Here is the link to GH3 specs. http://photorumors.com/2012/09/13/panasonic-gh3-camera-and-lumixg-x-35-100mm-f2-8-lens-leaked/

Links to downloadable video files from the comparison at the top of this page:

Flow Motion v2.02 (unedited 200% crop):

Apocalypse Now - Boom Flat 4s (unedited 200% crop):

Interesting comparison. Thank you. I like BOOM! and flowmotion a lot. Most of the time i stick with flowmotion though, because it takes less space and i never had any stability issues. Still the new matrices by nick and cbrandin really appeal to me. Visually they offer something new, i cant comprehend it on a technical level, but although they have their flaws they have lots of character and look cinematic. Just like an old soviet film lens.

@lpowell: what do you consider an intra settings strenghts compared to longer gop structures?

And what about a comparision of the new valkyirie settings with flowmotion? They use the same goplength and they contain cbrandins 444 matrix in its purest state.

@valpopando: as far as i understood lpowell it tries to be extremely sharp but then runs out of bandwith etc so in some parts of the frame the image quality really drops. It has to be said though that Nick always said its an experimental setting and it was not recommended for wide or super detailed shots.

Have to agree with peternap on this one.

I tested the FM against AN boom the other day (same shoot). Not surprising, the AN contains much finer grain and almost zero mud compare to the FM. Big difference. Its not possible to raise the shadows with FM in the same extend without introducing digital noise. The all-I really shines in that part. Didn't notice any difference in sharpness, but that probably had something to do with the shoot by it self (low light, f2). The FM is good for run N gun with great results, but sadly can't be pushed that hard in CC when it comes to a low light situation.

@peternap

I really don't understand the comparison Lee.

Have to disagree with you here, strongly. The typical post in these forums, raving about one setting or another, consists of footage which is impossible to evaluate -- nothing to compare it to, changing in-camera settings, web compression, unknown levels of image processing, different lenses, hand-held shots v. locked down shots, etc.

If somebody simply knows, without rigorous examination, that one setting is better or "more cinematic" than another, great. That person has found happiness. The trouble is, nobody knows what "better" or "more cinematic" (crushed blacks? de-saturated highlights? is this necessarily good in "raw" footage?) actually means in the mind of the writer or whether the claims made would survive scrutiny or a double-blind test. So the discussion is useless.

An actual comparison may not be the last word, and we could disagree on what the ideal comparison shot is or whether the conditions were adequately controlled or how the footage should best be tested (stressed in post?), but it's a hell of a lot better than the usual raving for one setting or another which typically goes on here.

@Mirrorkisser

[Apocalypse Now Boom Flat 4s] tries to be extremely sharp but then runs out of bandwith etc so in some parts of the frame the image quality really drops. It has to be said though that Nick always said its an experimental setting and it was not recommended for wide or super detailed shots.

That's right, I used Elecard Streameye to examine the macroblocks in an AN Boom F4s frame, and found that it was able to maintain its initial QP of 18 only in the top row of macroblocks. In the rest of the frame, QP ranged as high as 34, which indicates very coarse quantization. As Chris Brandin explained in earlier posts, the encoder will attempt to maintain QP consistent within a range of 5 around the initial QP level. In all cases where I've seen QP break out of this range, it was because the encoder was being forced to operate at an excessively high level of image detail that required more bitrate than it could sustain.

While it's true that AN Boom F4s was released as an experimental patch, it has generated a great deal of interest as Driftwood's latest offering. I was interested in it primarily as an example of using maximum bitrate to record as much image data as possible. My initial tests showed that it would fail consistently on highly detailed subjects in 80% Slo-mo mode, so I chose a simpler scene for this 1080p24 comparison test.

As can be seen in the Stream Parser report above, this is a scene that Flow Motion v2.02 encodes at its finest image quality, maintaining consistent QP levels within the encoder's standard 5-level range. That makes this FM2 example a good reference point for this test, since it's performing exactly as it was designed and intended to work. This is a relatively simple scene that I would expect any well-designed patch to handle without straining its resources.

Frankly, I was surprised to find that AN Boom F4s had so much difficulty encoding this scene at its intended quality level of 18. What that indicates is that its Flat 4s quantizer matrix is demanding far too much bitrate to operate consistently at a QP of 18. Since 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.

@valpopando Thanks for uploading your footage, it looks beautiful. If presenting independent, objective test results is considered an Act of War by Driftwood and other enthusiasts, then it's a "fight" I'm prepared to engage. I fully understand that the Apocalypse Now Boom Flat 4s settings are experimental, and so I chose a relatively undemanding scene to test it, rather than one designed to break it. I limited my evaluation to technical issues where its performance appears to fall short of its intended quality level. Hopefully, these test results will provide insight on how the patch can be improved to maintain a more consistent range of image quality.

@lpowell i like your comparisons. But please dont make them feel like an act of aggression.

I am also very curious how valkyrie 444 does compared to flowmo. Valkyrie is really great, just the file size rapes my hdds.

@LPowell... I hope someday I can meet u so I can crack this stubborn streak u have...

bottom line, when i have a highlight on a face; or hot spot in the background, gop1 FEELS far smoother than gop3 in playback... ya? not a screenshot, but how it FEELS wheen played back on a screen. nomatter what.... everytime i have compared I can see the compressed B or P frames....

and the 1gop grades better.... like i have said to you before, I want a flomotion 1gop patch, for an HONEST COMPARISON

... ya dig? wheres the flomotion-INTRA????

@LPowell,,, I was being sarcastic in order to develop rapport. professor chaos.

@flaschus

Thanks for your honest sarcasm. As for GOP-1 versus GOP-3 playback, the motion quality is crucially dependent on the playback device. In my own tests of Flow Motion v2, I have been consistently unable to spot any perceptible differences between its I-frames and its B-frames. The screen shot I uploaded at the top of this page is actually one of FM2's B-frames, compared to an I-frame from AN Boom Flat 4s.

One reason I haven't developed a GOP-1 all-Intra version of Flow Motion v2 is because it's impractical. The peak bitrate of that test video is around 100Mbps, and the average size of its B-frames is about 300Mb, plus 800Mb for the I-frames. To maintain that level of image quality, the GH2 would have to operate reliably at a peak bitrate of over 170Mbps, well beyond the maximum bitrate I've been able to achieve.

What's worse is that setting 1080p24 mode to GOP-1 forces you to run 1080p25 HBR mode at GOP-1 as well. With Flow Motion v2, I was unable to achieve reliable peak bitrates higher than 100Mbps in HBR mode, and that was with a GOP-3 setting. Changing that to GOP-1 would have significantly degraded the HBR image quality I was able to obtain at GOP-3.

@Vitaliy @LPowell @driftwood @cbrandin Hello Gentlemen, I must say that the strange reactions to criticism has begun to tear apart this adventure. Here in the great US we say opinions are like assholes, everyone has one. I think I have been here for maybe 2 years now and have continually been amazed at the camaraderie that exists here. Now it is competitiveness, the minions are gathering, pushing the individual teams to side. This is crap, are we forgetting what brought us here in the first place. It still blows my mind when it look back at ALL the patches and laugh at the beginning. I was knocked off my chair when I was testing Driftwoods 244, wow. When Vitaliy, would tell me wrong place, or read the wiki, it was good and It can be again. LLPowel ready for confrontation. Come on. Most of the posting here, no matter what patch is being used is more for what, Hey remember the fundimentals, Light, Composition, Lens , not this, "can you tell me what is the best patch for my job that I am shooting tomorrow"? Figure it out for yourselves, Test. These people have moved all of us forward,(@Vitaliy @LPowell @driftwood @cbrandin) made us wonder again. Opened our minds to the possibilities with this little cheap ass camera. I do not know where most of you came from, but I know what it is like to carry a full dress Panvision camera up a hill side, its is not fun. So please respect one another. Sorry Vitaliy, may be this is not the right place, it was the only one that might be read. Thank Guys, your great.