Thank you very much for the information. I've just switched to CS6, so haven't had any chance to work with any material in it yet (and most of mine tends to be ProRes anyway, as I almost always use an Atomos Ninja, as I prefer the results for 25p, which I use 99% of the time). Transcoding being able to hold more information could for me make sense, as AVCHD is such a heavy codec, that some could be lost in the "struggle" (in a lack for a better term), but this is false. Again, thanks again for proving me wrong, as it saves me hours of time then (no more transcoding needed).

@onionbrain

I´m curious; have you had the chance to do long output renditions (1+ hour footage) from h264 in cs6? This is where I´ve had problems in the past.

@RRRR Do it in two steps, first saving a high quality (ProRes, DNxHD) or losses format and then transcode with AME. You'll want a master anyway, don't you?

@Gabel AVCHD is a very good codec if you give it enough data rate and use Intra only. The difference between internal recording with one of Nick's Intra settings and external recording on a Ninja is not worth the extra hazzle taking care of another device on set…

@nomad: AVCHD in 24p looks amazing, I recently shot a feature using only that, for that reason. But in 25p (which I must use for 99% of what I shoot), I preferred the look of the Ninja (as the grain and picture was sharper), plus I get a second screen (I have a SmallHD as an AC-monitor) to use for framing, plus many people I work with want stuff in ProRes anyway and lastly, I bought it for a very nice price of a friend, so it wouldn't have been much more than some other monitor.

@nomad: Exactly. I've tried to turn my GH2 into a mini-cine cam as much as possible (will put up a picture to show later), with a rig clocking in at a solid 12 lbs! A lot of clients like the fact that they get it as ProRes straight away. Plus I saw quite a dit of difference in HBR (25p) between the Ninja and AVCHD and preferred the Ninja, but in 24p, I often just shoot straight AVCHD.

@nomad: Exactly. Recently shot a feature where we used 24p, but as said, it is an exception rather than the norm.

@RRRR: Absolutely. I based it off Atomos own instructions here: http://atomos.activehosted.com/kb/article/input-sources/dslr-cameras/panasonic-gh2

But I use Smooth instead of Nostalgic, but other than that it's the same. Set it to HBR, with a Mini HDMI out to my SmallHD DP4 and then an HDMI to the Ninja from the pass through. I deinterlace it in Premiere Pro and then master it in After Effects using this Chroma Fix plugin: https://sites.google.com/site/hsgh2chromafix/home

Or prepare that if I'm not involved in Post.

Whatever you do, GH1/2 gives some kind of picture style that never can be cinematic or filmic at all. It's a kind of some artificial hybrid between filmlook and videolook, more videoish with no doubts.

The GH1/2 picture profiles have to be deeply hacked and transformed (which I already think is impossible!) to achieve something like the filmlook of Canons that are much much closer to the cinema look.

For example, I really doubt that Gh1/2 can ever be modified to produce a picture style like the attached snapshot below taken from the old 550D (cinestyle picture profile):

@Mirrorkisser: What I mean is not the depth of field etc., but the characteristics of the picture itself. The question is not every movie to look like Canons, but whatever do, Panasonic GH1/2, even AF100/101 give the specifics of the video look with deeper shadows and higher contrast EVEN at the flattest profile, also the shape and contours of the objects are always sharper - again like the video look EVEN at the softest profile. Therefore, even processed with 5d2rgb, the picture remains a la serial novella look. At the same time Canon series are lucky with their cinema style profiles and hacks that are very effective instead on discussing about what is cinema look...

Yes, Mirrorkisser, but it can be partly said that this is not GH2. No any of Panasonic lenses can give such a look while Canon 50mm 1.4 is more than famous for that look. Also, let's remove the anamorphic lens and everything will confirm my words above.

Even with SLR or old lenses, which I use almost exclusively (you cant get older than some of the Leica R glass), GH2 footage would almost always look like Digital Beta (dead format, any one wants to resurrect it?) Try playing GH2 footage off your camera on an LED/ LCD TV, the larger the better. Maybe that's what Driftwood's AN settings try to overcome, to take some of the edge off that starkness.

@producer "For example, I really doubt that Gh1/2 can ever be modified to produce a picture style like the attached snapshot below taken from the old 550D (cinestyle picture profile):"

You wanna bet? I've gotten very similar looks from my GH2. Nothing about that shot says Extremely high dynamic range. It's almost all mid-tones at the same exposure. With the right filters/light/settings you can yield very cinematic results with the GH2, if you don't know how to light... keep working at it.

"Definitely! If you shoot a flat scene too flat in 8 bit there is no way pulling it back to more contrast without getting massive banding and macroblocking."

is a wrong thing, it's false, is true only if you do color correction in wrong way, on a 8bit space... if you do color correction in correct way (in 16-32 bit space) you have more room to work and you have a best video that you can grab from these informations.