Messages

Those aren't hassle free. Do you use usenet? I can put it there.

By the way it is the "blacks" function in Photoshop.

EDIT - Woo hoo! I can do it in After Effects!

I can import my RAW stuff in Premiere PRO, then import the Premiere project into After Effects.
THEN I can alter the levels I need and save back out!

THIS IS THE FIX!!!

The only thing I need now is to know the exact function I should use and exactly how many numbers I need to reduce it to.
Because right now, I am only doing it by eye.

P.S. - And here is the technical solution I was asking, it appears you can just fix it in hex -
http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=6580.msg52480#msg52480
It appears RAW files do have meta but it's stored at the EOF not the beginning! hahah

Is there a place to upload to? A hassle free place where I don't need to fill an account out at?
Cuz I would just throw it on usenet if you know how to download that.

If I load it into Photoshop I can fix it by using the "blacks" option.

Can you alter "blacks" in Premiere? That would be great. Looking for options now.

C:\temp\M20-0406>"j:\EXIFTOOl\exiftool(-k).exe" -BlackLevel=9999 M20-0406000000.
dng -o 9999.DNG
    1 image files created

C:\temp\M20-0406>"j:\EXIFTOOl\exiftool(-k).exe" -BlackLevel=0 M20-0406000000.dng
-o 0000.DNG
    1 image files created

Neither setting the switch all the way to 9999 or all the way to 0 produces any change in the image.

0000.DNG and 9999.DNG look the same as the source file M20-0406000000.DNG.

Exiftool shouldn't complete and create the file if there's a syntax or other error so I don't get it.

Isn't there a function that alters this in one of the Adobe products? Couldn't you change this in Photoshop?

EDIT - It seems it changes the meta data and not all "viewers" display based on meta data.
So all 3 images are identical and they only have different meta data.
View them with a viewer that only shows what is there and does not listen to meta data and they are all the same.
If I load them into Photoshop, they are different. Need to do more research.
Want to figure how to just do this in Premiere.

There has got to be a different solution. I am not converting my stuff to DNG.

It can be done with MLV right?


EDIT - For shits and giggles, I did a test of the DNG method. Just to verify that it can be fixed at all.

I converted one of my RAW videos to DNG, which creates a folder with tons of DNG images in it, right?
Then I went into that folder and attempted to fix one frame:

C:\temp\M20-0406>"j:\EXIFTOOl\exiftool(-k).exe" -BlackLevel=1750 M20-0406000000.
dng -o TEST.DNG
    1 image files created

The resulting image was the exact same. The output "TEST.DNG" file still has the pink hue over it.
I tried 1024 as well. Neither seem to have done anything to the image at all.

Now if the "fix" applies these numbers already and turning the "black fix" ON in Magic Lantern is
what caused these issues in the first place then maybe the numbers I need to be using for "BlackLevel"
should be the default ones that would be there before the option "black fix" is turned on?
Because that's how my stuff works. With it on, I get the pink hue. Off and all is great.
This footage is screwed because it was turned ON.


And how complicated is that header to MLV anyhow...
You can create MLVs with no WAVs in it.
I wonder if I create an MLV with no audio and then simply clip that header and append it to the beginning of a
RAW file if that is all that's needed to "convert" RAW to MLV? RAW doesn't have any header I don't think.
I don't think there are checksums that would need recalculated are there?
I didn't wanna hafta get into it at this level.

The basic premise is if I could "convert" RAW to MLV, I could then run that MLV through MLVDUMP with --black-fix option.

But until I get black fix option working right on the DNG method with exiftool I won't bother with what I'm pretty
sure I could do since I'm sure both mlvdump and exiftool are changing the exact same setting.

I don't understand why mlvdump doesn't have the reverse function of going from RAW to MLV. It should.

Is there a programmer's breakdown of the MLV header somewhere?
Like what each byte represents and the general layout? I'm sure it contains the size of the video data,
I would need to change that to represent the correct length.

andy: For the millionth time - They are NOT DNGS. Are you people reading what I posted?

Audionut: Again, I do not see instructions on dealing with RAW video files. If I've missed that part, please point it out to me.

MLVDUMP = DOES NOT DEAL WITH RAW FILES

Everyone keeps assuming I use their workflow, I guess because most people can't import RAW into Premiere.

I need an expert here to explain what exactly happens to the video when the "black fix" is applied and how to fix it.
(Does it change meta data or the actual data? Does RAW have any meta data fields? Etc.)
My RAW video files are screwed because it was turned ON somehow, either accidentally or because of a bug which I've
already described above. ON means it's supposed to fix the range level, not break it.
Nevertheless, it was turned on at the camera level and the exported MLVs had the error.
I converted (It really is more of an extraction, no conversion is done with MLV Mystic) those MLVs to RAW.
I don't have the original MLVs now but RAW data is the same as MLV data except just not in the MLV "container"
and put together with WAVs. All MLV is is RAW + WAV plus some different headers/meta data.
If you look at an MLV file in a hex editor and outline the chunk where the video is, it is the SAME DATA as the RAW file.
If you don't understand this stuff, please don't comment.

Why do I use MLV only to "convert" (again, not really a "conversion") back to RAW & WAV?
- spanning suport (write to CF and SD in parallel to gain 20MiB/s <--- PRIMARILY BECAUSE OF THIS AWESOMENESS!
THANK YOU MAGIC LANTERN GENIUSES!

Perhaps there is a way to fix the video in After Effects? I think I remember someone posting how to do that.
But it is not going to help if people keep talking about DNG. (The format I have not converted anything into,
do not like, is not really lossless, creates a million individual still files instead of being a true video format,
is not reversible after you've converted to it and is, not to mention, the format I've specifically stated I want
to avoid dealing with if at all possible.)

RAW is RAW. There may not be a way to fix the "black fix" issue with RAW but if so, it is only because no one
has figured out how to do it yet because RAW is higher than DNG and is actually the same data that is in
an MLV file except for the fact MLV files also carry audio. SO... If it can be done with an MLV...
It can be done with a RAW video file. And there should already be a way to "mux" RAW+WAV to MLV since
this is essentially what Magic Lantern does in the camera it's self when it creates the MLV file.

A utility that "muxes" together an MLV file from RAW & WAV files should be easy enough to make if it doesn't already exist.
If the setting is in the meta data and not actually in the RAW video it's self then it should be even easier to fix as
long as I can get the RAW back into MLV which has more meta/header options.

What you guys are saying is I need to convert from a RAW format to something else in order to change data in the images.
That is ridiculous. That data can be changed within the RAW format. You're not looking at it from a binary level.
I edit everything in RAW. I load RAW directly into Premiere. RAW is the mother of all the formats.

AGAIN - Is there a way to fix this issue from within one of the CS6/CC suite's software? Like with After Effects? Or Premiere?
I have no issues importing my RAW files into any of those programs and wish to continue using pure RAW as the format
I do all my stuff in, I have Terrabytes of information which I wish to edit together into a documentary this Winter.
It's all in RAW & WAV files and that is exactly how I need it and want it. I'm simply trying to fix 1 day's fuck up.

Have the DNGS? How would I have DNG? I would have had to convert the MLV to DNG.
I never use DNG. I use MLV and RAW. I have the RAW files as stated above.
Nothing has been "converted" in that, in my understanding, the data in RAW and MLV is the same except
for the fact that MLV has WAV included in it and a few different headers.

I will check the link though, doesn't it show how to fix in one of the adobe programs?
Because I can import RAW directly into any of my Adobe software. (Premiere/Photoshop/After Effects/Etc.)
I have just never used anything but Photoshop & Premiere.

The link says to use MLVDUMP - Is there a way to take RAW & WAV files and mux them back into MLV?
My problem is that I need to perform the procedure on RAW files. I really don't want to have to convert
RAW to DNG either as I have never been able to get DNG working good on my workflow & can't stand having
all the frames be in individual files. I really don't like DNG at all and hope to avoid having to convert to it.

EXIFTOOL claims to support RAW but it is not working - What does it mean, "this type of RAW" ?
It's a RAW file that came from an MLV from MLV MYSTIC.

C:\OCT26>"j:\EXIFTOOL\exiftool(-k).exe" -BlackLevel=1024 M20-0406.RAW -o OUT
Error: Writing this type of RAW file is not supported - M20-0406.RAW
    0 image files updated
    1 files weren't updated due to errors

[MARK 5D2]

I am using a MARK 5D2.

Did the options for fix black level from the September build to the new Oct8 build change?

Because either there is a glitch or my wife messed up the settings.
The first time she was handed the camera, she accidentally hit the joystick and sent it whizzing through the
options... And when you bump that joystick you can accidentally hold it down too so not only does it fly
through all the options but it actually selects shit as well as it goes! When I saw this, I was like...
"Okay. Do you see what just happened? Do not ever go near the joystick again."
And I set it so she just can open the iso and change the iso/shutter settings with the top dial and never
have to go into menus or use joystick because for uncoordinated people, this REALLY can be dangerous!
She has been using the camera all summer and not messed up at all and she denies having messed with any
controls or settings and she says she has been very careful never to do so. (Even though I know sometimes
people who aren't as into computers as I am can accidentally hit shit and not realize they did it but I don't
really think she did anything this time, I think it is a glitch. However, I will tell this story so people know it's possible.)

I don't recall ever having selected fix black level but I upgraded to Oct build and shot
today's footage on it. I converted the MLV to RAW, loaded into PREMIERE and all the RAW stuff is pink hued.
However, I further verify that the original MLVs were pink also because of the "fix black level" option being on.
So this is not an issue which occurred during MLV to RAW/WAV conversion.

To discover why things happened, I went back into the camera and filmed more and then played it back on the camera it's self.
Again... Pink Hue! I knew at that point the issue was in the recording process it's self and not in the conversion.
So I started looking through options... And "fix black level" was turned on!

I turned "fix black level" off and shot some footage and then played that on the camera.
It played back perfectly! Everything is recording normally now... But the option "fix black level" is gone!
(After I turned it off, the camera is now recording properly plus the option "fix black level" does not appear.)

Did the new build remove the option and this cause a glitch?

And here is the part I'm really worried about - I already converted my MLV to RAW and do not have the original MLVs now.
So all my RAW stuff has the pink hue!!! Help! I remember people talking about fixing this... How?
I import my RAW stuff into PREMIERE using Mediareactor's plugin and it works awesome.
My normal workflow is I shoot RAW and have it save to MLV then I use MLV MYSTIC to convert to RAW and WAV files.
Then I import them into PREMIERE directly.

This has always worked awesome for me and will continue to work now that I shut the fix black levels option
off but I need to know if there's a way to fix the RAW footage that has the pink hue issue?

Anyone?

I hope this is not off topic! Please move to correct location if so, I do not mean to be off topic!

Also, this could be a bug report and if so, the bug is likely that if you had "fix black level" off
on the last September build and then upgrade to the October build, it comes up on.
Then if you turn it off, the entire option it's self seems to go away. (But it does turn it off)   

Thanks for any help!

I posted a long time ago when I was a noob, have been shooting RAW all summer.
Have Terrabytes of footage, have learned soooo much! Shooting RAW is so awesome!

I am so grateful to the Magic Lantern team, you guys have done a spectacular job.

http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=6662

Anyone know anything about what this guy is posting? Will this increase frame rate of 5d2?

Greetings everyone! I'm finally getting my 1000x Komputerbay CF card and USB 3.0 CF adapter tomorrow!

I understand there has been progress since I last checked in, sometimes newer builds are actually worse, etc.

Was wondering, what is the fastest/best build and RAW_REC plugin versions to get right now?

Has any progress happened with the 10/12 bit modes?

I have anamorphic lens and would like to experiment with raw anamorphic recording with best quality/settings currently possible.

Thanks!

P.S. - REDDEERCITY - You say you can't get better than Lexar 1000x CF, even considering the 65MB/s limit.
I understand the Komputerbay 1000x CFs fluctuate in quality but even the worst is supposed to do at least 90MB.
How can anything that reads/writes > 65MB/s be any different than anything else that reads/writes > 65MB/s?
Wouldn't they all top out at 65MB/s anyhow and therefore any additional bandwidth the card has over that not matter?
I recall other people using the Komputerbay 1000x CF cards and being quite pleased, this is why I purchased one.
(And should have it tomorrow!) Thanks in advance for the help! Hope I bought the right thing!

I will post benchmarks if people want me to, just tell me the proper settings!
(I remember some people have had a setting incorrect and it gave higher benchmarks than were true.)

scogin - When did they implement the file splitting for >4gig?

Why is the 10/12 bit thing not looking feasible? I thought they had some results already?
Just checked it out, sounds like they are up against a wall and begging for Tenacious D to help but he has gone?
I assume he is a dev who has helped a lot? Hopefully someone can figure it out. Looks like it works for a brief
time then cuts out like buffer is filling or something. It could very well simply be a bug they need to work out?

I haven't received my 64gb 1000x Komputerbay CF yet but to my understanding, the MK5D2 doesn't use exFat, does it?

The procedure I intended to perform is to use GPARTED (Linux) to format the whole 64 gigs FAT32 like how you do with
an external PS3 drive on a hacked PS3. Is this the way?

OH YEAH and does anyone know how low level the filesystem is? Could an additional filesystem be added?
It would rock if we could use a decent FS like EXT! That would totally fix the 4gb file limit as well.

Setting up cards incorrectly can most deffinantly cause bad speeds and/or corruption.

Oh and whoever was talking about not maxing out their 160mb speed card - I think the MK25D is limited to around 65mb
so it doesn't matter what card you throw in it, it will never do better than that.

But of course this won't matter once they get the 12 bit mode working and it won't require as much speed anymore!

EVERYONE KEEP YOUR EYES OPEN FOR FIRST SIGN OF A BUILD OF THE NEW 10/12 MODE THAT'S PRECOMPILED FOR US!
(I don't want to have to grab the dev kit and compile it myself as some are doing because I assume a precompiled one
will be popping up shortly plus probably be a better version anyhow. This stuff is so bleeding edge! I feel like doing cartwheels!)

gandalf - Thanks! Sounds promising but no actual module for download yet. Hopefully soon!

It appears that if they can get 12/10 bit working, we will easily be able to do RAW 1920x1080 on MK2D.

This is fucking awesome news!!!

SAVALE - "cool stuff going on for the 5d2 in the 14to12bit or 14to10bit topic. This might make higher resolutions and/or longer recording possible "

Link please? These forums are so damn big it's hard to find stuff! Thanx!

I said in my first post here that I remember back when an extra 4k of RAM was gained for the Commodore 64
by using the cassette buffer and that you can never underestimate the genius which can occur with software
given the proper amount of time and people putting effort into it. Hope this news is good!

Yoshiyuki - 1880 is TOPS for horizontal resolution?

So the 5D2 actually can not really do true 1080p? (It "upscales" from 1880 to 1920?) Geeze...
That's false marketing on Canon's part, if they say 1080p it should be 1080p.

So in your opinion, what should I do with my anamorphic?

What would be the optimal settings to retain maximum resolution, proper aspect ratio and remain equally divisible
of course in the numbers so you don't get major distortion when/if upscaled?

I've seen some people say just shoot it 720p and it looks better still RAW upscaled to 1080p than 1080p h.264.

But part of me really hates that of course, I would love to get higher than 720p even if not the full 1080p.

What about 1440x1080i? This is an actual HD resolution it appears. Will HDTVs kick into that mode if something is shot in it?
The high-definition television wiki lists it in the specs:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-definition_television

I prefer just leaving the image exactly as shot so long as the aspect ratio is proper and letting the tv kick into the proper
mode if possible as opposed to upscaling which is something I consider to be evil.

Cinemascope is 2.66:1 which is not far off from 2.35/2.39:1.

The custom aspect ratio allows 4:3? Okay.... And? Does that allow full frame RAW recording at 4:3?

Remember, anamorphic is full frame.
It's only during playback that bars on top and bottom come into play after the stretched full frame image is squeezed back.
Cropped 16:9 is not full frame and gives even LESS room than 16:9 which imho already isn't enough room.

So in playback, cropped 16:9 to 2.35:1 and true anamorphic 2.35:1 will take up the same area but they are totally different.
The anamorphic source is a full frame worth of data whereas the 16:9 cropped is cutting even more out of a crap ratio.

So I guess next question is - 1920x1080 is not square. 4:3 is more square than 16:9. So... What is the RESOLUTION of the cam's 4:3?

I always assumed the camera just recorded 4:3 and added black crop bars to make the 16:9.

If this is the case than the full uncropped 4:3 would actually be HIGHER resolution than 1920x1080.
It would be like removing the matte, there would be even more picture.

And... If that's the case then the answer must be NO, you can not record true full frame anamorphic raw yet
because if you can't even do 1920x1080 then you wouldn't be able to do higher than 1920x1080 either.

The other case would be that all the custom ratio 4:3 does is crop a 4:3 chunk out of the 1920x1080 image.
If all the custom ratio function does is crop then it is NOT changing the aspect ratio, it's just cropping.
This would be kinda lame and pointless but I guess it would allow for pseudo anamorphic recording.
But it wouldn't really be true at all.

What is the full frame 4:3 resolution?

Is the 1880 limitation placed in ML simply because going higher drops too many frames?
If yes, shouldn't it be easy to put a version out that allows us to select all the resolutions, even if it's too slow, just so we can experiment?

I'm still not understanding this anamorphic crop thing - with a true 2.35:1 anamorphic lens, can we record the full pic in 1080 x X?

I keep hearing about cropping. 16:9 cropped to 2.35:1 is NOT anamorphic, it's just less of a 16:9 image.
A true anamorphic picture should take up the entire frame and be vertically stretched, to later be squeezed into the common
letterbox when displayed on 4:3 or with lesser bars when displayed 16:9. Either way, the aspect ratio of true anamorphic
shows way more horizontally than a cropped 16:9 image. I understand I'm stating the obvious, just want clarification.
It seems people are saying you can shoot 1920x(insert various vertical resolutions here which are less than 1080) with anamorph.
I am wondering if this results in true anamorphic shot or a cropped 16:9?

Plan on posting some tests as soon as I order my 1000x, am still unable to do anything without a proper card.

Thanks!

Greetings! First post from me here, just want to open by saying congrats to all devs involved and major thanks!

I have a MARK II 5D and am just beginning to get into shooting. Am wondering a few things.

We have an anamorphic lens. My understanding is unsqueezed this fills the entire frame, correct?
And then the software performs the squeeze which displays it letterboxed on the 4:3 camera screen, right?
But the letterboxed 4:3 display on the camera is not actually the resolution being recorded...
The full frame is still recorded, regardless of if you have an anamorphic lens on it or not, right?

So why should you ever change the recording ratio? Or are people talking about only changing the playback ratio?

I've heard people saying that you can set ML to record 1920x(Insert various cropped vertical sizes here) to do anamorphic.
It would be wonderful if I could record full RAW with anamorphic lens but technically, the full 1920x1080 frame is still being
recorded unsqueezed, right? What is the point in cropping then? Wouldn't you be cropping the full unsqueesed image?

I know that on Blurays that play in 1920x1080 but are 2.35:1 - they open a true 1080p screen but only display 1920x817 right?
But isn't this just for playback? Is there an advantage to using anamorphic which let's us record in 1080p because the
full vertical resolution isn't being used or is this just during playback because the full vertical resolution is used during recording?

Sorry to be so verbose! Tried to explain that best as possible!

I am seriously eyeballing a Komputerbay 1000x 64GB card even though 65megs seems the max transfer rate.
Does anyone have any definitive proof that it is a hardware limitation and that no greater speed will ever occur without
hardware modification? Each build seems to bring different results - sometimes better, sometimes worse.
I keep remembering back in the old days when they got an extra 4k of RAM out of the Commodore 64 by using the cassette buffer...
Software tricks can sometimes do amazing things! - And what about hardware mods?

I've heard HDMI is too slow to take the RAW signal. What about splitting the load out CF and HDMI simultaneously?
(Dump raw binary data partly out hdmi and partly to CF in order to grab the full thing then join together later?)
The way I understand, the CPU is fast enough, it's just the CF interface which is bottle necking it, correct?

Thank you for taking the time to listen!!!

P.S. - I had to use a crappy SD to CF adapter to install ML. I have a 300x CF card but unfortunately, no USB adapter for it!
(I have a USB adaptor for the SD, that's why I had to use it!)

Normally, I would just get the files from the camera off the 300x card by hooking to the camera's USB port. However...
It seems the camera won't let me WRITE to the card from the USB so I can not get the ML files onto my 300x card until I get
a CF USB adapter which I plan to order with the Komputerbay 1000x 64GB later this week. In the meantime I am wondering...
Is there a way to enable write to CF card from camera's USB port?
By the way the horrid SD to CF adapter benches at about 1.7 megs hahha so it is useless!
I can play with ML and look at all the functions but I can not record anything!