Messages

The 1:1 full-res LV only shows a portion of the frame, and it's not possible to press the * button to switch to framing.
This preset only worked well on bilal's first release of crop mood, where you would see a cropped preview, but you could press * to see the framing. (the 3k also worked this way back then)

Try enabling "Preview toggle" on the RAW video menu, and also remove any action assigned to the Half-Shutter on "Customize buttons". If you do that, half shutter press and (*) will toggle between real-time and actual framing. Not sure why half shutter affects (*) though, maybe is not possible to assign an action just to (*).

I can´t get it centered @iaburn.

I thought that, not a big deal anyway

A day light example showing the incredibly creamy bokeh and how the bar gets sharp at the edges when the center is out of focus. This lens is super fun to use
https://vimeo.com/908661212

Danne one small thing I've noticed on the new mode is that the "Focus aid" is centered when not recording, but way off centered when recording. Not sure if it's fixable, but would be great if there was a way to have the same focus point when recording than when standby 

Interesting indeed.
About the pixel map. Could you recheck against latest build in first post? I think I added 1 pixel height to get rid of pixelation at the bottom.

I was indeed on an older version, cannot keep up with so many updates!

A curiosity about this new mode: 16mm film format size is 10.26x7.49mm, and the 2160x1620 pixels are spread approximately on a 9.3x6.98mm area of the sensor, so quite close.
For reference, the original BMPCC sensor size is 12.48x7.02mm, almost the same height but wider, to imitate super 16 format

Danne, MLVApp is looking for 80000331_2232x1648.fpm instead of 80000331_2232x1649.fpm, if you want to change it, but works perfectly fine 

Cool thing is that 14bits are possible in this mode with fast SD cards:


A quick night test while taking out the rubbish on this 4:3 mode with the c-mount 25mm f1.4 wide open, showing light flares.
The lens is sharp from corner to corner, but it has this "spherical focus" shape, so the center and the edges are never in focus at the same time.

Same video with a more vintage look that fit the lens and the format better:

Pixel map added for 2160x1620 preset.

<3 I'll post some samples when I find something nice to shoot

I just like one of my c-mount lenses, the 25mm 1.4 from the picture before. It's perfectly centered with vignette visible on non-crop, but totally gone on 1x1 modes.
The new 1x1 4:3 mode has 0 vignette even wide open

This new mode is amazing, thank you!!!! (thank you 2blackbar for not being  shy to ask xDD) Almost perfectly centered and it seems to have the full width in real time preview 
It fits like a glove c-mount lenses, one of my favorite modes from now on 

OK lets derail, so what esrgan model you recommend for 1080 mode 3x3 ? I dont want it to introduce ai artifacts and smudging typical for lots of esrgan models , i think my fav is  4x_NMKD-Superscale-SP_178000_G  cause it doesnt do weird crap but id have to test if it smooths out aliasing ...

Sorry I didn't try any of this AI things that you mention.
Photoshop/Lightroom have a new AI driven feature called "RAW detail" that is able to fix most of the artifacts, so I run this for all DNGs once exported when I want to improve 1080p footage, and it does wonders

Id like to see more tests comparing 2.5k to 5.2k anamorphic mode to see whats the closest resolution detail, math is cute and all but theres several factors affecting outcome like scaling algo and skipping vs binning

Unless you get an AI to fill the missing pixels when scaling the 3x1 image to 5.2K, it's not really possible to compare resolution directly with 1x1 and 3x3 modes.
Think about 3x1 modes like special format with some unique characteristics.
If you like what you see, don't think too much about it and use it

So from Your tests it looks like 2.5k is actually much better than 5.2k.. kinda how i thought about it all this time (anamorphic modes vs 1x1modes)... dont know what to think about it, did you sharpen something ?
Cause this is not what maths says and its clearly below 2.5k detail which concludes that i was right about the actual detail.

Someone mentioned before, the 3x1 modes have a very high vertical resolution, but the horizontal resolution is 1736 pixels maximum.
Stretching the image 3 times horizontally will give a strange look when you see the frame at 100%, so in my opinion 3x1 modes are best when keeping horizontal pixels and downscaling vertically.
By downscaling, you make the pixels square, the noise is lower, you get less aliasing and there's added real sharpness to the image when compared to 1080p

I don't have a 3x3 example, but I was a little surprised of the 3x3 sharpness in @iaburn's example.

I forgot to mention that I processed the exported DNG frames in photoshop, minimizing the aliasing and color artifacts so it was easier to see the actual resolution

I also did some tests when I was comparing recording modes. The framing on the 1:1 crop modes is a bit off, the object is smaller so they are in disadvantage, but resolution is still clearly better (click for full resolution).
The original frames were scaled to 4K to normalize the resolutions.

It was an important design decission in the old days. And it was not easy to do this magic. We can change the labels if you like: first box is for anamorphic lenses, while second box is for digital ML stretch. If you were able to stretch width at 3.0x, you're forbidden to use anamorphic lenses at the same time, while 2nd box will probably never be used. There is also no 3.0x anamorphic lens (as far as I know), so this option doesn't exist. If we would downscale the height, you would never see the additional details in 1x3 footage over 3x3. If you however want to downscale for the export, use the export settings dialog. So I think there is nothing to fix - this is as it was intended to work.

If it was intended, then I have nothing to say.

But regarding your comment about not seeing additional details over 3x3 by scaling down, if the scaling algorithm is good, you will get added detail (oversampling), reduced noise, and of course much less aliasing artifacts than on 3x3 mode.
The problem with downscaling on export is that you never get to see the final image at a 100% while editing (final meaning scaled down), and the frame buffer is larger, so playback and editing are also slower.
For these reasons I end up always exporting to CDNG and doing all the color corrections in resolve for 1x3 clips

Just an open question: On the transformation menu, there are options for width and height stretch.
A height stretch of 0.33x is used for the 1x3 modes, but instead of setting 1/3rd of the height, it is actually setting 3x the width. So height stretch is not actually stretching height, but width.

Shouldn't this be fixed so it's possible to set a 3x width stretch (currently missing, maxing out at 2x), but also a 0.33x height to leave the width alone and just benefit from the lower noise and reduced aliasing by adjusting the vertical resolution?

I'm missing something because I've modified the second column with +1, using the correct name so it's green on MLVApp(thanks masc), but still not working. For example this file for the new Medium 1x3 2:1 1360x2040:
https://filetransfer.io/data-package/h0ycmUY8#link
What is wrong with that file? I took the 80000331_1432x2068.fpm to make the 80000331_1432x2069.fpm by adding 1 to the second column. Is not that what has to be done? 

Is it really that easy? I'll take a look

Thanks! I think I'll wait until we have focus pixels maps, I'm not using those modes very often

2880x1206 -> new map uploaded

Thanks a lot!

700D uses Hybrid CMOS AF like M, 650D.

Makes sense, thanks

Hi, as I ask in the title, what is the reason for having focus pixels on a DSLR like the Canon 700D, and why other cameras like the 6D doesn't have them? I'm just curious because the 700D seems to have contrast autofocus on live view, so the same as the 6D.
It's very convenient not having to worry about focus pixels when processing the MLV files 
Thanks

Danne I've noticed that on 2.8K your build records at 2880x1206, but the original crop mood was 2880x1226. Is that intentional?
I don't mind the 20 pixels, but there is currently no focus pixel map for MLVApp. Just wondering if you changed it to 1:2.39 instead of 1:2.35 for stability, or it was a mistake

I wonder what could a 5Ds do with magic lantern 
Same dual Digic 6 as the 7D Mark II, but lots of pixels, so in theory high processing capacity and memory... very curious 

Congrats heder, it sounds like a big step forward!!! 

I have no problems with not being able to change ISO or aperture while recording, so I didn't assign buttons for that.
I did a quick test with my main sd card and 5.2K at 1:2.35 and 12bit is red with ISO shortcut but orange without the shortcut, so I'm happy with the extra MB/s