Some amateur conclusions

P

Petanque

Active member
Took a few cards out to the park today (cloud-free skies, leaves of all colours everywhere) and tested out some of lpowell's settings:
-Anamorphic MJPEG 1920x810 (no anamorphic adapter, squeezed back to 1080 in post):
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?225252-Anamorphic-Cinemascope-in-Native-1920x810-MJPEG-Mode
-AVCHD Fast action patch (using the FHD and MJPEG HD settings, and then FHD 24pN ticked): http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?222791-50Mbps-AVCHD-Fast-Action-3-Frame-GOP-Patch

My main goal was to figure out if I prefer the MJPEG settings to the AVCHD.

For me, all the footage is comparable (amazing), with only a couple noticeable differences. BTW, ticking the 24pN in AVCHD resulted exactly as warned: Frozen camera on detailed static shots.

To my eye, the MJPEG footage (from the fast action patch, with 420-422 colour sampling checked) has much truer colour. Perhaps this is obvious to experts, but even to an untrained eye, it is more pleasing.

The MJPEG footage from the anamorphic setting also has more pleasing colour for me than the AVCHD.

The difference between 30fps and 24fps (after pulldown) is sadly quite noticeable. Again, this may be obvious to experts, but I was surprised to find out how different the feeling actually is.

I see no mud anywhere.

But... in AVCHD mode, I have jello frequently. I was shooting handheld with a long lens at 1/30 (I prefer this look, 180 degree rule be damned), so this is probably the worst possible setting for jello, but in MJPEG (either setting), I have none. I shot the same thing with each setting and the difference is striking.

For me, a non professional who likes to shoot hand-held narrative stuff, searching for the cleanest, most natural image, I've settled on the anamorphic MJPEG settings. Full HD with beautiful colour (even though I'd love to see how the 420-422 colour patch applied to this will look), and absolutely no digital camera-ness: A pristine image.
 
kprince said:
What anamorphic lens are you using?
Click to expand...

Don't have one, as explained by lpowell in that thread, you can shoot in 1920x810, utilizing the full width, then stretch vertically in post. Voilà: full HD MJPEG, almost no loss in the stretch.
 
Petanque said:
I've settled on the anamorphic MJPEG settings. Full HD with beautiful colour (even though I'd love to see how the 420-422 colour patch applied to this will look), and absolutely no digital camera-ness: A pristine image.
Click to expand...
Glad to hear you're pleased with the results of shooting with normal lenses in 1920x810 anamorphic mode, and upsampling video height to 1080 in post. I wasn't sure whether this would produce sharp images in practice, since Panasonic's video scaling algorithms are still a trade secret. I'm also curious whether you found 30p or 24p more to your liking. I personally can't stand the look of 24p telecined into 60i and would gladly take 30p instead.

The MJPEG 422 color depth issue may turn out to be problematic for a 1920-wide video frame. 422 packs twice as much chroma data as 420 into each horizontal slice of video. This appears to put enough extra data processing strain on the MJPEG encoder that with a 60Mbps bitrate, I saw it occasionally produce SD card maximum write speed errors. I suspect that if I do find stable settings for a 1920x810 mode with 422 color, it will not be able to match the bitrate of the 60Mbps MJPEG patch.
 
lpowell said:
... I'm also curious whether you found 30p or 24p more to your liking. I personally can't stand the look of 24p telecined into 60i and would gladly take 30p instead.

... I suspect that if I do find stable settings for a 1920x810 mode with 422 color, it will not be able to match the bitrate of the 60Mbps MJPEG patch...
Click to expand...

I preferred the 24pN to the 60i-24p, for me, there's something jumpy in the cadence of it. My preference: 24pN, 30p, 60i-24p, in that order. The ultimate ultimate patch for me would be 24pN in MJPEG, 422 colour, with a 4:3 sensor setting to produce an in camera anamorphic effect with no adapter.

I'd love to find a compromise with the 422 colour and bitrate. The difference in human skin is really noticeable.
 
It looks like human skin. :) I wish I knew more about colour sampling to describe it better, but the look of it is just more natural to my eyes.
 
footage please?

footage please?

Petanque said:
Don't have one, as explained by lpowell in that thread, you can shoot in 1920x810, utilizing the full width, then stretch vertically in post. Voilà: full HD MJPEG, almost no loss in the stretch.
Click to expand...

Very interesting stuff this... Amazing the tricks that LPowell comes up with...(chapeau, M'sieur)

But I still cannot find any posted video footage - not stills - using method of expanding the pixel ratio in post.

Anybody?
 
ninetto said:
Very interesting stuff this... Amazing the tricks that LPowell comes up with...(chapeau, M'sieur)

But I still cannot find any posted video footage - not stills - using method of expanding the pixel ratio in post.

Anybody?
Click to expand...

Easiest, fastest way (there are better in AE and, I would imagine, Compressor): In FCP, bring your clip into the viewer window, click to the motion tab, you'll see the dimensions of your clip. Horizontally, you'll see each corner represented as 405 or -405. Simply pull each corner to 540, or -540, and you'll be looking at 1920x1080 footage. I'm sure someone can offer a method that produces even better results, but this is already pretty good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top