@spacewig right click on the before pic to view at full size and you can see the grain.

@redbaron

A screengrab from a short I am making at the moment. Shot at 1250, all ambient light (sun). I just find the noise relatively heavy.

@spacewig

Have you used any denoising filter on that screengrab? Noise doesn't look a lot worse than redbaron's "before". I'm only a novice, but I would say redbaron has exposed slightly to the right on the histogram, whereas your shot looks central (if not slightly underexposed)? Also his shot has less depth of field...maybe that makes a difference? The subjects in redbaron's "before" are slightly out of focus, and it looks like he has applied some post sharpening.

With a bit of post work you can clearly use ISO 1250, but denoising filters alone add a lot of time to render. If you can/afford it light your scene, drop the ISO and live with less noise. This is the way I want to go, but I know naff all about lighting (and the rest!). All i know is most of us have decent camera's nowadays, but footage often still looks like cheap video. Lighting is key!

All the best

@L1N3ARX "I think this is where the real "secret" to a cinema look lies... not in DOF, not necessarily in DR, but in motion blur or how the frames blend together. This is why canon I think the 7d/5d can look amazing in a screenshot using cinestyle, but in motion it falls apart for me and has a much more artificial look to it, than say the GH2, red, or film. I wonder if I'm the only person who thinks this, or if there's anyone else that can properly describe what I'm seeing."

...just look up the beginnings of the Low-GOP threads. :) Initially, everyone thought a few of us were insane for suggesting that the GOP could have an effect on motion.

You're not alone!

I also think this is where allot of the jell-o-vision comes from. After using GOP1 patches, and recently Qv9b... I've noticed that there isn't really any "jello". Sure you can see the rolling shutter if you're shooting like a maniac... but the "jelly-ness" of the image is gone. I'm thinking that the dreaded "jello-vision" is not so much rolling shutter, but how the long-GOP motion amplifies the rolling shutter.

... just my thoughts on it.

Little short I made using the Quantum 100 setting by driftwood. Language is german - sorry folks. Subtitles are in progress. Filmed mostly between Iso 640 and 1600.

@duartix I will do subtitles later on, so you guys will understand.

@sebben What card, detail type were you filming when it crashed?

Anyone at all may i ask?

Anyways, I am thinking of going ahead with the Quantum 100, is it possible if someone can tell me abit more about this one? and if it's completely stable at all?

@onionbrain : You wrote " but 4:2:2 doesn't mean the same thing it meant four years ago now that editors (NLE's) are ingesting, correcting, and editing at 12 bit 4:4:4)". 422 keeps double chroma samples than 420 and this the application you use to process your footage won't change this fact. NLEs ingest footage as it is and (at least FC and AVID) always has processed as 444 withe the bit depth available (10b Floating point in FC since FC4.5).

I have a question that I haven't really seen a clear answer for yet. But if someone doesn't mind answering, what is the difference between quantum 9b at 24h versus seaquake at 24h? I know quantum has been said to be better overall in the modes(60p,etc). But coming down to quality or motion is their a difference between both seaquake and quantum 9b 24h's? I've been following along for a while now but have seen hints at there strong points: Seaquake, 24h = Pure Quality Quantum 9b, 24h = Motion? Is this how it goes?

@spaceandtime. I have tried both Seaquake and Quantum V9b. As Driftwood put it, Seaquake uses more constant rates where Quantum has variable rate controller. I have used Seaquake 24H at 160/154 mb/s and 24L set to 100mb/s. I also changed the AQ=3. This configuration allows me to span and use EXTC mode using my Transcend SDXC 64GB card and the 24L will record at 80% slomo on my Sandisk Extreme 32GB 30mb/s card. I could not span with V9b. I have played both patches side by side and could not see the difference in quality and motion. May be I don't have as keen of an eye as others. However, if you want motion, I am using Sanity patch for 1080i60 and 720p60 at 44/32 mb/s. I set my 720p60 AQ=0 and I am getting very good picture quality and very smooth motion on fast panning and fast motion scenes and works with EXTC mode. Hope this helps.

And while we're on the topic of Seaquake, is there a reason to go back to the Seaquake 244 mbit patch? I did a few tests and the results were amazing (when I could actually get it to play back), but I never went back to do an A/B comparison.

I'm looking for the patch with the highest quality 1080p settings, without regard to anything else. If anyone could shed some light, it'd be much appreciated.

@ehr thanks. really appreciate your comments. sending you a pm.