@Mirrorkisser I also noticed. Possibly, although adjustment may be necessity slightly, I am already going to look at the result possibly more for the time being. This is a new starting point. :-)

@bkmcwd: the footage looks really nice. But in the lower left on the electricity lines there seem to be some artifacts...maybe my eye is fooling me, i dont know.

The sample of "Valkyrie 444 TYPE-ZERO1" with Pany lense. Please DL original MTS file to look the REAL IQ from vimeo.

Pany 14-42ｍｍ F8.0 1/50 ISO320 NOS.(-2,+1,0,-2)

@bkmcwd I used your settings "Valkyrie soft" for an interview on Tuesday. It was shot in HBR and ACCIDENTLY 50i on the second cam. Despite the wrong interlaced setting, the footage turned out nicely. I really like skintones!

This morning I saw that you released another version called TYPEZERO1. How does this one compare to Valkyrie soft? Softer? Sharper? Or something else?

I also read the following:

"Warning! : in this setting, all the modes of AVCHD other than 24p are experimental. Please keep in mind that artifacts often appears in HBR, 1080i and 720p in spite of being very stable. These will be improved from now on."

SInce I am interested in mainly 25p, are the HBR/50i settings of Valkyrie soft also experimental and may lead to artifacts? Or is this warning just directed at TYPEZERO1 testers?

In our footage I didn't see any artifacts so far. I and was planning on keeping it in my cam for a an upcoming corporate shoot and hope it is not experimental. Don't want to find out in post later...

Thanks again for the great settings!

I agree that screenshots aren't ideal because there is the issue of adjustments made to accommodate the display colorspace, etc... , even if screenshots are uncompressed. However, PNG or JPG files are even worse because the image has been recompressed. It's impossible to separate artifacts caused by H.264 and artifacts caused by the recompression. Vegas, for example can export as JPG or PNG, and the two don't look exactly the same. What is needed is an uncompressed format - like BMP.

Regarding spanning.

As I have said many times before, the card that has the highest chance of spanning is the SanDisk 95MBs 64GB. Many testers use this to test new settings and it has demonstrated higher performance than any other card tested with the GH2 (as of a few months ago).

If you are using that card, the overwhelming majority of settings will span in 24H. If a given setting does not, it is very notable and important to say so.

There are other settings (both by @Driftwood and others like @LPowell and @Ralph_B) that place a higher priority on spanning and will span on a much wider variety of cards.

The Transcend cards are among the least likely to span with high bitrate performance settings. The Delkin Elite 633x and the SanDisk Extreme cards rated at 30 or 45MBs will be able run a wider range. But the SanDisk 95MBs 64GB version will span with more settings than any other card tested to date. It is THE card to get for GH2 hacked settings at the moment.

If you want to see one of the areas where these settings differ more, you can use controlled (and repeatable) lighting and position to create banding in your favorite old setting and then shoot it with one of the new matrices. The differences range from subtle to noticeable depending on the material and may be very important for some people.

In regards to earlier comments about the diffrent settings and the difference in the way they looked vs the way that different cameras looked, I would offer my personal paradigm on the topic.

Every scene has a certain potential range. No matter what camera or lens you bring in, all possible results will fall within that potential range. If you leave the lighting as is, and the scene is static, then the next variables are the lens and position from which the scene is shot.

Once those parameters are locked off, "specific potential" for the shot is determined by the combination of lens and camera. No codec can exceed the specific potential of the shot, only try to live up to it. On a conceptual level, most people feel that a codec is doing a good job when it appears (to them) to get close to what they originally perceived or what they wanted to perceive. Since the original subject is infinite in detail and the the codec produces a finite approximation, something will always get lost.

With higher bitrates, the potential for a codec to have enough data available to record a more accurate approximation of the subject increases. The more difficult the detail is to render in a small number of bytes, the more important the number of available byetes (or the compression approach) becomes.

To perform a meaningful comparison of the limits of different codec settings, the shot must exhibit visual deficincies in at least one of the tested settings. If you are testing new settings, start with a scene - macroblocking, banding, jaggies or other undesirables - in your old settings. To get a better sense ofline, shoot as a JPEG at 1920x1080 (or whatever resolution is equivalent to your video mode) and RAW.

That provides a baseline with which to compare the settings and a good indicator of whether the scene is sufficiently demanding to illustrate the differences with the naked eye.

@cbrandin @lpowell I would skip using screenshots and just export specific frames as PNGs. This is easy to do with minimal processing in apps like VirtualDub for 8-bit files.

Apocalypse Now "Nebula 444 Soft" from Abraham Aponte on Vimeo.

Check out the link of sample footage of Nebula 444 Soft. this was done with no color grading at all, the settings i chose are described in the video enjoy this awesome patch. Idk how to embed the video to the forum correctly for you guys to see it from here any advice on how would be great!

@rajamalik, test out the settings for yourself.

@driftwood which setting is better for panny lenses 12-35 x and 14-140 g.

@petersoncinema The video looks good. Any issue with noise at all?

Is it me or do the images from these new patches make the GH2 look like Sony camera footage? Not saying it as a bad thing...just....something about it.

Interesting in terms of spanning results on an Extreme 45 mB/s 32 gig card:

AN GOP 6, 24L- could not span, maximum overall bit rate of fairly still footage of 50.4 mb/s

AN 'IntraVenus' Settings - Intra GOP1, 24L - spanned fine on 2 different scenes, maximum overall bit rate of 75.4 mb/s

Could be due to the higher GOP?

Very new to all of this.

Loved the quality of these patches- man, the noise is so much more controlled than other patches I've tried!