or +2,987,576!

So if I understand correctly, working in 32 bit environment allows for finer and more controlled gradations of change/adjustment to both image and color? (therefore not destroying/ruining the image when we apply color correction and grading?)

Thanks all for regular contributions of your knowledge - much appreciated here.

@driftwood that quote is getting pasted right to the top of the ColorGHear testimonials page!

And it's not the editing that matters in 32bit, unless you are also grading in your NLE. Grading in 32 bit makes all the difference in the world.

@ shian

yes, nice work dispelling the myths re: importance of grading with greater bit depth.

what is your experience grading hacked vs unhacked gh2 footage at 32bit float? ive done a bit of this in cs5, using the following:

• patches of choice: v9b 176mbps or flowmotion 100mbps

• using nikon, canon and zeiss glass via fotodiox, usually at around f 5.6

• always 800 iso or below

• 24p at shutter setting of 1/40th

please comment on the following (also open to feedback from others who have an informed technical opinion, like mr. powell):

• what has been your experience grading in a 32 bit environ, both using stock firmware as well as various patches?

• to me, stock firmware footage always looks cleaner in terms of noise than hacked output. has this been your experience? if so, what would the benefit be of using a patch if one wanted the cleanest result from a 32 bit grade?

• i really like the film-like (reminds me enlarging portra 400) grain than the patches i use seem to add. do you have any idea as to why perceived graininess would be increased with a high bit rate patch?

• is there a technical explanation for this anywhere on this site?

many thx

@artiswar I totally agree..I have seen the grading improvements in 32bit,no question about it!

@lpowell Interesting. So it's not a bug after all.

@shian

very nice. im with you, but can someone please provide a technical explanation as to why patches yield these results? i dont understand why a higher bit rate, etc, yields a grainy result? if there is another thread that discusses the technical merits along these lines, please provide a pointer.

found roughly what i was looking for in here: http://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/737/gh2-hack-myths-and-realities

sorry to go off topic.

For starters, if you insist on finishing in FCP, change your sequence settings to this:

Or graduate to a professional workflow which I have outlined here:

and discuss further here: http://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/comment/55553#Comment_55553

yes. you can work in 8 and 16 if your system chokes on 32, but always render in 32 to a 444 codec.

A finishing question for AE (or other tools that allow this choice): For hacked GH2 sources (GOP3), would a 16pbc project offer less real grading room than a 32bpc project? 16bpc of course renders faster. I would not ask that question if the source was 10/12bit depth. I find I'm fighting banding (my expectations are rather high though) at every step in the filter stack, and it's a balancing act. I suspect that's all an 8bit source can give me, not that integer 16bpc induces artifacting.

To get more specific of the level of detail I'm talking (and maybe share a tip), after I'm done with grading/finishing at 16bpc with no visible artifacts, if I render out a master to an intermediate 10b YUV format (ProResHQ/DNxHD) I will get this (subtle) banding/artifacting. Not so if the master is rendered out to 10b Uncompressed RGB. I could share stills if need be.

@FilmingArt the macro blocking on vimeo is from vimeo compression - the ProRes versions of all my videos are pristine.