AVCHD: Extreme settings

cbrandin

@ivan858

I'll bet if you look later in the stream (frame 300+), you'll see bad artifacts with StreamParser.

Chris

Butt

@ivan858
>i might be a bitrate junkie<

always higher Mbit / s using only so much .... space costs only because the rest is filled with "zeros".
And again a reminder: There is only the residual error of the image is transferring. The smaller is, the better the picture.

a10tive1

Playing catch-up! Can someone give (or point to) a quick tutorial on the function of the AQ settings? And I see people playing with very high ISOs. Is there an optimal ISO for scenes where exposure is not an issue? Thanks.

blues

i am using 85mps and QA at 4 and buffered it at x3600 its holding in the bushes and interiors with average of 82mbps , its looking good so far

alcomposer

@Anpanman
I'm sorry that you misunderstood what I was saying. I was NOT making fun of Peter Jackson's first film. I was using it as an example that low budget film making (Bad Taste was very low budget- in the doco they mention that the worked for free for 4 years...) can 'still' tell a story and that in some ways you have to work with what you have and find solutions.
I mentioned that I doubted Bad Taste used that much over cranking- (most probably just slowed down 24p)- and what is so relevant to this forum is that Peter Jackson even made his own custom camera mounts for some scenes...

Cheers,
Al

plasmasmp

Tested 176mb. My cards aren't fast enough to have a scene full of detail and not crash, but it does work.

ivan858

@awaterman i'm just changing the bitrates on the enduser patches, not touching the tester stuff. plays in camera nicely with no problems, but honestly i cant see the difference from the 88-100+ images..i feel like any bitrate will work if you if you use 1AQ.

last_SHIFT

Here are my 'vanilla' settings @56mps. I haven't done much analysis, but real world stuff I've taken today looks great to me (in the end that's most important, right?) Have a look and play with it - let me know any improvements you may find.

Cheers

awaterman

@ivan858 - Thats what i'm trying to focus on. I have filmed similar scenes now at 66mpbs AQ 4, 88mpbs AQ 4 and 110mpbs AQ4 and its quite difficult to notice any difference. Certain scenes, like trees etc struggle to play at AQ4 on 88 and 110. Seem to have settled at 66mpbs, GOP 3 and AQ4 for now as it's the most reliable and plays well with no issues. Will try to upload something at some stage

awaterman

Here are the P.tool settings i am testing for the 66mpbs AQ4 GOP 3

ivan858

@awaterman nice. i'm playing with the AQ4 right now also stable, i'm doing 3GOP but a P frame is showing up in the beginning. same with you?

awaterman

@ivan858 Is this with scenes outside also? Thats where it seems to struggle for me. Although it may be an issue with FCPX??

ivan858

@awaterman no i'm filming a microfiber rug in my room. I've never had it crash outside yet, as for fcpx i have no clue, imovie works just fine for me. check it out i cracked the 200mark. lol this this was at 4AQ

Also here's the settings i'm using. i think this is far as i can take this pony at 3gop. i'll leave it in your expert hands!

danyyyel

Isn't the 3 gop setting flawed with this ptool version? That is you see improper cadence after a certain time.

awaterman

@ivan858 - I think i need a faster memory card for those settings, mine is 30mbps transfer rate and can't handle it!! Im trialling some different things at 88mpbs for now, so will see how that goes.

cosimo_bullo

HI All, a little feedback from the last couple of days of testing. We were working with 110 high and 88 low with AQ4. I really could not see the difference between the two at that high rate. Plus 110 Kept crashing and so yesterday we tested with 88 and 44. There the difference is more pronounced. 44 looks great on detail and blue sky banding (minimal) just as 88 does. But as soon as you add strong, pronounced motion, 88 really shines, and 44 starts to evidence some macroblocking on the moving elements. Could 88 and 44 be the hot mix? 44 for interviews (close to an hour on a 16 gig card) and 88 for moving b-roll? We're doing all our tests with AQ 4 right now just to remove one less element from the thinking/equation.

PS, this all at GOP-12 for now. Attached are two shots of blue sky for banding test. Betting better... Smooth, -2 on all except 0 on color. Here's where 44 and 88 are close in quality. Will next post some movement where 88 shines brighter.

cosimo_bullo

Here are a couple of sky photos to check for banding. 88 and 44 respectively (settings same as Henry0's 110 but at 12 gop and 88 high 44 low).

cosimo_bullo

And here are two with a ton of fine movement. 88 then 44. They're both struggling with the motion, but the macroblocking on 44 is much worse (push in close on the plant at around 800% and it becomes very clear).

cosimo_bullo

Here's one more example of 88 vs 44. This is in an out of focus area (iso 160) and you can see how the 88 keeps the noise/grain much better than the 44 (push in 200 or 400%). 88 first, then 44. (these are already at 200%, by the way)

Angry_C

@cosimo_bullo:

I don´t see differences. Can you mark the spots?

Gabel

@Angry_C: Check the upper leave of the two on the left in the back. You get a sort of "banding" at 44!

cosimo_bullo

I would download these and toggle between.

I think if you can't see it, that's a good thing, in that you may end up with a lot more minutes on your SD card than me!!! As I toggle between the shots, the 'grain' on the 88 shot looks a LOT better to my eye; less splotchyness, less banding, as Gabel mentioned. Don't get me wrong, I'm getting some very good looking 44mbps footage too, but when I pixel - peep the noise/grain I'm really preferring the 88.

Gabel

@cosimo_bullo: I had the exact same reaction when I went from the 42mbit/s to 65mbit/s!

towi

@cosimo_bullo

"88Mbits - (...) GOP-12. Smooth, -2 on all except 0 on color."

cool, obviously the same (or at least similar) settings I am working with currently.
http://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/comment/11877#Comment_11877

could you post your settings file? would be helpful to see the parameters you are using.
thanks in advance!

cosimo_bullo

I'm on a mac. Is there any way to pull the 'settings file' from 3.62? If no, I'll just list the setting here. Now testing 88 vs 52. A better match on noise/grain, but 52 is still falling apart a little with motion. I tried 132mbps earlier but kept crashing the camera.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

Tags in Topic

Top Posters