Okay lets see... AVCHD has much better Luma/Y resolution, and 1080p MJPEG has much better U and V resolution than AVCHD (so this may be the go for green screen).

Working through the rest of the image set now.

Can't spot a luma difference for MJPEG @ 2048x864 resized to 1920x1080 vs 1080p MJPEG, but 1080p MJPEG has slightly finer (hard to spot) U and V.

Pulling up a 1080p MJPEG frame to 2048x1152 and the 2048x864 up to 2048x1152 (so nothing is thrown out from either). the 1080p frame is better due to better U and V. 2048x864 is a touch better horizontally in Y. I didn't take a 2048x1152 'native' shot to compare.

I'm going to upload these images (may take a while).

AVCHD has a clear resolution/detail lead. MJPEG however has significantly better U and V. I also took an "ideal" 1080p shot (RAW still, 16:9, down sized to 1920x1080) - Y, U, and V are all crystal clear and as much info as you can possibly store in a 1920x1080 RGB or 4:4:4 frame.

The MJPEG U and V frame come no where it's U and V frames, and of course look quite jaggy, but much better than AVCHD. Yet no where near the ideal RGB/4:4:4 frame (which I made from a RAW still, extacrted YUV compoments and downsized to 1920x1080).

Meaning sub-sampling is much worse on AVCHD than MJPEG, yet MJPEG is no where near ideal, so AVCHD by deduction is much less than 4:2:0.

I'll upload a PSD with all the layers of the diff images from this test, think that might be less work for me :P

Anyway, here's a quick gander

AVCHD U component:

MJPEG 1080p U component:

Ideal 1080p U component:

This half/2 U component is still legible for much of it, MJPEG is not legible, but is still significantly better than AVCHD which is just a smear.

Now while you may say of course MJPEG will do better in YUV, since it's stored in YUV (iirc), and AVCHD Y'CbrCr, that doesn't matter, as the Y vs Y' component are still basically full resolution greyscale images, and the remaining two components colour differentiation, if -both- U and V are significantly better on MJPEG, if I converted AVCHD and MJPEG to Y'CbCr components, the same difference should still be seen.

Perhaps 4:2:0 YUV (if that's how MJPEG is being stored) has an advantage over 4:2:0 Y'CbCr, I seriously doubt it, but in any case, even though MJPEG is winning here, even it doesn't look like 4:2:0 at all, but much less (at least for the 2 part).

Ideal 1080p U component reduced to 1/4 resolution (half linear resolution, ie: 4:2:x):

Haven't replied in a while due to suddenly having no internet at home (no idea what's happening with it, in housemate's name).

I see some of the patches have MJPEG at 2K, 2048x1152. What is the maximum X and Y values (2048x1152) can be raised, and/or is there a point you go beyond and upscaling occurs? Thanks

@duratix I saw Alice sitting on the bank of the river. I approached and offered her a blue or red pill, and explained the consequences thereof. Alice chose, then followed me down the rabbit hole.

My question, which remains unanswered, maximum X and Y values, pertains to some future tests I may experiment with adjusting a patch. I use an anamorphic front lens, and it is not a typical ratio, being 1.75x or there abouts, whereas many others are traditional 2x, 1.33x and even some 1.5x. When capturing to 16:9 with a 2x anamorphic, say at 1080p, you can not extract 2.39:1, resulting in something around 3.55:1 when you transform the height down, making the footage extremely wide screen. If you can capture to 4:3 sensor, a 2x anamorphic results in 2.66:1 and you lose some of the sides bringing it back to 2.39:1, and a 2K source (2048x1152) is less than 1920 wide after this process to result in 2.39:1, resulting in some upscaling.

I agree, your formula is a good direction to head, however, does this apply to anamorphic users? My question remains, the maximum X and/or Y values before the GH2 starts upscaling? @duratix, thank you for your interest and reply. I will test your settings soon.

@WhiteRabbit Its all about balancing quality with res size. The bigger the rez the lower values for E1 to E4 etc... you'll have to make it to work. The 2k sized mjpeg patches in most of the latest Driftwood settings (which are the same) maximise the bandwidth available and provide the best quality mjpeg settings Ive seen.

@WhiteRabbit: I suggest you change both these settings to the resolutions you wish to test:

720p30 width=1920

720p30 height=1080

480p30 width=1280

480p30 height=720

This way you change modes on the camera and test and compare 2 different resolutions at a time without repatching. ;)

Happy hunting.

Higher FPS will not work. Optimum resolution question is answered by Driftwood 3 posts above. Guess you can change values to your need as long as you ruffly stay at the same amount of pixels and don't exeed 2048.

This sounds quite interesting! Would you mind sharing the setting?

I've been following this thread with interest for awhile and I have some questions. I know that Driftwood is using 2048x1152 for his mjpg settings and even though I turned off the 1080p in mjpg to force 720p, I've decided to try his 1080p formula ratio to hopefully maximize 720p resolution. I divided 1920 into 2048, then multiplied that number times 1280 and 720 to get 1365.33x768. I rounded to 1365x768 and without frame grabs, yet, my initial/gut observation is that yes there seems to be an increase in resolution. Should I be rounding to 1366x768 instead? Also, @duartix, this is off topic, but is there a way to overcome the 4gb limit that I've ran into using 2fps in mjpg?

2 fps was the fastest I could get it to work on my Transcend Class 10 32gb and my Sandisk Class 10 32gb UHS-I 45mb/sec.

It was for investigative purposes to gain information about chroma sub-sampling. I am sure it is tied to the specified resolution as a variable in the processing pipeline somewhere.

I can't remember the settings exactly it was a long time ago, but probably 4096x2304 for res setting. And I'm waiting on a new charger for my GH2 (orig battery only, and flat, left charger behind somewhere else :/) so I can't re-explore it right yet, I've got the DC-coupler kit, but can't update firmware on that I think.