Personal View site logo
'Apocalypse Now' Experimental Series 1 Thread - BOOM, Intravenus - cbrandin/driftwood AN Soft/Cinema
  • 1089 Replies sorted by
  • bothabotha

    @Rambo: You can be shure Onionbrain knows what he ist talking about, he's an experienced pro photographer. I tell you what, for all the morons and dumbasses that are whining and complaining here - simply don't use these patches !!! If you can't see the difference, these settings aren't for you, it's very simple !

  • peternappeternap

    @pundit They will and to be honest, FM, Sanity, AN, Sedna, Etc. are all good settings. Some stronger in certain areas than others. A lot of it has to do with how well they preform in post which again can be very subjective.

    Some just look better to me and that's where personal taste takes over.

    A few years ago I was photographing in a swamp. The Cattails all had new heads, the light was beautiful and I got a picture of a Cattail field that went as far as I could see with Redwing Blackbirds landing in them.

    On one of the photo boards, a photographer from New York City posted, "Why would you take a picture of a bunch of weeds".

    Everyone sees things differently.

  • punditpundit

    @peternap Seemingly post is where many of these patches really show their mettle, especially under less than ideal conditions.

  • jrdjrd

    @flaschus

    EDIT: PLEASE DISREGARD THIS POST. THE DIFFERENCES SEEN IN THE ATTACHMENT ARE AN ARTIFACT OF THE PHOTO EDITING SOFTWARE. THIS IS NOT A MEANINGFUL COMPARISON!

    After staring at your carpet for too long, I'm not sure of anything -- the shots seem to look different on different systems. Anyway, I'm attaching a comparison crop, which is consistent with the claims in my prior past, for what they're worth.

    compare.png
    755 x 884 - 1M
  • vicharrisvicharris

    @kodakmoment Why the hell are you even on here? If you think none of the patches work, stop posting and pissing people off. I feel like you're trolling at this point. If people think they see better images, then let them. Why piss on their parade? Really?

  • vicharrisvicharris

    @jrd Much better cropped shot. Thanks. Yep, it looks like a flatter pic to me.

  • jrdjrd

    @vicharris

    The comparison is not valid. The apparent differences resulted from combining the images.

  • vicharrisvicharris

    @jrd AHHHHHHHHH, just saw the edit. My bad.

  • SuperSetSuperSet

    @Zaven13 Ok, I'm not a professional so all of this should be viewed through amateur eyes. Maybe you guys can see the differences. I'm also uploading video to Vimeo so will post that when it's finished processing.

    ETA: Comparison video as well:

    Apoc1.png
    1920 x 1080 - 4M
    Sanity1.png
    1920 x 1080 - 4M
    Apoc2.png
    1920 x 1080 - 4M
    Sanity2.png
    1920 x 1080 - 3M
    Apoc3.png
    1920 x 1080 - 4M
    Sanity3.png
    1920 x 1080 - 4M
  • mistanmistan

    Jesus, this thread is a complete mess and I'm not even sure of what to go with. There's been settings-upload mistakes, claims of "garbage settings", bad comparisons, photo-upload mistakes, claims of different settings being useless by one person but significant by others. I'd rather just wait a couple of days until this is sorted out and we see a few real tests/comparisons on the differences.

  • ShonShon

    @cbrandin I have to say, I do not speak English, try to understand what I say. You need to know why.

    It occurs in all cases, and 24H, and 720p, in this video I use a format 720p - 60fps. This happens in all settings (DREWnet Soft Matrix, sharp Matrix, nebula..) but "sharp2" does not.

  • Jim_SimonJim_Simon

    I finally tested the DREWnet/Soft settings on the 64 GB SanDisk Extreme Pro card, and it spanned just fine. (Five times, in fact).

    Some footage below:

  • cbrandincbrandin

    @Shon - I didn't create these settings, so I don't know details about them. I created soft matrices for 1080p only (they aren't used with 720p) and they are intended to be used in a particular way. I noticed a big color difference - I don't see how matrices could do that - unless they have been changed into something else.

  • Zaven13Zaven13

    @SuperSet. Thanks for stepping up and do what you could. Every test helps one way or another. I don't shoot videos for day job either. It is a hobby for me but a serious one. My test shots and yours may look boring to the eyes of the professionals in this forum, but at least we try. But not to worry. Mr @mistan here who has been sitting on the sideline and complaining about everything is going to step up and show us amateurs how to do real tests so we can learn from him. @mistan, you are up buddy... Knock everyone's socks off with your tests.

  • ShonShon

    @cbrandin These videos were recorded at different times. If necessary, I can re-flash the gh2 to some other setting (soft matrix), but not "sharp2", and make a video in 1080p - 24 fps, the result is the same. All eyes on the window, where the contours are jumping on each new GOP frame. Very strange that the new "sharp matrix2" this does not.

  • MirrorkisserMirrorkisser

    @zaven13 @SuperSet: Cheers for your uploads, cheers zaven for not taking former criticism too harsh and providing us with good info!

  • LPowellLPowell

    @Zaven13 I was unable to reproduce the distortion in your ETC frame grab above using my Lumix 45-175mm zoom in ETC 24H mode. However, I did happen to take some footage that illustrates the atmospheric distortion effect I suspect may have been the cause of the distorted details in your shot. This was taken at 175mm in ETC 24H mode with the GH2 fixed on a tripod:

  • blaisejadoulblaisejadoul

    @cbrandin You say that the soft matrices were created for 1080p only. So which hacks and settings would you suggest for the HBR 25fps Pal users ?

  • nomadnomad

    Depending on your needs, all of the highly acclaimed recent ones before 444 are good for HBR too. Due to technical decisions by Panasonic (actually, 25p came as an afterthought) it'll never be as good as 24.

    If you are striving for ultimate quality, consider shooting in 24 and upspeeding to 25, like it has been done for 80 years in European TV when screening movies …

  • kodakmomentkodakmoment

    @vicharris I think you should re-read my postings and then re-consider your interpretation of my words.

  • blaisejadoulblaisejadoul

    @nomad You're right, I thought about that but, as you know, it became quite unusual to shoot at 24fps in our Pal countries. And we have to think about shooting audio at 24fps as well... On the other hand if it's the price to pay for ultimate quality, let's go for 24 !

  • kodakmomentkodakmoment

    @blaisejadoul I ran some test speeding up dialog sound by 4%, which is what happens if you speed up 24p to 25p. The voices sounded unrealistically high. So I think using 24p for non-dialog scenes would be okay, but then one needs to remember to change settings on the camera and on the external sound recorder as well, all which are potential pitfalls. I am curious how the GH3 will perform in comparison to the patched GH2.

  • daiharddaihard

    @SuperSet Thanks for that, but when comparing the two patches. Please take into account that your settings as well as focus should be locked down. I see that the first and last clips you had a different point of focus after each patch, so its really hard to compare fine details or lack there of (i.e. Duck's back and the rock beside them)... as im interested in the "soft" 444 patch and noise differences between Sanity (which i use for most of my jobs) and Flow.

  • spacewigspacewig

    "I ran some test speeding up dialog ... The voices sounded unrealistically high."

    That's just your mind fucking with you. A 4% increase in pitch is just under a semitone, i.e. the smallest possible increment in 99% of musical instruments. So if the root note of a voice in 24P was middle C, it would be C# (sharp) in 25P. Hardly dramatic...

  • ShonShon

    The tests should be done in a room with constant lighting, the camera must be securely mounted on a tripod.

This topic is closed.
← All Discussions