17.5mm - 0.95 ISO 160

    Greetings from Ecuador and thanks :)

  • Here are two frame captures from the same scene in two different days but it shows you the difference in color and softness between FM 2 and AN Nebula 444 soft.

    1920 x 1080 - 4M
    AN Nebula 444 soft.png
    1920 x 1080 - 3M
  • @Zaven13: It's unbelievible what you can get with driftwoods "Apocalypse Now 444" patches, amazing, what a difference!

  • @Mirrorkisser @Shon Thanks! The machine is plenty fast but could be the video player. I never had that happen before. At least it's not the settings.

    I had a chance to shoot some last night with both cameras on a tripod so I can compare the soft and sharp. I still like the soft better even with the legacy lenses.

  • @peternap I like the soft variation best aswell, even with my old soft canon fds. nowadays i only use media player classic to playback my files. windows media player and vlc are often acting strange and somehow i dont manage to configure them properly.

    @zaven13: thanks for the up. I still think its still kind a difficult to compare due to the different lighting conditions. plus has the lawn been reworked meantime? but it would be great if you could redo the shoot, because those two settings, plus valkyrie fight for the crown right now ^^

  • @peternap Your operating system must have installed many codecs, try this player It has its own codecs.

  • @zaven13 your telling me that is flow motion 2 verses apocalypse now 444 soft both UNGRADED?!!!! wtf thats such a difference if these are straight from camera , same lens? same time of day? it looks like the light has totally changed or the haze just vanished in the AN shot i just can't believe there is this much difference in colour .... screw the resolution i can't see any difference with my eyes glancing at them...

  • @zaven13 These comparisons are worth absolutely nothing. Different time, maybe even season. Once picture has a mudpool the other one a green lawn (also looks to be shot during golden hour).

    Reshoot on same time of day right after each other, or better, with 2 camera bodies.

  • @Zaven13 Already from the shadows on the mountain range I can clearly see that your "comparative test" is a complete waste of time for you and everyone else. Please think before posting such none-comparable images.

  • @zaven13 like @sohus says reshoot exactly one after the other exact same settings, same lens, just switch between hacks for us and upload to see if we see any difference there , my guess is that it will be drastically less of a difference than those original two suggest....but would be very interested to see

  • @peternap What are you using to view the file? I'm on Media Player Classic with the CCCP codec pack. Looks fine to me.

  • Here is the Nebula Sharp 2 in a run & gun situation. Shot with the Panny 14-140, transcoded to Prores LT for web delivery using 5dtoRGB. You can see how it resolves in a range of light and it has some shots that I had to use because of who is in the shot. So this edit is the typical compromise to tell the story visually, not just perfect shots.

    The results were markedly flatter, to the point where it really deserves grading, for example in @shian colorghear. Here I only had time to use FCPX, just add a little black to enhance contrast, pull some green out etc. I'll continue to test and develop a workflow, I just wish FCPX had a bridge or export to AE. Any day now, right?

  • Hi everyone, I am noticing strange artifacts in every I-frame of Nebular and DREWnet. Every 6th respectively 12th frame I get jagged edges on contours. I uploaded an example of a frame with artifacts and one without. I used both AN soft versions of the settings with the ptool 3.66 beta. The lens I used was the 20mm Pana prime. I shot in HBR 25p mode with Standard all -2, copied the private folders to my computer and compared a 5DtoRGB transcode with a FCP7 log & transfer import. In both cased I get the same artifacts. I have tried changing the timeline settings from upper to lower field because of the interlaced footage and it makes no difference. Also the original mts files viewed in the VLC player show the artifacts. Does anyone have an idea what is causing this and how it can be prevented?

    1920 x 1080 - 595K
    1920 x 1080 - 598K
  • I'm going to record a music video really soon, and need some advice. The video will have a lot of skin tones, and will be shot in slow motion 720p (60p). I want a really soft look with nice rendering of skin tones. My lenses are a Voigtländer Nokton 25mm f/0.95 and a SLR Magic 12mm.

    Which hack would be the most suitable? I need smooth motion and a high bitrate.

  • @Zaven13 wish you would of done the test the same day one after another. It seems like the white balance settings where changed and/or its clear to me and anyone else that examines the screen grabs that the time these where taken are not the same. The FM shot looks more like noon because the mountains are lit to where they're no shadows, and the AN shot looks more as if the sun is going down due to the way the shadow casts onto the mountains. I've done tests myself between these two patches and can say the difference is not as dramatic as it shows with yours.

  • @Zaven13 Sorry for being so harsh in my earlier post. I just got a bit upset about the amount of unreflected praise for every new setting that gets released. The improvements are good and welcome. But they are not the holy grail that turns the GH2 into an Arri Alexa contender, although certain people fancy this believe. To not deceive oneself, objective testing under identical conditions is necessary.

  • Since we're talking about meaningful and meaningless comparisons, the other issue is, should anyone really care what comes out of the camera, if the footage produced by other settings can be made to look much the same in post? Are the differences truly qualitative, or just incidental (or imaginary)?

    It matters, because if you can get the same results using settings which require half or two-thirds of the data rate and are more reliable, why waste the bandwidth and risk shooting failures?

  • @kodakmoment

    Was that interlaced footage? If so, I think I might know what the issue is. My matrix was originally designed for 1080p only. The 1080i may need some more work. Interlaced I frames are actually a mixture of I frame encoding for one part, and P frame encoding for the other. In order for that to come out right the same matrix would have to be used for I frames and P frames (and B frames too, ideally). I suspect they aren't identical, and that might be what's causing a problem.

    Interesting find. I think it shows that a little more work is needed for some settings.

  • @kodakmoment Who on here is saying this turns the GH2 into an Alexa contender? You seem to be putting words in peoples mouths. All we're saying is this is the best raw stuff we've seen out of this camera so far.

  • @cbrandin: i was wondering if you recommend the sharp or soft version for canon fd glass? cheers

This topic is closed.
← All Discussions