GH2 RAW 4.2.2 HD Out?

stip said:
Yes, and he gets stroppy very fast if people comment critically. I think he once was a dvxuser member and got banned - I might be wrong though.
Click to expand...
Yes. There have been some head buttings in the past but nothing important. Let him out of this discussion please. He is not here, he can not defend himself. No ad hominem arguments, we are here for getting information about a camera. Not for discussing people :-)
 
Last edited:
svecher said:
Yes, very premonitory that thread was. By the way, fresh of the digital press, pg. 159 of one of the UK manual (links posted by Peter in another thread).

View attachment 25942

Clean HDMI out at 24P!!! So looks like you were right (again) :)
Click to expand...
:-) That was more than premonitory. That was what I could know coming from Panasonic España, since then for all Iberian Peninsula now, Portugal included. If I am not wrong, information posted in first hand @ dvxuser. So fresh than it was confounded by another rumor for one or another poster (I didn't like it at all ;-) LOL
 
Last edited:
Sage said:
Ok, that looks like a win.
Are we sure its 422?
Click to expand...
Very likely. Only the bits ratio ;-) is yet to guess.

EDIT -- Well, in that 'guess department', before anyone may have tested what really that means, it does seem a lot (not only, but a lot) is yet to guess :-)
 
Last edited:
philiplipetz said:
And what value is a clean HDMI stream if, as Panasonic is quoted as saying, every seventeenth frame is dropped?
Click to expand...
The dropped frame problem IIRC was one frame dropped every 17 seconds in 60i mode, so that's one frame out of every 1,020. While the greasy NTSC hands have corrupted the wholesome Hollywood "24 FPS" as well it remains to be seen what effect will 23.976 NTSC standard will have on 24p footage. In fact, thinking about this further that second-hand account of "Panasonic being quoted" doesn't make much sense. If an AVCHD file (and we've seen plenty at this point) do not exhibit this problem then why would the HDMI signal? So far it is only one person reporting on Phillip Bloom's blog without any footage to show. Let's talk about the problem when we see it, ok?
 
Sage said:
Ok, that looks like a win.
Are we sure its 422?
Click to expand...
I can't see how anybody could be sure of that yet. The HDMI signal is 4:2:2, but it could be 4:2:0 padded into 4:2:2, just like 8 bits padded into 10.

Somebody is going to have to test it with a nano at 50mbps+ to see what it's really outputting, and compare that against the AVCHD-recorded footage. Ideally they should get something square and red, and lay it diagonally across something square and blue, so we can see how it renders the red against the blue; that'll let you know whether it's 4:2:0 or 4:2:2.
 
Absolutely, you are correct, and My memory failed me. Thanks for the correction.
svecher said:
The dropped frame problem IIRC was one frame dropped every 17 seconds in 60i mode, so that's one frame out of every 1,020. While the greasy NTSC hands have corrupted the wholesome Hollywood "24 FPS" as well it remains to be seen what effect will 23.976 NTSC standard will have on 24p footage. In fact, thinking about this further that second-hand account of "Panasonic being quoted" doesn't make much sense. If an AVCHD file (and we've seen plenty at this point) do not exhibit this problem then why would the HDMI signal? So far it is only one person reporting on Phillip Bloom's blog without any footage to show. Let's talk about the problem when we see it, ok?
Click to expand...
 
Barry_Green said:
I can't see how anybody could be sure of that yet. The HDMI signal is 4:2:2, but it could be 4:2:0 padded into 4:2:2, just like 8 bits padded into 10.

Somebody is going to have to test it with a nano at 50mbps+ to see what it's really outputting, and compare that against the AVCHD-recorded footage. Ideally they should get something square and red, and lay it diagonally across something square and blue, so we can see how it renders the red against the blue; that'll let you know whether it's 4:2:0 or 4:2:2.
Click to expand...
Well said. We know nothing :-) Let's only be optimistic. Shame nobody had properly tested yet. Your exhaustive tests are missed now.
 
can someone tell me, if it is really one dropped for every thousand, will that audibly introduce sound track artifacts?

svecher said:
The dropped frame problem IIRC was one frame dropped every 17 seconds in 60i mode, so that's one frame out of every 1,020. While the greasy NTSC hands have corrupted the wholesome Hollywood "24 FPS" as well it remains to be seen what effect will 23.976 NTSC standard will have on 24p footage. In fact, thinking about this further that second-hand account of "Panasonic being quoted" doesn't make much sense. If an AVCHD file (and we've seen plenty at this point) do not exhibit this problem then why would the HDMI signal? So far it is only one person reporting on Phillip Bloom's blog without any footage to show. Let's talk about the problem when we see it, ok?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Barry_Green said:
I'd love to test it, but I don't have a GH2. I'm still limping along with a GH1...
Click to expand...
LOL We are oddly all like you this time. Except Philip and Hunter though. So let's only hope they won't forget what we are all waiting for, in a definitive form. This waiting has been an unnecessary consumption of bandwidth ;-)
 
Emanuel said:
LOL We are oddly all like you this time. Except Philip and Hunter though.
Click to expand...
Philip bought a Japanese GH2. I asked him why he didn't just wait a couple of weeks, and ... I don't think it was possible for him to wait! But I'd rather wait a few weeks and get the English version.
 
lpowell said:
Back on topic, with respect to the original link to EOSHD's "RAW, 4-2-2 HD-out" article. I commented on the article, taking EOSHD to task fpr headlining the original reviewer's misinformed use of the term "RAW" in referring to the GH2's HDMI output. My post was immediately deleted by EOSHD and the article has not been corrected. This is not the first time I've seen EOSHD refuse to acknowledge mistakes and make corrections when their misleading and inaccurate claims have been pointed out. However, when a site actually deletes posts that point out factual errors, it leads me to conclude that the bullshit is intentional.
Click to expand...
BTW, the article has now been corrected (but your comment not restored).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top