'Apocalypse Now' Experimental Series 1 Thread - BOOM, Intravenus - cbrandin/driftwood AN Soft/Cinema

plasmasmp

I certainly get what the encoder is doing. But are we losing real detail, or getting closer to what the video mode should actually look like?

I haven't seen an actual diagram how the GH2 processes 15.9MP down to 2.1MP 1080p. The method obviously isn't perfect since there is still luma aliasing, but it is noticeably better than the alternatives. Even with manual lenses there is still a hint of sharpening that can be seen more severely when comparing to other cameras. The zacuto shootout really points those issues on high contrast surfaces when you compare it to higher end cameras.

99% of the time I use manual lenses. Right now I'm just testing the ol Lumix lenses that have been sitting in storage. If the image is unacceptable with manual lenses I'll switch back.

peternap

@stonebat People like me who mix Lumix lenses and MF lenses are in conundrum.

I couldn't agree more!

As usual though, I'm going back and forth. Flow Motion 2.2 is my does all with all....setting. It's not necessarily cinematic, but neither am I.

I have to admit though, that what I've done so far with Apocalypse Drewnet soft is exceptional, at least to me. There's something special about it.

Lots of comparing to do.

stoney

@lpowell Thanks for the explanation. Finer chroma channels might give more perceived color information though... at the expense of losing luma resolution.

@plasmasmp That's a good plan.

stoney

@peternap Yeap. I think this new setting is quite interesting. Less perfection. More character. Wabi-sabi :)

DeShonDixon

@ValentinDeluy Yeah that would be great send it to my email dedixon@live.com

driftwood

I finally get in after a long day travel to France and switch on the lappie to see @lpowell here once again determined to have his moment of glory.

So let me clear up a few things first.

Chris told all of us his mattix ideas - he probably told u at the same time - so fuckin what? We went out and put them to the test. Do u want me to publish mine and Chris's conversation?

The 444 Soft matrix IS INDEED Chris's Matrix setting - the p and b frames are from our work.WHEN did we EVER state otherwise?

Chris's settings have then be elaborated, experimented (call it what you what u will) to produce tad sharper settings based on research & testing from use with some of my soft lenses and then recommended as tryouts as beta candidates. This should have been the original SHARP release - a edited version of chris's base settings. Thats why I still credited the man who I respect very much.

He came to you LAST July or this July just gone? Did he talk to you first? Who fuckin cares? The AN settings tested by our beta team which included Chris's prescence & certainly participation. Does that make you feel better? Do you think we're miscreditting him?

Honestly Lee I dont know whats got into you lately?

Is it hurting you that we put out some settings with this matrix? Besides, its a good mattix for a certain job, but its NOT neccesarily the be all and end all. Its just another setting (not patch btw)

Finally we (the beta team) have spent a lot of time developing and testing settings - Im talking fucking days of testing here (do you know what pain is?) so how bout you get off your little high horse and get cracking on a flowmo version? Or I can make you one if you like?

Rant over There I feel better now Lee :-). Back to my holiday. No hard feelings mate, but you really are getting to be annoying.

Ill reply to questions asked here in my own time. I dont NEED you to step in before I even get a chance. If you wanna wade into quant stuff lets do it. I certainly would love some answers about one or two of your numbers in Flowmo.

Wanna play?

bkmwcd's 3 GOP 24p renders better than Flowmo - you should give it a try :-). Thats with my testing and its MY personal view. Thats all.

Also Ive tested my settings against Flowmo and Im very very happy with Nebula and DRewnet. Very happy.

LPowell

@driftwood - Please calm down, you don't have to take this discussion as a personal attack. You've released six different versions of Apocalypse Now, four with Chris' pseudo-444 matrix, and two more with a new "sharp2" matrix. Some of us found that confusing and I took some time to figure out which was which and explain the differences in precise detail. And to clear up any confusion on your part, here are a few answers to your questions:

"The 444 Soft matrix IS INDEED Chris's Matrix setting"

Yep, that's what I explained above.

"[sharp2] should have been the original SHARP release - a edited version of chris's base settings.

Fine, but your sharp2 matrix no longer embodies Chris' 3x3 luma concept that made it a pseudo-444 matrix. I had to investigate this in detail in order to determine which Apocalypse Now version to use to evaluate Chris' original concept.

"Do you think we're miscreditting him?

No, you've made it clear that the Soft Variant is Chris' pseudo-444 matrix and the Sharp2 Variant is yours.

Honestly Lee I dont know whats got into you lately?

It's perplexing trying to figure out which variant of the latest matrix does what in which mode.

Do you know what pain is?

As a matter of fact, I do, but my physical therapist says that's all part of the healing process.

How bout you get off your little high horse and get cracking on a flowmo version?

Last time I checked, Flow Motion v2 was still working fine...

cbrandin

I did some sharpness measurements for the soft 444 matrix versus the factory matrix using sharp Panasonic glass at an optimal aperture. The soft 444 matrix has a resolution of about 860, and the factory matrix has a resolution of about 920. That's about a 7% loss in resolution - which isn't very much. The reason for this is that the CODEC in the GH2 doesn't actually resolve the theoretical limit for 1080p. What you get in return for that 7% loss is much better gradations and color rendering.

It's hard to characterize these color subsampling models as 4:2:0, or 4:4:4, or 3:3:0 because those color model numbers don't really relate to how color is sampled in any sensible way. 4:4:4 is where luma and colors are rendered the same, 4:2:2 is where there are twice as many luma pixels as chroma pixels per channel, and 4:2:0 is where there are four times as many luma pixels as chroma pixels per channel. So the numbers don't really work in an intuitive way.

What I discovered is that because of the way the GH2 codec works there is a loss of resolution (vs the theoretical limit) in the luma channel, but not in the chroma channels. By using a 3x3 matrix for luma, and 4x4 matrices for chroma they actually come out closer in resolution than theoretical calculations would indicate.

cbrandin

All I did was come up with a new matrix idea. It's fine with me if people expand on the idea. In fact, I think it's great because I don't have the time to build settings these days. My thanks goes out to all of you who do!

driftwood

Thankyou Chris for the explanation that I did request you write to avoid this kind of thing.

For the record Lee, 'pseudo 444' was used to 'glamourise' the market launch of the AN setting but was title changed to the word 'simulate' very soon after. You took it very deeply. Well it certainly pulled you in. We're all walking around with 'hunches' that assumed it would soften the look of Pany lenses and that it proved correct.

The 3x3 luma matrix works well. And we are noticing better chroma control for chroma red and chroma blue in the 4x4 part of the matrix.

Changing the values of the luma 3x3 original values into a 4x4 matrix has proved interesting and one that is still 'out for results'.

stoney

I think it would be better to eliminate "4:4:4" term completely out of the discussion whether it's pseudo or simulated. It seems something new and different beast. AN naming itself is cool enough. Just my two cents.

Only 7% resolution loss? Exciting. I love Gh2 :)

bozfx

@bkmcwd Forgive my ignorance. Is the "TYPE-ZERO" Valkyrie matrix patch considered to be the 'sharp' variant? The naming convention of "TYPE-ZERO 'Apocalypse Now' with cbrandin 'Original 444 Matrix'" and "Valkyrie 'Apocalypse Now' with cbrandin '444 Soft Matrix" is a little confusing since I thought Chris's original matrix was soft. Thanks.

driftwood

Lee, I have my reasons for being annoyed. Chris presented it to us and we got down to some serious mutha'fuckin' testing. Painstakingly finished after 6 weeks of multi scenario testing. Our beta team went out of their way to further test release candidates.

The matrix info. We decided to leave it out of the introduction for now until a later date as we didnt want to cause any misunderstandings (as Chris will vouch) Some of it was going to be written into the section comment 'The Mattix' which I intended to do this week whilst in France. The pleasure of doing this has now leads me to think well whats the point now?

Perhaps youre being late to the balland getting your arse in gear is hurting and your arrogance has led you to hijack the thread?

The reality is its a great matrix made all the better by the other great patch settings that our team have sweated over. Im sure our users appreciate that.

Lee, we dont get on. Lets leave it at that.

Rambo

Some further reading on the subject here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chroma_subsampling

stoney

@driftwood I don't think Lee is a party pooper. I thank him for digging it. I thank you for the mutha'fuckin' testing. I thank Chris The Matrix Architect. Arrrrggg 'The Matrix'... The red channel or the blue channel? I wanna hear more!!!

Rambo

Be nice to get something like this range of improvement or even close.

onionbrain

@peternap @stonebat

I really can't imagine a "conundrum" here. Using the "soft" with your micro-four-thirds lens should produce the best looking footage you've seen while using a MFT lens. It absolutely knocked me out of my chair.

When used with film lenses, it's borderline "too soft," -- borderline. And it depends on which film lenses you're using. A very sharp Nikkor might be okay, while a Canon FD or Tamron anything might be too soft.

SO -- if you're switching lenses often -- shoot with the "soft" version of Nebula or DREWnet or the upcoming IntraVenus -- and simply sharpen when necessary in post.

As a side note -- having viewed this stuff on calibrated production monitors and large screen projections -- I will tell you and everyone without qualification that this is the best looking footage I've ever seen from a hacked GH2.

Finally -- I'd like to throw this question at anyone reading this. Is anyone seeing banding in any of these Driftwood/Brandin new settings? I haven't done any tests exclusively for banding -- but -- it occurred to me today that I've seen none -- none -- in the footage I've reviewed thus far.

stoney

@onionbrain Weather is getting nice. I'd give it a try. Thanks.

onionbrain

As a side note to my above post -- the "soft" settings combined with even a mediocre film lens is still sharper than a 5D Mark 3 with a Canon L anything.

kazuo

@driftwood

Good day. I tested both sharp2 and sharp versions, and was sifting through some of the technical debate here. Lee points out that the sharp2 version has apparently "worked out" Chris's matrix, but to someone less technically inclined like me, I couldn't tell the difference. So what really distinguishes sharp and sharp2?

Many thanks

onionbrain

@kazuo As I understood it from Driftwood's clarification -- the difference is that files were mixed up during the upload process. That the first DREWnet sharp is actually Nebula sharp. The "2" is the correct upload -- meaning it is in fact V7 DREWnet "sharp."

rajamalik

What happend actually?? any changes in the cluster 7 release?? @driftwood whats wrong??

feha

I'm a bit confused now, what file is the right one for Cluster Nebula Sharp for download ?

oscillian

I'll take less banding and softer transitions before excessive sharpness any day of the week :) Excellent work guys! My 14-140 and 20 really gets a "cinematic" look with the soft versions. Thank you!

stoney

I tried Nebula soft version. Smooth all -2 settings. One is 20.7 Lumix, and the other is 25.95 Nokton. Obviously the longer focal length lens has shallower DOF in the same framing at the same f-number. Anyways I kinda like the image from 20.7 Lumix.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

Tags in Topic

Top Posters