GH2 Apocalypse Now 4:4:4 90 mbps hack VS Quantum X SpanMyBitchup 100 mbps hack

[rc444]

I wanted to know if anyone has used either Apocalypse Now 4:4:4 90 mbps hack, or Orlando Gondar's Quantum X SpanMyBitchup 100 mbps hack (available from www.osgfilms.com).

I first used SpanMyBitch up from osgfilms.com, as I was following the instructions for the hack from that site and thought I'd give SpanMyBitchup a go.

I haven't found SpanMyBitchup to be a problem at all, it works fine on my camera. A couple months later, I tried the Apocalypse Now 4:4:4 90 mbps hack, and honestly could not see a difference between the two.

Interesting to see which hack people would recommend out of these two? Heard Apocalypse Now was one of the last hacks ever for the GH2, but haven't noticed much difference between the first hack I used. Both are fine and both look the same. Maybe I'm missing something...

Thanks,
rc444

 

[TheDingo]

I stopped switching patches once I started using Lee Powell's FlowMotion ver 2.02 last summer ( this patch does everything I want and has been 100 percent reliable ), but Driftwood is still cooking up new patches, his latest stable patch is Cluster X: Series 2 Moon T5 ( T6 is still experimental )

Driftwood Cluster X: Series 2

 

[omnikron]

I stopped switching patches once I started using Lee Powell's FlowMotion ver 2.02 last summer ( this patch does everything I want and has been 100 percent reliable ), but Driftwood is still cooking up new patches, his latest stable patch is Cluster X: Series 2 Moon T5 ( T6 is still experimental )

Driftwood Cluster X: Series 2

+1

 

[Fresno Bob]

I'm using Moon 5 as it does seem to cope marginally better with grading than Flowmotion or Sanity - the two best 'workhorse' patches for me.

Bu only because I'm doing narrative stuff at the moment. If I was doing interviews I'd be back onto Sanity.

To be honest, the difference between all these higher bit rate patches is negligible.

 

[Jim Simon]

I used the Apocalypse Now DREWnet 444 soft patch for several months. I went looking back at some of that footage yesterday, and still find it to be an outstanding, artifact free image, even under very difficult conditions. And that's really the test you need to perform. You need to shoot something that would normally cause the image to break up, you need something that's really going to push the encoder to it's limits to see if it can handle it or will it falter. I like to use water, either kids splashing around in the pool, or a stream with a couple of small 'waterfalls'.