Driftwood ClusterX series 2:│moon│ЅріzZ│nebula│drewnet│Slipstream │Redshift

peternap

@Driftwood I've been testing slipstream 3 in lowlight Nick. I can't really say it's better than Moon 4&5 but all 3 are the best I've tried yet. Very low noise, good detail even in the shadows and seem stable in 24P. I'll keep trying it in the daytime and in 720P....but so far Slipstream exceeds my GH3 in quality.

dado023

@peternap did you try to use 24L with slipstream 3?

peternap

@dado023 No, I never use it so I didn't bother. The official testers chek everything, I only try them in modes and conditions I use.

Stylz

@appyinau --did you bump up the saturation in that vid?

appyinau

@stylz not in camera all -2, i used FCP x and colour matched the shots with the ones i liked, if anything i had to lower the saturation. (im not very good with the colouring) don't blame the GH2.

voelkerb

I was pretty happy with Apocalypse Now patch, especially how it graded. I don’t know all the technical specs, but I liked how it responded to color wheels when pushed around. Here’s a sample.

I then read somewhere how much better the new patches are ,especially the Cluster X-series, so naturally, I “upgraded” and shot something yesterday.

To my disappointment, it was not as rich, vibrant and flat as the previous patch. Again, I do not understand all the numbers behind it, but I notice the significant difference. I used the same 20mm pancake lens for both shorts. I will try the latest Apocalypse Now and see if I get better results.

maxmizer

@voelkerb I do not understand what you mean ... problem of pach or color ...

shoots as smooth as possible and then apply the color gradation

driftwood

@voelkerb Ive never said Cluster X is better overall - just different approach. Apocalypse Now & Boom settings use extreme matrices to push the quantisation to a level where its great for close ups and mid shots but when things get busy/wide/hi-detail they dont distribute the QP values across the whole picture as well as Cluster X settings do. Generally Apocalypse Now / Boom consume as much bitrate as possible. Cluster X uses what it needs.

voelkerb

The best way I can describe the difference between the settings is ease of color grading. There SEEMS to be more color depth information in Apocalypse Now 444. Cluster X seems to be crisp and bit more contrasty, making it harder to color grade afterwards. Without color grading, Cluster X seems to look better, but I touch up all the footage. Both patches seem to be quantum leap better than stock Panasonic firmware. Results probably vary with not-so-sharp Lumix lens. Again, I am just an end user not knowing what all the values mean, yet. I am grateful to all of you for testing these patches. My personal favorite is the Kodachrome slide vivid color look, and Apocalypse Now seems to be the ticket so far for that. Everyone's is different. If you want to get the similar look, then you know how to get there. I can't wait 'till I try the latest Apocalypse Now patch. I feel like a kid with many new toys, but sometimes there seem to be too many! :)

GravitateMediaGroup

@voelkerb experiment a little more with grading, don't just apply the same exact filters used on the Apoc. footage onto the C X footage.

athirdeye

moon trial3

defier

What are the differences between the moon trials...

jazzwalker

Shot this on Wednesday at Miami Fashion Week. Smooth -2 all across. Moon patch. Lenses used: Stock 14-42mm for day shots with polarizer filter. Sigma 30mm 1.4 for all indoor stuff. Filmed in 24H and some shots 60. Let me know what you guys think creatively. I want to be a better filmmaker just like everyone else. :) Thanks.

dado023

@jazzwalker Your editing is very well done, at least to my layman taste :) BTW; how did you do low motion scenes? 720p60? twixtor?

thepalalias

@defier They differ in the encoder, quantizer, scaling, 24High top and bottom settings, etc. Here are a few examples.

Trial 4 used more aggressive 24High top and bottom settings than Trial 3, for instance.

Trial 5 lowered the 24High bottom setting from Trial 4, but left the 24High top setting the same.

Trial 4 used GOP 6 for 720P while Trial 5 used GOP 3.

Trial 5 should theoretically be more stable than Trial 4.

I have not spent any time comparing the results - I went straight to using Trial 5.

sleewok

@driftwood I'm out of town for the next week. I'll be sure to take the shot with each of the different versions as soon as I get back. I'll post frames from each for you to review. Thanks!

maxmizer

@jazzwalker Bravo

jazzwalker

@dado023 Thanks very much sir. Yes, the slowmo is 720p at 60f. I just slowed it down at 40% to get the cleanest slowmo. Same applies when you shoot at 30p. You have to slow it down at 80% instead. At that speed it's noticeable but it's just a hint of slowness. :) Twixtor was not involved. I would only use that if I was trying to go as slow as 10% but that's an explanation of in itself.

@maxmizer Thanks sir!

jorgecuevasjr

Did this not to long ago, nothing crazy. Shot on moon trial 5

olegkalyan

@jorgecuevasjr Looking good, I wonder why blacks are so lifted, you did it in post, what was the setting, smooth?

powderbanks

@jorgecuevasjr very nice. sigur ros for the music, correct?

danielvy

@driftwood I have a question. Moon 5 and slipstream 3 have the same 24p setting (moon). But the other settings of slipstream 3 are made to have better spanning. That means that the 24p setting in Slipstream has better possibilities of spanning (recording long shots) or works the same as in Moon trial 5.... (hope the question is clear) thanks!

kaikerr

Hi all, I just pick a GF3 and I would like to know if these settings can be used on a GF3, and if not which patch is similar for this cam? I'm not sure if I can test them...

rorykane

Shot on Moon v5. Only one card failure on Sandisk 64GB after 7 days of filming.

Butt

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

Tags in Topic

Top Posters