Messages

Maybe something to do with ISO 50 being an "extended" feature?
Also, it is not available with video, if that matters.

By the way, just for clarity, when the versions "tie" that doesn't prove they're definitely the same, just that we haven't been able to show they're different. It could be that a larger data set would reveal a difference.

[So A beat C (36B111D.MO beat 14E2991.MO)]

A: 36B111D.MO
Count = 42
Mean frames = 1178

B: E203CF9.MO
Count = 35
Mean frames = 1150

C: 14E2991.MO
Count = 63
Mean frames = 1115

A vs. B
T -Stat: 0.856418986
Critical T: 1.665996224

A vs. C
T -Stat: 2.03877008
Critical T: 1.66319668

B vs. C
T -Stat: 1.128192618
Critical T: 1.667572281

So A beat C (36B111D.MO beat 14E2991.MO)

I notice that your "t" value equals my "T -Stat" value.

"Should I run the test between those two for a longer time, or should I consider them equal?"

Maybe. My spreadsheet couldn't find a winner between A and B or B and C, so maybe B needs more points.

I modified my spreadsheet to automate more things but it's still more manual than it needs to be. I'll try to refine it. In any case, I should be faster next time.

a1ex, I put your data sets in (excluding the outliers you mentioned) and of the six modules the only meaningful difference in the means was with 60247BB.MO, which all the other five modules beat.

So, tied for first are:
14E2991.MO (mean=963, set size=89)
CA5315A.MO (mean=952, set size=36)
C350071.MO (mean=907, set size=48)
54E90DE.MO (mean=897, set size=19)
DE4E1D1.MO (mean=901, set size=19)

and in sole possession of last place is:
60247BB.MO (mean=742, set size=60)

Thanks a1ex. One question:
Will I be seeing those same module names in the future as well? (just wondering if it's worth my time to build in something in the spreadsheet to extract and sort the info according to those specific names).

I think as long as the camera model and settings used are the same, we can combine results from multiple testers (so no one person has to do so much). After all, we would like to know how the builds perform in general, so multiple cameras would be just fine, it seems to me.

Best case mean: 874
Worst case mean: 677

Critical T: 1.75
T -Stat: 1.29

Since The Critical T is larger, the difference in the means is not significant.

Intuitively, if you look at how much the number of frames varies within each set, it seems like there's a large random factor. You probably would need a larger number of data points to get a meaningful comparison. That doesn't mean each run needs to be larger though. You could just combine several runs of ten.

I just put Danne's results through the spreadsheet. I combined the two sets of a1ex numbers into one and did the same with the dmilligan numbers.

The means for the two (consolidated) sets are amazingly close: a1ex: 969.2 dmilligan: 968.55

Critical T Value (@ 95% confidence): 1.69
Our T -Stat: 0.03

When the T -Stat is less than the Critical T Value (as in this case), that means the difference is not significant (as we could guess from looking at the means).

a1ex, I'm ready for that data whenever it's done.

I just made a spreadsheet (copied it off a helpful website) that compares two data sets and tells us if their means are statistically significantly different (with, say, 95% confidence).

It requires every value measured to be entered, so for instance the number of frames in each clip.

I'll try it on any test results someone wants (I can make it available too, if it proves useful).

I tried testing an earlier module but had an issue reading the MLVs (see April 11 post).
Before I try testing the latest, I have a question:
Is there a recommended protocol for testing (minimum number of clips, etc.) that will allow us to see meaningful differences in the results as opposed to random variation?

Shouldn't 1200x be faster than 1066x (just going by nomenclature)?

I tried the new a1ex raw_rec and the one from the front page. I didn't see a big difference, but I won't report results in detail just yet because I ran into an issue that might need to be addressed first:

The raw_rec from the front page produced mlv files that opened in mlvfs but wouldn't through mlrawviewer.

The raw_rec from a1ex produced mlv files that would not open in mlvfs (old Pismo pc version) or through mlrawviewer. Since that's how I look at mlvs, I couldn't examine them.

I'm using 1.1.3 mlrawviewer. When I can I'll get 1.3.3 to see if it works better.

Yes, that works. Thanks!

a1ex, I tried your raw_rec.mo in my 7D and got an error when turning on camera:

Code Select Expand

Scanning modules...
Load modules...
  [I] load: RAW_REC.MO
Linking..
tcc: error: undefined symbol 'camera_serial'
  [E] failed to link modules


Build version: Nightly.2015Mar14.7D203

ItsMeLenny, I'm no expert, but 1:1 sounds like no upscaling.

So I assume it's the flashing you're referring to?

TK2290, are you using raw or mlv?
If mlv, then +1 to using mlvfs.
If raw, then mlvfs (afaik) won't work.
In which case you might want to consider switching to mlv for future shoots.

Not to be dense, but what symptoms are you seeing to let you know there is corruption?

Those photos are fantastic!
By the way, I think you meant "son," not "sun."

As far as frame skipping:

Pros: Allows longer (unlimited, I think?) continuous takes for higher resolutions, because will skip frames when the data processing/writing can't keep up with the data load.

Cons: Skips frames.

Just a shot in the dark, but if shooting mlv then switching in and out of crop mode may change the frame size.

Here's a discussion.
Here's a pertinent quote:
"Sigh, for the nth time...it's not possible since the Canon CPU's aren't fast enough to perform the necessary calculations. They can barely keep up with writing the data to a CF card as it is."

RAW is magic lantern raw video version 1.0
MLV is magic lantern raw video version 2.0
MLV allows you to record sound (if you enable that feature). RAW does not.
MLV is supported by all the main converters. RAW may not be.
Read here if you haven't already.
Here are some post-processing tips and converters.

Quote from the FAQ:
"Dude, you should totally develop 10 bit raw recording.  I could record full HD footage if you did!

That's nice.  Here's a hint, we already tried, and you aren't the first person to ask.  Try searching before asking anymore questions."

kamranjon, you can't do better than one-to-one 1080 crop. Anything else and you're diverting processor power into resizing the image.