Recent posts

#1

Camera-specific Development / Re: 200D shoots raw video

Last post by names_are_hard - Today at 02:41:27 AM

Very interesting, the ideal scenario for Dual ISO is when you ETTR at the base ISO. By underexposing you are just "wasting" dynamic range on the highlights, but it shouldn't affect the comparison if the dynamic range of the scene is wide enough.

That's the conventional wisdom for ML Dual ISO, yes.  We're unsure it works the same way for 200D.  Links sent!

Will be good to get another opinion from someone who has experience working with these files.  I can clearly see it's exposing at two ISOs, it's not obvious to me if that helps.

#2

Camera-specific Development / Re: 200D shoots raw video

Last post by iaburn - Yesterday at 08:16:24 PM

I now have a decent set of test files.  Sunlit window scene with shadows and a range of colours.  Shots taken in 100/100 up to 100/3200.  Three sets, exposing for ISO 100: "ETTR-ish" (about 1 stop overexposed?), 2-stops under, and 4-stops under (this one includes 100/6400).  Why under?  Because Walter took a look at the first set and said they were weird; good highlight recovery but not much change to dark areas.  So perhaps 200D prefers it the opposite way to old cams.

If you want to compare, DM me for the links.  It's about 250MB per set.

Very interesting, the ideal scenario for Dual ISO is when you ETTR at the base ISO. By underexposing you are just "wasting" dynamic range on the highlights, but it shouldn't affect the comparison if the dynamic range of the scene is wide enough.

I'm messaging you for the first set! 

#3

Raw Video Postprocessing / Re: MLVFS - a FUSE based, "on ...

Last post by vastunghia - Yesterday at 05:32:13 PM

So as promised here is my PoC: code and test release.

You get a 'Force half frames' option in the web GUI, and by enabling it you will see that resulting DNG files are being read by (say) DVR as half their actual fps, though still retaining their original duration (in a nutshell: one frame every two is being dropped, in a seamless manner).

What next:

• Test if this makes any sense, i.e. if there is any real benefit in terms of playback smoothness (looks so, but not as much as I hoped, will need to make up a way to measure the benefit)
• Test what happens when one switches the option on and off -- I think there is some caching going on, as DVR does not seem to notice changes for clips that had already played back, should find a way to clear the cache upon switching option, unfortunately I have no clue at what level this caching is happening (MLVFS? Fuse? OS? DVR?)
• Come up with the best workflow to do editing / grading with the option turned on and then switch to rendering with the option turned off, in the smoothest possible manner
• In light of the above points, consider whether it could be better to have at all times two FUSE mounts (or FWIW one single mount with two sub-folders), one with full-fps footage and one with half-fps, the latter to be used as a kind of a 'proxy' footage for former. This would make the switch between the two worlds just boil down to changing the source folder in DVR, and could bypass the caching issue.

I'm not expecting to raise much attention on this work, as I understand that not many people are using / are willing to use 3.5K 14-bit footage from 5D3 with MLVFS+DVR. However, any suggestion will be appreciated.

#4

Share Your Videos / Re: 5D iii MLV Raw to CDNG vs ...

Last post by a.sintes - May 22, 2024, 08:46:15 AM

I'm using quite the same workflow to save space (using ProRes4444), but I'm applying the ML Log profile instead of SLog3, as it's specifically calibrated for the 5D3 (you need then to color grade considering it's a Cineon log profile)

#5

Share Your Videos / 5D iii MLV Raw to CDNG vs Slog...

Last post by belalkhansocial - May 21, 2024, 09:06:16 PM

Been messing about with post-workflow. Having been working with Slog3 footage with Sony cameras for work, I figured let me see if that same workflow can carry over to MLV Raw

This is just a results comparison between my previous workflow using Adobe Camera Raw and my currently Slog3 workflow.

#6

Hardware and Accessories / Re: can cables of different ca...

Last post by Skinny - May 20, 2024, 08:37:08 PM

Short answer - it doesn't matter how thin or thick the cable is, you can connect whatever you want and everything will be fine.

But the camera draws some current (for example, 2 amps or more for 5D2), so if you are using an actual battery - 18650 cells or a power bank - then you may want to use thicker wires whenever possible. To minimize losses and have more efficient setup (longer battery life).
So it is good to use thick wires, but if you are powering everything from ac/dc adapter then there will be no real difference.

I say this because I used relatively thin wires with cheap case for 2x 18650, and I measured about 0.1v voltage loss, it is 200mW or more wasted. Not much, but anyway..

#7

Camera-specific Development / Re: 200D shoots raw video

Last post by names_are_hard - May 20, 2024, 06:44:16 PM

I'm curious to see if there is a visible gain or not with dual ISO on the 200D 

I now have a decent set of test files.  Sunlit window scene with shadows and a range of colours.  Shots taken in 100/100 up to 100/3200.  Three sets, exposing for ISO 100: "ETTR-ish" (about 1 stop overexposed?), 2-stops under, and 4-stops under (this one includes 100/6400).  Why under?  Because Walter took a look at the first set and said they were weird; good highlight recovery but not much change to dark areas.  So perhaps 200D prefers it the opposite way to old cams.

If you want to compare, DM me for the links.  It's about 250MB per set.

#8

Raw Video Postprocessing / Re: MLVFS - a FUSE based, "on ...

Last post by vastunghia - May 20, 2024, 06:41:14 PM

Appreciate your effort, thanks, somehow I came to simular conclusions —- I just hoped maybe the developer posted somewhere on this forum about his objectives and his progresses, and some ML hero member would recall the posts.

Guess I will skip that repo. I started playing around on my repo, will post when I have at least a PoC.

#9

Raw Video Postprocessing / Re: MLVFS - a FUSE based, "on ...

Last post by names_are_hard - May 20, 2024, 05:58:15 PM

EDIT: anyone can explain gitHub-based cedricp/MLVFS commits dated Jun - Jul 2022? His work seems to be based on commit 9f81918 [May 31, 2016].

I only skimmed this, and the commit comments aren't very helpful.  Some of the work is definitely based on the bitbucket dmilligan repo.  Just copy pasted, so you lose the commit history   You will want to cross ref these two repos, I would guess.  Some of the work is similar and for the same feature: lossless MLV support.  The cedricp repo also adds cmake build support (?) and moves a bunch of files around.  Perhaps this is important, perhaps not.  No explanation is given for why this is done.

Actually properly determining what these changes do is several hours work.  I'm not volunteering, sorry!

#10

Raw Video Postprocessing / Re: MLVFS - a FUSE based, "on ...

Last post by Danne - May 20, 2024, 04:12:53 PM

What to explain about?
It would be great if you manage to speed up things.