Menu

Show posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Show posts Menu

Messages - simonm

#1
General Chat / Re: Obituary: 7D
April 10, 2017, 09:16:30 AM
Walter, you write like a man who knows a lot of stuff, but anyway: fuses are there for protecting stuff and providing a warning. If it is a blown fuse, find out why it blew if you can, as just replacing the fuse may let something more expensive become damaged.

I understand what you say about the cost of full frame, very well! I went digital slowly, and bought lenses that still covered the 24x36mm area (I had Pentax, and they didn't make a full-frame body back then).

My kit was stolen; the insurers talked me into Canon (it's only really because of ML that I'm glad they did!). Ten years or so on, I now have a 6D body, and I swallowed hard when I bought it because of the cost. It's not perfect, but I had forgotten how much I liked the shallow depth of field, and being able to crop more agressively (yes, I know it's two sides of the same coin!).

I only have three issues with the 6D: battery life, slow shutter (fastest is 1/4000) and size+weight. If you grew up with 35mm, all digital SLRs are too big and heavy! In every other respect it's wonderful, especially using ML, for things like focus peaking and exposure checking.

I am reminded that my first 35mm camera, a Zeiss Ikon from 1935 (that my dad gave me!), had a fastest shutter speed of 1/250, and a lens with no coatings, and would only fit on a tripod upside down! And you had to cock the shutter manually. It did at least have a cable release socket though!

We work within the limitations of what we have, but I wouldn't want to go back to APS-size unless I was doing more limited work. The 6D is a compromise, compared to the 5D series, but it is smaller and lighter, and on balance, I like it a lot. You might, too.

I understand: losing a camera body is like losing an old friend - you are used to it as a companion. But we have to move on sometimes.


#2
Have you tried ETTR? I haven't used it yet, but it sounds like just the tool for the job.

I can see where you're wanting to go with this, but there are several things that mean auto-ISO may not be as necessary as you might think:

If your birds are in flight, at a rough guess, you probably need 1.5 or 2 stops extra exposure (over average metering, NOT spot measurements), BUT the lighting against the sky will be pretty constant. So your actual exposure won't change a great deal.

I have a 6D too, and its low light performance is outstanding. Given that, I'd just set the ISO somewhere in a sensible middle range for this sort of thing, say around the 2000 mark, use aperture priority and try some test shots with static subjects like the tops of trees, in similar light conditions to what you expect with a moving target. You might even find you can still get decent image capture at f/8.

And try ETTR, obviously. Note that it's about getting the best image file technically: it will probably look over-exposed initially - you need to post-process it properly into a good printable (or whatever) image. The whole point of it is to make best use of the sensor and file's dynamic range, so as to preserve shadow detail (which is what you are after, in this case).

Key thing is to experiment where/when nothing matters. You'll be concentrating on the bird's behaviour when doing it for real, so you don't want to be thinking about the technicalities.

PS:i find I'm using zebra exposure bars with live view more and more doing stills work. It's a great way to understand how bright the highlights are, and what I can safely allow to go 'over' - might be worth playing with too, but live view does thump the battery rather hard.
#3
Feature Requests / Re: Using usb as a mic port?
March 15, 2017, 09:24:45 AM
Even if it was possible, there are huge issues involved. To start with you cannot monitor the crucial A to D process - the camera won't be doing it. So as A1ex says, you need something to digitise your audio and turn it into a USB datastream.

You'd do far better with an external recorder of some sort, and then sync up in post. Even a mobile phone recorder would probably do, and they do have analogue inputs you can use, for better mics, or even an analogue audio mixer. Your sync point can be almost anything where a sharp sound corresponds with movement in picture - it doesn't have to be a clapperboard or even a hand clap - door closes, footsteps, crockery being put down can all work. Modern digital recorders like cameras and phones should hold sync for practical purposes for perhaps 10-15 minutes at a time, which is easily long enough for most jobs.

Again for most purposes, if the sync looks right, it is. If you do need more precision, your choice of camera is probably wrong.
#4
I'm a 6D owner, taking slow, faltering steps into moving pics.

That was great, and inspiring to see what's possible. Please keep posting!

S.
#5
I wonder if by "tapping the carp out of it", you broke it...

Do some systematic testing!

Plug the mic into something else (ideally a location mixer) and gently test it. Stand it close to a radio (for a reasonably constant sound source), and listen to it on decent headphones, to check it's not intermittent (a meter alone may not tell you), and that the output level is what you expect. Wiggle the cable and gently pull the cable behind the connector(s) to check for breaks (often they reconnect, when the two broken ends touch). Do all this with a fresh battery in the mic.

Check you've done nothing on the camera to switch off or turn down its audio inputs. In the case of ML, boot without ML and try the audio inputs, then with it.

If you haven't got one, buy or borrow a tone source (audio oscillator), and if it hasn't got mic-level output, buy or make a 60dB pad (attenuator), to drop its output down to mic level from line. Feed that into the camera, and check the camera's audio inputs. Google is your friend - the components literally cost pennies.

Domestic "stereo" audio leads, with a 3.5mm plug broken out to two RCA plugs ("phono") are helpful for this sort of thing, as it's fairly easy to get a cable from an oscillator to the phonos, and phonos are very reliable. Those leads often have better-made 3.5mm plugs than the solderable sort.

1kHz tone at -60dB* should be middle of the range level for a decent mic input (my 6D has up to 70dB gain, and fairly quiet mic amps which is very good for semi-domestic kit). It should give you a stable reading on the meter. GENTLY wiggle the plug in the camer, in case the socket is failing - look for the meters to drop out, on one channel or both. If that is happening, your camera may need electrico-mechanical repair (the socket will need replacing). There's no easy fix I know of: 3.5mm plugs and sockets are horrid things, used for cheapness really. There's a good reason why Cannon XLR plugs have been popular for 60+ years!

If your camera provides low voltage DC power for mics, and your mic needs it, take your 3.5mm plug-to-phono breakout lead and test on the phonos with a digital multimeter that there are volts available (I think between tip and sleeve, but personally I never use mics that way, as it's a nasty powering system - you will probably only get around 3-5V on one phono alone (can't remember the wiring, to be honest)).

The tip and ring of the 3.5mm plug go to the pins of the two phono plugs, and both the shields (screens) go to the sleeve.

Try all that, and please report back what you found.

S.

PS: You probably realise I'm on the side of your mic in this generally: imagine someone tapping hard on one of your ears! To test a mic all you need to do is rub your fingernail on the windshield gently. If that doesn't make the meter move, you have a problem somewhere.

To test recorders, tone sources are a much better idea than mics, as tone is consistent, and you can concentrate on the recorder, and not worry about the mic. You can also hear distortion, etc, far more easily. Once you have an oscillator you'll wonder how you ever managed without one when setting up audio stuff.

*There is a 10dB difference between "line" level on domestic hifi and proper line level: domestic kit is more sensitive. Microphone specifications usually use the professional zero level value, so -60dB from a mic will be -50dB on amateur kit, such as most of Canon's cameras and on non-professional recorders. An if an oscillator (tone source) has several different output connectors (e.g. XLR and phonos or XLR and a 3.5mm socket), it may take this into acount or it may not -- if all else fails read the instructions or use a meter to find out!

#6
Live View (at 720h) has better res than the old analogue cameras, where peaking originated. On those (going back 35-40 years!), it was really easy to use, and, IIRC when colour became ubiquitous, usually on the green channel only. At least, cameramen had the option of selecting which channel to use in the (monochrome) viewfinder, and green was favourite*. Studios were lit, IIRC, to give working apertures around f/5.6 at 0dB gain (i.e. normal camera channel lineup).

My point: peaking seemed to work pretty well back then, even though the cameras were lower bandwidth than today (in analogue terms), and there was significant noise in the channel. It was a substitute for being able to see sufficient detail in the camera's viewfinder, and even in well-lit sets, it wasn't unknown for the lighting director to hit production talkback and yell "focus!".

I guess with an HD source available you might arguably filter it for "higher frequency", but I can't see how you gain anything in practice: if you're using a fast lens wide open, you'll have a narrow DoF, but if stopped down you'll have more, irrespective of the resolution you're working to.

So it doesn't matter: peaking "at lower frequencies" will still show you where the lens is focused. In any case, with a wide open lens, you'd either have to rehearse well, or risk the camera operator hunting through focus during the take.

I've never been a D.P.: It may be they want something different on the monitor, but surely that's a different issue to the original purpose of viewfinder peaking -- to be an aid for the camera operator.

S (ex- BBC Bristol, but an Audio Supervisor, not a camera person!).

PS: I mainly do stills (6D): I find the present system extraordinarily useful and use the Live View version.

*In the UK, from the late 1960s through to the start of the 1990s, we used one odd but very popular camera, the EMI 2001 (they were sold elsewhere too). It had a fourth tube for the luminance signal. This was an engineering kludge - the blue channel was very low output for a number of reasons, and considered too noisy to just combine the three channels to derive the luminance signal arithmetically. I can't remember, but at a guess the camera's v/f could probably be switched to use luminance, as it would have been a lot higher output than the green channel alone. If anyone cares, I know who to ask!
#7
That'll be the IS working normally then, won't it?

I doubt Magic Lantern is affecting it at all.

I have a 300mm f/4, and on that the IS sounds like a Vespa with worn piston rings. I used it for some video experiments a few weeks ago, and it was obvious the built in mic would be quite unusable if the IS was turned on (but it recorded the sound of the IS really well!).

On a 16-35mm lens, do you really need IS anyway? You hardly need focus most of the time!

On the 2-sec thing, it's probably the IS dropping out again after a timeout. It will come back on when you half-press the shutter.
#8
In short, you cannot use the higher resolutions with uncompressed formats (RAW or MLV). The SD card CONTROLLER in the 6D is not fast enough to do it. You can use normal H264 compression, but it is lossy, so there will be some artefacts.

A faster SD card (above 40 MB/sec) will not help - the limitation is Canon hardware.

ML will let you try: the higher the resolution, the quicker the buffer runs out and recording stops with a "skipped frame" error (when I try it). You can record a few seconds of full-res raw video, but that is not long enough for serious work.

This is all documented here on the forum: use the search function.

There is also a discussion about writing new code for recording raw in lower bit depth (12-bit or 10-bit). You cannot do this now.

IF, and only if, this can be done by controlling other parts of the camera hardware, it MIGHT reduce the data rate going into the SD controller enough to permit higher resolution raw recording, but that would take a lot of work, and I would guess a new raw storage format just for cameras like the 6D.

I understand the issues, but don't have the skills to help the project. I wish I could help, but it sounds quite hard (turning off bits for the pixel data is fairly easy, but making effective use of that to get more frames to the SD card per second is hard).

I am very grateful to the team for what we do have, and for free.

S.
#9
@meloware:

That video is wonderful. It looks as though you had a near-perfect print to work from. I'm sure you didn't!

How did you deal with dust, tramlines, base scratches, stretchmarks, etc.? But more importantly, film weave? I assume the "Taps" one was shot on 35mm - it doesn't look as though much expense was spared in its production.

The other interesting thing was the soundtrack. I assume it was standard (Academy curve) variable area. How did you digitise it?

Very impressed.

S.

PS: I'm aware this is rather off topic for ML itself  - please reply by PM if you feel it's appropriate.
#10
This is an explanation. Datadogie has posted helpful advice above (while I was writing this). Try that, but read this bit about WAITING long enough after you take the battery out of the camera.

I am new to Magic Lantern, but beginning to understand a bit about how it works. I will try to explain what I understand in easy English. If I am wrong, I hope someone will correct me:


Your camera is a computer!

When you use the the on/off switch, your camera does NOT turn off completely. It goes into a "deep sleep" mode, like "suspend" on a laptop. Programs do not run, but they are still there, waiting for the camera to be turned "on" again.

If a program is not working properly, like on a PC, it will still be there (and still wrong!) when you wake the camera again. Using only the on/off switch will NOT help you!

To re-boot the camera completely you must remove power completely. Remove the battery but leave the power switch "on" (this helps power drain away) and WAIT for 10 minutes.

If your camera also has a button battery (to keep your personal settings in memory), you need to remove that too (yes, you will lose your personal settings).

Now, any code that was running in the camera, or stopping it from working normally, should be gone from memory.

To restart:

0. Make sure there is no card in the camera. Make sure you have waited long enough after you last tried to start the camera (10 minutes!).

1. If the camera needs a button cell, replace that first, then put a charged battery in the camera.

2. Turn the camera on. It should boot (just like any other computer). You should see only Canon's normal firmware (menus and display).

3. If all is good, check your Magic Lantern card, by repeating (1) and (2) WITH the Magic Lantern card in the camera. If (1) and (2) did not work, you have a bigger problem, and I probably cannot help (I am new to this!).

4. The camera should boot with Magic Lantern. If not, there is probably a card/ML problem. Go carefully through the Magic Lantern install process again, with a fresh card (keep the old one in case it has information to help diagnose the problems).

You will need to format the card in the camera (you will lose anything stored on the card!). Load ML onto it, from your PC, and follow the instructions carefully to install Magic Lantern again.

Bootable - what it means:

Remember: your camera is a computer. Normally, it just loads its programs from the flash memory inside the camera (Canon's firmware), but Magic Lantern changes this VERY slightly:

When you install ML for the first time (using the "Firmware Update" option in the camera's menus), it add a bit of code, which makes the camera look for "extra" programs on the card when the camera boots up.

On the Magic Lantern card there is a hidden setting, called a "boot flag". This is what the camera is looking for! If the boot flag is missing from the card, the camera stops trying to load Magic Lantern, and starts Canon's normal firmware instead, without Magic Lantern.

We call a card with this hidden boot flag :"bootable".

Normally, a standard-Canon-firmware camera will not ever see a card with a boot flag, after the camera leaves the factory. Users can not make cards like that, and would never need to.

I think Magic Lantern uses the "Firmware Update" process in two ways when it installs:
(1) It adds the extra, "permanent" code to the camera, so the camera will look for the boot flag on the card when it starts.
(2) It also adds the boot flag to the card, making it "bootable".

Why did your camera go wrong? Cameras with Magic Lantern use the card in a different way to normal. In all normal cameras, the card is only used to store images and video/audio. But the Magic Lantern card ALSO has programs on it.

Magic Lantern does not expect the card to "suddenly" have no Magic Lantern on it! This is what happened when you put the Sony card in the camera (probably). The Magic Lantern programs on the card could not be found and so the camera crashed.

With ML, you have to follow a different process to swap cards. You open the card door: the door sensor warns ML that the card will be changed soon, so it immediately stops using the programs on the card. This takes a few seconds, and you must wait. Then, when you swap cards, Magic Lantern can continue using the programs, in the same place on the new card. You cannot rely on the red card LED to tell you when it is safe; you must wait for 20 seconds.

Hope this is helpful and easy to understand.
#11
Happy to (try to) help! Please do report back :)

It'll be really interesting to know where the problem lies.

Have fun, and be systematic with the fault-finding. You should find the reason and probably the solution too.

Cheers,

Simonm.
#12
First off, this probably has nothing to do with Magic Lantern. What follows is a long explanation because you're not asking a question with a simple answer!

I've tried to skip as much technicality as I can, but you can't escape it really. To get the best from audio, just like cameras and lenses, you do need to know stuff, and the knowledge needs to be correct, not folklore or marketing puff from a manufacturer or reseller.

. . .

The specifications for the Rode mic are a bit arcane and not very encouraging. Depending on which way it's calculated (power or voltage, and TBH Rode don't make this clear), it could be outputting as little as 0.5 mV/Pa.

Contrast this with a Sennheiser 416, which apparently gives 25mV/Pa. Both numbers come from manufacturers' web sites, although I roughly converted the Rode number to be in the same units. Mic manufacturers never make comparisons easy!

I'd be surprised if the Rode was anything other than noisy in comparison. There's a reason one costs around 5x the other. The basic approach is rather different: the Sennheiser uses RF resonance, and has a much lower noise system (right at the front end of the circuitry) than conventional designs, electret or otherwise. So, when you amplify it to the levels needed for a good recording, there's less noise to start with that you're making louder. It's not clear to me how the Rode one works, but it's probably not the same way, otherwise they'd be shouting about it.*

The noise you get on the recording comes mainly from two places: the analogue preamps in the camera, and the analogue preamps in the microphone system. The Sennheiser mic's preamp is probably MUCH quieter than the Rode, AND it has a much higher output (if my sums are right!) - it's a win-win, which overall means the recording will have a lot less noise. The less you have to wind-up the camera's gain, the less noise you get from the camera's preamps on the recording, generally speaking. Less gain needed for the Sennheiser (probably). It's in part what you pay the big money for!

. . .

That said, if you want to find out exactly what is going on with your own kit, you need to do some careful and systematic tests:

First off, you need to be certain your camera's audio circuitry isn't faulty (very occasionally it happens - it's analogue and analogue things do go faulty/noisy). Here's how to check it, and for both tests you need to use MANUAL level control, not automatic.

Testing the camera's audio inputs

Do this first, to eliminate the camera from your enquiries, otherwise you may be going round in circles.

You need access to a proper audio mixer, something like a decent CD player and some classical music (chamber music is good), and an output lead from the mixer to the camera with something like a 60dB pad in it (attenuating the audio from high professional line level down to the sort of signal you'd get from a microphone in practical use for, say drama dialogue).

The 'pad' can be made from three cheap resistors (per stereo side) costing literally a few cents each. You can go directly from CD RCA "jacks" to your camera. If you omit the audio mixer, the pad needs to be about 50dB instead (CD to camera), and you have no actual check on the signal level you're sending. Ideally, get an audio pro to help you.

The idea is to have known-good, clean audio, at mic level, available for the camera. You might get the CD to work into the camera without a pad at all (by turning the camera's gain right down), but this will not help you find mic-level problems. You need a resistive pad (a.k.a attenuator), to drop the CD/mixer level down to mic level for the camera. I've seen some cable suppliers charging really silly money for cables with pads in (mentioning no names). Honestly - find a keen teenager with a soldering iron and get the plugs/jacks and resistors from eBay or Radio Shack! It doesn't need to look pretty; it does need to work properly and for only as long as you need it to.**

Set your camera levels manually, so it's peaking properly on the meters. Record a bit. Play it back in proper listening conditions - HiFi headphones or speakers and a quiet room with few electrical fans or aircons to confuse matters. If it sounds unduly noisy compared to the original CD, there may be a problem. If not, you know your camera is OK.

Roughly comparing one mic's noise to a known reference

You'll need something ancient and simple like a Shure SM58 (with a suitable lead), and your Rode (set to no attenuation nor gain). Set up both mics across a tabletop in a quiet location, importantly at as close to the same distance away as you can manage. Record one at a time. Talk at them, normal voice, not shouting nor whispering, and in each case adjust the camera gain so they peak properly. Read a piece of text (poem or something from a newspaper perhaps), and leave a few pauses too. Listen back to the two recordings.

I would expect the Rode to have much less noise than the SM58, because the latter is quite insensitive and will make the camera's mic inputs (the mic preamps) work harder. I would hope the Rode's internal preamps would be quiet, and thus you need a lot less gain at the camera (overall less noisy).

The SM58 recording should be obviously noisier (more hissy). If it turns out that the SM58 recording has obviously less noise than the Rode, then there is probably a problem with the Rode's circuitry.

. . .

These little gun mics for video aren't magic bullets (see wot I did there?). Rode aren't different from the rest in this regard, as far as I can tell. All gun mics, including really pricey ones like Sennheiser, work by cutting out sound from directions you don't want. They cannot make the wanted sounds any better than any other type of microphone will, they just help to get rid of the unwanted stuff at source.

You need to understand this when you use them. The tricks you see on TV cop shows (CSI used to be serial offenders in this!), where they point a gun mic across the road to hear a quiet conversation between two villains, are pure fantasy. It cannot be done with any gun mic I've ever seen.

Likewise, you won't pick up quiet dialogue from a camera position with a gun mic, unless you're in a proper, soundproofed film or TV studio, and even then it won't be good. There's a good reason film recordists use poles or even Fisher booms (years ago I used to drive one on live TV!). The idea is to get the mic as close to the action as practically possible, so that the sound isn't noisy. The "gun" thing is about cutting out the unwanted sound at that point, not making the wanted stuff better (it can't do that, as I said).

Hope that explains a bit.

Simonm.

PS: You *can* make wanted sounds (at distance) louder, with a parabolic reflector, but these are bulky, and difficult to set up and use, and I can't imagine why anyone would bother for normal drama and documentary work. Here's an example: http://www.wildtronics.com/parabolic.html. The bigger the dish, the louder the sound and the more bass it has, too. Great for wildlife, some applications for sports coverage (I saw some being manually tracked on the TV coverage of the French Tennis Open last year), but otherwise a right pain in the bottom to use (I own an old one - I know!).

*The Rode is most probably Electret, which is a permanently-charged capacitor system and quite different to Sennheiser's approach, but I welcome corrections on this and I'm trying not to be down on Rode as such. They do make a bit of fuss about having a "JFET impedance converter" but FET preamps typically go with Electret capsules (which are awkward because natively they're really high impedance). I wouldn't put any store by the reviews though. Rode don't publish enough information to know how well it's likely to work in any given situation, and none of the reviews seem to be objective (or to involve measurement equipment!).

**You can calculate the resistor values - there are Javascript tools on the web for this that make it easy (Google), but you need to know or guess the source and load impedances. For something like a professional mixer or straight from the back of the CD player, assuming a source value of 150 Ohms and a load (camera input) impedance of about 10,000 Ohms (10k Ohms) should get you in the right ballpark.
#13
I used to be a Pentax user years ago. After switching to Canon and going digital I kept a number of favourite Pentax lenses, including a 50/1.4 which I'd love to use it on my 6D, for video mainly.

My original Canon was a 30D. For that (for stills) I had a cheap PK-Canon mount adaptor with a focus-confirm chip. It worked beautifully, although the thin extra metal layer over the mount did prevent infininty focus on shorter lenses (such as the 50mm).

Question: are there issues with lens adaptors (with a focus-confirm chip) and later Canon bodies such as the 6D+ML?

I am very nervous of trying it on the 6D: I've been told the full-frame mirror will hit the stop-down lever on the back of the lens. But...

... I have an excellent camera repairer only a few streets from where I live. He would strip/modify the Pentax lens (to dismantle the auto-stop-down mechanics, and machine away the mechanical guard on the back of the lens). Doing the machining would irreversably damage the lens's value as a Pentax collectors' item, so obviously I don't want to do it if it'll be a waste of time.

I can't use extension tubes in this application (yes, they'd eliminate the problem), as I'd lose too much distance focus. I already can't get infinity because of the adapter, but this isn't a real nuisance for video, as one reason to use a fast lens is the bokeh.

Last resort is probably to find something recent with manual rings that will fit without an adaptor, but it would be a shame!

Any thoughts on this appreciated.
#14
User Introduction / Hello from Bristol, UK
March 19, 2016, 08:46:04 PM
Hi there,

Last year I replaced my ancient 30D with a 6D. I've been enjoying full-frame bokeh ever since, and I've grown quite fond of the 6D.

That said, Magic Lantern is wonderful - all those things that  slightly annoy on the 6D -- well most of 'em -- seem to be fixable! I can even swap the DOF preview to a button I can actually reach!

My photography has always been fairly general, with a longstanding enthusiasm for 360 panoramas (using Hugin). Post workflow is through Bibble/AfterShot and Gimp. AfterShot is an acquired taste, I know, but I've usedit for many years and like it (and it runs on Linux!).

A DSLR for video is a new departure. Previously I've used an XL1S and done post in Vegas. Now I'm moving to an all Linux/open source environment (goodbye Windows!), so I'm experimenting with Blender and Kdenlive.

Work used to be IT, and before that audio for broadcast TV and radio, back in the day...
#15
I'm interested in this as I own a 6D:

Have you tried to debug/diagnose this systematically?

1. Record a clip with correct audio levels.
2. Play the clip back and check to see if audio is output through the Sescom cable:
    2a: loud enough to drive your headphones? (I doubt this will work)
    2b: loud enough to be an input into some other audio device, such as an amplifier, mixer or aux. input to something like a car stereo?

If you get audio from either 2a or 2b, use whichever setting worked, to then...

3. try to monitor a recording in the way that worked with (2).

If you get nothing (which I would expect) the "problem" is either Canon's firmware or the ML extensions.

But it's not a real problem, it's most probably a design decision: I would expect audio in the AV output to mute during recording. Otherwise, unless you do something downstream of the camera, any video monitor connected (that has a speaker) will cause a howlround (or at best an annoying echo) once you start recording. Same with HDMI output (actually I think it says that happens with HDMI in the ref. manual).

In any case, I would be _very_ surprised if you can drive headphones nicely directly from the camera under any circumstances (but pleased as it would occasionally be useful!). Most of this sort of kit uses -10dBv as its "line" reference level, and the signal is thus too quiet to drive all but the lowest impedance and most sensitive headphones.

You _might_ get something audible from the earbud things used in mobile phones (they are typically pretty low impedance), but it will probably distort horribly, as the output amplifier in the camera isn't designed to deliver the necessary current for headphones.

If you do get it working, you are unlikely to permanently damage anything, but you may find you drain the 6D's batteries pretty fast. It's a much better idea to get either a small headphone amp you can feed from the camera, or (better) an audio location mixer you can use as a mic pre-amp and do your monitoring from that, treating the 6D as an audio 'black-box' input-only device whilst you are actually recording. There's quite a lot on the market now including mixer/recorders (audio to SD card, etc.) and they're really cheap, considering.

Hope that helps.

S.
#16
[mods - if this is in the wrong place, please move it and accept my apologies!]

This is only my second post - please be gentle, as it's not really a Magic Lantern thing, but I've Googled a lot, and accurate info is VERY hard to find. If anyone has done tests or knows the answer definitively it will likely be an ML user, so please indulge me...

Questions:
1. Does the 6D embed timecode in its HDMI output under any circumstances?
2. Does the 6D emit record start/stop pulses over HDMI?

Reasons for asking
I'm seriously considering a Tascam under-camera recorder/mixer, either the DR-70D or the DR-701D.

Speaking as an ex-broadcast professional of many years, both appear to have really poor software (stupid menu structure, etc.) and are physically fragile, but they are cheap, and seem to have reasonable audio specs (for semi-domestic kit). I want them for one-man-band interview recording mostly, where they'll do just fine, as long as I'm patient and gentle.

The important difference between the two for me seems to be in the timecode handling. The more expensive unit has HDMI pass-through and a BNC for LTC, allowing it to jam-sync (input only, sadly). Apparently it will also detect the record start from some Canon DSLRs (emitted over HDMI). Tascam support the 5DIII and 1D as emitting both jam-sync-able timecode and start/stop over HDMI, but are silent about the 6D.

I can't possibly afford to upgrade to a 5DIII, and anyway I quite like my 6D (for stills, at least!). I knew it had limitations, but it's comfy to hold and it's great to get back to full-frame DoF after years with APS.

I go back to the days when real film -- the funny stuff you could look through, with holes down the edges -- was the weapon of choice for TV news, and I used to dub films and video for TV ("rerecording" if you live West of the pond). So clapperboards (or even just hand claps in vision) don't frighten me, but they are a nuisance when working single-handed (and in post, later on). Both Tascam mixer/recorders will fire an audio slate tone towards the recording and the camera's audio tracks simultaneously on a button push, so sync is possible that way, but it's functionally worse than a handclap - you'd have to find the leading edge of the tone on both recordings, and retain the camera's audio track in post, just in case.


So, if anyone knows the answers on the 6Ds behaviour, please say.

Many thanks.

S.

PS: last time I asked Canon UK a simple technical question they were basically rude and unhelpful, so I haven't emailed them this time. It's not laziness - I'm happy to do so, but on past experience I don't think it's worth the effort. I like the kit, but find the company rather frustrating.
#17
Quoteis the menu exiting by itself a known reported issue for 6D?

Mine does it too -- I thought it was an intentional timeout.

It's my first posting here, incidentally: I've just started experimenting with ML on my own 6D. To say it transforms the camera's usefulness, especially for video, is an understatement. So much to learn, but I'll put in the effort as it's obviously worth it.

Very grateful for all the hard work that's gone into this. Reverse engineering Canon's F/W is not for the faint-hearted, and this, frankly, is quite superb.

My own interests are occasional 360 (immersive) panoramas using Hugin (Panotools) and occasional documentary making. It's going to change my workflow, undoubtedly, but the results will be worth it.

Thanks people - really appreciated here.

S.