Messages

It does say in the link btw if you suffer from pink frames to stay away from the build, im not sure if he means the new release or the 24th build, give it a shot

I think a.d said if you had dead pixel in frames stay away from link, but the link is for a fix for pink frames.

@ all with random pink frames in crop mode
https://bitbucket.org/a_d_/laboratory/wiki/Home

@ted and duncanidaho25
Beautiful shots of the Moon

@motionpikczer
I like it

Good Morning a.d,

Thanks for the new hack the pink frames were becoming a journey, I will install and test.

Good Day Fellow Cinematic Revolutionists,

I see that you guys gave us an option to choose 1880 or 1872 resolution, the display of the resolution is very Cool also. My understanding of the option is that 1880 is the resolution Canon software coding allow from the sensor, the 1872 option is the exact 1/3 breakdown of the sensor ML coding and that allow for smoother file conversion without loosing quality from Canon's Sensor coding.

what & where is the pink spot removal tool?

Hello All 

Just testing out the New Build From June 21.
I had the June 4th built until now,
I see a big boost in speed for slower Card,
Test out my Scandisk 600x 90MB/s 32 GB
the best i could do before was 1720x864 & 1880x752.
Now i get 1880x800 24p @ 57.3-60.1 MB/s Continuous Recording

On my Lexar 1000x 32 GB , with the June 22 Built
1856x928 24p @ 68.7-69.1MB/s with frame over ride on
Crop mode : 2048x856 24p Continuous Recording
Before non crop mode was 1880x854 24p, Crop 2048x820 24p

I didn't see any benefit to use the 22nd built on the Scandisk,
But Gain a little more Frame size with the Lexar

I might have to go back to the June 21st build, it seems more stable I'm getting pink RAW footage. I don't know if its the .013 raw2dng.app or the June 22nd build it does sucks but we always have to keep in mind We Are On The Bleeding Edge.

Hello, guys.
I don't think it's a bug. But i think it will be good if you can add these options in upcoming builds:
1) please add an option to proceed apple prores 4444 WITHOUT auto white balance either any whitebalance presets (cloudy, shade, tungsten etc,)
Here's the short movie where you can see how auto white balance does really bad thing
http://youtu.be/0rCHzaa0--E
I think it's really useful to be able to get prores 4444 on the go, but in some cases auto white balance works just not right.
2)add an option for user to be able not to procced DNGs but to result only in MOV file instead.
If i need a MOV why would i need a DNG's?
Add an option to chose whether we need both DNG and MOV neither we need only DNGs or only MOV.

They have the raw2dng.app becoming very self INTUATIVE, so open the app then just like dropping a .RAW file into the window drop the raw2dng.app into the window, then it will give you the option of turning off the progress 4444 white balance also.

Pro Res 4444 should be the only format you should put into you editor.

"When a1ex says 1872 is a mod16 resolution..."

Thanks for the explanation. I agree there is no noticeable difference and if it lends itself to performance, I'm sold.

Unless you have a specific reason, always be running the latest builds dariSSight. Even though RAW is pretty stable, it's far from ready for general release and the developers need to hear from people who encounter bugs.

Thanks All for the feedback and I'm running the latest build, You had me at Mod16 Resolution.

When a1ex says 1872 is a mod16 resolution, it means that 1872 is evenly-divisible by 16 (1872 / 16 = 117).  In terms of upscaling 1872 x 1053 vs 1880 x 1057.5 to 1920x1080, you could say you see a difference, but you'd probably be lying or fooling yourself.  It's dropping a total of 0.85% of the resolution for much better performance.

So Redrocks and EatTooMuchJam, I should reinstall the latest build?

I hate to say it dude but the moire and aliasing on that shot is very obvious to me. On the fence between the trees on the left, color patterns all over the distant tree and all the weird coloring on the darker of the two rooftops.

Sorry man - don't mean to be negative, just saying what I see.

I seen this forum thread before but I don't think I soak it in. Reddeercity Post is very vital for the point of Aliasing and Moire fears, I took a closer look at his video after reading the thread and you can see he was correct Aliasing can be seen in the small low Res window but if you open it to full screen and even more pick the 1080p or Original format option it clears up greatly for presentation (beautiful), that's scratching the surface of filming in RAW and Upscaling. Thanks again for the revisit to the thread because it help drill the option of line skipping, Moire and Aliasing problem solving into my head.

Current ad vs A1ex, Komputerbay 64GB, GD off, exact 24 fps, resolution 1872:

ad 1248 / 3:2 =

217
223
217
226
218

A1ex 1248 / 3:2 =

222
228
223
229
216

ad 1054 / 16:9 =

587
561
586
553
579

A1ex 1054 / 16:9 =

558
564
598
553
541

ad 1012 / 1.85:1 =

833
888
950
893
933

A1ex 1012 / 1.85:1 =

835
963
861
921
871

ad 936 / 2:1

4992

A1ex 936 / 2:1

3954


Yes it's better to do everything you can before relying on a filter, I haven't heard of any similar products to the Mosaic line.

I seen that forum thread before but I don't think I soak it in. Reddeercity Post is very vital for the point of Aliasing and Moire fear, I took a closer look at his video after reading the thread and you can see he was correct Aliasing can be seen in the small low Res window but if you open it to full screen and even more pick the 1080p or Original format option it clears up greatly for presentation (beautiful), that's scratching the surface of filming in RAW and Upscaling. Thanks again for the revisit to the thread because it help drill the option of line skipping, Moire and Aliasing problem solving into my head.

From your tests experience, do you think raw recording without VAF filter is acceptable or there is to much aliasing and color aliasing?

Thanx again

______________

I intend to get one in the next week or so, but it's certainly acceptable without one.

I will puchase a VAF filter soon because it seems to be something you might not want to be without, I do believe its always better to watch your ISO for Color Alasing and Moire and watch for pattern in your shots. What's the option for VAF filters I've only heard of the Mosaic VAF Filter?

You too, dariSSight. A1ex has this to say about 1880 vs 1872:

"the builds from a.d. contain a number of extra changes, e.g. allows non-mod16 resolutions (which I prefer to stay away from, for DMA alignment reasons)"

"Bigger is not always better, mod16 resolutions are more important IMO, and the EDMAC is very sensitive to alignment."

Which is over my head, but I realised that 1872 is an exact 1/3 rd of the sensor and probably an easier number to work with.

I'm a little stomp but does that mean its an exact RAW video conversion from the sensor measurement, I think it's because Canon non-compromise for low-level access to the sensor that Magic Lantern cannot push the 1880 up.

Does lowering it to 1872 RAW measurements takes from conversions like 1080p?

Forgive my ignorance but I believe asking make you a little least ignorant.

I just installed a.d's latest build (cf56893d7be4) and it appears to have variable buffering. Also he has removed his 1880 hack to bring his resolutions inline with A1ex's builds.

Hope your have a Cinematic day Redrocks and Magic Lantern Community,
I put the June 22 a.d's latest build (cf56893d7be4) in and it took my measure back to 1872 instead of 1880 what going on? So to keep thing somewhat accurate I put the 2013/06/21 0c3188c5134f Build back in at least the measurements right. What's the changes from 2013/06/21 0c3188c5134f Build and a.d's latest build (cf56893d7be4)?

Using a Komputerbay 64GB & A1ex's new module on the 5d2:

Max continuous

4:3 = 1472 x 1104
3:2 = 1472 x 982
16:9 = 1600 x 900
1.85:1 = 1728 x 934
2:1 = 1728 x 864
2.20:1 = 1872 x 850
2.35:1 1872 x 796
2:39:1 1872 x 784

Using a Laxar 1000x 32GB & 2013/06/21 0c3188c5134f Build on the 5d2, Ratio 4:3, 3:2, 16:9, 1.85:1 and 2:1 of Redrocks reading are the same but the 2.20:1, 2.35:1 and 2.39:1 are different on my readings:

2.20:1=1880x854
2.35:1=1880x800
2.39:1=1880x786

I see that a Jun 22 build has been released, does it have an improvement on the variable buffering or has variable buffering been totally taking out?

Does this software support Mac Users

[1872 x 1250 @ 1:2]

5d2
Komputerbay 64GB 1000x
exact 24fps
Cinesco2 overlay (to simulate my typical usage)
comparing A1ex's new build to the normal build I use (thanks a.d.)


A1ex: 1872 x 1250 @ 1:2

200
208
201
190
205

5x 2144 x 1078 @ 1:2

201
201
206
201
208

a.d.: 1880 x 1250 @1:2

174
174
174
174
174

5x 2152 x 1078 @1:2

185
184
185
184
185
__________________

A1ex: 1872 x 936 @2:1 (first unreliable ratio)

2077
2016
2429
2678
2171

5 x 2144 x 1072 @2:1 (first unreliable ratio)

211
209
207
207
211

a.d.: 1880 x 940 @2:1 (first unreliable ratio)

2061
2432
2289
2660
Battery gave out during final clip

5x 2152 x 1076 @2:1 (first unreliable ratio)

59
126
177
185
184
___________________

A1ex: 1872 x 1012 @1.85:1

674
738
676
725
679

5x 2144 x 1078 @1.85:1

207
200
208
201
208

a.d.: 1880 x 1016 @1.85:1

541
661
551
532
617

5x 2152 x 1078 @1.85:1

185
184
185
184
185
___________________

A1ex: 1872 x 1054 @16:9

475
488
466
470
468

5x 2144 x 1078 @16:9

204
205
206
203
208

a.d.: 1880 x 1058 @16:9

408
417
408
417
416

5x 2152 x 1078 @16:9

185
184
185
184
185

Why has the resolution change from 1880 to 1872?

5d2
Komputerbay 64GB 1000x
exact 24fps
Cinesco2 overlay (to simulate my typical usage)
with A1ex's module from first page

1870 x 1250

200
208
201
190
205

5x 2144 x 1078

201
201
206
201
208

with current a.d. module on another Komputerbay

1880 x 1250

174
174
174
174
174

5x 2152 x 1078

185
184
185
184
185

Redrock are you checking for full ability with the 5D Mark II and we're getting at 1x with new module average 200 at 1870x1250, 5x 2144x1078? I will check my Lexar limitation and post back

A1ex are we losing some resolution with variable buffering because the highest resolution with 2.20.1 was 1880x854 but now it's 1872x850 and its not continuous on a Lexar 1000x, but 1856x844 is continuous.

Cool

The strategy is universal, it's trying to use the available resources in the best possible way. It measures the card speed on the fly.

You can use the module from my previous post on any camera (the code is portable). The autoexec and sym are only for 5D3.

Cool, I will install and get back to you. By the way does the AutoExec Bin activate the module?

Correct me if I'm mistaking but it's the 5D Mark II & III the top DSLR from Canon and isn't Magic Lantern pulling the most out of these 2 DSLR? I'm just asking because I'm extremely grateful by the work you guys do and I'm hoping you don't stop pushing the 5D Mark II, because I read a lot on these forum about the 6D and other Canon cameras. I just want you guys to give me a straighten out, I would love to hear that 5D Mark II can get variable buffering before I start reading 60D is been tested. I know I know I know, I'm selfish. I'm working on it

Thanks for all the work you guys do, I want to get a clear understanding on the best possible resolution and what keeps the 5D Mark II From utilizing the full Sensor functions? I know the full framing of the Canon 5D Mark II is 3:2, so can you explain why the camera gets RAW 1880 instead of 1920?

I did get pick frame on x5 with 2013/06/16 b93d6ae2b30d but I reverted to the build before it, now I have the latest build from the 6/16 and that solve the pink issue but now has gray frame while recording but I'm sure you guy have the answers. I do want to ask, what is the most Raw resolution from the 5D Mark II in 2.35.1-2.20.1-1.85.1-16:9 , I took your advise and I now have a Lexar 32 1000x?