Jump to content

Joshua Csehak

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Joshua Csehak

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  1. If you download 5DtoRGB, it'll tell you what the bitrate is; that should help. Although, I have the 88mb hack, and it's telling me the bitrate is 57mb. Guessing that's cause it's variable?
  2. Thanks Ed. Holy cow, I thought I was confused enough already! :)
  3. Ah well, retype, summarize: 5DtoRGB is awesome! Thanks Ed! 160/320/640 ISO bugs? I've been shooting on those only. Should I not? Thanks for the compressor link Francisco! It's so slow -- i'll definitely try that. I've got a mid-2010 (I think) mac pro with 2x2.26 ghz quad-core procs, 24 gigs ram, and ati radeon hd 4870 graphics card. So that shouldn't be the issue... Update: So, using the exact same method, I think I was able to install the intra esting hack. 5DtoRGB says the bit rate is at 54 or so (though the hack is supposed to be 88, right?), and the
  4. Rosebud, Ed recommended 5DtoRGB to me in another thread -- definitely check it out! transcoding mts files with 709 results in a beautifully gradable image. I would try copying the mts files to your HD so you've got them backed up in their "raw" format, and transcoding to prores 422 proxy with 5DtoRGB. Proxy looks pretty amazing, and should work out to about 250mb/minute, which is less than 1/4 the size of HQ.
  5. What the?!? I responded to this last night, and now it is gone. DB issues?
  6. Boy, this stuff sure is confusing. I got Andrew's guide, and I've combed through all the threads here, but I'm still muddled on some things. So much so that I broke it out into groups: The patch: I loaded (at least, I think I did) the RoadRunner patch on my GH2 (I have a 95 MB/sec SanDisk Extreme Pro card, so I figured it'd be good). The menus are now in all languages, so I think it worked. Except the footage is really small. Like, 137 MB for a 1 minute file. And Premiere says the average data rate is 2.3 MB/sec, which is 18.4 mbps. In addition, 24H and 24L look the s
  7. [quote author=Sara link=topic=302.msg1962#msg1962 date=1330029396] I went through similar tests but was struggling to find a difference...and the change in color from smooth to cinema (punchy colors) almost makes it not worth it unless someone would "want" that color shift.  Frustrating that we have to deal with these gamma/color profiles and don't have acesss to something more neutral.  Sorry I couldn't find more of a difference.  Maybe someone else? [/quote] Not following you. You mean you're struggling to find a difference between smooth and cine
  8. My conclusion so far: Nostalgic is the king of both color accuracy (pending further tests) and dynamic range. Normalized to a white at 100%, it has a stop more of information in the blacks. But since cinema applies a curve to everything, the lights end up with more color information. It just might be worth shooting cinema and bringing up your gamma +1.33 in post, since the noise gain so far seems to be negligible. The lights, which includes people with light skin tone, will look richer. But I need to do a lot more real-world testing before I'm sure of that. Here's the key question
  9. Here's something else interesting. Nostalgic is actually not warmer, it's less cooler! To get it to true gray, I have to further bring down the blue channel. Here it is with that:
  10. And here's the 60D, for reference. It's about as noisy as smooth/nostalgic, and it looks like it actually has a half-stop less DR than nostalgic. So much for the idea that the GH2 has less DR than Canon!
  11. Here's cinema. No surprises here, I don't think. It falls apart much more than the other two, with another half-stop less information.
  12. and here's smooth. This is interesting -- nostalgic seems to have a half stop or so extra DR on the low end!
  13. But that's my subjective opinion. Let's look at what's really going on in those darks. Cranking them all up by +2.7 gamma (and -0.05 lift so we can see what we're working with) reveals the bits at the lowest end. Here's nostalgic:
  14. But now what if I take the Cinema shot and grade it with +1.33 to the gamma (and bring the lift down -0.04 to bring the blacks back to black). Now the darks match, the highlights blow out exactly the same, but the lights are much darker. Smooth is indeed smoother, but the lights, before they hit 100%, are much lighter and have less color information. It seems like, if you can keep your highlights from blowing out, cinema is the way to go, b/c you retain more information in the 2-3 stops below 100%. But is it noisier in the darks? Not that I can tell. Playing the footage, the grain looks abo
  • Create New...