Personal View site logo
Make sure to join PV on Telegram or Facebook! Perfect to keep up with community on your smartphone.
Driftwood - Experimental Series 2: Low Rider, Cluster v8, V9, Intravenus II, GH3onaGH2, AN, Boom
  • 1008 Replies sorted by
  • hayhay

    .

  • WhiteRabbitWhiteRabbit

    Low Rider v1 footage snippets, anamorphic lens attached. Details outlined in the Vimeo description. Thank you @driftwood @Vitaliy_Kiselev, et al.

  • IEBA1IEBA1

    @driftwood, and hope of higher audio bitrates / better audio in 2k MJPEG mode?

  • driftwooddriftwood

    *** NEW ***

    Here it is: The first trial of Cluster X NEBULA 6 GOP primed for NTSC. Is this the best HBR/FSH yet? Let me know testers. PAL editing of FSH/HBR to do...

    UPDATE: PAL modes tuned a tad for FSH HBR. NTSC users also use Trial 2 as its the same as Trial 1.

    Cluster X 'NEBULA' 6 GOP Trial 1 - setg.zip
    1K
    Trial 2 - PAL tuned - Cluster X 'NEBULA' 6 GOP - setf.zip
    1K
  • flaschusflaschus

    @hay... CM night had a blueish cast

  • Zaven13Zaven13

    @driftwood. Nick I just tested the CL X Nebula 6GOP with Panny 14-140mm and Sandisk 64GB 95MB card. As you said, the best HBR/FSH yet in any of the Cluster settings. Quality is great and the bitrates are high. The only mode that failed was SH but H mode works just fine. It works in IA mode also. Thanks. Great job.

    Update: I just did a Streamparser analysis of all modes and these are the highest frame sizes I have seen in any of the settings. You have outdone yourself again.

  • driftwooddriftwood

    Thank you @Zaven13 for your impeccable testing. Lookout for another surprise shortly, Cluster 'Spizz' ...

    PS Wassit SH mode fail in NTSC?

  • Zaven13Zaven13

    @driftwood. Yes. SH fail was in NTSC. All my testing is in NTSC.

  • bothabotha

    "Cluster X NEBULA 6 GOP" is stunningly beautiful and sharp and absolutely reliable using the sandisk extreme pro 64GB. That's what i can say in the short amount of time. With "Cluster X trial 2" and bkmcwd's "Valkyrie 444 TYPE-ZERO2" now we have the 2 best looking FSH/HBR settings ever! ...cheers!

  • driftwooddriftwood

    @botha All the Clusters will have the best HBR ever...

  • bothabotha

    @driftwood: ...mind-blowing ;-)

  • abraham1307abraham1307

    @driftwood, I really wasn't expecting Cluster X to look this good in HBR.

  • driftwooddriftwood

    @abraham1307 Took a bit of logical thinking... ;-)

  • MariellaMariella

    Cluster X Nebula t2 is very impressive!

    Now, FSH/SH fully meets my needs. Quality is outstanding, bitrate is high!

    Great work, Nick

  • GravitateMediaGroupGravitateMediaGroup

    no disrespect @driftwood, and please don't take this the wrong way, I just want my gh2 to be a top performer for my specific needs.

    I know specific patches have their differences as far as what settings they perform better in (HBR ect) but for the past hour I have tested 4 of the newer patches against some of the classics. and as far as detail (even with lower and higher bit patches) I'm not noticing a visible difference, and I'm only testing to "the naked eye" so no pixel peeping. Has the detail ability of the gh2 peaked and now the focus is getting high detail at low bits and getting the best performance of the other areas to peak ability?

    The things I have noticed a difference is, some have slightly better noise, some appear more blotchy in shadows.
    I'm curious as to what else I should be looking for other than detail. I never do any 720 testing because I don't have much of a need for it, and I don't do that much 60p (but will occasionaly) testing because it kills the filmic look. Really,I'm looking for the highest performing patch with the highest detail, highest bit for 1080 24p I'm guessing sedna aq1 is the best option, and the noise of Intravenus is also appealing. So for the settings I mainly used, are these the best for the job, or are there others that perform better for 24p cinema?

  • EYESOULEYESOUL

    @GravitateMediaGroup I was wondering just how much detail are you looking for?I for one find hacks such as Sedna A Aq1 or something like Intravenus almost too detailed for my personal taste so I really see no deficiency in the detail department with the GH2.Far as which one is best for your needs I think that can only can be decided with your own unique testing."Recording & Observation"

    I know with the hacks each has it's own unique aesthetics so what's the top performer for someone else may not be that for you.I have to ask are you happy with what you get with Sedna or Intravenus far as detail or other factors?because far as I know they are some of the best Intra hacks for the GH2 and rightfully so.

    The way I understand it is the higher bit rate hacks hold up better when grading and some seem to like the motion better from these hacks.I guess if your not doing too much grading you wouldn't be able to tell much difference between the high and low bit rate hacks"minus noise rendering".I always stress to people before hacking the gh2 to first know what the benefits are.I think going into it with this mentality it's far less easier to measure the strong points of a specific hack as well as distinguishing one hack from another.If detail is your biggest concern I think a patch such as "AN Cluster7 Sharp II" is more than "detailed" enough in 24p but may lack the "motion" you desire or may not hold up as well in "post" as something like a Sedna AQ1.In other words there are many factors when choosing the right hack for your needs but I think your own personal testing and taste are the greatest factors.

    For example below is a clip of a head shot I shot with "Cluster 7 Sharp II".Going in I thought being that I was using old manual lenses I needed a hack that would compensate for the softness of the lenses,but when I reviewed the footage it was still too sharp for my taste"the lack of proper testing on my part"if I would have put the hack through it's paces before hand I would have opted for the softer version.I didn't like how I could see every pore in her skin among other things."please don't look up her nose lol"I really never understood when people say they can't see a difference between certain hacks because if you know what to look for you will see it plain as day"minus vimeo or youtube compression".Hope I didn't come off too strong just wanted to share my view,no offense intended.

  • BurnetRhoadesBurnetRhoades

    @EYESOUL that was the lady's face, not the patch. She's no Edward James Olmos but her skin is what diffusion filters, much as I hate them, were designed for. No disrespect to her intended, if you know her.

    To put things in perspective, not since she was making little indie films that had no budget for elaborate, digital post production have you seen a clean, unadulterated CU of Scarlett Johansson. Her cheeks are down under roto splines and big blur/smudge filters, somewhere. Just go back and watch The Island and The Avengers. It's awful, but it must be a rider in her contract now.

  • EYESOULEYESOUL

    @driftwood I love the Cluster series and can't wait to test Cluster X.. I think for all around great quality hacks you can't beat the Cluster stuff.By the time you finish the Cluster X this may be the only setting on my camera..Great 24p,Good 30p,Good 60p can't beat it in one setting.

  • EYESOULEYESOUL

    @BurnetRhoades I understand but wouldn't you admit that certain hacks render softer detail than others."what would be the purpose of a Sedna A,B and C if that is not the case?"In my testing of skin that has been the case minus any type of filter.Believe me I have shot people with a lot more graphic skin texture than this lady with the soft version and didn't get these harsh results with the same lens.I used a old "Series 1" Vivitar 135mm 2.8 which is very sharp but didn't expect it to be this revealing.

    Matter of fact all the footage from this shoot was a little too sharp for what I was going for among 4 or 5 different lenses.That's why I stress before going on a shoot to study a hacks qualities through and through.Some people don't really test these setting good enough to even come to a conclusion"me included"you have to really put a hack through it paces before writing it off as anything.@Driftwood wasn't fibbing when he named this version "sharp II"Imagine if this was a micro 4/3rd lens.But again it was too detailed for my taste and if the hack is not totally responsible I'm sure a hack called "sharp II' had to play a little part.I wouldn't dare speculate Driftwood named his hacks not according to their qualities.

  • rajamalikrajamalik

    @EYESOUL Canis series holds everything we need from a patch. its completed now with its new addition canis AM. it can handle motion, details and post produsction well. grading is outstanding. for close up shots take canis Skin tone version, then AM at morining and mid day light, choose PM for evening soft light, then for indoor take canis night. for details and motion canis is balanced well in Q settings. its the best and final one yet. Cluster is for reliability, clusters are not for top notch seekers. intravenus is still under experiments. we can expect a final version soon. until then we can stick to Canis series. i tried intravenus II its good and very friendly in grading, but reliability is always a question raised from experimental patches. so i reverted myself back to Canis. hope u will try them all. all the best!

  • BurnetRhoadesBurnetRhoades

    @EYESOUL my point is, this model and the coarse make-up would look more or less like this with the default patch and kit lens. You've got a perfect storm of bad circumstances happening in that CU that is not the fault of the patch. These patches aren't magick or fueled by alcohol.

    If the face texture and make up looks like smoothed oatmeal with the naked eye it's gonna look like that to the camera unless you slap something over the lens or bust out the blur filters in your editor.

  • EYESOULEYESOUL

    @BurnetRhoades point taken.She did have a make up artist so from where I was standing she looked fine"across the room".With the softer version I'm not saying her skin wouldn't have still looked like oatmeal but not oatmeal in 3-d lol.

  • BurnetRhoadesBurnetRhoades

    This is where I don't yet know how I'd deal with the talent. Not knowing her background I can only guess how self-conscious she is. Actresses can be incredibly so. I can understand since, especially if they're young women, their face is (talent aside) their bread winner. Back in the studio era actresses controlled how they were lit and had special relationships with their cameramen.

    I prefer natural looking photography myself, and like being able to see actual skin and not make-up but that's a hard sell with the ladies.

  • artiswarartiswar

    Figured I'd leave this here. Intravenus V1 anamorphic screenshot. So much detail.

    Screen Shot 2013-01-02 at 10.22.02 PM.png
    2560 x 1440 - 1M
  • proaudio4proaudio4

    Its a choice whether to go with a burned-in look, or shoot with as much info as possible and create your look in post.

Add a Comment