@driftwood Just tested Intravenus II with both day and night at 24P, and no problems, spanned fine, in-camera playback fine. Image quality was very impressive used on Smooth -2,-2, 0,-2. The only way to describe it would be "professional film image". With no grading, the image was what the eye saw...basically very accurate, and looking like a proper professional film image. Thank you. My question: I looked back on this thread but didn't see any consensus after testing if Intravenus II was considered stable, or basically what you consider the strengths and weaknesses of this setting are? Didn't know if it was merely an experimental setting, or one you would consider stable enough to work with over the course of filming a feature? Thanks for the continued great work - you've got skills.

@cbrandin This Intravenus II setting that I have discovered a bit later than most, is really quite good. A very professional film image. Very accurate, smooth, and good with skin tones. Produces what the eye sees. Thank you.

@vicharris Yeah, always interesting to put a fresh set of eyes on the footage for feedback - very cool that a professional editor just took nicely to grain produced in your IV2 footage. I'm shooting on Smooth with it - do you have a preference you like best with IV2? I'm really quite stunned just how professionally filmic in nature the image is right out of camera with IV2. Always amazed to see the differences from one setting to the next - that's what I consider one of the great things about the GH2 now that Vitaliy has hacked and Driftwood and others have created settings...you can do a variety of projects with different looks, and you have the power to alter the baseline look(image type) created by the camera.

I'm not sure of the technical differences between IV1 and IV2 (there is some discussion on it by @driftwood on the paragraph that accomopanies the intro/release of IV2).

I prefer IV2 (set at Smooth -2,-2, 0,-2) as it has a look of film to it. IV1 can look great, particulalry when lighting is dynamic, and some guys are getting great results, but to me those are more "modern looks". You might say IV1 emulates the best in professional HD for narrative film, particularly horror, scifi, and thriller...while IV2 is a classical film look.

But this is really just the way it hits my eye and what I prefer for what I'm shooting now. A lot of people love IV1 and only use that.

@Meierhans I tried Moon trial 4 and it was too sharp for me. I understand trial 5 and 3 aren't as sharp. But I have looked at many of the samples of Moon trial 3 and 5. IMO, best use of Moon trial 5 was the rap video done by @DeShonDixon. I think that highlights one way Moon trial 5 can really shine. @kellar42 did a nice test shot of trial 3 that had some images that looked like great professional landscape establishing shots you might see in a hollywood film. To compare them and IV1...Moon (trial 3 and 5) has a unique imaging characteristic to it, and in the right hands can produce gold. IMO the best use of IV1 has been from @shian who's put up a few videos that really show how IV1 can be special when in the right hands.

For me, IV2 (on Smooth -2,-2, 0,-2....Standard is too harsh for my taste with IV2) is like handing a kid a 35mm camera. Everything he shoots will just have the texture/look of film. Now all he needs to do is learn filmmaking and all that involves. It's almost as if the "film-look" issue is now solved for me. What shocked me was I brought IV2 footage into editor and started doing some things I often do to get film-look (luma curve adjustments etc.) and it made the footage worse...and I realized the footage was great/correct straight out of camera. Some of that I attribute to my DP - I think she just nailed the shooting that afternoon...but the base image texture/type/nature of IV2 on Smooth just happens to hit my eye as "35mm film".

It's all what you're going after. If you want an energetic/dynamic and modern look that can be really special I think you can get that with Moon 3, Moon 5, and IV1. If you want more classical 35mm film look, I think it can be acheieved with IV2. (I also like footage I've seen with Quantum v9b, which I also consider a modern look).

Gotta love this damn GH2 - it's a gift. Bigtime thanks always go to cinematic geniuses known as @Vitaliy_Kiselev @Driftwood and @cbrandin

@Meierhans Sounds like good choices. I like Sedna but felt grain at times was a bit too pronounced. I would def try IV1 as many rave on it, and this all comes down to how it hits your eye and personal taste.

@nachelsoul, looks good. I was testing AN sharp 444 prior, as I am a legacy glass addict. Hard for me tell any substantial difference between the patches, as I have not tried any form of relatively controlled test to compare. They are all so great to me. Cool edit and music. What is the name of that song?

Nice work @nachelsoul

@bwhitz Awesome video! I just found Intravenus 2 a month ago and fell in love. Mind sharing what lenses and settings (standard, smooth etc -2s etc)? This Intravenus 2 is crazy...footage comes out of camera perfectly. Great video really - visuals great, story great, and performance great. Thanks for posting.

@bwhitz Great cover man! The video was exellent!

@bwhitz, great video men! Great work. You mentioned you use FCP7 for editing, I am having a problem with it maybe you could help. After color correct and everything is done and I export my project using quick time conversion, the quality don't looking as how it is on FCP7, it's degraded a lil. Are you having sure a problem? If not any suggestions on how I can fix it? Thanks.

@rajamalik, I think he has all that info in the post above mine :)

@HillTop1 You have not added grain to the clip? Do color correction? In some frames visible fibers, like bristles or hairs on the film.