Vesku Posted October 28, 2017 Share Posted October 28, 2017 I made sample frames from static and moving video and posted here: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/60301188 Not much difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonesy Jones Posted October 28, 2017 Share Posted October 28, 2017 First, why not just repost those frames here? Why send us to another forum to look at 4 single frames. Second, why not post a video of those tests? That's where you're going to see the motion differences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vesku Posted October 28, 2017 Author Share Posted October 28, 2017 Here is the difference of moving frames (little crop). Sharpening and saturation added to see easier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
austinchimp Posted October 29, 2017 Share Posted October 29, 2017 Thanks, I've been waiting for some tests like this. I can actually see quite a clear difference with some compression artifacts in the ipb. Having recently gone back to some of my old BMPCC footage I'm still amazed by the fidelity and weight of those prores images compared to anything coming out of the GH5 regardless of data rate. I'm not sure what the difference is. Perhaps the GH5 internal processing gives it that slightly brittle feeling? Emanuel 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emanuel Posted October 29, 2017 Share Posted October 29, 2017 58 minutes ago, austinchimp said: Thanks, I've been waiting for some tests like this. I can actually see quite a clear difference with some compression artifacts in the ipb. Having recently gone back to some of my old BMPCC footage I'm still amazed by the fidelity and weight of those prores images compared to anything coming out of the GH5 regardless of data rate. I'm not sure what the difference is. Perhaps the GH5 internal processing gives it that slightly brittle feeling? Not regardless the best settings though... GH5 is a professional camera indeed. Requires know-how and work. There are no miracles straight out the box. Fritz Pierre and shooter 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PannySVHS Posted October 29, 2017 Share Posted October 29, 2017 I enlarged to 200% in width and heigth and put a contrast curve into play. IPB shows blocks, Intra hardly does. See image below. If not the 4k 400mbps Intra, the 200mbps Intra HD will be superior, that´s for sure. Emanuel 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emanuel Posted October 29, 2017 Share Posted October 29, 2017 22 hours ago, Vesku said: I made sample frames from static and moving video and posted here: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/60301188 Not much difference. Deal with motion under certain circumstances such as water or leaves and you'll see if you don't notice much (of a substantial) difference... ;-) shooter 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sage Posted October 29, 2017 Share Posted October 29, 2017 In terms of motion, the All-I is quite an improvement, from my own anecdotal testing. These stills appear to confirm the 'detail sharpening' that affects motion smoothness Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ND64 Posted October 29, 2017 Share Posted October 29, 2017 of course its better, but not taking-up-2.5x-more-storage-space better. EthanAlexander 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vesku Posted October 29, 2017 Author Share Posted October 29, 2017 All-i is better in complex motion but ipb is surprisingly good. 400Mbs seems to be enough for very good static scene too. I cant see a difference in static scene frame. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonpais Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 I could insert one frame with a squirrel munching on acorns every few seconds too and nobody would be the wiser. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shirozina Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 15 hours ago, Sage said: These stills appear to confirm the 'detail sharpening' that affects motion smoothness I'm seeing this as well. Even with sharpness down to -5 the sharpening artefacts are pretty obvious and it's starting to become the 'fly in the ointment'of this otherwise very good camera...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vesku Posted October 30, 2017 Author Share Posted October 30, 2017 2 hours ago, jonpais said: I could insert one frame with a squirrel munching on acorns every few seconds too and nobody would be the wiser. Can you see the difference in moving video? I think it would be very difficult to see a difference between 4k 50Mbs vs 500Mbs in playing video. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonpais Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 @Vesku I can’t, and I’d like to do a double blind test with those who believe otherwise. All this motion cadence talk makes me fall on the floor doubled over with laughter! One claims Sony has lousy motion cadence, another Panasonic... Not once have I heard a director of photography, when talking about gear, mention motion cadence. The ear is more sensitive to changes in pitch, yet five years and over two hundred videos on YT later, several of which I mistakenly uploaded at the wrong frame rate, not a single person noticed - not even those in which I was speaking! Lumix GM1 1080p 28 Mbps looks lovely to me too, BTW. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vesku Posted October 30, 2017 Author Share Posted October 30, 2017 29 minutes ago, jonpais said: @Vesku I can’t, and I’d like to do a double blind test with those who believe otherwise. All this motion cadence talk makes me fall on the floor doubled over with laughter! This is from Andrews GH5 FW 2.0 review "With an ALL-I H.264 codec we get closer to true 24 frames per second like the look of film, and reduce the digitalisation of motion cadence.......An interframe LongGOP IPB codec saves space but it screws with motion in quite subliminal and subtle ways. The ALL-I codec on the GH5 2.0 has no trickery or frame-prediction, just pure cinema 24p." I wonder too what is that motion cadence and how we can see the difference. When I watch GH5 ipb stopped frames, normal speed and reduced speed I cant see any bad things in video or frames. Even the moving water or waves looks convincing and normal. I can see all-i/ipb small differences on moving water when I watch 200-400% enlargement in 65 inch 4k TV and watching very close. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonpais Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 Well, just because I can't see it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Same with the tooth fairy. But Andrew is careful to use the words subliminal and subtle, which are not exactly words I'd use to describe something that jumps out at you. In other words, even Andrew understands this isn't something that's going to make you drop the XL bucket of hot buttered popcorn in your lap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sage Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 5 hours ago, Shirozina said: I'm seeing this as well. Even with sharpness down to -5 the sharpening artefacts are pretty obvious and it's starting to become the 'fly in the ointment'of this otherwise very good camera...... Its not that bad; plenty of shots don't involve extensive motion, like dialog shots, which could benefit from the space savings. And for the quick motion shots, there is also the 1080p 200mbps All-I, which is wonderful. And you can always just get a card for those 4k All-I shots. We have options, which is a great thing. 4 hours ago, Vesku said: I wonder too what is that motion cadence and how we can see the difference. When I watch GH5 ipb stopped frames, normal speed and reduced speed I cant see any bad things in video or frames. Even the moving water or waves looks convincing and normal. I can see all-i/ipb small differences on moving water when I watch 200-400% enlargement in 65 inch 4k TV and watching very close. My anecdotal test involved standing in front of the mirror and floating my hand around while swaying both myself and the camera smoothly back and forth (for both formats). The motion effect was very much akin to a slightly higher shutter speed (both at 180 degrees) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EthanAlexander Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 8 hours ago, jonpais said: @Vesku I can’t, and I’d like to do a double blind test with those who believe otherwise. All this motion cadence talk makes me fall on the floor doubled over with laughter! One claims Sony has lousy motion cadence, another Panasonic... Not once have I heard a director of photography, when talking about gear, mention motion cadence. The ear is more sensitive to changes in pitch, yet five years and over two hundred videos on YT later, several of which I mistakenly uploaded at the wrong frame rate, not a single person noticed - not even those in which I was speaking! Lumix GM1 1080p 28 Mbps looks lovely to me too, BTW. On top of all this, if IPB really were a "motion cadence killer," then everyone would be complaining about watching movies at home, because whether it's Blu Ray or iTunes or Netflix, we NEVER get to see big budget films without interframe compression. And I can't prove it, but I'd be willing to put money on the files being distributed to movie theaters with digital projection having interframe compression, as well. There's no way they're sending out 300+GB files! jonpais and maxotics 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sage Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 59 minutes ago, EthanAlexander said: On top of all this, if IPB really were a "motion cadence killer," then everyone would be complaining about watching movies at home, because whether it's Blu Ray or iTunes or Netflix, we NEVER get to see big budget films without interframe compression. And I can't prove it, but I'd be willing to put money on the files being distributed to movie theaters with digital projection having interframe compression, as well. There's no way they're sending out 300+GB files! DCPs are *intraframe Jpeg 2000, typically around 150GB Cinema-City-tehnicheski_iziskvania.pdf Zak Forsman and EthanAlexander 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zak Forsman Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 And at the high end, the Avatar 3D DCP was 276GB. The DCI spec allows for up to 250mbps. PannySVHS 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.