Personal View site logo
Official Low GOP topic, series 3
  • 1008 Replies sorted by
  • killagramkillagram
    Or possibly a 1920x810 patch for everyone who has a 1.33X anamorphic lens. I purchased a Century Optics adapter from LPowell a month ago and love it.

    I'm sure a seaQuake MJPEG deviant would do the widescreen users justice (of course if those settings are possible outside of AVCHD)!
  • driftwooddriftwood
    I think there's been talk that the fps ><30fps on mjpeg is simply duplicating frames or dropping them so if anyone else could answer this for definite that'd be cool.
  • driftwooddriftwood
    No I already know seaquake is better at L. Test against H if you like for me :-)

    Please understand, Quantum L setting ( a much lower bitrate but based on a high limiter) is like the AQuamotion/SpanMyGopUp patches' H bitrate setting - ie lower i frame quality (but still good quality) - we're trying to combine the best of both worlds - High quality setting (which won't span on most cards) because of the high bitrate / plus a decent quality L setting for spanning/long recording work.
  • driftwooddriftwood
    @killagram / @CraftyClown I'll be trying out your suggestions soon.
  • driftwooddriftwood
    @FGCU doubt it but you never know its gonna be interesting to see how far we can push mjpeg.
  • itimjimitimjim
    @driftwood, how does the anamorphic shooting work in mgpeg mode? I would assume, ideally you'd shoot a 1.33 (4:3) at as higher res as possible with a 2x anamorphic and stretch.
  • balazerbalazer
    @FGCU, what differences are you seeing between in those screen shots between Quantum V2 and Seaquake v2? To be honest I can only spot some tiny differences, none of which I would necessarily attribute to compression.

    I still need to do my own tests for Driftwood.
  • driftwooddriftwood
    Thanks FGCU for the tests. They are indeed small improvements as we go along now - but who knows - older INTRA versions could be better - even though streameye tests for me show better overal macroblocking than some of the earlier patches I tested against. I don't mind if I get proved wrong.
    I am looking forward to @balazer tests as this guy is a walking talking font of information and holds some excellent opinions and theories - indeed he reminds me of cbrandin. :-)

    Forgot to mention: MJPEG testers (for those who don't know) can test their images using jpegsnoop. And VK has provided excellent stuff here. http://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/766/jpeg-estimator-and-quantization#Item_1
  • hedroxhedrox
    Hi! can i ask somebody, do all those stunning gh2 patches allow in camera playback? (i´m gh1 user only) if not, which of them have problems with playback? would an external hdmi monitor solve the playback problem?
  • jfrojfro
    @driftwood. I'm going to be testing Quantum Beta 2 today and tomorrow. Only change I'd like to make is on the mjpeg for timelapse.

    I set the following
    mjpeg fps to 2
    mjpeg size adjustment for 720p 30 width to 1920
    mjpeg size adjustment for 720p 30 height to 1080
    and I put setting on the 720p compression for E1-E4 Quality & Table

    In you Quantum mjpeg settings, are there any other settings you make that I can go put back to default unless there is a good reason to change those?

    Thanks again for your efforts. Have a good day.
  • hedroxhedrox
    thank you FGCU , do you also have playback on your gh2 with all those patches? or playback works only on lower bitrates hacks? i would like to buy gh2 as soon as i can and i would like to know if all those patches are playable or i must buy also an external monitor to check my footage.
  • fatpigfatpig
    driftwood, as for 2x squeeze anamorphic adapters, the sensor mode is still locked to 16:9? 4:3 recording is still not possible right?
  • proaudio4proaudio4
    @balazer
    There are definately differences, especially over the 244M patch.
    It's definately due to compression levels. I can also see that Quantum v2 appears to offer less compression especially looking at the back wall.

    Thanks @FGCU for the excellent test!
  • proaudio4proaudio4
    @driftwood
    Is there a change to 24H Quantum v2 beta over the previous?
    I hope not, since like yourself, I'm after the best quality!

    It certainly appear FGCU shows the benefit of AQ4 setting.

    Also, do you believe your changes with Quantum to help 24L span may have affected the quality for 24H?

    I know there's many that want 24L to span on slower SDHC cards, but I would not trade that for a hit on 24H quality. Also, I 'm hearing the new 64GB SDXC is spanning with the 24H settings for SeaQuake, I also imagine it will also span with Quantum 24H.

  • SageSage
    The Quantum
    quantum.png
    1920 x 816 - 2M
  • disastronautdisastronaut
    @Sage Ha, he's about to cry because it looks sooo good!
  • TrackZillasTrackZillas
    @Sage That's what I'm talking about, the skin-tones on that frame grab says it all about @driftwood Quantum patch.. Wow..
  • TrackZillasTrackZillas
    @FGCU Great test.. thanks for posting. Can't wait to hear if it Spans with the 45mb/s card..
  • LPowellLPowell
    @driftwood - I need to know if you want the anamorphic container 1998x1080 (ratio 1.85) or 2048x856 (ratio 2.39)."

    In order to produce precise square pixel geometry, it's more accurate to use digital aspect ratios on MJPEG frames rather than the vintage analog 1.85 or 2.39 ratios. With the GH2's 16:9 image sensor in HD mode, the geometrically correct frame sizes are as follows:

    1.33x anamorphic (2.37:1):
    1920x810
    2048x864
    2560x1080

    1.5x anamorphic (2.67:1):
    1920x720
    2160x810
    2880x1080

    In VGA mode, the GH2 has a 4:3 image sensor.
    This works better for 2x anamorphic adapters (2.67:1):
    1920x720
    2160x810
    2880x1080
  • TrackZillasTrackZillas
    @FGCU Went back to look at the saturated frames Quantum does have less grey blocks in the shadows great work I'm going in with this patch thanks @driftwood @VK lol...
  • CraftyClownCraftyClown
    @LPowell as 2 x anamorphic users, do we lose anything from the GH2 being in VGA mode? Does it limit any other settings? Also as it's using a 4:3 frame, are we best off going for 2880 x 1080 if we want to keep a decent resolution??
  • LPowellLPowell
    @CraftyClown
    The 4:3 VGA mode has less horizontal sensor resolution than the 16:9 HD mode, and the images are not quite as sharp. However, with a 2x anamorphic, the 2880x1080 VGA frame size allows you to use 90% of the width of the lens, with a cropped 2560x1080 widescreen frame. In HD mode, you would need to use a 3840x1080 frame size, with only 67% of the lens width retained in the cropped widescreen frame.

    For best image quality using anamorphic lenses, I recommend setting MJPEG width to 1920 pixels, and scaling the MJPEG height to match the anamorphic's squeeze factor:

    1.33x lens HD mode: 1920x810
    1.5x lens HD mode: 1920x720
    2x lens VGA mode: 1920x720

    These frame sizes produce geometrically correct square pixels that do not require frame-stretching in post-production.
  • ka00ka00
    @Sage Great image! What lens did you shoot that with, btw? Looks really sharp on his face with a nice amount of bokeh. Is it the Voigtlander 25mm @ approx f1.4?
  • CraftyClownCraftyClown
    @LPowell So just to clarify, you think 1920 x 720 in HD mode would give the best image quality for 2x anamorphics. Would this still give us a super wide aspect ratio? I presume the only way to get a more film like aspect is to switch to vga and accept the quality loss?
  • SageSage
    It was a 24mm nikkor, stopped down to 2.8 (it might have been f4)
This topic is closed.
← All Discussions