Patches for End Users - AVCHD Movie Mode - AVCHD Compression - Video Bitrate 24H = checked & set to 70000000
Patches for Testers - AVCHD Movie Mode - AVCHD Compression - Video Bitrate 24H ADD = checked & set to 70000000
Patches for Testers - AVCHD Movie Mode - AVCHD Compression - Overall Bitrate = checked & set to 70000000
Patches for Testers - AVCHD Movie Mode - AVCHD Compression - Overall Bitrate 2 = checked & set to 70000000
Patches for Testers - AVCHD Movie Mode - AVCHD Research - Video Buffer = checked & set to 0x3600000
Patches for Testers - AVCHD Movie Mode - AVCHD Research - Video Buffer 24p = checked & set to 0x3600000
NOTE: 24p still uses a variable bitrate, so only certain shots actually exceed the typical bitrate up to 70mbps. Still playing with encoder settings to force a higher constant rate (if this is even possible).
I am also using a class 10 card with 30mbps write speed, this may effect how high the bitrate and buffer can be.
@fatpig - because alot of clients still dont need hd. think about internet, alot of television channels, and corporate videos. alot of corporate videos are made for presentations, trade shows, internal communication, so they dont need 1080, they can be 480 or even as low as 240 if its web based and still get the corporate message across. advertising commercials are immediate, they dont need to be future proofed like a documentary or televison program would be, as they have a very limited lifespan. so if the commercial is intended for sd television, there is no reason to pay extra for hd version of the footage when 480 will do. 720 is actually considered pretty damn good in the broadcast world, only a few tv programs are made in 1080. think of alot of the stuff being made in africa, russia, middle east, india, it's still being made in sd
@adventsam - i admit, my needs are niche. in underwater video the colors are often very screwed up, so need a huge amount of pushing. the transcoding doesn't seem to help this, i cant claim to know the reason why. really my best results would be from RAW, but for 400 dollars i can get 720 4:2:2 100mbit from a tiny footprint.
@adventsam: of course, where no information is there, transcoding wont make it appear.
@sparedog: okay i understand, but i was always of the opinion that the 30p that mjpeg gives us makes it completely unusable for corporate things. is this just for PAL land, and you guys actually can make use of it?
@fatpig - everything is pretty much transcoded nowadays to match the project's frame rate, so it's pretty much not an issue. in broadcast docs if you have great footage in pal, and you are delivering for nat geo or discovery, i think up to 20 percent (it really depends on the channel, and sometimes the commissioning editor) can be non native format. we deliver to history channel's hd in 24p, but alot of the archive used originated in 29.97/59.94 or 25/50
bear in mind that i am talking about stock/archive and not main shot footage, which would be shot in the delivery format. so in coporate, if you need a sequence of coral reefs to say that your company is/is not destroying them, it is only a tiny percentage of your edit.
@fatpig - i love typing your name lol. no, you can certainly cut 420 originated footage into pretty much any current broadcast channel's show, again in moderation and dependent on the footage - if you can say to the channel that this particular footage doesnt exist in 422 and is needed for the show's content. and yes, the final program's delivery is 4:4:4, for example half inch d5 hd or 4:2:2 HDCAM SR, but not 4:2:0 for any major channels that i know of.
but getty is future proofing, so they require a little above the current minimum specs so that they dont lose some of their assets when the minimum broadcast specs are pushed up. they have thousands of hours of incredible footage on sd and 16mm, so they know that it's an endless cycle of replacing old with new, but they just want to postpone it a little.
"Main target now is improved usability for casual users, so all they'll need to do is use one simple patch for each thing.......Early next week, I think."
Great news Vitaliy! I´m new to all this hack stuff but I´ve heard that a guy called LPowell made the best patches for the gh1(3). Is he around here somewhere?
Have a look at the comments on Dominick John's video on Vimeo (click the vimeo word bottom R) - you'll see there are still experiments to be done - some of the original footage is lower bitrate than my unhacked GH2!
Still looks very nice though - this bitrate thing is not the whole story, but looking forward to it anyway.
Unfortunately, there is no detail in the girls dark hair. In the highly detailed shots lots of contrast and detail. I'm guessing the bitrate drops and the hair looks almost like a solid one tone object.
YouTube, no matter how nice the image looks, never tells the full story. I can not judge it fully by watching it on YouTube. On an average it looks decent when watching it on that site.. But it will be nothing like the real thing.