I just want to put this here for anyone wondering about using Magic Lantern Raw on older Cameras. I'm currently using the 10bit Experimental Build on the Canon 5D Mark ii.
My A Cam is a Ursa Mini 4.6K. Been working on a mini-doc using both and have learned a lot of how they compare.
The quality and exposure compensation on the MLRaw for 5d is insane. It's a given but exposing correctly (to the left, with skin tones above 20% in a Log profile) gives resounding results in shadows and highlights when adjusting in post.
Obviously the UM46 has 3-4 stops of DR above the 5d but when compensating in camera and shooting for flexibility rather than in camera look, I've been able to match the two on highlight and shadow maximums.
I typically shoot the UM46 in Prores 422 and another obvious difference would be the MLRaw is more robust and data rich/accessible but comparing Blackmagic Raw to true Cinema DNG on a full frame is wild to see how far you can push and pull with zero artifacting and retain quality. So not only is MLRaw better than prores, I'd say it's better than BMD proprietary raw, and if it's not, it just goes to show how lovely Canon works with light and colors via their sensors.
The only downfalls I have with MLRaw is two fold, when using Log profiles I have to use experience to understand how the final image will look and lastly: file size. Shooting HD 10bit Raw is about 33gb for 10 minutes. It's high considering CFast being pricey and so outdated it's hardly considered and investment.
Hopefully someone wondering about the capability of this amazing hack finds this useful. In conclusion, you don't need to spend $2k-10k for cinema quality. I bought my 5d ii for $380 and honestly in some situations I think it might be slightly better than my Ursa in quality and capability (once again; in CERTAIN, situations, not all)
My A Cam is a Ursa Mini 4.6K. Been working on a mini-doc using both and have learned a lot of how they compare.
The quality and exposure compensation on the MLRaw for 5d is insane. It's a given but exposing correctly (to the left, with skin tones above 20% in a Log profile) gives resounding results in shadows and highlights when adjusting in post.
Obviously the UM46 has 3-4 stops of DR above the 5d but when compensating in camera and shooting for flexibility rather than in camera look, I've been able to match the two on highlight and shadow maximums.
I typically shoot the UM46 in Prores 422 and another obvious difference would be the MLRaw is more robust and data rich/accessible but comparing Blackmagic Raw to true Cinema DNG on a full frame is wild to see how far you can push and pull with zero artifacting and retain quality. So not only is MLRaw better than prores, I'd say it's better than BMD proprietary raw, and if it's not, it just goes to show how lovely Canon works with light and colors via their sensors.
The only downfalls I have with MLRaw is two fold, when using Log profiles I have to use experience to understand how the final image will look and lastly: file size. Shooting HD 10bit Raw is about 33gb for 10 minutes. It's high considering CFast being pricey and so outdated it's hardly considered and investment.
Hopefully someone wondering about the capability of this amazing hack finds this useful. In conclusion, you don't need to spend $2k-10k for cinema quality. I bought my 5d ii for $380 and honestly in some situations I think it might be slightly better than my Ursa in quality and capability (once again; in CERTAIN, situations, not all)