@artiswar Not sure of the point. In more productive insight, has anyone else noticed an INCREASE in grain even at ISO 200 with boom?

Agree...different settings, both great in their own right.

Yes, I have noticed an increase in grain at higher ISO's but to me it's pleasing and not really objectionable. One of the great things about the AN settings including Boom is that even with some noise/grain, they still look clean.

@retrospective - Sorry! it's a screen shot using Command + Shift + 4 on a Mac Pro. Screen's WQHD.

@artiswar ah ok, so the original footage is still 1080p?

Thanks for posting LPowell. I find it helpful to see the comparison.

ps...For anyone who doesn't like the comparison, I'm not sure why. I don't think that flowmotion looks "better", nor do I think this comparison makes it look better. It's just different. I prefer a flatter image to start with when I shoot (most cine-folks do, for color correction later)....and I think that flowmotion is clearly NOT flatter. Yes, the appearance of sharpness seems to go to flowmotion. Hmmm....interesting. Thanks for posting.

If everyone is going to get all nasty and personal about it....that's fine. LPowell, some of us know that this is just moving images and camera settings (hack config), please keep posting. Is flowmotion better LPowell??? I'm sure you'll agree....it's just different. Better in some ways, not better in other ways.....JUST ANOTHER TOOL, RIGHT????? Thanks again.

Chill Peeps.

Boom is still experimental, so why hold next to FM???
the differences are in the darker parts, that makes BOOM overall nicer to look ad (for me personally).

When creating and fine-tuning the new settings its oke to do crops so the details pop out.
but nobody is after that looking ad this, its the overall picture that does it all. and more important what does have the focus

Nice comparison Lee, that confirms that Boom suits better for my kind of work.

And that looks good Lambo, Valkyrie also deserves a try.

For those asking, "what's the point?" I'm giving you full access to the results of a straightforward comparison test of these two patches. It's not a scene that attempts to break either patch, nor was it selected to favor one patch over another. I've made the original video files available for download and independent verification of the authenticity of the test results. You can evaluate these examples on a completely subjective level if you wish, or you can delve as deeply as you like into the objective technical details of the encodings.

For any comparison test you need a reference, and I chose Flow Motion v2.02 as a reference point that I understand in complete detail. In my view, FM2 serves as a good reference because it records this scene at its finest image quality, exactly as it was designed and intended to work. There's nothing uniquely suited to FM2 here, as this is not an unusually challenging scene and I would expect any well-designed patch to encode it without straining its resources.

Frankly, I was surprised to find that AN Boom F4s was unable to encode this scene at its intended quality level of 18. The Stream Parser report above reveals that quality levels range as high as 34 in many of the macroblocks, which is a very coarse and inconsistent range of image quality. What that indicates is that AN Boom's Flat 4s quantizer matrix is demanding far too much bitrate to operate consistently at a QP of 18. Since the patch's 150Mbps is close to the peak bitrate the GH2 can reliably sustain, my conclusion is that either the target QP of the patch needs to be raised significantly higher (i.e. coarser) than 18, or the Flat 4s matrix needs to be replaced with something more realistic.

@LPowell Your conclusion is bollocks. Once again you compare only to justify yourself.

Read the text on page one - its experimental setting for one, Two I suggested that this would be good for mid to tight shots especially facials. If you read this thread you'll also note that I mentioned if the data rate is lower than 145mbps you will get very good results.

@all Boom! was designed to see how far we could push the Gh2 and quantisation.

Here's an example of Boom Intra in action over here in Chile. This whole piece of footage never went over Q20 - indeed most of the individual macroblocks measured an average of Q16. Boom! is spectacular if you stick to my recommendations. But its not for all.

@LPowell A few months back I compared FM2 to Cluster v6 and 5. I didnt see FM2 result in finer quantisation. Indeed Cluster v6 and 5 provided me with better Q even in my own examples of your so called flowing water test. Could I be bothered to enlighten you by commenting in your thread with this spectacular comparison? Of course not. I couldn't be bothered.

@LPowell Boom! was NEVER intended to be compared to FM2 or Cluster or anything else. Geddit yet?! Most people understand that. Comprend?

Lee You think Ive ever required your assistance? Ive just demonstrated to you above that it maintains Q16 on average for the right kind of scene. Together with All Intra and exceptional grading qualities.

I'm going to spell it out once again. ITS EXPERIMENTAL and performs better than anything Ive seen under the right conditions - so its a setting that I thought our p-v users could take a look at. Geddit? No one is forced to use it. In my quest for excellence Ive consistently found that fortune favours the brave.

Perhaps you should take a look at your setting against a comparitive equal - bkmwcd's excellent GOP3 suite. Its my personal view after streamparser/streameye testing that theyre consistently better than FM2 if you and other users need to know - and resulting in finer Quantisation. I'm sure he could be of assistance to help you edit your future ptools patch settings.

• If you want good spanning results with GOP1 setting buy a SanDisk 64GB 95MB/s card. That specific card (not another version of it) is the one that has deomnstarted high spanning success to a degree that no other tested card has done. This has held true for months.

, I see nothing wrong with posting comparions to FM2 that just show the data without speculating much about the rest. Everyone that read the description for "BOOM!" knows exactly what it is and is not and the comparison here is not aimed towards the strengths indicated and everyone knows that.

We also know that there are many other Driftwood GOP1 settings that can handle that type of scenario better. So what is the harm of posting that data?

If people are going to critique the comparison, do so based on testing methods, NOT based on whether the test should be conducted at all.

One of the reasons the site has become home to so much improvement is because of the sheer amount of testing and comparison that people are doing. Let us assist each other in doing so in the best way possible, not discourage it from happening.

Oh and for anyone asking: Sedna remains one of the most throughly balanced, extensively tested and high image quality settings. It is a good one to default to for high priority 24H shoots if you have the right memory card.

Other settings can do better under some conditions. It all depends. Keep in mind that it mentions potential issues or things to watch out for in the descriptions for several settings: do not assume that those will be reliable in all situatuions, just that they will provide a desirable image in the situatuions where they do perform well.

And remember, this is not a religion. I use Driftwood settings more than those by any other other. That does not mean that I do not use FM2 or Sanity, or GOlGOp, etc.

BTW: Has anyone else walked the Valley of Death in the Atacama Desert? It nearly got me today. Ive never been so exhausted in all of my life.

Need help - Can i use 24L on Drewnet patch and still get the benefit of the softer detail?

I understand it will have lower bitrates, which is what I am after butdo i still get the benefit of the patch at 24l? (On cinema 24p mode).

Thanks in advance