Just wanted to share some test I did today about noise, conversion and profiles. I went outside and shoot few takes all with the same camera settings(iso 160, 1/100, F5.6), using Driftwood's amazing new Cluster X S2 - 1GOP Intra Moon T5 settings. Also, I did a few tests with profiles few days ago and what I could find is that Vibrant has the least amount of noise, while Smooth(that I was using all the time) was the worst, for me at least.

So here you can see 3 profiles used, Vibrant, Smooth, Cinema, all to -2, wanted to test them once again and make sure, plus convert the files to ProRes and CineForm and see the difference. Scaled at 400%

As ProRes looked more/less the same as the raw MTS file, I decided to push them even further and scale them to 800% and compare only CineForm and raw MTS files.

I know I'll be always converting files to CineForm before edit from now on, and never again use Smooth profile. Also because a weird amount of blockiness in 25p mode I'll probably just go with 24p when ever I can. Need to test 25p a bit more with this new Moon settings though.

Cheers!

Otherwise, anyone got a clue how I can convert mts to raw images? Is that even the best conversion to try with the gh2 hack?

I've recently started to get interested in C mount (CCTV) lens, for they are fast, wide, and cheap. So I wondered, is there any CCTV lens that I could use as a Fisheye (and get the same effect as the Panasonic 8mm f3.5, but faster) ? Here's a few lens I've found looking on the internet :

• Rainbow 3.5mm 1.6

• Tamron 4-12mm 1.2

• Pentax 6mm 1.2 (+ wide conversion lens x0.45)

Wanted effect :

The GH2 exact m4/3 sensor crop is x1.86.

So I would like to get the same widness as the Panasonic 8mm or any 8mm Fisheye (Samyang, Peleng, Rokinon...) :

Panasonic 8mm : 8 x 1.86 = 14.88mm equivalent (no need for ETC mode)

Rainbow 3.5mm : 3.5 x 1.86 = 6.51 -> 6.51 x 2 = 13mm equivalent

Pentax 6mm : 6 x 1.86 = 11.16 -> 11.6 x 2 = 23.2mm equivalent -> 23.2 x 0.45 = 10.44mm equivalent

x 1.86 : GH2 Sensor Crop

x 2 : ETC tele conversion mode crop (to cover vignetting)

x 0.45 : Wide convversion lens

Does that mean we could use any CCTV c mount lens instead of the Panasonic lens to get the wide fisheye effect ?

A few videos :

Lenses :

• http://www.ebay.fr/itm/Varifocal-Manual-Iris-CCTV-Lens-4-10mm-C-Mount-2-Mega-Pixel-VF-MI-4-10-C-2MP-/121077583241?pt=UK_CCTV&hash=item1c30c94d89

• http://tinyurl.com/qx3utvp

• http://www.ebay.com/itm/DV3-4X3-8SA-1-LENS-1-2-3-8-13MM-VARIFOCAL-MANUAL-IRIS-/150585299071?

C mount lens (1/2") work well on the GH2, but I heard that the CS mount lens (1/3") would still have really heavy vignetting because even with the ETC mode it would not cover entirely the GH2 sensor. Is that true ?

Interesting CS mount lens, but 1/3 inch : http://www.ebay.fr/itm/TAMRON-Manual-Iris-CCTV-Lens-3-0-8mm-1-1-0-ASPHERICAL-C-Mount-3-Mega-Pixel-/261248954560?pt=UK_CCTV&hash=item3cd3a6b0c0

I would use the fisheye to film Skateboarding.

Thank you.

So I have a Fujinon E6X14AM f/1.6 14-84mm TV Zoom lens that's C mount. What I'm trying to understand is what sensor sizes this lens will be compatible with for conversion. Can anyone help me out?

Also, I wanted to know if someone could link me to a site/document that explains which dimensions on the rear mount of a lens determine which sensor sizes it will cover.

Your help is much appreciated.

Thanks!

I commented off hand that if you're desperate enough you can get higher bit depth from merging frames together if you have access to 50, 60p etc. Oh, this also works if you downscale a higher resolution to a lower one within a higher bit depth space as well - so for all you people down scaling footage, if you're able to do that in a 16-bit space and save a high bit depth format then you'll have something to gain. I didn't speak for practicality, only that it can be done.

When I wrote my program to count unique colours in very large resolution 16-bit tiff images, I didn't see other software that'd do that. As the array would require tremendous memory. If you want to know the way I managed to do it I had a simpler way to do it which required processing power over memory, and that was to sort the pixels in an array from smallest colour value to highest essentially, that way you could simply not add +1 to the unique colour count if the same colour appeared more than once in a row.

I had other reasons for doing this, it's part of my experiments with image stacking, but I've done it with various image sources, scans, jpegs from shitty cameras with no raw, raw, jpegs from better cameras, snap shots of two frames in video.

Been told it's "cant be done" many times. Because the information from one from to the next isn't the same - well no, that's exactly why it works, even in the worst case scenario of a tripod locked off shot of still life with nothing moving it works.

But if you're recording 50p, blending every 2 frames together just speeds the footage up to 25p, the average of the two frames still contains the same amount of motion blur/movement as recording in 25p at the same shutter angle, though it may be divided into 2 sections over the 1 frame instead of 1 long section of motion.

Generally that shouldn't be an issue as 180 degree is accepted as general purpose good shutter angle which leaves space between the movement/motion blur anyway, and if you wanted none you could shoot 360 degree.

Now to the screenshot - R, G, B bit values, these represent how much of the scale Red will use on it's own (regardless of what green and blue is attached to - the same goes for Green and Blue etc), a value of 6-bits would mean, the image only has 64 differing red values in total. I made this to identify problems with some images.

Unique Colours is the total number of colours, an 8-bit image has a maximum value of 24-bits here, but that would be very hard to achieve, as it would have to have every combination of colour, hue, intensity, saturation in the one image etc from bland to neon, and the image resolution would need to be 16.7 million pixels or over.

The Unique Colour Factor - A 1920x1080p image has 2,073,600 pixels in the frame, a value of 50% would mean it would have 1,036,800 unique colours in the image, this percentage can be used as a factor of colour quality and separation.

The first example is a single frame grab from some A7s (720p 120fps) video I downloaded off the net (I was going to use my GH2, but I left it at work this afternoon), it's placed into Photoshop and converted to 16-bit and saved as a tiff (partly to rule out any conversion to 16-bit as the contributing rise in bit depth counting, and also because the program I wrote only reads 16-bit tiffs at this time of writing).

The second example, is the first 2 frames in 16-bit mode in photoshop, blended with opacity at 50% for the top layer, flattened and saved as a tif.

The fourth is the same but with 4 frames.

As you can see, the more you stack, the more in between values with higher precision than 8-bit arise, about ~9x the unique colours.

It should only be logical, even if the video or two photos is of on a tripod of a still life, 2 pixel values will have variance in them over the two frames, especially since 8-bit has high quantisation error compared to higher bit depths, variable noise, micron image movement etc, so if you have one that's 241 and 240 for example, the in between value cannot be represented in 8-bits.

Unfortunately I'm working tomorrow, but that means I can get my camera back before Monday, so I probably can shoot some footage with the lowest contrast settings and see if I can induce banding in something and post up an actual video sample.

I was wondering if any wide conversion lens could fit on the 14-140mm panasonic lens, like the "Wide Conversion Lens DMW-GWC1" works on the Panasonic 14mm f2.5 ? The thread is 62mm, so would some converters like this work ? http://www.ebay.fr/itm/Impact-DVP-WA65-62-62mm-Wide-Angle-Converter-Lens-/110823536775?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item19cd98f887 or http://www.amazon.fr/Olympus-WCON-Convertisseur-grand-angle/dp/B0000511RI

Thanks for answering.

Wide Conversion Lens DMW-GWC1, Tele Conversion Lens DMW-GTC1
Macro Conversion Lens DMW-GMC1 and Fisheye Conversion Lens DMW-GFC1

Panasonic is pleased to introduce a variety of conversion lenses for the Interchangeable Lens System Camera LUMIX G Micro System. Compact, lightweight conversion lenses propose users to experience the fun of switching lens and enjoy the different angle of view casually.

Compatibility*	Wide Conversion Lens DMW-GWC1	Tele Conversion Lens DMW-GTC1	Macro Conversion Lens DMW-GMC1	Fisheye Conversion Lens DMW-GFC1
H-PS14042
H-H014		-

---

Wide Conversion Lens DMW-GWC1

Attachable to H-PS14042 and H-H014*As of January 9, 2012.

• Enables capturing dynamic scenery in wider angle of view
• Extends the focal length of wide-end from 14mm to 11mm by just attaching it to the front of the lens.
• Compact, lightweight design featuring high mobility
• Included Adaptor Ring for the use on H-PS14042 and H-H014
• Helpful in shooting from dynamic landscapes to indoor group portraits

---

Tele Conversion Lens DMW-GTC1

Attachable to H-PS14042*As of January 9, 2012.

• Enables capturing distant subject up close
• Extends the focal length of tele-end from 42mm to 84mm by just attaching it to the front of the lens.*
• Compact, lightweight design featuring high mobility
• Included Adaptor Ring for the use on H-PS14042
• Helpful in shooting from travel to street snapshots

* Attachable when the lens is at tele-end.

---

Macro Conversion Lens DMW-GMC1

Attachable to H-PS14042 and H-H014*As of January 9, 2012.

• Enables shooting macro shot easily
• Features closest focusing distance of 0.14m by just attaching it to the front of the lens.*
• Compact, lightweight design featuring high mobility
• Included Adaptor Ring for the use on H-PS14042 and H-H014
• Helpful in shooting delicate, descriptive subject such as flowers or insects

* Closest focusing distance is 0.14m with H-H014 and 0.16m with H-PS14042. Longest Focusing Distance is 0.23m with H-H014 and 0.26m with H-PS14042.

---

Fisheye Conversion Lens DMW-GFC1

Attachable to H-PS14042 and H-H014*As of January 9, 2012.

• Enables shooting unique images with rounded effect
• Features 120-degree angle of view by just attaching it to the front of the lens.
• Compact, lightweight design featuring high mobility
• Included Adaptor Ring for the use on H-PS14042 and H-H014
• Suitable for shooting characteristic, impressive images unique to the fisheye lens

I've recently bought a Panasonic GH2 because of the great video quality once hacked (Thank you!). I never really compared the quality to the stock firmware because I hacked it right away, and started testing afterwards.

I made a extremely difficult testing set-up:

In a completely darkened room I projected thin white stripes of light on a model, and filmed it with different settings. At first I was a bit disappointed with the results, because allthough the footage looked good, a closer inspection revealed some serious flaws.

When color grading the grain in the blacks appeared very glitchy, almost like a digital rain... it seemed impossible to remove. But I was also trying out different conversion software, and by accident I noticed it made a huge difference..!

Pavtube was one of the first programs I tried, and apparently was responsible for the 'digital rain'. because ClipWrap gave a much smoother grain in the blacks..!

Watch the difference here:

Http://www.johannez.nl/oud/content/dump/testfootage-web.mov (100MB QuickTime movie, half-size but zoomed in 200% for acurate pixel size)

GH2 - hacked with Flow Motion, filmed in 24P Cinema mode @ 3200 iso (if i remeber this correctly.. is there some way to read out the meta-data and find exactly which settings were used for a particular shot?)

unfortunately I found out today about this free plug-in, which eliminates the need for conversion software. Allthough ClipWrap still seems to do a lot better coversion job then Final Cut Pro..! https://eww.pass.panasonic.co.jp/pro-av/support/dload/avccam_impt/agree_e.htm

Hope this helps..!

I did three comparisons each with the lenses at f/2.8 and f/5.6. The uncropped shots are resized, but I only wanted to demonstrate the barrel distortion and vignetting with those. There are also 100% crops of each. All shots were done with the wide converter on the 14mm (sorry, forgot label it properly), and with the Tokina at it's widest setting. I used RAW on the GH2 for all shots.

As expected, the Panny combo had worse vignetting and barrel distortion than the Tokina. The GH2 corrects the distortion for the 14mm, but it can't do anything about the wide converter. At F/2.8, the Panny combo was clearly sharper than the Tokina which had some noticeable coma. At F/5.6, the sharpness is about even in the center, but the Tokina slightly beats out the Panny combo at the edges. You can also notice the purple fringing is pretty bad on the Tokina at the edge of that white book.

I noticed that in all the discussion of audio on the site, experienced people have frequently covered inexpensive mics and recorders, and occasionally covered more expensive mics and software - but we have not often covered the audio interfaces used in project studios and professional audio environments.

Audio interfaces, pres and converters determine how your sound both gets recorded and how you hear it when it plays back.

Since we have a lot of experienced audio people here, I would like to open the floor to discussing some of the options and pros and cons of different options.

I'll list some of them below.

Note the interface (Firewire, PCI, USB 2.0, etc.) required and see whether it is compatible with your current hardware as well as portable to other systems. USB options tend to be compatible with the widest range while Firewire is the most popular type used in professional audio interfaces for the last decade.

USB 3.0 options would be great (greatly exceeding the bandwidth of the Firewire flavors supported on the audio interfaces listed so far on paper) but the audio interface manufacturers have not readily embraced it.

Thunderbolt deserves special discussion. Thunderbolt has massive bandwidth and some computers feature it instead of Firewire. There are accessories you can buy to connect Firewire devices to your Thunderbolt port, so don't rule Firewire interfaces out just because you have a Thunderbolt computer.

For a discussion of the even higher-end gear, check http://personal-view.com/talks/discussion/4816/entry-level-professional-audio-interfacesrecorders-pres-and-converters-for-studio

Audio interfaces, pres and converters determine how your sound both gets recorded and how you hear it when it plays back.

Since we have a lot of experienced audio people here, I would like to open the floor to discussing some of the options and pros and cons of different options.

I'll list some of them below.

This is for the higher end ones.

Note the interface (Firewire, PCI, USB 2.0, etc.) required and see whether it is compatible with your current hardware as well as portable to other systems. USB options tend to be compatible with the widest range while Firewire is the most popular type used in professional audio interfaces for the last decade.

USB 3.0 options would be great (greatly exceeding the bandwidth of the Firewire flavors supported on the audio interfaces listed so far on paper) but the audio interface manufacturers have not readily embraced it.

Thunderbolt deserves special discussion. Thunderbolt has massive bandwidth and some computers feature it instead of Firewire. There are accessories you can buy to connect Firewire devices to your Thunderbolt port, so don't rule Firewire interfaces out just because you have a Thunderbolt computer.

Firewire cards can also be purchased for PCI and PCI-e systems, so if you have a desktop, there is a good chance you can use a Firewire interface. When buying a Firewire card, try to get one with a Texas Instrument chipset - these are the most widely compatible.

Note that some Firewire interfaces can be powered by the computer connection, while others require AC power. Few laptops provide enough power to run a Firewire device off this alone, but some do. Look for a full-size 6-pin connector as opposed to a 4-pin one if this your intent.

If you have concerns about the compatibility between your system and your audio interface, you can buy pre-built audio certified computers (with or without your chosen interface) from any of the following (as well as may others).

http://advanceddesignky.com/ http://www.studiocat.com http://www.musicxpc.com/index.php http://www.pcaudiolabs.com/ http://raincomputers.com/

Many people argue that if you want a film in stereo you should shoot it in stereo. Yet many filmmakers do not want the physical size of an on set stereo rig, or they prefer to shoot film (ruling out stereo in camera, effectively) or want to use anamorphic lenses which are extremely difficult for stereo native capture. Even on a stereo film, lenses and situations often times render a single camera the only viable solution. Thus, even on films shot in stereo there may well be a need to convert some footage and that high quality conversion is an important tool in the box of any effects house.

Read the rest at: http://www.fxguide.com/featured/art-of-stereo-conversion-2d-to-3d-2012/

I've got some computer generated video at 60 fps (and higher framerates up to 120 fps) which I would like to convert to standard 30 fps, with motion blur derived from blending the intermediate frames.

Specifically, my question is, is there an After Effects or (preferably) Apple Motion plugin that does this correctly? Or some utility software like MPEG StreamClip?

To be clear, I don't want to change the playback speed of the video, just blend intermediate frames to simulate footage shot at a lower frame rate and corresponding shutter speed.

thanks in advance

bruno

[edit] - on a hunch, I just checked the export options in StreamClip. There are "frame blending" and "better downscaling" options in the "Frame Rate" section. Does anyone have experience with using these for the purpose I described? Specifically wha's on my mind is, if downscaling a high frame rate video (e.g. 120 fps) to 30 fps, are ALL intermediate frames used in the blending? And in what proportion?