PDA

View Full Version : 100% Quality Factor MJpeg Settings (very low compression - class 10 required!)



modulr
07-03-2010, 02:02 PM
I have been really aggressively testing the mpeg settings.

Observations...

T = 1, resulting jpeg is roughly 1/4 complete.
T = 2, resulting jpeg is roughly 1/2 complete
T = 3, restulting jpeg is roughly 3/4 complete

As previously noted, using any tables 0-3 result in a quicktime which is black on playback. So obviously, T = 4 is the lowest setting that provides a completed and valid jpeg + mov. Might T have something to do with how the image is scanned? Anyway, I used this as my base point, as low T values always seem to perform well.

My initial goal was to figure out what quality settings could provide continuous playback on a Sandisk 8GB Extreme Class 10.

Q1=188, T1=4
Q2=188, T2=4
Q3=188, T3=4
Q4=188, T4=4

This resuted in recording of the star chart and real world examples with no errors at 75+mbps for complex scenes. There was still a fair degree of compression though, so I began to think about the logic of the system.

Q=188, T=4 for all stages 1-4 suggests the codec is always operating against the same threshold when dealing with it's variable bit rate. It suggests that for complex scenes, this is the max is can handle (on my card), however it leaves less complex scenes wanted more bits thrown at it. Odds are, the codec is constantly trying to get the most bits in there until there is a overflow and it must test the next lower Q level.

So what if we up the thresholds on Q1-Q3, and let Q4 be our last line of defense?

I came up with these settings...

Q1=400, T1 = 4
Q2=300, T2 = 4
Q3=250, T3 = 4
Q4=188, T3 = 4

The idea was to keep the thresholds very high (and throw more at simpler scenes), but if necessary back them down to the maximum my card could handle when a scene gets too complex. It seems like the codec is always trying to keep the threshold as high as possible.

Sorry for the lack of wonderful shots with flowers in bloom. It was gloomy outside morning, however I've tested these setting with complex natural scenes as well. Thus far, it's been working flawless.

Nostalgic Film Mode: Contrast -2, Sharpness -2, Saturation 0, Noise Reduction 0



----------
http://creativepeoples.com/GH13/P1050626.JPG
Precision=8 bits
Destination ID=0 (Luminance)
DQT, Row #0: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
DQT, Row #1: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
DQT, Row #2: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
DQT, Row #3: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
DQT, Row #4: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
DQT, Row #5: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
DQT, Row #6: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
DQT, Row #7: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Approx quality factor = 100.00 (scaling=2.99 variance=6.13)
----
Precision=8 bits
Destination ID=1 (Chrominance)
DQT, Row #0: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
DQT, Row #1: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
DQT, Row #2: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
DQT, Row #3: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
DQT, Row #4: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
DQT, Row #5: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
DQT, Row #6: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
DQT, Row #7: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Approx quality factor = 100.00 (scaling=1.54 variance=1.58)

Compression stats:
Compression Ratio: 5.13:1
Bits per pixel: 4.68:1





----------
http://creativepeoples.com/GH13/P1050628.JPG
Precision=8 bits
Destination ID=0 (Luminance)
DQT, Row #0: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
DQT, Row #1: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
DQT, Row #2: 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2
DQT, Row #3: 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2
DQT, Row #4: 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 3
DQT, Row #5: 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2
DQT, Row #6: 1 2 2 2 2 3 2 2
DQT, Row #7: 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 2
Approx quality factor = 98.22 (scaling=3.57 variance=4.57)
----
Precision=8 bits
Destination ID=1 (Chrominance)
DQT, Row #0: 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2
DQT, Row #1: 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2
DQT, Row #2: 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2
DQT, Row #3: 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
DQT, Row #4: 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
DQT, Row #5: 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
DQT, Row #6: 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
DQT, Row #7: 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Approx quality factor = 98.80 (scaling=2.39 variance=0.91)

Compression stats:
Compression Ratio: 5.74:1
Bits per pixel: 4.18:1




----------
http://creativepeoples.com/GH13/P1050632.JPG
Precision=8 bits
Destination ID=0 (Luminance)
DQT, Row #0: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
DQT, Row #1: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
DQT, Row #2: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
DQT, Row #3: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
DQT, Row #4: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
DQT, Row #5: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
DQT, Row #6: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
DQT, Row #7: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Approx quality factor = 100.00 (scaling=2.99 variance=6.13)
----
Precision=8 bits
Destination ID=1 (Chrominance)
DQT, Row #0: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
DQT, Row #1: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
DQT, Row #2: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
DQT, Row #3: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
DQT, Row #4: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
DQT, Row #5: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
DQT, Row #6: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
DQT, Row #7: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Approx quality factor = 100.00 (scaling=1.54 variance=1.58)

Compression stats:
Compression Ratio: 5.93:1
Bits per pixel: 4.05:1




----------
http://creativepeoples.com/GH13/P1050586.JPG
Precision=8 bits
Destination ID=0 (Luminance)
DQT, Row #0: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
DQT, Row #1: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
DQT, Row #2: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
DQT, Row #3: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
DQT, Row #4: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
DQT, Row #5: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
DQT, Row #6: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
DQT, Row #7: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Approx quality factor = 100.00 (scaling=2.99 variance=6.13)
----
Precision=8 bits
Destination ID=1 (Chrominance)
DQT, Row #0: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
DQT, Row #1: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
DQT, Row #2: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
DQT, Row #3: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
DQT, Row #4: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
DQT, Row #5: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
DQT, Row #6: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
DQT, Row #7: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Approx quality factor = 100.00 (scaling=1.54 variance=1.58)

Compression stats:
Compression Ratio: 5.24:1
Bits per pixel: 4.58:1




----------
http://creativepeoples.com/GH13/P1050597.JPG
Precision=8 bits
Destination ID=0 (Luminance)
DQT, Row #0: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
DQT, Row #1: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
DQT, Row #2: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
DQT, Row #3: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
DQT, Row #4: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
DQT, Row #5: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
DQT, Row #6: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
DQT, Row #7: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Approx quality factor = 100.00 (scaling=2.99 variance=6.13)
----
Precision=8 bits
Destination ID=1 (Chrominance)
DQT, Row #0: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
DQT, Row #1: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
DQT, Row #2: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
DQT, Row #3: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
DQT, Row #4: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
DQT, Row #5: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
DQT, Row #6: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
DQT, Row #7: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Approx quality factor = 100.00 (scaling=1.54 variance=1.58)

Compression stats:
Compression Ratio: 8.01:1
Bits per pixel: 3.00:1

adys
07-03-2010, 02:55 PM
WOW

Hard to believe that those pics came from a movie...

Amazing.

All the rest of the setting is like here?

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=213486

HHL
07-03-2010, 03:20 PM
Incredible stuff man. Thanks for testing. Thanks for posting.

Quick question: Is this 1080 or 720?

rambooc1
07-03-2010, 03:21 PM
Geez, i think Papa needs to see this....

jakobim
07-03-2010, 05:59 PM
man this look sick...

modulr
07-03-2010, 06:22 PM
Thanks all!

BTW, these settings are basic 720p and only require setting the MJPEG quality and table values. I have not explored 420->422 nor running 1440x1080. I'll experiment with those to see how far things can get pushed.

mpgxsvcd
07-03-2010, 06:50 PM
Great shots. Those are some pretty sick results. When you say it is stable. Does that mean you haven't encountered any recording issues or that you can play these files back in camera? If it is stable with in camera playback then you might have a winner on your hands.

zcream
07-03-2010, 07:02 PM
I have my doubts about in-camera playback.

Oedipax
07-03-2010, 07:10 PM
In-camera playback didn't work for me with these settings. Looks very good though, nice work! (No errors on my Sandisk Extreme 8GB)

Shinobi Productions
07-03-2010, 07:52 PM
Stunning, can't wait to try these settings out.

sammysammy
07-03-2010, 08:42 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbOg5FzSqP0


GREAT settings! mpdulr ,very stable ..i also checked 422 color and getting clips from 66-90 mb with no issue..

i also, want to say thanks again to vitaliy ,can thank you enough..

what i love about the gh13 now after the hack is the details in the wide shots, and now the close up shots even get more detail..

modulr
07-04-2010, 12:39 AM
Indeed!

With these settings I've actually gotten results that exceed 100mbps on the GH1, 118mbps being the highest so far. I'm pretty floored. It brings into question what is actually the reason for the write errors.. maybe it's related to not knowing the lowest threshold in which the card can successfully write. Just speculating at this point.

Anyway, here are some more images from this afternoon...




-------------------
http://creativepeoples.com/GH13/P1050641.JPG
---
Precision=8 bits
Destination ID=0 (Luminance)
DQT, Row #0: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
DQT, Row #1: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
DQT, Row #2: 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2
DQT, Row #3: 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 3
DQT, Row #4: 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 3
DQT, Row #5: 1 1 1 2 2 3 2 3
DQT, Row #6: 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 2
DQT, Row #7: 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3
Approx quality factor = 98.15 (scaling=3.70 variance=4.36)
----
Precision=8 bits
Destination ID=1 (Chrominance)
DQT, Row #0: 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3
DQT, Row #1: 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3
DQT, Row #2: 1 1 2 3 3 3 3 3
DQT, Row #3: 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
DQT, Row #4: 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
DQT, Row #5: 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
DQT, Row #6: 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
DQT, Row #7: 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Approx quality factor = 98.40 (scaling=3.21 variance=0.52)

Compression stats:
Compression Ratio: 4.03:1
Bits per pixel: 5.96:1





-------------------
http://creativepeoples.com/GH13/P1050642.JPG

Ok, so the above isn't the best shot... but it's loaded with enough complexity to really tax the codec. The details hold up!

----
Precision=8 bits
Destination ID=0 (Luminance)
DQT, Row #0: 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 3
DQT, Row #1: 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3
DQT, Row #2: 1 1 1 1 1 3 4 4
DQT, Row #3: 1 1 1 2 3 4 6 6
DQT, Row #4: 1 1 2 3 4 4 3 6
DQT, Row #5: 3 2 3 4 4 6 4 6
DQT, Row #6: 1 4 5 4 6 6 6 5
DQT, Row #7: 4 4 5 5 6 6 6 6
Approx quality factor = 97.07 (scaling=5.86 variance=3.18)
----
Precision=8 bits
Destination ID=1 (Chrominance)
DQT, Row #0: 1 1 1 1 6 6 6 6
DQT, Row #1: 1 1 3 3 6 6 6 6
DQT, Row #2: 1 3 4 6 6 6 6 6
DQT, Row #3: 1 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
DQT, Row #4: 4 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
DQT, Row #5: 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
DQT, Row #6: 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
DQT, Row #7: 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
Approx quality factor = 96.99 (scaling=6.02 variance=1.83)

Compression stats:
Compression Ratio: 3.65:1
Bits per pixel: 6.58:1





-------------------
http://creativepeoples.com/GH13/P1050652.JPG
----
Precision=8 bits
Destination ID=0 (Luminance)
DQT, Row #0: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
DQT, Row #1: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
DQT, Row #2: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
DQT, Row #3: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
DQT, Row #4: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
DQT, Row #5: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
DQT, Row #6: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
DQT, Row #7: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Approx quality factor = 100.00 (scaling=2.99 variance=6.13)
----
Precision=8 bits
Destination ID=1 (Chrominance)
DQT, Row #0: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
DQT, Row #1: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
DQT, Row #2: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
DQT, Row #3: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
DQT, Row #4: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
DQT, Row #5: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
DQT, Row #6: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
DQT, Row #7: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Approx quality factor = 100.00 (scaling=1.54 variance=1.58)

Compression stats:
Compression Ratio: 5.13:1
Bits per pixel: 4.68:1


As I mentioned, I have yet to try the 422 stuff with these settings. I remember trying it early on and I thought the image lost quality, but I'll give it a go.

There actually might be further room for improvement for complex scenes to gain that last 3% of quality by tweaking Q1-3 a little more. It's only taken 146 firmware reflashes to get this far! haha... so back to the numbers lab!

0100
07-04-2010, 12:57 AM
WOW awesome work, can't wait to try this out.

Martin Koch
07-04-2010, 01:10 AM
Very good results. Excellent! This is the correct way to examine settings because Mbps alone don't give the whole picture.

Since I'm not interested in 4:2:0 MJPEG I'm not able to go as high as you with Quality settings. I found

4:2:2 + 1.95 X Q / T4 SETTING
Q: 249, 214, 195, 179
T: 4, 4, 4, 4

the highest I could go and very stable with my 16 GB Sandisk Extreme Class 10 card.

Low detailed scene: 100 / 73.71 mbps / Movie OK
High detailed scene: 85.95 (dc:3*) / 86.72 mbps / Movie OK
4:2:2 chroma subsampling on
Clip recording time display: 4m 17s
Playback in camera: No

I also found out that keeping the relationship of the original quality values gives the stablest settings.


*The dc component is the most important value in the top left corner of the quantisation table.

mpgxsvcd
07-04-2010, 10:14 AM
What are you guys using to analyze the Quantization tables?

These settings are fantastic! Highest quality I have seen yet.

sammysammy
07-04-2010, 10:29 AM
Martin , are you sure these are the highest values you can go with 422 checked , i have the same card as you and im using modulr settings with 422 checked..but whats weird is how you getting high rate clips (75-85mb)(almost the same as me) with such small values?

mimirsan
07-04-2010, 12:24 PM
I just tried Martins setting and its pretty good...nice stable 70+ mbs with 4.2.2...I actually prefer the look from this setting.

Martin Koch
07-04-2010, 12:48 PM
What are you guys using to analyze the Quantization tables?


JPEGSnoop:
http://www.impulseadventure.com/photo/jpeg-snoop.html

Martin Koch
07-04-2010, 01:00 PM
Martin , are you sure these are the highest values you can go with 422 checked , i have the same card as you and im using modulr settings with 422 checked..but whats weird is how you getting high rate clips (75-85mb)(almost the same as me) with such small values?

I can't go higher than 1.95Q / T4.
Most probably it's the lens and my test sheet. I use the Panasonic 20 mm 1.7 Pancake at f5 and this lens is sharper than the kit lens. I think the kit lens will allow higher Q values. I also use an extremly detailed test scene (http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showpost.php?p=2030346&postcount=26) to be on the safe side in real world situations.

sammysammy
07-04-2010, 01:04 PM
no.i have exactly what modulr posted with T 4 on all ..with 422 enabled, thats kind of weird...how im going that much higher on Q settings and yet your are much lower and not even 422 checked and you have the same amount of bit rate..

Martin Koch
07-04-2010, 01:12 PM
Sorry I edited my post after realizing what settings you use while you where answering to my previous one. By the way I have 4:2:2 checked.

Grunf
07-04-2010, 01:13 PM
Great stuff!

I've got muddy chroma @ 84Mbit in this scene with these settings:
MJPEG E1 Q: 280
MJPEG E1 T: 14
MJPEG E2 Q: 226
MJPEG E2 T: 14
MJPEG E3 Q: 200
MJPEG E3 T: 14
MJPEG E4 Q: 170
MJPEG E4 T: 14
I'll test with your settings and rapport back!

http://i1024.photobucket.com/albums/y306/grunf12/81Mbit_MJPEG_frame.jpg

modulr
07-04-2010, 01:20 PM
@SammySammy High Q values are not everything. If the Q value is too high, it will just jump down to the next. So for example, if your scene can't handle Q1=400, it'll jump to Q2=300, and so forth. But keep in mind it's likely that it's constantly jumping between Q1-Q4 values, and thus creating a certain bitrate. The tables are more important than the solely the bitrate in that it describes how the camera is seeing the footage.

From these little experiments, here is a theory in terms of stability...

(EDIT)

I think the reason people encounter stability issues with other settings is likely card speed coupled with not knowing their Q4/T4 threshold for their particular lenses. With the settings in this thread, you can set Q1 to 1000, and it still won't give a write error because Q4 is the stablizer. However, using such a high Q1 value will make the codec much more likely to ignore Q1 and just use Q2-Q4 ... because there is no scene where Q1=1000 can actually perform. This can be tested by simply setting all Q values = 1000 and trying to record. You'll get a write error for everything you point the camera at, even if it's dark.

Definitely pretty interesting stuff. I'm further refining the settings I've put up to see if there is anything left to squeeze out of it.

sammysammy
07-04-2010, 01:27 PM
thanks for the detailed reply, so are you saying that the type of lens can have that big of impact on this whole thing?i understand it should, but how much..

modulr
07-04-2010, 01:58 PM
Think about it this way.. it's detailed scenes that tax the codec. That being said, I just tried 422 with the thread settings... Q:400,300,250,188 / T:4,4,4,4 with no write errors on the 14-140 kit lens.

----
Precision=8 bits
Destination ID=0 (Luminance)
DQT, Row #0: 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 3
DQT, Row #1: 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3
DQT, Row #2: 1 1 1 1 1 3 4 4
DQT, Row #3: 1 1 1 2 3 4 6 6
DQT, Row #4: 1 1 2 3 4 4 3 6
DQT, Row #5: 3 2 3 4 4 6 4 6
DQT, Row #6: 1 4 5 4 6 6 6 5
DQT, Row #7: 4 4 5 5 6 6 6 6
Approx quality factor = 97.07 (scaling=5.86 variance=3.18)
----
Precision=8 bits
Destination ID=1 (Chrominance)
DQT, Row #0: 1 1 1 1 6 6 6 6
DQT, Row #1: 1 1 3 3 6 6 6 6
DQT, Row #2: 1 3 4 6 6 6 6 6
DQT, Row #3: 1 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
DQT, Row #4: 4 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
DQT, Row #5: 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
DQT, Row #6: 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
DQT, Row #7: 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
Approx quality factor = 96.99 (scaling=6.02 variance=1.83)

Have to experiment some more to see if I can get it to generate an error. Might have to tick Q4 down to 187-6 for 422, but so far so good.

We might be able to lower Q1 without impacting the footage as well, which would mean a tighter spread between Q1-Q4... giving the camera possibility of utilizing a higher quality Q for complex footage.

Martin Koch
07-04-2010, 01:58 PM
Modulr I just tried your Q400, 300, 250, 188 / T4 setting with 4:2:0. It gives the best quality on "normal", "medium" scenes I saw so far but as expected movie recording of my high detailed scene canceled after a few seconds.

To make your setting work with my lens and 4:2:2 you say I only have to lower Q4 (128) until it works?

modulr
07-04-2010, 02:21 PM
Yes. From my experience, Q4 is the last stop. If it can't maintain at Q4, you'll get a write error... so lower it until it works. Definitely interested in the results with your lens. :)

Martin Koch
07-04-2010, 10:50 PM
Thanks, using Q4 from my 1.95Q / T4 setting did the trick. My high detailed scene has now a quality factor of 95 (previously 85) and many more scenes have 100! The upper left corner of the quantisation tables is "1" all the time. My congratulations and thanks for the hard work you've put into this :dankk2:

Stable setting with 20mm, 1.7 Pancake lens
4:2:2 checked
Q: 400, 300, 250, 179
T: 4, 4, 4, 4


http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/41816/1278317122.jpg
A pretty flower in 100% quality, FILM MODE SMOOTH -1, -2, -1, -2

Martin Koch
07-04-2010, 10:55 PM
I just tried Martins setting and its pretty good...nice stable 70+ mbs with 4.2.2...I actually prefer the look from this setting.

Yes I also thought it was pretty good but modulrs setting result in better quality tables and 4:2:2 is also possible. What do you mean with "look".

mimirsan
07-05-2010, 01:06 AM
Yes I also thought it was pretty good but modulrs setting result in better quality tables and 4:2:2 is also possible. What do you mean with "look".

I mean by "look" that there is less visable noise with your setting. With Modulrs setting I get quite a bit of noise...indoors and out.
Im running yours with 4.2.2 on a GF1 right now.

I still think PappasArts setting is about as optimised as it can get (without 4.2.2).
I have tried these settings all on a GH1 & GF1 (Gf1s image is no where as detailed as the gh's but still a vast improvement than what it was)...its great that you guys are posting table settings...I have no clue what these tables mean! :2vrolijk_08:
Thanks!!!

Martin Koch
07-05-2010, 01:17 AM
With Modulrs setting I get quite a bit of noise...indoors and out.

Interesting, because better JPEG compression shouldn't influence the source image or introduce noise. But wait you don't have control over ISO on a GF1 don't you? Do you see this difference also on the GH1 in manual mode with same lighting and same scene?

As for table values it's actually simple: you want them as low as possible. :2vrolijk_08:

mpgxsvcd
07-05-2010, 06:41 AM
@SammySammy High Q values are not everything. If the Q value is too high, it will just jump down to the next. So for example, if your scene can't handle Q1=400, it'll jump to Q2=300, and so forth. But keep in mind it's likely that it's constantly jumping between Q1-Q4 values, and thus creating a certain bitrate. The tables are more important than the solely the bitrate in that it describes how the camera is seeing the footage.

From these little experiments, here is a theory in terms of stability...

(EDIT)

I think the reason people encounter stability issues with other settings is likely card speed coupled with not knowing their Q4/T4 threshold for their particular lenses. With the settings in this thread, you can set Q1 to 1000, and it still won't give a write error because Q4 is the stablizer. However, using such a high Q1 value will make the codec much more likely to ignore Q1 and just use Q2-Q4 ... because there is no scene where Q1=1000 can actually perform. This can be tested by simply setting all Q values = 1000 and trying to record. You'll get a write error for everything you point the camera at, even if it's dark.

Definitely pretty interesting stuff. I'm further refining the settings I've put up to see if there is anything left to squeeze out of it.

Thanks for that post. That helps clear some of the confusion I had about the Q settings.

I shot our local 4th of July fire works event with your settings and the 4:2:2 color option turned on. It worked perfectly. There were no write errors but also no in camera playback. The footage is stunning.

mimirsan
07-05-2010, 07:15 AM
Interesting, because better JPEG compression shouldn't influence the source image or introduce noise. But wait you don't have control over ISO on a GF1 don't you? Do you see this difference also on the GH1 in manual mode with same lighting and same scene?

As for table values it's actually simple: you want them as low as possible. :2vrolijk_08:

Ive just retested on both gh1 & gf1 with your updated settings....fantastic results (i might of forgot to lock the iso on the gf originally)

Martin Koch
07-05-2010, 07:38 AM
Ive just retested on both gh1 & gf1 with your updated settings....fantastic results (i might of forgot to lock the iso on the gf originally)

Great I'm also convinced and will use the modulr settings from now on.
Modulr settings - doesn't that sound good too?

modulr
07-05-2010, 10:09 AM
Definitely good to hear the settings are working so well for everyone! And really good to know 422 is an reliable option. BTW, awesome shot Martin! not in a million years did I expect the camera to be able to output footage at this level of detail.

Even better news, I'm testing some new numbers that are yeilding even better results for complex scenes. The complex scene being some little bamboo bushes outside my house... lots of tiny leaves and patterns.

Original settings...

Q:400,300,250,188
T:4,4,4,4
----
Precision=8 bits
Destination ID=0 (Luminance)
DQT, Row #0: 1 1 1 1 3 2 6 6
DQT, Row #1: 1 1 1 1 2 5 6 6
DQT, Row #2: 1 1 2 2 2 5 8 7
DQT, Row #3: 1 2 2 3 6 7 10 10
DQT, Row #4: 1 2 3 6 7 8 6 11
DQT, Row #5: 5 3 6 7 8 10 8 10
DQT, Row #6: 2 7 9 8 10 11 10 9
DQT, Row #7: 7 8 9 9 11 11 10 10
Approx quality factor = 95.26 (scaling=9.48 variance=7.14)
----
Precision=8 bits
Destination ID=1 (Chrominance)
DQT, Row #0: 2 1 2 2 10 10 10 10
DQT, Row #1: 2 2 5 6 10 10 10 10
DQT, Row #2: 2 5 7 10 10 10 10 10
DQT, Row #3: 2 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
DQT, Row #4: 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
DQT, Row #5: 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
DQT, Row #6: 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
DQT, Row #7: 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Approx quality factor = 94.92 (scaling=10.16 variance=4.80)

Compression stats:
Compression Ratio: 4.76:1
Bits per pixel: 5.05:1





Next (same shot)...

Q:500,325,250,188
T:4,4,4,4
----
Precision=8 bits
Destination ID=0 (Luminance)
DQT, Row #0: 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2
DQT, Row #1: 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2
DQT, Row #2: 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2
DQT, Row #3: 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 3
DQT, Row #4: 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3
DQT, Row #5: 1 1 2 2 2 3 2 3
DQT, Row #6: 1 2 3 2 3 3 3 3
DQT, Row #7: 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3
Approx quality factor = 98.01 (scaling=3.98 variance=3.69)
----
Precision=8 bits
Destination ID=1 (Chrominance)
DQT, Row #0: 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3
DQT, Row #1: 1 1 1 2 3 3 3 3
DQT, Row #2: 1 1 2 3 3 3 3 3
DQT, Row #3: 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
DQT, Row #4: 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
DQT, Row #5: 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
DQT, Row #6: 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
DQT, Row #7: 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Approx quality factor = 98.39 (scaling=3.23 variance=0.48)

Compression stats:
Compression Ratio: 3.10:1
Bits per pixel: 7.74:1







and finally (same shot)!

Q:600,330,260,188
T:4,4,4,4
----
Precision=8 bits
Destination ID=0 (Luminance)
DQT, Row #0: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
DQT, Row #1: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
DQT, Row #2: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
DQT, Row #3: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
DQT, Row #4: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2
DQT, Row #5: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
DQT, Row #6: 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1
DQT, Row #7: 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1
Approx quality factor = 98.47 (scaling=3.06 variance=5.95)
----
Precision=8 bits
Destination ID=1 (Chrominance)
DQT, Row #0: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
DQT, Row #1: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
DQT, Row #2: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
DQT, Row #3: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
DQT, Row #4: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
DQT, Row #5: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
DQT, Row #6: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
DQT, Row #7: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Approx quality factor = 100.00 (scaling=1.54 variance=1.58)

Compression stats:
Compression Ratio: 2.56:1
Bits per pixel: 9.37:1

That is the lowest compression and highest bits/pixel I've seen yet. I haven't switched on the 422 for this setting, because I want to shoot some more to see if it's consistent, reliable, and not doing anything else weird.. but wow, this camera is INSANE! still a little unsure that such a wide spread between Q1-Q4 is a good thing, we'll see soon enough... heh.

So if anyone is feeling a bit rogue and adventurous, give it a try... :)

Q: 600,330,260,188
T: 4,4,4,4

Martin Koch
07-05-2010, 12:42 PM
Just tried it with 4:2:2 and the tables are better than ever.


NEW MODULR SETTINGS with lower Q4
Q: 600, 330, 260, 179
T: 4, 4, 4, 4
Low detailed scene: 100 / 73.96 mbps / PLAYBACK NO / MOVIE OK
High detailed scene: 97.69 / 90.94 mbps / PLAYBACK NO / MOVIE OK
4:2:2
Clip recording time display: 1m45s


But I also noticed that it doesn't keep these tables throughout the clip. I recorded my high detailed scene for about two seconds.

Tables of first second or so

Precision=8 bits
Destination ID=0 (Luminance)
DQT, Row #0: 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2
DQT, Row #1: 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2
DQT, Row #2: 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 3
DQT, Row #3: 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 4
DQT, Row #4: 1 1 1 2 3 3 2 4
DQT, Row #5: 2 1 2 3 3 4 3 4
DQT, Row #6: 1 3 4 3 4 4 4 4
DQT, Row #7: 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4
Approx quality factor = 97.69 (scaling=4.61 variance=3.08)
----
Precision=8 bits
Destination ID=1 (Chrominance)
DQT, Row #0: 1 1 1 1 4 4 4 4
DQT, Row #1: 1 1 2 2 4 4 4 4
DQT, Row #2: 1 2 3 4 4 4 4 4
DQT, Row #3: 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
DQT, Row #4: 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
DQT, Row #5: 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
DQT, Row #6: 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
DQT, Row #7: 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Approx quality factor = 97.90 (scaling=4.21 variance=0.76)

Table of a frame near the end.

Precision=8 bits
Destination ID=0 (Luminance)
DQT, Row #0: 7 7 7 7 22 15 36 36
DQT, Row #1: 7 7 7 7 15 29 36 36
DQT, Row #2: 7 7 15 15 15 29 51 44
DQT, Row #3: 7 15 15 22 36 44 65 65
DQT, Row #4: 7 15 22 36 44 51 36 73
DQT, Row #5: 29 22 36 44 51 65 51 65
DQT, Row #6: 15 44 58 51 65 73 65 58
DQT, Row #7: 44 51 58 58 73 73 65 65
Approx quality factor = 68.68 (scaling=62.65 variance=266.78)
----
Precision=8 bits
Destination ID=1 (Chrominance)
DQT, Row #0: 15 7 15 15 65 65 65 65
DQT, Row #1: 15 15 29 36 65 65 65 65
DQT, Row #2: 15 29 44 65 65 65 65 65
DQT, Row #3: 15 65 65 65 65 65 65 65
DQT, Row #4: 44 65 65 65 65 65 65 65
DQT, Row #5: 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65
DQT, Row #6: 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65
DQT, Row #7: 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65
Approx quality factor = 66.78 (scaling=66.45 variance=154.02)

Same static scene no camera movement no change in lighting.

Unfortunately JPEGSnoop doesn't work well with the movie files but I helped myself by cutting out a few frames near the end with QuickTime Pro and saving this as a self contained movie without any recompression.
We haven't looked any further than the first frame so far and I suppose the camera jumps to Q4 very soon with such high bitrates.
Another real life scene showed a "degradation" over time from 97 to 92 quality with the old settings from this morning.

We have to test this "degradation" with real life scenes. I would love to see that it's minor.

abolit
07-05-2010, 01:33 PM
modulr,
thanks for your hard work!
I just tried your setting and it worked fine but I was able to playback the clip using VLC player, not qucktime player. I guess it's normal?






Thanks all!

BTW, these settings are basic 720p and only require setting the MJPEG quality and table values. I have not explored 420->422 nor running 1440x1080. I'll experiment with those to see how far things can get pushed.

coryshubert
07-05-2010, 01:53 PM
That is the lowest compression and highest bits/pixel I've seen yet. I haven't switched on the 422 for this setting, because I want to shoot some more to see if it's consistent, reliable, and not doing anything else weird.. but wow, this camera is INSANE! still a little unsure that such a wide spread between Q1-Q4 is a good thing, we'll see soon enough... heh.

So if anyone is feeling a bit rogue and adventurous, give it a try... :)

Q: 600,330,260,188
T: 4,4,4,4


I am very impressed with this and have tried your last stable setting, so now I will have to try this one..

One question I have, are the screen grabs you are showing in the begining of the thread just the .jpg files that are captured as you start the recording? If so, what are you setting the camera to or what lens are you using, because with my kit lens or my Nikkors I am not getting things that clean... yours look like they came out of my Nikno D3 they are so crisp... would love to hear more about that.

Thanks,
Cory

PappasArts
07-05-2010, 02:00 PM
Just tried it with 4:2:2 and the tables are better than ever.


NEW MODULR SETTINGS with lower Q4
Q: 600, 330, 260, 179
T: 4, 4, 4, 4
Low detailed scene: 100 / 73.96 mbps / PLAYBACK NO / MOVIE OK
High detailed scene: 97.69 / 90.94 mbps / PLAYBACK NO / MOVIE OK
4:2:2
Clip recording time display: 1m45s


Martin,

I have a new codec test chart put together- which is way better at crash testing the codec then the star chart I put up- The key is to shoot it bright/contrasty off the monitor- None of my extreme settings have survived this chart. This is a great to fine tune your numbers as well see how far the codec will go in Mbits.

Here is a link to the 2K chart: http://www.sendspace.com/file/5f0if7

I also posted a sample picture to see the chart. - However download the 2K version from the above link.

MIKOS • MLPappas
http://TWITTER.COM/PAPPASARTS
http://PAPPASARTS.WORDPRESS.COM
http://MIKOSarts.wordpress.com
http://MIKOSarts.wordpress.com/page-2-of-blog
http://MIKOSarts.COM

abolit
07-05-2010, 02:32 PM
I just tried mjpeg with 400 300 250 188 / 4 4 4 4 using Papas chart and Sandisk 16 extreme failed after a couple of seconds.


Martin,

I have a new codec test chart put together- which is way better at crash testing the codec then the star chart I put up- The key is to shoot it bright/contrasty off the monitor- None of my extreme settings have survived this chart. This is a great to fine tune your numbers as well see how far the codec will go in Mbits.

Here is a link to the 2K chart: http://www.sendspace.com/file/5f0if7

I also posted a sample picture to see the chart. - However download the 2K version from the above link.

Pappas

modulr
07-05-2010, 02:47 PM
Same static scene no camera movement no change in lighting.

Unfortunately JPEGSnoop doesn't work well with the movie files but I helped myself by cutting out a few frames near the end with QuickTime Pro and saving this as a self contained movie without any recompression.
We haven't looked any further than the first frame so far and I suppose the camera jumps to Q4 very soon with such high bitrates.
Another real life scene showed a "degradation" over time from 97 to 92 quality with the old settings from this morning.

We have to test this "degradation" with real life scenes. I would love to see that it's minor.

I followed suit and can confirm similar results... the plot thickens! haha.

My initial instinct after the [400,300,250,188] settings was that we'd want less spread between Q1 and Q4, because the codec would be much more likely to utilize those Q values when possible. I shot some complex scenery today, but can't discern much difference between the 600 settings and the 400 settings.. So it could very well be riding on Q4. That being said, the footage remains pretty jaw dropping. I honestly just haven't seen detail like this before.

I think an interesting test will be to go from complex to simple, and see if there is a bump in rate.. def more experiments to be done. Gonna try Pappas chart too.

@abolit - I'm on a mac, use quicktime, and the .mov have always worked fine.

@coryshubert - The shots I had taken were with the Kit 14-140, and a Nikkor 50mm f1.4... Beyond that, nothing special was done.. just pushed the button and let it record.

mpgxsvcd
07-05-2010, 03:02 PM
Thanks for the chart Pappas. However, how realistic is this test case? Is there a real world scenario that would ever come close to this?

The settings are working great for me so far. I even have been using the 4:2:2 settings with them.

sammysammy
07-05-2010, 03:09 PM
i was going to say the same thing mpgxsvd..i could be wrong, but that typs of shot will never happen, at least with me..but its a good measure stick, but i think its over kill to say if my settings don't pass it ,than the hack is not working right, im not saying anyone has said that, but just saying..

modulr
07-05-2010, 03:11 PM
Just tried the Pappas chart with the [400,300,250,188] as well... and got 10s at 103mbps. That chart is hardcore. It ultimately only tests the Q4 value. You can continue to lower Q4 it until it works. I find pappas star chart much much closer to complex real life scenery in terms of how it taxes the codec.. which is definitely much more practical.

GraemeH
07-05-2010, 03:17 PM
Definitely good to hear the settings are working so well for everyone! And really good to know 422 is an reliable option. BTW, awesome shot Martin! not in a million years did I expect the camera to be able to output footage at this level of detail.

Even better news, I'm testing some new numbers that are yeilding even better results for complex scenes. The complex scene being some little bamboo bushes outside my house... lots of tiny leaves and patterns.

[/COLOR]

(first post)
Hi Modulr / Martin
Just Bought the GF1 over the weekend on the back of seeing your footage on vimeo and the threads here- Just to say thanks for these settings- i'm blown away, i dived in with the 384,330,300,276 -24,24,24,24. then found this thread.

Iv'e been using your 400,300,250,188-4,4,4,4- 720P-422 with the 20mm lens and a Sandisk 8GB class 10 card. iv'e shot off about 20 clips- no failures. The image is amazing . will try the 14-40mm lens tomorrow. also tempted to try your new numbers.

a fair few clips reached 105Mbit/s most around 90 and some around 60-70- they all looked stunning though

Again many thanks guys
Graeme

abolit
07-05-2010, 04:02 PM
Modulr,
Thanks for a quick response!
Did you increase the audio bitratings as well? I did and I guess that's why I couldn't play the clip with quicktime.

I'm on a mac, use quicktime, and the .mov have always worked fine.

abolit
07-05-2010, 04:43 PM
I got it figured! For some reason quicktime wouldn't play when sound card is turned off. Go figure!


Modulr,
Thanks for a quick response!
Did you increase the audio bitratings as well? I did and I guess that's why I couldn't play the clip with quicktime.

I'm on a mac, use quicktime, and the .mov have always worked fine.

Martin Koch
07-06-2010, 12:09 AM
Martin,
I have a new codec test chart put together

Thanks for the chart. It's a great texture and I'm sure it will give a lifetime insurance that settings that survive this chart will work in every possible situation. Unfortunately this also means we must lower Q4 more than maybe reasonable and high detailed scenes will loose much more quality. So far I found my high detailed scene (http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showpost.php?p=2030346&postcount=26) sufficient to ensure that real world scenes work.

My problem at the moment is that with high detailed scenes and these high quality settings the camera too quickly falls back on the Q4 quality so the quality or mbps of the first frame we are seeing in QuickTime are not held throughout a clip.

PappasArts
07-06-2010, 01:52 AM
Thanks for the chart Pappas. However, how realistic is this test case? Is there a real world scenario that would ever come close to this?

The settings are working great for me so far. I even have been using the 4:2:2 settings with them.


Well this is an ongoing project to see our boundries ( AVCHD and MJPEG R&D ). We can't hang out in the safe waters cause we feel comfortable - until we know the extremes. In a funny way we are re-manufacturing the software parameters in this camera, and like manufactures we need to see those limits. That's how we learn.

I designed this test chart to push it. If you can get it to last the chart, or at least for a short while, you can bet the real world might not be as harsh. Also charts are consistent- not trees in our back yards or the hairy dog next door ( as well the bright levels are always exact ) When doing R&D we need testing tools like the chart to map it out. If all settings are the same every time however results are changing with every little adjustment we make in Ptool- we know were making progress one way or another based on how well the camera is performing.

MIKOS • MLPappas
http://TWITTER.COM/PAPPASARTS
http://PAPPASARTS.WORDPRESS.COM
http://MIKOSarts.wordpress.com
http://MIKOSarts.wordpress.com/page-2-of-blog
http://MIKOSarts.COM

Martin Koch
07-06-2010, 02:21 AM
(Modulr) Did you increase the audio bitratings as well? I did and I guess that's why I couldn't play the clip with quicktime.

I was under the impression that the audio settings in Ptool only affect the AVCHD part and never tried it. Can I increase the MJPEG audio sample rate from 16kHz to lets say 44 or 48? Does this work?

modulr
07-06-2010, 02:31 AM
@graemaeh - nice! Definitely good it's working out!

@abolit - I have yet to mess with the audio stuff... did it work with up'd audio quality settings?

@Poppas - true!

@Martin - I performed some additional tests. I shot the star chart for 10s, then moved to black for 10s, then back to the star chart. If the codec moved to Q4, but never returned to Q1 levels when reintroducing the image I'd be pretty concerned. That being said it seemed to demonstrate it's variable nature... The returning image was initially back to Q1 quality, then slid. This would suggest the camera is definitely dynamically selecting Q1 thru Q4. If a complex scene is really taxing the codec constantly (like a static shot of these horrid bushes out side my door.. lol, star chart, or Poppas new chart, etc), it's simply going to ride Q4. The more I think about this, it makes sense. It might explain why much of the footage with these settings still look superb.. because when it can, the camera seems ok to use the higher Q settings.


Regarding the last round of settings [600,330,260,188]...

After realizing this, the 600 settings are definitely overkill. As Martin observed the initial tables look spectacular, but the camera just doesn't spend much time at Q1=600 even when the scene is dead simple which makes the setting not particularly useful.

I'm back to thinking about the Q settings along these lines... (sorry if this seems repetitive, I'm just writing this out so it makes sense in my head... lol).

Q1 = Simple scenes. This includes a lot of night / low light content because it usually compresses easier, possibly some dof content since the background is usually very soft, and likely anything that includes solids and/or a lack of detailed textures.

Q2 = (in between)

Q3 = (in between)

Q4 = Complex scenes. Think highly patterned scenery with lots of small details and loads of textural shifts. Heavy foliage is a great example of this. The most complex scenes will evidently ride this value.


At this point I'm sticking with the original [400,300,250,188]. It seems to cover that range from simple to complex very well, and has been working superb. I can shoot [Q1-4]=400 in night/low light and simple settings... so I'm thinking it makes a great Q1 value. Ultimately, I can't think of any way to get the footage any better other than faster cards.

<tangent>We shoot with 7D/5D's at my job quite a bit. I can't wait to sneak this one in on a shoot. hahah! </tangent>

mimirsan
07-06-2010, 02:51 AM
I found one little issue with the new super sharp settings 400,300,250,188

Highly detailed brickwork display strobing effect with small globs of blue blotches (see centre brickwork near door and lower middle cant upload video right now).
Almost like a moire effect. Cany What could be causing this?
Taken with 14-45mm panny lense GH1 same thing with 20mm both tried reduced sharpness also (Tried on GF1...same lense no strobe(!))



http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4094/4767543498_90b15d09bc_b.jpg

philiplipetz
07-06-2010, 03:23 AM
I found one little issue with the new super sharp settings 400,300,250,188

Highly detailed brickwork display strobing effect with small globs of blue blotches (see centre brickwork near door and lower middle cant upload video right now).
Almost like a moire effect. Cany What could be causing this?
Taken with 14-45mm panny lense GH1 same thing with 20mm both tried reduced sharpness also (Tried on GF1...same lense no strobe(!))




same hack settings on GF1?

crunchy
07-06-2010, 03:36 AM
Almost like a moire effect.

In my opinion it IS moire effect.

mimirsan
07-06-2010, 03:43 AM
same hack settings on GF1?

Same settings looks great! Both look fantastic actually...but im guessing with more detail brings the moire demon! :evil:

mpgxsvcd
07-06-2010, 04:49 AM
Well this is an ongoing project to see our boundries ( AVCHD and MJPEG R&D ). We can't hang out in the safe waters cause we feel comfortable - until we know the extremes. In a funny way we are re-manufacturing the software parameters in this camera, and like manufactures we need to see those limits. That's how we learn.

I designed this test chart to push it. If you can get it to last the chart, or at least for a short while, you can bet the real world might not be as harsh. Also charts are consistent- not trees in our back yards or the hairy dog next door ( as well the bright levels are always exact ) When doing R&D we need testing tools like the chart to map it out. If all settings are the same every time however results are changing with every little adjustment we make in Ptool- we know were making progress one way or another based on how well the camera is performing.

Pappas

Pappas, I didn't mean to critique your chart. I appreciate everything you have done. I just wanted to know if there was a real world scenario that comes close to this. From other's posts it sounds like there isn't anything that comes close to this in the real world.

I agree we should definitely test the firmware to its limits. However, we should also try to achieve something that is stable and reliable for each of our own uses.

Right now, for me, these 100% quality settings and lpowell's "35Mbps MJPEG In-Camera Playback Patch" are perfect.

I shot some fireworks on the 4th with the 100% quality settings. Here is the video on youtube. Unfortunately, youtube's compression kind of destroys it. I will try to post it on vimeo where you can download the original as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hcdbmoqwPE

Martin Koch
07-06-2010, 05:12 AM
Just for fun a comparison to see how much the MJPEG values have been altered. I also think that depending on scene complexity there's an interpolation between the points going on because otherwise we would only see four fixed tables. But I may be wrong.

http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/41816/1278417653.gif

@mimirsan That is moire. I have a clip where I see the same colored rainbow moire on a roof in the distance as if it where shot with the 5DMarkII. The GH1 can do this also. Fortunately very seldom.

abolit
07-06-2010, 05:58 AM
Modulr,
I got a chance to increase Audio sampling rate along with your mjpeg setting but after testing Papas chart and camera's failure I got back to factory default(Audio) . It's gonna be my next step. I don't want anything to "suck" resources to get the best video.

Lpowell
07-06-2010, 08:11 AM
Pappas, I didn't mean to critique your chart. I appreciate everything you have done. I just wanted to know if there was a real world scenario that comes close to this.
Pappas' test charts were very helpful in developing my 35Mbps MJPEG In-Camera Playback patch: http://dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=215624

Though the test charts are artificial, they provide a repeatable high-detail pattern that can be used to compare the performance of subtle changes to a patch. In my experience, the demands they place on the codec are not unrealistic, as I have been able to construct real-life scenes that required even more intensive bitrates than the test charts.

For a thrilling exercise in patience, I'd suggest setting your patched camera on a tripod in front of a Pappas test chart, and watch the seconds tick off till you reach the 2GB file limit. :thumbsup:

mpgxsvcd
07-06-2010, 08:31 AM
Pappas' test charts were very helpful in developing my 35Mbps MJPEG In-Camera Playback patch: http://dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=215624

Though the test charts are artificial, they provide a repeatable high-detail pattern that can be used to compare the performance of subtle changes to a patch. In my experience, the demands they place on the codec are not unrealistic, as I have been able to construct real-life scenes that required even more intensive bitrates than the test charts.

For a thrilling exercise in patience, I'd suggest setting your patched camera on a tripod in front of a Pappas test chart, and watch the seconds tick off till you reach the 2GB file limit. :thumbsup:

Both of your guys work is very much appreciated. There is no question on that. However, I just think the new chart is overkill for the average user. Most people can use the settings you guys have come up with for 100% of their shooting needs.

I don't see why those average users should step their quality down in order to have the ability to shoot a test pattern that they will never shoot again.

This is just my opinion but I think our time would be better spent trying to optimize 1080p MJPEG. So far I haven't seen any settings that are stable for even the star chart. I would also like to see some proof as to whether it is really scaled 720p or not. Just my opinion though.

I have tested the 1080p settings extensively but I still can't find anything stable. Got any ideas?

sammysammy
07-06-2010, 08:47 AM
100% agree, when you fail the chart you start thinking these values are not for me, at least i thought like that..but in real world situation like last night ( i started shooting a music video) , with avchd 57-66-74 24pn gop 12 for sure it would have failed the test..but did not fail me once doing green screen, fast pans,low light situation for clips running 5min+ ,not once.. by the way with these settings i was able to get a couple of shoots at iso 1250 that with out the hack would look like crap..


Both of your guys work is very much appreciated. There is no question on that. However, I just think the new chart is overkill for the average user. Most people can use the settings you guys have come up with for 100% of their shooting needs.

I don't see why those average users should step their quality down in order to have the ability to shoot a test pattern that they will never shoot again.

This is just my opinion but I think our time would be better spent trying to optimize 1080p MJPEG. So far I haven't seen any settings that are stable for even the star chart. I would also like to see some proof as to whether it is really scaled 720p or not. Just my opinion though.

I have tested the 1080p settings extensively but I still can't find anything stable. Got any ideas?

mimirsan
07-06-2010, 09:48 AM
would also like to see some proof as to whether it is really scaled 720p or not. Just my opinion though.

Y'know I myself am conviced its not just a upscale...if it is...then its a damn better upscaler in cam than what I use in my editing software.


Anyway kinda back on topic...I set off today using the 400 settings on a gf1 using the 1440x1080 (no 4.2.2) res...had 6 write errors out of 20 shots...I was using my verbatim (which hadn't failed me yet) will try my sandisk next time.

Will be upping a vid on vimeo in a bit

mpgxsvcd
07-06-2010, 10:18 AM
Y'know I myself am conviced its not just a upscale...if it is...then its a damn better upscaler in cam than what I use in my editing software.


Anyway kinda back on topic...I set off today using the 400 settings on a gf1 using the 1440x1080 (no 4.2.2) res...had 6 write errors out of 20 shots...I was using my verbatim (which hadn't failed me yet) will try my sandisk next time.

Will be upping a vid on vimeo in a bit

I am doing a test now to try to confirm whether upscaling in post processing is better than shooting with 1080p.

Since MJPEG actually stores the first frame as a jpg image I can compare those to see if there is any scaling going on.

mimirsan
07-06-2010, 12:21 PM
Be interesting to find out ;-)

PappasArts
07-06-2010, 01:08 PM
Here is the chart with my 1440X1080 settings. I stopped the camera- If I can get decent recording time with the new chart and the star chart- I know that it's closer to being stable. I'd prefer it never fail, however the other point is to see how long we can go until the codec muscle tears- Then we know the settings that held the longest before failure, are the most stable. That's the point for the chart too!

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d94/PappasArts/Picture58.jpg

Link to 1440x1080 MJPEG 70mbits settings: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=213364

MIKOS • MLPappas
http://TWITTER.COM/PAPPASARTS
http://PAPPASARTS.WORDPRESS.COM
http://MIKOSarts.wordpress.com
http://MIKOSarts.wordpress.com/page-2-of-blog
http://MIKOSarts.COM

modulr
07-06-2010, 06:57 PM
I find the charts useful for testing purposes. I used your star chart link + real world shooting in order to settle on Q4 for this thread's settings. The charts provide consistency when trying to dial in the numbers. The new chart would definitely result in nearly bulletproof settings. If you really want hardcore failure protection, you'd simply tune Q3 to the star chart, and tune Q4 to the new chart.

So something like... (based on a quick test where I recorded the new chart at 165 for roughly 30s).. granted it could test longer (so the number might be less), but I'm at work.

Q: [300, 250, 188, 165] / T: [4, 4, 4, 4]

I'd venture to say that the above would qualify as the uber fail safe version in a real world shooting. You'd potentially sacrifice some quality on the simpler scenes in return for it being absolutely bulletproof on the complex stuff. I'd would guess in a complex real world setting it would stay at Q3, unless you run across something hardcore... like a massive life size version of pappas new test grid while strolling the streets... hehe.

sticking with the thread's 400 settings tho... So far, it's been very practical for real world shooting even if it's a bit more on the edge.

regarding the 1440x1080 stuff, I'm pretty sure the Q's will have to be shifted down significantly if your using the 400 settings. Definitely have to explore that... :)

mimirsan
07-07-2010, 01:12 AM
GF1 test video

http://vimeo.com/13134055
No raw vid sorry...had to compress down for vimeo :-(

after comparison
Im currently now using Pappasarts setting with the gh1 (as it has a slightly softer image giving less moire)
and the this threads 400's for gf1 (because the sensor is smaller it benefits from the sharper image as it was a lot softer in distant objects than the gh1 )
Thanks again guys!!

abolit
07-07-2010, 04:22 AM
I was testing Pappas chart yesterday with my GH1 and noticed one strange thing. When at AVCHD ('c' setting FHD mode) I positioned the camera facing the LCD monitor with Pappas' chart and press the record button (creative movie mode 'M' ) the camera stops recording after 2 seconds. If you press record button again it will freeze the camera. It does not happen with AVCHD SD thought, only AVCHD FHD .

I just wonder if anybody else experienced the same issue.

mimirsan
07-07-2010, 04:39 AM
I was testing Pappas chart yesterday with my GH1 and noticed one strange thing. When at AVCHD ('c' setting FHD mode) I positioned the camera facing the LCD monitor with Pappas' chart and press the record button (creative movie mode 'M' ) the camera stops recording after 2 seconds. If you press record button again it will freeze the camera. It does not happen with AVCHD SD thought, only AVCHD FHD .

I just wonder if anybody else experienced the same issue.

Have you got 24/24p native ticked? Causes a lot of probs.

abolit
07-07-2010, 05:04 AM
No, I did not select 24/25p.
What is weird is when I start recording pointing the camera away from the screen and then go back to pappas chart it works fine .

Could anybody of you guys replicate this scenario? (AVCHD FHD, setting 'C', creative movie mode with 'M'. shutter 60)
Open Pappas' chart (the last one, not the star) , focus on it and push record button to see if it starts recording.
In my case it stops right away.

thanks!!!


Have you got 24/24p native ticked? Causes a lot of probs.

modulr
07-07-2010, 08:49 AM
@abolit - Even tho FHD and SH use the same setting, SH is usually recording at a lower bitrate (for complex scenes)... It's likely that chart it too complex for FHD.

@mimirsan - I really dig those super wide shots.. the details off in the distance. Makes me want a GF1 to tote around 24/7.

PappasArts
07-07-2010, 02:16 PM
What is weird is when I start recording pointing the camera away from the screen and then go back to pappas chart it works fine .

I can confirm this weirdness- I've seen this happen too. Also- cover the lens with your hand etc, and slowly reveal the chart, and it will record for a short while before error.

If recording is started with chart exposed- no covering- error right out the gate. This was in 24PN research though. Still the same thing.

There must be some kind of codec bit rate analyzer that checks the image before recording, just a guess

MIKOS • MLPappas
http://TWITTER.COM/PAPPASARTS
http://PAPPASARTS.WORDPRESS.COM
http://MIKOSarts.wordpress.com
http://MIKOSarts.wordpress.com/page-2-of-blog
http://MIKOSarts.COM

abolit
07-07-2010, 06:12 PM
Thanks Pappas!
Thought somethings was wrong with my camera.



I can confirm this weirdness- I've seen this happen too. Also- cover the lens with your hand etc, and slowly reveal the chart, and it will record for a short while before error.

If recording is started with chart exposed- no covering- error right out the gate. This was in 24PN research though. Still the same thing.

There must be some kind of codec bit rate analyzer that checks the image before recording, just a guess

Pappas

mimirsan
07-08-2010, 03:34 AM
@abolit - Even tho FHD and SH use the same setting, SH is usually recording at a lower bitrate (for complex scenes)... It's likely that chart it too complex for FHD.

@mimirsan - I really dig those super wide shots.. the details off in the distance. Makes me want a GF1 to tote around 24/7.

Yeah distant detail has vastly improved...no a patch on the gh1s but superb for a camera that you can pick up so cheap now

mpgxsvcd
07-08-2010, 06:35 AM
Here is an indoor video I shot of my son climbing last night. I used the settings from the first post and I enabled 4:2:2 color. I think the quality of the footage was outstanding considering how poor the lighting is in there. I had trouble with holding the camera steady on this shot. Sorry about that. There is also a youtube clip below that shows Hacked MJPEG clips and AVC-HD clips together. The 720p AVC-HD is good but it really just can't hold upto the 100 mb/sec MJPEG right now.

http://vimeo.com/13170628

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lT1UweeWVSQ

abolit
07-08-2010, 06:44 AM
So what was your setting?
From what you wrote it's clear that you were using 4:2:2.
How about Q/T settings?

Off topic: Was anybody securing your son climbing that high? I can't see any guys down there.



Here is an indoor video I shot of my son climbing last night. I used the settings from the first post and I enabled 4:2:2 color. I think the quality of the footage was outstanding considering how poor the lighting is in there. I had trouble with holding the camera steady on this shot. Sorry about that. There is also a youtube clip below that shows Hacked MJPEG clips and AVC-HD clips together. The 720p AVC-HD is good but it really just can't hold upto the 100 mb/sec MJPEG right now.

http://vimeo.com/13170628

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lT1UweeWVSQ

abolit
07-08-2010, 07:04 AM
Another thing I've noticed running MJPEG clip on VLC player (mac) with 400,300,250,188 setting .

VLC > Window>Media Info> Statistics> this screen shows dropping frames which was greater than zero. I'm not sure if it means something problematic but I didn't see any dropping frames playing back AVCHD 1080.

Any ideas?

Martin Koch
07-08-2010, 07:23 AM
Another thing I've noticed running MJPEG clip on VLC player (mac) with 400,300,250,188 setting . Any ideas?

I can't confirm that. Just tried it with a longer clip and zero lost frames. Current computers lough when asked to playback MJPEG and so should yours. :cheesy:

Thanks for mentioning the VLC player. I just saw that it gives a live display of the bitrate not just the average like the QuickTime player.

abolit
07-08-2010, 08:05 AM
Thanks Martin,
I'll give it another shot to see what happens.

mpgxsvcd
07-08-2010, 09:18 AM
So what was your setting?
From what you wrote it's clear that you were using 4:2:2.
How about Q/T settings?

Off topic: Was anybody securing your son climbing that high? I can't see any guys down there.

I used the following MJPEG settings
Q1=400, T1 = 4
Q2=300, T2 = 4
Q3=250, T3 = 4
Q4=188, T3 = 4

I know it looks high but it is actually about 12 feet to the top out. He has an 8 inch thick gymnastics pad under him and a spring loaded floor under that. As long as the climber knows how to fall properly, which my son does, the climber can jump from those heights without injury.

Bouldering like this is actually a lot of fun and can be done safely if properly trained.

svecher
07-08-2010, 09:23 AM
The 720p AVC-HD is good but it really just can't hold upto the 100 mb/sec MJPEG right now.

Why is that?

Adventsam
07-08-2010, 09:30 AM
I hope?

mpgxsvcd
07-08-2010, 10:20 AM
Why is that?

Well I would say that the 100 mb/sec MJPEG 720p is better than any other form of 720p. Even the 720p @ 60 FPS on the GH1.

Now, I am not saying that the MJPEG 720p is better than the GH1 1080p AVC-HD. There is a clear difference in favor of the 1080p in that case.

Does anyone prefer 720p AVC-HD over ultra high bit rate 4:2:2 MJPEG?

Nitsuj
07-08-2010, 11:04 AM
I can confirm this weirdness- I've seen this happen too. Also- cover the lens with your hand etc, and slowly reveal the chart, and it will record for a short while before error.

If recording is started with chart exposed- no covering- error right out the gate. This was in 24PN research though. Still the same thing.

There must be some kind of codec bit rate analyzer that checks the image before recording, just a guess

Pappas

Very interesting.

abolit
07-08-2010, 11:23 AM
Pappas,

Only 38/40/42 AVCHD setting can survive your chart right from the start (without "vision adjustment ").
I guess that's why some guys here are experiencing live recording interruption after the MTS file reaches the length of 4gb (I'm not sure how it works. I guess it should start a new file automatically)

It seems the camera's having hard time starting a new file due to some unknown processes (checking focus, codec, etc)




I can confirm this weirdness- I've seen this happen too. Also- cover the lens with your hand etc, and slowly reveal the chart, and it will record for a short while before error.

If recording is started with chart exposed- no covering- error right out the gate. This was in 24PN research though. Still the same thing.

There must be some kind of codec bit rate analyzer that checks the image before recording, just a guess

Pappas

svecher
07-08-2010, 11:37 AM
Well I would say that the 100 mb/sec MJPEG 720p is better than any other form of 720p. Even the 720p @ 60 FPS on the GH1.

Now, I am not saying that the MJPEG 720p is better than the GH1 1080p AVC-HD. There is a clear difference in favor of the 1080p in that case.

Does anyone prefer 720p AVC-HD over ultra high bit rate 4:2:2 MJPEG?
I guess what I'm getting at: is what's your definition of "better?" MJPEG 720p is 30 fps vs AVCHD's 60 fps, so these are quite different beasts.

noirist
07-12-2010, 05:54 AM
modulr - was wondering if your approach could be generalized as follows...

1. For each quality level L=1,2,3,4 define a reference frame with L=1 being the lowest detail (eg., headshot) and L=4 being the highest detail (as you have done). L=2 might be an indoor still life and L=3 might be an outdoor scene with modest detail.

2. Find the maximum value of Q4 that will safely encode all highest detail scenes (as you have done). Set Q1=Q2=Q3=Q4, shoot the highest detail L=4 scene and gradually increase Q4 until it breaks on your card and then back off.

3. Find the value of Q3 that maximizes the quality factor for the L=3 scene (or indeed any constant mixture of scenes). Set Q1=Q2=Q3, shoot the medium high detail L=3 scene (or any known mixture of scenes), and adjust Q3 to maximize the number of frames at 100% quality. Now you know Q3 and Q4.

4. Repeat for Q1-Q2 on medium detail scene and then Q1 alone for low detail scene.

Following this approach, it should be possible to optimize the four MJPEG quality settings for the card you're using and for the specific scenes that you're shooting. All you need to achieve the optimal values is a repeatable sequence of images with a representative distribution of image detail.

mpgxsvcd
07-12-2010, 07:38 AM
I guess what I'm getting at: is what's your definition of "better?" MJPEG 720p is 30 fps vs AVCHD's 60 fps, so these are quite different beasts.

Since there isnít really a great way to share 720p @ 60 FPS right now I canít realize any of the benefits of the increased frame rate.

Right now, I would rather have higher bits per frame than a higher frame rate. 1080p @ 24 FPS is sounding better and better to me every day. I just wish my GF1 could shoot that so I wouldnít have to buy a GH1 body or a GH2 when it comes out.

svecher
07-12-2010, 09:53 AM
Since there isnít really a great way to share 720p @ 60 FPS right now I canít realize any of the benefits of the increased frame rate.

Motion looks very different at 60 fps than it does at 30 fps. Personally I would not "compromise" footage where such differences are critical, like action. Some things change -- Youtube now offers resolutions higher than 1080, but some things don't -- once you shoot something more often than not you can't go back and have another go at it.

modulr
07-12-2010, 10:24 AM
modulr - was wondering if your approach could be generalized as follows...

1. For each quality level L=1,2,3,4 define a reference frame with L=1 being the lowest detail (eg., headshot) and L=4 being the highest detail (as you have done). L=2 might be an indoor still life and L=3 might be an outdoor scene with modest detail.

2. Find the maximum value of Q4 that will safely encode all highest detail scenes (as you have done). Set Q1=Q2=Q3=Q4, shoot the highest detail L=4 scene and gradually increase Q4 until it breaks on your card and then back off.

3. Find the value of Q3 that maximizes the quality factor for the L=3 scene (or indeed any constant mixture of scenes). Set Q1=Q2=Q3, shoot the medium high detail L=3 scene (or any known mixture of scenes), and adjust Q3 to maximize the number of frames at 100% quality. Now you know Q3 and Q4.

4. Repeat for Q1-Q2 on medium detail scene and then Q1 alone for low detail scene.

Following this approach, it should be possible to optimize the four MJPEG quality settings for the card you're using and for the specific scenes that you're shooting. All you need to achieve the optimal values is a repeatable sequence of images with a representative distribution of image detail.

You pretty much nailed it. I stops you from just throwing numbers in there, and just hoping it's better. By determining your max load with Q4 for your most complex scene, one can easily scale the quality factor upward for scenes that are less intensive. :) It can easily be adapted to any class card. I just happen to only have class 10s.

modulr
07-12-2010, 10:37 AM
Motion looks very different at 60 fps than it does at 30 fps. Personally I would not "compromise" footage where such differences are critical, like action. Some things change -- Youtube now offers resolutions higher than 1080, but some things don't -- once you shoot something more often than not you can't go back and have another go at it.

imho you are kinda over thinking this. MJPEG is a tool... it's just another option, and this one in particular yields very high quality results. There is absolutely nothing wrong with shooting 30fps.

Not to mention, the MJPEG codec is capable of very cool time lapse, when you set the framerate to something like 2fps with the ptool, record some stuff with an very slow shutter, then jump in dumpster (osx) and change the frame rate in the header to 24 or 30fps. Instant time lapse with no rendering.

Martin Koch
07-12-2010, 11:45 AM
Not to mention, the MJPEG codec is capable of very cool time lapse, when you set the framerate to something like 2fps with the ptool, record some stuff with an very slow shutter, then jump in dumpster (osx) and change the frame rate in the header to 24 or 30fps. Instant time lapse with no rendering.

This is a very cool trick. I didn't dare to change the frame rate so far but this is quite useful! Thanks.
How slow of shutter speed are you talking here?

modulr
07-12-2010, 12:55 PM
It'll go down to 1/2. Can get about 40m recording @ 2fps per 2GB with the thread settings. Interesting stuff indeed... heh.

svecher
07-12-2010, 02:55 PM
imho you are kinda over thinking this. MJPEG is a tool... it's just another option, and this one in particular yields very high quality results. There is absolutely nothing wrong with shooting 30fps.

Perhaps you are right on the over-thinking part. I believe in using the right tool for the right job :thumbsup: Which requires thorough understanding of both requirements of the job and the tool itself. By the way, I was reminded in another thread of something that pertains to this discussion. Since GF1 is not capable of shooting at 60 fps natively, those benefits I mentioned only pertain to GH1.

reggietelly
07-19-2010, 05:16 AM
I have a PAL GH1 and it still shoots 30fps MJPG 1280 x 720. Is there a way to use these settings with 25 fps reliably. I have read that changed MJPG framerate is a no-no.

best

Richard

modulr
07-19-2010, 08:31 AM
There isn't much you can do. Once you lower the mjpeg framerate it starts droping frames, unfortunately. We'll all just have to cross our fingers that a 24P/25P solution lies in the future as the hack evolves.

reggietelly
07-22-2010, 04:32 AM
imho you are kinda over thinking this. MJPEG is a tool... it's just another option, and this one in particular yields very high quality results. There is absolutely nothing wrong with shooting 30fps.

Not to mention, the MJPEG codec is capable of very cool time lapse, when you set the framerate to something like 2fps with the ptool, record some stuff with an very slow shutter, then jump in dumpster (osx) and change the frame rate in the header to 24 or 30fps. Instant time lapse with no rendering.

This is really cool. How do you do this. I thought you said changing the frame rate drops frames. Does this produce a smooth timelapse. If so this sounds like a brilliant solution. Which check box do you have to change? I don't ave Ptool on this computer so don't know which button I'd use.

yabyum
08-26-2010, 04:03 AM
I just loaded mpgxsvcd modulr settings 422 MJPEG high quality (http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showpost.php?p=2038629&postcount=4) settings and they work great on my GH1 so far. Thanks modulr and mpgxsvcd!

Here's a sample screen grab from a test movie I shot. Smooth settings all -2

http://imgur.com/AGJ9P.jpg

rigs
08-28-2010, 05:03 AM
Not to mention, the MJPEG codec is capable of very cool time lapse, when you set the framerate to something like 2fps with the ptool, record some stuff with an very slow shutter, then jump in dumpster (osx) and change the frame rate in the header to 24 or 30fps. Instant time lapse with no rendering.[/quote]


Thats sounds cool. Have you had any luck recording timelapse this way. It sounds like a neat option.

abasfly
08-28-2010, 11:04 AM
as I understand la latest version of ptool doesnīt have this option because it was buggy. It was intended to do 24/25p on mjpeg.
would be cool as a new option focus as timelapse

tonpole
08-28-2010, 01:09 PM
How is shooting pappas chart on your monitor in anyway a reflection of shooting conditions? If you printed the chart out and shot that maybe it would be an extreme of what you might encounter in the field, but shooting directly into a light source isnt reflective of any situation.

rigs
08-29-2010, 06:17 AM
I was able to set this up in the version of ptools I'm running. Recorded 3x 10 minute timelapse and It works pretty good @1920x1080 - 2fps - 422 70Mbps - 94 Mbps. I will post some links to footage once I upload them to vimeo.20234

abasfly
08-29-2010, 11:30 AM
yeah nice, I would go back to that old version of ptool the problem is that I loose video manual mode on my gf1. Maybe Vitally could put it back on the new ptool as a timelapse option.
for me mjpeg has more sense as timelapse, at least in pal world.

cheul
09-01-2010, 09:52 AM
Interested in this time lapse option as well.

Axthor
09-01-2010, 11:05 AM
My wish list...

What would be interesting with the 2FPS MJPG would be the ability to allow shutter speeds longer than 1/30, perhaps as long as 1/2 second for 2FPS. This would be great for night star shots with perhaps the occasional satellite or meteorite path caught. Perhaps I've missed a setting but the longest shutter time I can see for MJPG is 1/30 second.

Another nice option with time lapse MJPG would be the ability to disable audio capture which would shrink the captured file size a bit.

tonpole
09-01-2010, 03:07 PM
Just get an intervolameter instead of requesting a featureless feature.

Axthor
09-01-2010, 03:42 PM
Hello tonpole

One advantage of time lapse via video - no shutter wear and tear and quieter as in no noise.

reggietelly
09-01-2010, 11:17 PM
Managed to get the error write to card problem with these settings

Q1=400, T1 = 4
Q2=300, T2 = 4
Q3=250, T3 = 4
Q4=188, T3 = 4

Have to say it's a gorgeous looking image at these settings and for a while in daylight I haven't had a problem. I have shot inside too but no lock ups. If you then colour grade in Color say the image has a lot to play with. It's excellent.

However today I was in a store getting the sensor for the camera cleaned and squirted off a little hi res MJPG footage to test. It locked up after 3 seconds or so. Didn't think too much of it. But I tried it on the train on the way home and the same thing happened. In both instances I noticed flickering flourescent light. This was the only thing that I can think of that would cause this issue. Shooting with the 20mm pancake pretty wide open 2.0 at 60 shutter.

all the best

Richard

garhodes
09-04-2010, 09:56 AM
I was shooting those mjpeg settings at a media exposition, and I did notice that projections would make it fail sometimes-- I don't know if it was the flickering or the contrast. I've found shooting off a television or projection is a good test of a codec-- maybe that's related to what you noticed with fluorescents?

coskun
03-28-2011, 09:06 AM
thsese settings are amazing and make the video out of my 1D mk4 look like SD footage off a cheap video camera

meinyvr
03-31-2011, 08:37 PM
is it possible to set up these settings as an ini file to download for the tech noobs among us?

:)

huatao
05-14-2011, 08:15 PM
A quick question, is the GH2 able to produce something like this in its MJPEG mode?

A sharp MJPEG recording with 4:2:2 is what I need for work.

Of course the GH2's bitrate is lower, but it's got better hardware and better codec etc, and it has B frame. And of course the GH2 has no 4:2:2 yet.

But if the GH2 (currently unhacked) is sharper than GH13 with "100% Quality Factor MJpeg Settings", I'll place an order for a GH2 again.

Lpowell
05-14-2011, 09:03 PM
A quick question, is the GH2 able to produce something like this in its MJPEG mode?
No, the quality of the GH2's MJPEG mode appears to be no better than that of an unhacked GH1, which is limited to 4:2:0 color depth.

dam
03-25-2012, 07:44 AM
Hello,
I really studied the hack and settings topics before diving into practice.
I first bought a panasonic gold class 10 sd card, and tried the 3gop LPowell hack with my GF-1. It's a very nice reliable hack but doesn't allow in-camera playing even with "low" bitrates of 55mb/s. so let's go faster...
Then, I tried the max latitude patch. Way better in any situations. hmmm hmm
then I decided to implement the modular settings in the max latitude patch and I am still stunned! Even with 4:2:2

For sure it's impossible to play the videos in the camera but the LPowell 55mbs doesn't play it too.
I tried it with 50 different videos outdoor low light outdoor bright sunlight, indoor lo light, indoor with powerful lighting.
I must say I never had a crash with those 400 / 4 settings 4:2:2. It's wonderful.

average bitrate from vlc MJPEG stats is 100mb/s and peak are 118mb/s that crazy.

thanks a lot Modular for those awesome settings.

I use pal settings with my GF-1.
I thought it offered 25fps but according to vlc codec stats it's 30fps.
Anyone know the real FPS rate with this camera and those settings?
>> edit: 25 fps in AVCHD & 30fps in MJPEG

thanks in advance for your answer, because I don't Know If I have to shoot 1/50 speed or 1/60 now...:undecided
>>> edt: 1/50 in AVCHD and 1/60 in MJPEG

ipanaya
03-26-2012, 12:06 AM
@modulr - can I use Lpowell's Peak Performance Patch to enter your settings ? So I could have both Avchd and Mjpeg optimum settings.

huatao
04-19-2012, 09:39 PM
Hi,

Just want to say that this setting survives new_codec_tests_chart_PAPPASARTS.jpg on a GH1 (managed to shoot the image at fullscren on my laptop, covering 100% of camera view, for over 1 minute with lots of camera movements). However if I change the width to 1440, it doesn't.

Card is sandisk 95M / Sec