Re: Gh5 firmware 2,0
 

OK,..just to make sure that nobody thinks I'm bashing the EVA1...

#1. I difenetely expect to love the EVA1 and I'm completely on track to buy it Q1 2018.
#2. I've been Sony guy my whole life and my GH5 has given me new respect for Panasonic today.
#3. YouTube or Vimeo video's are a terrible way to do a CRITICAL review of image quality. Nobody has to convince me of that!
#4. I do see sensor noise that is not from YouTube's crappy compression.
#5 . I dont feel like copy/pasting all the good and bad comments on this thread. We all know that opinions are like @ss holes, we all got one and they all stink. ;-)

However, I will say that I generally love all three of the videos there were made with Radio 88 being the best.. I can say that the western one, during the camp fire scene, there easily looks to have nasty temporal noise reduction artifacts in between each of the heavy flickering. (Frame 1 is clean, frame 3 or 4 changes so fast that the noise processing cant adapt quickly enough)

So, I see issues like that. I ignore the expected YouTube macro blocking and pixel clustering in the shadows. We all know that is not the camera's fault. However, there is clear fixed pattern sensor readout noise that is captured and displayed on some scenes and not at all on others.

Again, Panasonic has put a full and immediate block on any new footage being released from anybody with a sample camera while they continue to modify the camera processing today. I think we can see that Panasonic is clearly concerned about what they see and are moving fast to improve on what the complaints are about.

I'm confident that they will be able to deliver a great EVA1 to the public. Part of their tweaking might be them debating just how good they want the EVA1 to actually be. They want it good....but not "too good". They need to leave an acceptable "gap" between the EVA1 and the Varicam LT. There needs to be a noticeable "divide" between these models to justify each price point. Today, Panasonic might just be trying to find what that difference needs to be for marketing purposes.

One concern that I have is, although I'm sure they can deBayer and process a good clean video signal to the CODEC and the HDMI port, I'm wondering how the 5.7 raw sensor data output will look without the benefit of the in-camera processing and noise reduction processing.

As far as that 150 CODEC goes. If you own a GH5, shoot a deep blue sky in VLog, do a slow pan and grade it. You will probably see it,...not "band" like 8bit...but "macroblock" in perfect squares and clustered cubes between the shades of blue.

I think the 150 CODEC will look OK in the normal rec709-ish profiles even with the higher compression ratios.

Re: Gh5 firmware 2,0
 

I really don't care if you are. If you're bashing the EVA1 for legitimate reasons, that's totally cool. If you're complaining about issues you don't understand and can't elaborate on, that's when I'm going to ask you to back it up. And if you can't, then you should just let that stand, and perhaps think about that if you have a similar post in the future.

I don't understand why this is a point. No one is upset if you say the EVA1's released videos so far are noisy. I think that was the whole point (shooting some scenes at 5000 ISO). Your comment that is in contention is that LongGOP "breaks like glass" and is worthless, something you have yet to demonstrate.

You're the one who, instead of pointing out specifically what *you* saw (because you hadn't seen anything at that point is my assumption) you brought up YouTube comments. So you decided to do that even though you agree that YouTube/Vimeo are terrible places to judge how the original codec behaved. Why did you make that call then?

And, also, is the most stressful on the codec because of the hazer. You do realize that, right?

I have seen these shorts both projected digitally in a theater and on an HDR screen. There was no noise reduction that I can tell, hence why they look noisy (seriously, you bring up the noise, and now what to say there is NR being applied? So is the NR not working at all EXCEPT for one small part of the frame?)

Something else you don't seem to understand is that noise is terrible for uploading to services like YouTube and Vimeo because their compression doesn't deal well with it. What you're seeing is that failure. That's why adding grain to something that is going up on one of those services is a huge mistake.

I am very aware of what FPN looks like, and I haven't noticed that yet. What exact moment are you referring to?

What concerns are those exactly besides noise? That's all I have seen so far.

And I'm seeing that in bright red hair shot in Clog2 at 400Mbps Intra when saturation is applied. So your point is?

EDIT: Also, how am I grading this? With a LUT? LUTs can cause weird things to happen, especially in highlights. Are you talking about grading by hand?

Re: Gh5 firmware 2,0
 

Ugggg...c'mon Gary, I dont want to get dragged into deeper detail on this ;-)


______________________________________________

OK. [sigh].....So look at the camp fire scene at 6:00 minutes


This screams of struggling temporal noise reduction. Dont know if this is in camera or post. This is pretty ugly and I dont blame YouTube VP9 compression for this one. No way.
______________________________________________


0:13 seconds - True sensor noise in the shadows at 800 ISO
1:56 - True, ugly sensor noise in the shadows.

Dual 800/2500 native ISO is supposed to be about the same noise amount. Supposedly?
_______________________________________________

I thought Radio88 looked the best but again, we dont know how much post processing was used. It was stated that the editors DID use it on some scenes.

As far as comments from people, there are plenty of good an bad to read on all three YouTube videos.

Yes, YouTube VP9 is a very low bitrate. Yes, you will see macro blocking and clustering in the shadows of ALL videos. However, it "can" reveal sensor noise, no doubt....and it clearly does in my opinion.

WAIT!.....Now Gary, you can say that everything I write here is 100% false. If you think it is, than let me just take back everything I said so we dont have to keep this "back and forth" stuff going.

YouTube is terrible and the noise we see is NOT from the EVA1 but 100% YouTube's fault.

YouTube's VP9 compression is incapable of revealing camera sensor noise.

The EVA1 pre-production sample bodies are not noisy in any way.

The 150mbp/s CODEC is perfectly fine and is not highly compressed at all and does not macro-block when pushed. My GH5 150 testing was an anomaly and it really holds up perfectly with 10bit ProRes.

People's comments are positive about the EVA1 and anybody with negative comments is clearly ignorant.

So, there. I retract everything I said for you. In reality, non of this really matters anyway until we see the the true and FINAL production EVA1's hit the street. None of this back and forth debate will matter in the future.

I think the final tweaked product will look good.

OK Gary, does all this now wrap up the discussion nicely?

Awesome,...whew,...OK! ;-)

CT

Re: Gh5 firmware 2,0
 

I just did that, don't see those blocks you are talking about.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/xofsa0519...OaIIhzEva?dl=0

"sky.mp4" is an out of camera v-log video and "sky graded.mp4" is a Rec.709 graded version with a bitrate of about 32Mbps!

So let's talk about those blocks. :)

Re: Gh5 firmware 2,0
 

Did you compare it with the Vimeo version? You didn't compare it with the Vimeo version. Why didn't you compare it with the Vimeo version?

I think you're also confusing the natural motion of the fire on the group of ladies with bad NR. It's not, and it's very clear in the Vimeo version that it's the way the light from the fire is casting out onto the talent.

It's already been explained that VP9 compression struggles with noise, because it's fine random detail. It can cause all sorts of problems. That's what I meant when I said that's why it's a bad idea to add grain for a film look for something going to YouTube or Vimeo.

Cary has done a test. So you can respond to that.

Didn't you say that? Now you're saying that their critical reviews ARE not a terrible way? So which one is it?

Re: Gh5 firmware 2,0
 

OK,...lemme take a look at it when I get home. I suppose I will do another test of my own too. My original test was done on the original firmware. I'm guessing you on 2.0?

Should be interesting....

Thanks!

Re: Gh5 firmware 2,0
 

To sum up everything I'm trying to say:

In my opinion;

The EVA1 looks like it's going to be a nice camera.

YouTube is a terrible way to judge a camera....however,...it still does reveal some the noise problems of the camera. This is not a contradiction. YouTube is not necessarily completely "worthless". It's good enough to show some of that sensor noise but you need to understand what is the camera and what is YouTube.

This could all be solved by Panasonic releasing a high bit rate download for people to analyze properly.

150 10bit is highly compressed h.264 and has shown me reasons not to use it in VLog

The EVA1 is still being worked on by Panasonic.

That's it. This sums up everything I'm saying in a nutshell. If I have said anything more to make you think something else, than just disregard it. I'm not building and extensive forensic, legal case here for the EVA1 or YouTube to be tried in a court of video engineering law here! Relax...lol

My observations are similar to others and maybe yours too.

Yes, I will look at the Vimeo versions as well as look at Cary's videos and I'll revisit the 150 10bit compression test too. It's time I compare 150 Long GOP with the new 400 All-I anyway too.

I really dont know why all of this back and forth quoting thing keeps happening.

CT

Re: Gh5 firmware 2,0
 

Which is not an argument a single person in this thread has made. Why did you bring that up?

It is because you have moved the goalposts. Now it's about noise. Before it was about LongGOP not working well. You need to stay on topic.

No one made that argument either, you're the only one to say anything close to that. What you're doing is confusing VP9 compression artifacting and confusing it with AVC 10-bit 422 LongGOP breakdown. That's been the point for the entirety of this thread. Why do you not understand this?

What is probably operator error has driven you to an erroneous conclusion.

And I bet you $50 (you haven't taken a single one of my bets) that it will ship with the same LongGOP AVC codec at launch that you're talking about, and no Intra will be available until 2018.

You're spreading FUD about an issue which is stemming from what is probably going to work out to be a workflow issue on your part.

We'll find out soon enough. By the way, Steven, who claimed to have seen similar issues to yours? His video doesn't show that at all.

Re: Gh5 firmware 2,0
 

Who made Huff a Trustee?

Re: Gh5 firmware 2,0
 

My God man....are you a lawyer or something? You are litigating this stuff way too seriously! Ease up dude, everything is cool. I'll get into the 150 testing soon with Cary. Lets see what happens.

Untill then, just try to ignore everytjing I wrote. Dont worry about it. Carry on,...as you were. Nothing to see here. ;-)

Re: Gh5 firmware 2,0
 

That's just the way Gary is. I just sit back and enjoy the show.

Re: Gh5 firmware 2,0
 

Depending on the footage Long GOP compression is 2 to 3 times as efficient in compressing video with the same quality as All-Intra. So overall I suspect you will not see any significant difference between 150Mbps Long GOP and 400Mbps All-Intra.

Of course All-Intra edits much more snappy on slower computers but that has nothing to do with the quality of the uncompressed video.

Regular Crew, Major Player, Trustee etc. are just the titles that get assigned once a member reaches a certain post count. In other words, it's just a designation the forum software system makes automatically and over time a member gets "promoted" by the changing titles. It's a function of post count and nothing more.

I'll be the first one to admit that those designations, now more than 17 years old, are pretty much irrelevant and I've been considering changing that space below the member name to show that person's business / company info / network affiliation / favorite My Little Pony character / or something.

The forum thread page layout can be somewhat confusing. The button at the bottom right will quote the previous post in full. The button at the bottom left will NOT quote the previous post.

Their labels, "quote" and "post reply," respectively, are not that well delineated graphically. The "post reply" button at the bottom left can be easily overlooked. I'm aware of that problem.

Meanwhile, for the broader audience:

If there's ever another member here whose posts you'd rather not see, just go to Controls > Edit Ignore List (direct link is http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/profile.php?do=ignorelist) and put in their name.

Some meta-discursive posts in this thread have been edited or completely withdrawn from public view. Please keep it civil and on-topic. Thanks,

Re: Gh5 firmware 2,0
 

And Cary was kind enough to shoot his own test.

And now I have one of my own. DCI 4K 24p, Vlog-L, 10-bit 4:2:2 in both LongGOP and Intra. Brought into DaVinci Resolve Studio 14 and corrected (no LUT). I used the color wheels, adjusted Lift and Gain values (didn't touch the mids because it didn't really need it), and did hue transforms for the sky, both hue and luminance in the blues.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0Bx...URxNkxvTTJXX28

The clips are randomly placed in the timeline between the Intra and LongGOP versions. So which are which? According to Cliff, the LongGOP version will "'macroblock' in perfect squares and clustered cubes between the shades of blue." So it should be easy to tell. Make sure to download the original QuickTime ProRes version.

Re: Gh5 firmware 2,0
 

Cary, I grabbed your file and tossed a VLOG to Rec709 800% LUT on it I made form LutCalc.

I think it looks OK. I'm not seeing any blocking. Here is your file that I tested. It was done in a 32bit color space.

part 1 - was your clip ungraded
part 2 - is my 709-800% LUT added
part 3 - is a color canceled luma grayscvale filter. This is "looking under the hood" of the CODEC. You can see the Long GOP IPB cadence at work. Oddly enough, there are some straight line and block artifacts on the left side of the image but it's fully covered up under normal RGB viewing.

It's looks OK!

Now, I tested my camera on the original GH5 firmware a while back. I did it twice on two different days and got some ugly blocking artifacts. I have not tried it since then and we have gotten two firmware revision since. I'm guessing you are 2.0 today?

I'm bringing my GH5 to work tomorrow and shooting some new 150 CODEC footage and run it through the ringer. Thanks for the upload.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B6...0JaUnFHMzFvWlk

CT