Axel

@bbb Looks good. Allow a few suggestions for further tests. You did'nt "stress the codec" with this barely shivering leaves. Any DSLR would look as good with them. The organic form and colour are very forgiving and no problem for even the lousiest processing. Next time focus on the stone behind the ficus, it's fine sandy structure, then pan left and right. Does it look like natural motion blur or like porridge swashing around? Let the green be completely blurred to see how the compression treats the soft gradients in motion. Does the bokeh show any banding artifacts? You'd see that very well against a brighter, very sharp background. To compare crop mode vs. full mode, rather change position instead of focal length and aperture. Plan a worst case scenario. Every camera has it's weaknesses. The sooner they are identified, the better they are avoided in future. By avoiding them during tests you gain nothing.

It is not the fault of the camera, but the motifs we see right now and the motifs in the next few generations' test- and democlips will all show uncinematic, lifeless surfaces. Why do all these 4k & 8k enthusiasts not clean their window panes instead? Lay a pillow before it? Or get themselves a 60" fish tank? There is nothing wrong with good resolution, but they don't seem to see the wood for the trees. Why does nobody show a bicycle thief and how he is being followed by the owner in a parkour-style chase? Not glossy enough for 4k? The same is apparent with 1080 50/60p. Smoother, cleaner look? Sure. Good motion resolution? You bet. Why not 1000 fps to smooth the rest of life out of the video? Stop time (the motion looks more realistic, but very rarely moves something in those clips). Again, no one forces the high-framerate-fans to do this, it must be some kind of disease. Or nobody explained to them the difference between photo and video. [img]http://assets.flavorwire.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/lynch.jpg[/img] (Cartoon by David Lynch)

I must correct myself: The difference between the two versions is ~ 300 € only. [quote author=Andrew Reid - EOSHD link=topic=484.msg3134#msg3134 date=1332943565]The problem seems to be limited to very fine horizontal striped patterns rather than all fine detail.[/quote] You are talking about noticeable moire and when it shows. But moire means poor resolution, whether one sees it or not. The commonness of moire [u]OR[/u] the extent to which it is visible are indicators of how much of the seemingly good resolution is aliasing. And a softening filter? Helps against moire. Doesn't enhance resolution. EDIT: On the other hand, who says the videographer didn't dial up sharpness to plus nine (or whatever)? With that, you'd get a free acid trip with almost every camera, in this situation. Doesn't prove anything (perhaps the filmmaker now buys a softening-filter to fight the sharpening and sharpens the mud in post). On the other hand, don't you find a lot of Nikon videos in the net are a little too sharp? Yesterdays unfavorable comparison of the 5D M III against the 800D now must be seen in a different light. On YouTube or Vimeo, one can easily confuse sharpness and resolution. If people look so sharp you almost hear them sizzle, they might not survive serious grading.

[quote author=jindrich link=topic=484.msg3131#msg3131 date=1332942084]Nikon video isn't free of aliasing or moire, but it's very very tiny and appears quite rarily. That's on 1080p. Nikon's 720p video is terrible, quite useless, unfortunately.[/quote] There is an anti-aliasing-filter built-in, but it can be put out (+ 900 bucks, price of a GH2 standard kit), if anybody likes to use 36 MP indeed  ;) I hope this test was with the filter removed. [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZeM9ofnm4I#ws]Nikon D800 - Of Bricks and Crazy Colored Moire[/url]

ND-filter(s). You might buy two. Vari-NDs (two pol-filters rotated to dim steplessly) are easy to use, but for quality reasons the normal NDs are better. [u]If[/u] you buy a Vari-ND, you better buy a bigger one than your usual filter thread and adapt it with a step up ring (or is it step down?), because of vignetting. There is another reason to use ND-filters than shallow DoF. Most lenses do not perform well when closed too much. The danger of chromatic aberrations rises (coloured outlines on sharp edges, often green or purple).

Andrews pans are incredible. There are two pans in[i] Darkness Seeker[/i] that really took my breath. One thing is a good fluid head (I recommend Ace), another the abilty to steer it. But what is the most important aspect is the understanding of a pan-orama. Why you use it, how fast you may pan. That pans don't exist in natural seeing (try to pan with your head: Impossible. If, i.e. after an eye operation, the scan-moves of yor eyeballs are stopped, then you [i]can[/i] pan, but there'd be so much vertical-line-juddering, that you'd vomit soon).

[quote author=Per Lichtman link=topic=469.msg3072#msg3072 date=1332872343] @Axel I neglected to ask. What is the reason that you believe that the 5DmkIII i-frame codec is superior? I am always intrigued by codec differences and while the current implementation clearly does not  demonstrate advantages, I would be intrigued by the reasons a hacked version could. [/quote] Not a Canon hack. I hope if Canon implemented a native intra codec, the freed processor power (temporal compression, now gone, is the stressiest thing) was directed to reading out and pre-processing information faster. Bigger mouth that swallowes faster. The GH2 hacks come too late for that, they only affect the digesting process, changing the look of the outcome, blow up the shit (I like the higher bitrates too, they just cannot preserve any more real detail, where from?). Of course all that Canon intra cannot help the spatial detail, called resolution, and it is plain to see that the Mark III, as the Mark II, doesn't reach the GH2. Having seen higher film resolution than 99% of all people will ever see in their life (digital projectionist since 2000), I also find resolution to be the most tragically overestimated video-parameter of the last years. It is all about quantity, not quality. Very sad. So, once you accept the lower resolution ... My friend owns a 5D. He played with it for years and he loves it. He became a typical 5D-filmmaker. He tried to become as good as Shane Hurlbut, while not having the resources. He sold lenses and bought different ones. His skills rose. He likes to portray people, Andrew doesn't seem to. And then watch ten 5D clips on YouTube, randomly. Look all graded beautifully (almost all). Only that they are not graded, they are out-of-the-box (well, almost). That warm glow in the skintones. So Andrews comparison brings not enough evidence to conclude anything ... Maybe you are right, and the intra is not good. I prefer to wait. Both hypes and condemnations are hysterical. EDIT: Meanwhile, the Bloom review showed post-sharpening to subjectively improve the image a lot. One of the improvements an official Canon update could provide is a picture style that does'nt need to be "developed" (for the lazy) . I bet it's just a matter of weeks. Will the resolution reach or surpass that of the GH2? I don't think so, because the EX-Tele-mode in the GH2 is hypothetically pure and real FullHD, no dirty tricks with skipping, shifting, interpolation. The normal mode also was tested as very good. This is grey theory, because the resolution is handicapped by many factors, starting with Iso and internal sharpening, followed by a too unsharp or a too sharp lens, by unperfect focussing, by changing a lot in post, by the viewing device, by the not optimized distance to the display, by your own eyes. Combined, all these handicaps make it not only improbable, but impossible, that more but a few people ever saw a geniune 1080p image in the first place. So everything is subjective. How does it look? Our perception prefers easily recognizable forms in comparison to a chaotic mass of fine detail. That makes a better 5D a possible winner in a future shootout.

@cameraboy With clean HDMI out - not only 1080, but "p", not only without infos superimposed, but 10 bit 422 - with that feature alone, would'nt you agree, that this sounded too good to be true? 422 is needed for broadcast acceptance of hd video. And it is a little better for chroma keying. One wouldn't see a difference to 420, which is why we [i]have[/i] 420. 10bit is another figure. One will see it. Or one would, that is, see it if one could monitor it properly. That our skies are banded and our faces look doughy all comes from 8bit. It is what lets consumer stuff - even the best - be instantly recognizable on a big cinema screen, projected as DCP. The spatial resolution, on the other hand, was 1k in digital cinema only ten years ago. FullHD is almost full 2k. 4k can be seen occasionally, and if you have no direct comparison or if you don't sit in the first four rows, you wouldn't notice. I know. 720p, if that is what the 5D makes, is no problem. Okay, you'd need to abstain from too much long shot detail that stays in focus, but the bigger problem is the aestethic disaster of having not enough tones. If the messenger is kicked into the well ("this is Sparta!") there is no tunnel into infinity with 8bit. There is a black dot. The problem is: Even though the output via HDMI is uncompressed, it is still already processed. And to be 422 10bit, it needs to be processed that way. Now, how are the chances we get "clean HDMI" in a GH3 for 1000 or a Mark IV for 3000?

We've seen it all before. When the 5D came out some three years ago, the videot community criticized no 24p, no audio control. The 5D stayed top choice for VDSLR user until now. Now there still is no full 1080 resolution with the Mark III. Well, go buy the JVC, if you [i]really[/i] believe that the pixel counting madness must be continued. Conspiracy to protect the C300? I don't think so. You see with the Nikon 800D, that photo images and video images may need different approaches. I like to know how many of all the EOS buyers use the video. For this niche Canon tried their best to integrate some features, that have not yet been fully understood. The intra mode will prove to be much better than the I-frame-only-mode of the GH2 hacks. It will become more thoroughly tested and improved by updates. Earphone jack, demanded for years, now ignored. People say, why, this is no reporter cam. Wrong. It is. Few weeks ago, there was a long doc about the last days of the Homs siege, filmed exclusively with the 5D (often with candlelight, no nonsense) with on-board audio only. For example. I'd bet in half a year everybody has calmed down and sees the improvements for what they are. If someone tells you everything is getting better by the minute, not only by incremental steps, he is a quack. The same with the GH3. Before the FW-update, Panasonics PR guy asked the readers in an interview to send a wishlist to the developer team. I was a fresh owner then, I wrote I'd like to have peaking in the viewfinder. Wow, they really answered! They said, yes, they could have the *already existing* peaking in viewfinder and display in a colour, a function that could be assigned to a fn key. They couldn't promise. They didn't. Now that I [i]knew[/i] the peaking to be already working, I could use it better. I think they tested it, saw, that the peaking and the magnifying were sufficient, and so did'nt change it. I don't expect the GH3 to be more than an incremental step further, but I certainly hope the AF 200 (or 102? I don't follow the naming rules) to be much better.

Invest the money you saved for the bogus mattebox for a sexy rig. A rail-based shouldermount actually is easy to install with the REWO, which has it's own riser built in. That is, it rises the EVF from the level of the rails to that of your eye (approximately, you will have to finetune it). Skip the garage-leftovers-occasions and buy s.th. worthy of the Lumix, whose motto could be put "reduce to the maximum". [img]http://www.ikonoskop.com/begood/image_db.php?id=227&w=700&ne=1[/img] Here (from a parallel thread) a [url=http://www.vocas.com/kits/dslr-rig-pro-kit-for-low-model-cameras][u]Vocas[/u][/url] rig. Isn't this form follows function in perfection? Yes, it tis! Unfortunately, it is [i]very[/i] expensive. Or you take the Letus Talon K1, which Andrew recommends in his book.

Does your GH2 also behave normal if you undo the hack? EDIT: In a parallel thread, s.o. solved a "serious issue" by formatting the card. So this is [i]not[/i] a matter of course? With "erase all" a card is not properly swept clean. And particularly with different hacks permanently tested. That conflicts of metadata occur can not be hard to imagine.

@vj1277 Beautiful, touching, cinematic! (triple tautology) Best wishes. BTW: This is what the GH2 is very good for. I bought it last summer because then in seemed the most "bang for the buck", then I saw a 1 h german television show, "Nachtschicht" (nightshift). The GH2 came very close, there only was existing light, people who needed to be incognito'd were simply completely out of focus (Voigtlander of course). The filmmaker used no rig. There is a trailer only on YouTube: [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1SruItfHzY#ws]Was passiert in der Nachtschicht?[/url] This kind of doc is not possible with any bigger equipment.

When there were only 4:3 camcorders, but 16:9 was no longer that exotic, the Century was highly recommended, because it squeezed 1:1,33 to 1:1,77 (16:9) by using "the whole sensor"(buzzword). I rented one for one day, to test it with my old VX 2000, whose [i]widescreen-mode[/i] meant internal cropping, upscaling and writing to the band anamorphotically. But the Century made ghosting, vignetting and didn't work with all focal lengths (via zoom then, of course). The overall image quality was terrible, and I found for myself a manual crop in post to be best. I [i]would[/i] have bought it, really, though it was 1200 € then, if the results were any good (to cite the thread titel), but they weren't. Filming anamorphotically nowadays has become a challenge and is executed with puristic graveness. The results are really beautiful. That said, there is always the way of cropping an extreme wideangle shot in post and mimicking flares and elliptic bokeh with a Cinemorph filter. I have no way of distinguishing, if the use of "the whole sensor" preserves quality, but it may in theory. The factor of 1,33 is the best for storytelling purposes, because Cinemascope (nowadays actually Scope, closer to 1:2,4 but the differences are academic) is the most dynamic AR. It needs to be understood as a combination of proper framing and montage. Long shots change abruptly to close shots that crop the human body/face, the term was (germanism perhaps, I hope it translates) [i]blow up the scope[/i]. It never fails to work. Hollywood uses it and will use it it forever, especially for action films. It is difficult to achieve this effect with the ultrawide ARs. 1:3,55 is almost polyvision (google, historic).

I googled for your mattebox, and it seems to be designed for a rail system, rod support. With just about every such system, you will need to adjust the height exactly. If this item is not included in your rail-rig, you can buy it everywhere, it's no complicated design, so no need for Zacuto or Redrock. It's called a "height riser" or simply "riser". EDIT: Vitaly himself mentiones a riser with "the new version". Perhaps this particular riser doesn't rise high enough. I saw various GH2 setups that buried the camera under a lot of impressive-looking equipment. Obviously you are determined to take this path. The mattebox you want to buy belongs to this category. What makes me wary about the Trust (pardon the pun) primarily is the low price. And then this thing has a "bottom flag". You [i]may[/i] use the top flag quite often, to prevent sunrays from producing reflexes (you'd [i]need[/i] it - in case you have no free hand to extend your usual sunhood). As for the side flags, you could encounter a spaceship flying low or a nasty ball-lightning, all right. If some glaring light emerges from the ground, it's time for [i]The Core[/i]. And then Vitaly says: "Filterholders are for 4x4 filters and the one nearest the lens is stationary while the other one is rotatable. These are in plastic and just as poor as the ones you get with a [b]PROAIM[/b] mattebox. Something better would definitely be holders that comes with shoot35 mattebox. It doesn't rotate to well and is not the smoothest to take in or out." It is ballast. After one or two days of carrying the junk around you'll be annoyed (but richer in experience). Generally it makes no sense to buy a cheap copy. Most of the indian and chinese stuff looks good at first sight but is not fun to use. Because it is not well-thought-out. I learned this the hard way with matteboxes (Proaim too, later beautiful, but rarely needed Genus and rig-"parts"). So you own a sexy little camera with a sophisticated cage. Don't attach any useless junk to it. The GH2 is small and smart. Don't make it Megatron.

I simply copy the link to the vimeo faq page "compression": [url=http://vimeo.com/help/compression]http://vimeo.com/help/compression[/url] WMV is not the best codec. For FullHD you should upload at least 5000 kbps datarate (as recommended by vimeo) which is 37,5 MB per minute, but rather 8000 kbps (60 MB). Use H.264 (which is mp4 as "mov"), or ".mp4". Another tip: Don't export the upload-file from Vegas. Render everything in the best quality you have on your system (or at least with a very good). Make a perfect MASTER. Use this to encode for web a.s.o. The better the original, the smaller the copies can be.

[quote author=Sara link=topic=452.msg2839#msg2839 date=1332479761]We all know hacked GH2's have better picture quality than an AF100 - so if these guys can pull off a decent movie for a measly (considering) $1.1 mill - there really are no excuses these days.[/quote] Yes, the acid test for every motion cam: ACTION. The heart of it all is in the middle between one frame (a still camera for landscapes and flowers) and 50 fps (the sunday filmers speed control): 24 fps. Can we handle speed? But you are wrong: We always find excuses ...

[quote author=tvpglabs link=topic=394.msg2825#msg2825 date=1332460253] Axel, that looks awesome!  Whats the chance of a guide on how you put it together, specifically mounting the arca swiss plate to the rod? [/quote] It is ridiculously simple. I needed the quick release plate, because I have the same unit on a monopod, an Ace tripod, a shoulder rig and a mini stabilizer. You can take every system. I chose this, because it's cheap, only slightly more expensive than the most simple Cullmann (but smaller and made of metal, not plastic, the Cullmann release plate fits into this, so you cant use both systems). I decided against the more robust Manfrotto, because it is too heavy, and with the little Lumix, you don't need [i]heavy duty[/i]. I sawed a small aluminium plate (4mm, some old junk), to fit under the Kaiser unit and drilled four holes corresponding to the holes at the bottom of the unit. From the square sticks out a 3 cm long, 1 cm wide "tongue", which I bent in a vice in a ~ 40° angle. Under this part is screwed a 6,5 cm long massive aluminium bar with 20 mm diameter. The M6 screw thread and the flattened top happened to be ready to use  :D (never chuck away any aluminium parts, best material there is). To reduce weight, I hollowed the bar finally with a 10mm driller, grip weighs 170 g. I painted the square black with permanent marker, in case the image confuses you.

[quote author=LewisFilm link=topic=445.msg2827#msg2827 date=1332462859] I feel like the only option now is to either buy a new body (and that seems insane given my experience with this one) or buy an FS-100, which is probably what i am going to do. [/quote] To buy by a FS100 certainly is a good idea. Has some really big advantages over the GH2. But don't forget, that with the whole interchangeable lenses affair, a camera is as well defined by it's own features as by the lenses you get for it. With the NEX, you are going to have to start over again. And one thought more on "only option": [quote author=LewisFilm link=topic=445.msg2827#msg2827 date=1332462859]Unhacked, or returned to the original settings, camera seems to be fine.  And when I first hacked it - the only consistent problem i had was that I couldn't play back files.  These problems didn't show up until the 4th project I used the camera on - and after a lot of testing.[/quote] With higher bitrates, people see more detail. They see it (and I did also) although it isn't there. I made a lot of tests myself. I saw comparisons of others, sometimes named "proof of detail". But the actual detail in every instance didn't change. What the encoder does when left to it's 24 mbit and default GOP-size (in the FS100 as well) is ironing out artifacts out of dark areas. It simplifies the image by reducing noise, almost like Neat does. A higher bitrate and a lower GOP reduces the efficiency of the encoder, and fewer unspecific noise is eliminated. The noise artifacts have a positive effect on the image, insofar as it gets dithered. As a projectionist, I have a model for this in analog film stock. Imagine a Super 8 film projected at 18 fps. The visible film grain seems to disappear magically if you accelerate to 24 fps. There is no detail added, the resolution wasn't improved, but more random samples of noise create a seemingly better defined image. (EDIT: The example serves as a model only. Since the film grain [i]is[/i] the detail - comparable to pixels, the resolution goes up with more samples - see also speed of a tape machine. Noise is no detail. Scrutinize car plates or sth. like this in the comparisons, and you sometimes find them [i]harder[/i] to read in the hack-clips!) Your examples are pretty highkey shots. I assure you, if you conducted own tests, you would find out, that under these circumstances the quality is not only not improved by a hack, it is also not [i]changed[/i]. Hard to believe, I know. With lowkey shots, the quality is also not improved in any scientifically provable way. But with images, the quality is really what you see with your own eyes. So imho, if it [i]looks[/i] better, it is better. Everybody loves the 5D M2 for it's colours and it's look. The video images are so full of artifacts, that most little camcorders for 600 € top it in resolution. So what? The AVCHD profile and the video-specific processor of the FS100 are better, no doubt. You will have less banding problems (posterization, not the stripe on the bottom in your example). Better Lowlight (see Bloom shootout, depends on lens of course). I suggest you keep the GH2 as your second camera.

Hi, although I had some issues with the GH2, some of which are supposedly connected to one or the other hack, I cannot confirm yours, or at least not all of them and not in comparable circumstances. So let me sum them up: 1. I [i]do[/i] have very rare occasions, when video is not playing smoothly. I record an average of 30 minutes a day, and maybe one percent of all takes [u]contain[/u] jerky parts that look like your "corruption problem". [u]Only with a hack[/u] (changed the FW about a hundred times, I guess, so it's not [i]one[/i] bad setting). Solution: I am an amateur most of the time, but sometimes I do second (or third, fourth) camera, when some kind of long show is recorded without interruption from different angles to combine them in a multicam edit. I don't rely on hacked bitrates then. I have a card with only the 29'59" limit unchecked to change FW at any time. 2. I had [u]once[/u] a corrupted file with Vanilla on FW 1.0. It played back completely and flawlessly in the camera. Only the first five seconds or so could be transcoded by Log&Transfer in FCP 7. MpegStreamclip crashed, QTPro crashed, Premiere crashed (tried to export H.264 on a friend's system). I couldn't give up, because it contained an important shot for the film. Finally I exported Aiff with QT and ProRes (video only) with Toast (!), and I got it. No solution, because once is once. 3. Grey picture or image freeze breakdown with 66 or Quantum tests on a cheap Transcend card, not unusual, as others report the same. Solution: Only SanDisk Extreme Pro ("not "video") for the  higher bitrates. 4. Some lights [u]do[/u] have that peculiar electronic frequency that indeed requires 1/40 shutter. You very likely meet them at clubs, i.e. when LED-lighted objects change colours. The flickering, however, will appear with [i]every[/i] camera which isn't set to "clear scan".  Solution: One has to be aware of the problem. Different mixed frequencies need to be avoided (better turn off the lamps in question). You can detect the flicker in the EVF. I NEVER HAD: > the problem with the line on the bottom (looking like tape that's not properly in track) > a problem that a FW cannot be changed or only by renaming the files. You didn't uncheck "version increment", did you? Conclusion: I don't see you as a "buzz-killer", or I am one myself. Firmware without bitrate- and GOP-changes is overall more reliable. In well-lit places, there are only subtle differences between original FW and hacked one (now, if you are a buzz-killer, I am a [i]traitor[/i], no?), and sometimes (to me) it is not worth the risks. But more often, as an amateur and self-determined artist, with no time-pressure or need to compete in efficiency with, say, a Sony EX, I do prefer 44 mbit, and I will use the Intra-hacks also.

[quote author=dtr link=topic=443.msg2793#msg2793 date=1332423304]So to recapitulate, the HBR mts file is actually encoded as 25p but reports to be 50i in software? (What's the logic of that?!)[/quote] This I can't tell you. Panasonic says the HBR is "edit friendly", and I was wondering why. I had a Canon XH A1 before, and it had a mode called "25f", meaning something similar. For the sake of the Firewire-protocol and HDV meaning the same in every NLE, it was recognized as standard interlaced stuff. If you deinterlaced it, you didn't get a weird pushme-pullyu-effect, but considerable quality loss, because then, with the CCD sensor, the clips were [i]already[/i] deinterlaced. But the GH2s CMOS reads the image progressively, and 50 fields should in fact be more difficult to process. But I am no engineer. [quote author=dtr link=topic=443.msg2793#msg2793 date=1332423304]In my vague understanding I thought the GH2's sensor/processor grabs 25p but writes it to a 50i file, each p frame to 2 i frames (i guessed it has to do with writing speed).[/quote] It captures one frame within a certain time span (I think 40 ms, rolling shutter unfortunately as long as exposure time chosen), but it writes it as two seperate fields to the card. Can't have to do with writing speed, the framerate is nothing compared to the degree of compression that is processed in that time. What you get with deinterlacing is a quality loss of up to 50 % (depending on the method). What you get by leaving the mts as is, some players like VLC will show fine comb patterns, as if the footage was indeed interlaced. I don't know why this is so, I can't explain it, I just made the experience that by exporting as 25p everything behaves like native progressive footage. Perhaps someone else knows better.

Hi, the HBR is "editing friendly" with 25p, flagged "as" interlaced. I don't know about NLEs not being able to edit 1080 25p, but there [i]are[/i] limitations. For example, to this day there is no general support for this format on bluray, whereas 25i [i]is[/i] supported. To export for web, you shouldn't deinterlace, because there is no field dominance. Just put the settings manually to "25p", and everything will be fine. The best software-encoders for mpeg4 have been tested to be Adobe Media Encoder, and x264. Go to this site: [url=http://www003.upp.so-net.ne.jp/mycometg3/]http://www003.upp.so-net.ne.jp/mycometg3/[/url] ... and download the Quicktime-component. Now, if you have Quicktime Pro, you can export as mp4 with x264 instead of H.264 (indeed faster and, i think, better). But the best transcoding tool for OSX, and freeware too, is MpegStreamclip. You chose "export as MPEG4" with x264 encoder, limit the bitrate in the GUI of MSC (enable "Multipass), then you go to "Options", and the very complicated looking x264 interface opens. For quality you actually only need to change two things (in the tab "Values"): 1. Set "Faster First Pass" from "Turbo2" to "disabled" 2. set "b_frame_strategy" from "fast" to "Optimal: Slow" To open AVCHD directly with Quicktime, you need to download the Panasonic import plugin from this site: [url=https://eww.pass.panasonic.co.jp/pro-av/support/dload/avccam_impt/agree_e.htm]https://eww.pass.panasonic.co.jp/pro-av/support/dload/avccam_impt/agree_e.htm[/url] Nice side-effect: You now have the useful Quicktime movie-thumbnails for your mts-clips, even Coverflow will work.

Does anybody understand the problem? Okay, right now I am equipped only with the german manual, and I won't go up to the attic to search for the english one. So maybe [u]I[/u] confuse the terms, but right now it seems to me, [i]you[/i] confuse them. You linked two sets of clips, one with more judder, that looks as if caused by a slightly too short exposure time, aka shutter speed. But you assure us that both are taken with 1/50. What I don't get in the first place, is the difference between [i]movie mode[/i] and [i]manual mode[/i]. On the mode dial on top of the camera, there is a mode with "M" and a movie camera icon, called the [i]Creative Motion Picture Mode[/i]. With this mode selected, you have - with FW 1.1 - four options, the first one beeing [i]Manual Movie Mode[/i]. What kind of format you record when you chose this, is displayed in the display and chosen by you in the Menu under [i]Video[/i], the icon [u]below[/u] the [i]Creative Motion Picture[/i]. Once you have selected [i]Manual Movie Mode[/i] above, the Qualitiy Settings below exclude [i]HBR[/i], [i]24H[/i] and [i]Variable[/i] completely. I recommend, you better use the [i]Manual Movie Mode[/i] to chose 720p 50/60 (*SH*) and save this setting as "C3" or something (in order to switch between framerates with the Custom Modes, i.e. *24H* on C1 and *HBR* - in case you live in a Pal country - on C2). Now: Only in [i]Creative Motion Picture Mode[/i] - and in any of C1-C3, if you assign them as that - can you record HBR, and [i]if[/i] you do, it is not 1080i, but 1080p. If you have dialed, say, "M" and press the red button, you will get FSH by default, which is 1080 25 or 30[u]i[/u] and usually limited to 17 Mbit/s (lower most of the time). Your clips certainly look progressive, but that the "movie mode" (as [i]you[/i] call it) is brighter could mean a lower framerate with the same shutter speed. Or whatever. How are we to know? I can't tell, if 1080 25i or 30i need a different shutter than the progressive formats. Just because I never use them. The times for interlaced formats were in the late 20th century, and even back then people hated the artifacts, no?

[quote author=Jeff Gibbs link=topic=418.msg2662#msg2662 date=1332168862]For what it's worth I see the banding in a lot of footage from various sources, even the C300, though less pronounced.[/quote] Less pronounced, because people do not like to publish the rejects. But in Laforets big fat [i]Mobius[/i] you can see banding (5:54 ff). These are the limits of 8-bit, and they can only be respected. I like your images, almost like the nature in [i]The New World[/i]. Don't give up. I was very disappointed on my first afternoon with the GH2, because banding was everywhere in the dark corners of my poorly-lit flat. Today I shoot almost everything in lowlight, but never do I get banding. [quote author=Jeff Gibbs link=topic=418.msg2662#msg2662 date=1332168862]I wonder if Neat Video can clear it up?[/quote] No. Not Neat and not a hack. Does it comfort you, that it is also not very pronounced in your clips, and only few (like us) will notice?

[quote author=Jeff Gibbs link=topic=418.msg2645#msg2645 date=1332120314]I am sure there might be some combination of patch, polarizing filter, iso, f-stop, shutter speed, color profile, lens , etc. that makes a difference.  But still I wonder if anyone has been able to banish the banding especially the blue sky stuff from their GH2 world with say a particular patch or adjustment?  Or is this just life with the GH2?[/quote] I asked, and it seems, it is a matter of quantization. You probably have, like me, found some typical scenarios for banding to show up, and tested them with different AQ-settings (only within "enduser"-options). Only to find, that touching the AQ-settings at all, always seem to cause [i]more[/i] banding ... You are right with the "combination"-theory. I experienced the grey-shades-grades in dark scenes to cause less to no banding at all with nostalgic, low Iso and them not jostling at the left corner in the histogram (and [i]if[/i] they do, rather go down to 1/25 shutter than higher Iso, or use a reflector or some kind of fill light). There must be a similar solution for the sky. Probably [i]cinema[/i] is too flat a curve (or whatever, you know what I mean) to provide enough steps for the midtones. Maybe [i]standard[/i] or [i]smooth[/i] work better. If it is indeed a quantization issue, you should watch the histogram. A combination of filmmode, aperture and ND-filter could solve the problem. I just saw your vimeo-landscapes. I never filmed such a gradient myself (never tried to top David Lean with a Lumix  ;)), but I guess, it uses a too broad spectrum for the 256 (or actually less) shades of 8-bit. Do more tests with different filmmodes and note (i.e. by voice), how the banding appears with the change (aperture) of the spectrum represented by the histogram. Tell us about your findings. BTW: I never figured out the difference of iDynamic-levels. Any influence from there?

The hack is not gonna fry your camera. Nevertheless, if sth. not related to the hack happens, you may have lost the warranty. Does anybody know for sure? There are experts who tell me that the improvement of picture quality caused by the various hacks must be autosuggestion. I, however, trust my eyes, and I see much better detail, especially in night shots or shadows. Imho there is not much gained by Intra over a 44mbit 3-GOP-Hack though. This is not a popular position. Fortunately we are not on [i]personal view[/i], so I keep it anyway.