Messages

[I TOLD YOU SO!]

5. Using the Mosaic filter at 1600 x 670, there was still moire and aliasing. Subjectively I could not see much difference with or without the filter at this resolution.
6. Using the Mosaic filter at 1728 x 972, there was still some moire and aliasing. Subjectively I think it was a little better, but not good enough to suit me - it would have to be cleaned up to be used in a final output (by some means).

My tentative conclusion is that the Mosaic VAF-60D Optical Anti-Aliasing Filter is so closely optimized for the image size of HD (1920 x 1080) and default H.264 downsampling process on the Canon cameras, that at other resolutions it is not effective, or not as effective. Mosaic has indicated that alternate recording sizes might require unique solutions and I think this is the case.

Thanks for the heads up! 

P.s.: @Audionut - I TOLD YOU SO!

awesome, keep us posted

I don't know, I am still on the opposite end of this camp. Since the filter reduces the optical resolution to acomodate for this downsampling, why would it help the slightly downsampled image sensor stream which is in a different resolution that 1080p?
1080p is also recorded simultaniously to the live-view (AFAIK), we're not getting the same thing. If we were, the RAW output would too be limited to the 1080p or 720p depending on the shooting mode chosen.
That being said, the RAW video is much sharper than the 1080p, even at much lower resolutions. It is still being resized, but we're capturing this raw sensor data prior to the actual 1080p downscale. And since in this case we're using the full sensor here, the optical reduction would mean reduction in sharpness back to 1080p quality as the filter is acomodated for that specific resolution (again, NOT for stills because of REDUCTION IN OPTICAL RESOLUTION as mentioned in the page).
So... I think it is easy to pin-point why I believe in the uselessness of the filter for RAW imaging purposes.
HOWEVER, if someone actually owns the filter and would like to test it out and prove me wrong - I'd be happy to see the results. Until that moment I stand in this side of the YES/NO camp.
In any case, I will probably buy this filter for H.264 use as RAW is not practical a lot of the time (in terms of workflow, reliability and storage), but not now as I've shelled out my cash on a new piece of L glass and I'm moving houses this week

quote from the Mosaic Design page about the filter:
"When using a VAF filter, the live video image on the camera's small, built-in LCD screen may appear to be the same as without the filter, and may show moiré and other aliasing artifacts.  These artifacts (with or without the VAF filter) are caused by the camera's internal downsampling algorithms that generate the viewfinder display, and as such are unrelated to aliasing artifacts (if any) in the full-resolution HD video being simultaneously recorded."
AND
"VAF-series filters are specifically designed for HD video - and should be removed to shoot high-quality still photography at your DSLR's full, native sensor resolution"

These two things make me feel that this filter may not do much for RAW as we're actually using that same downsampled stream (crappy internal downsampling algorightm) from a FULL sensor pixel array (filter must be removed as it reduces optical resolution). But at this point I can only speculate as to whether or not this is true as I don't actually own it...

This makes absolutely no sense at all.

1080p is 1080p.  It all comes from the same sensor output.

please read my updated post above

http://store.mosaicengineering.com/VAF-60D-Moire-Aliasing-Filter_p_13.html

I wouldn't say this will reduce moire and aliasing in RAW footage. Think about it...
It is optimized for 1080p video (certain pixels in the sensor), while RAW is somewhat a full sensor output downscaled (and the filter has to be removed for hi-res photography or other full-sensor uses because of loss in optical resolution). Just my thoughts, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. But it's definitely a very good piece of tech to know about, will keep the shop link for the future
The RAW sharpness is amazing as is, compared to the H.264 1080p, but isn't the moire/aliasing in RAW caused by a shitty downsampling algorightm which was only supposed to quickly downsample the image in real-time for live-view purposes? If so, then re-making the algorithm is the only option I can think of right off the bat...

OK - mystery solved! After all my whining and moaning, I realized the one thing I never tested was recording without my EVF...not something I typically would have done outdoors as a normal habit...sigh...

When I did pull off the EVF (Zacuto for what that's worth), the recordings are all totally clean - NO PINK FRAMES!

SUPER GOOD NEWS for me. My camera is not the issue! I did not mess up the install or configuration. It was having the EVF connected. I was getting really bummed, but now no big deal. Sure, in the long run that may be something to consider, but for now - I can play with raw!

Thanks again to everyone for all the help and patience with me! Now I can go shoot something worthwhile (I hope) and not have the 'pink menace' botch it all up. The odd lost frame is fine - I can deal!

Love it when a plan comes together!

You have got to be kidding me... xDDD
Great news, mate, but you probably should have removed any camera mods as a first step, haha

well, I've just tested out the vids I shot with ML-RAW-60D-hourly_2013-06-20_17-40 build and it's RAW2DNG - no pink or distorted frames. No apparent visible hot pixels, though I didn't hunt for them because I shot indoors in low light so they may be hidden by noise...

@cthornhill - REALLY long posts are hard to read. Just my two cents
Anyway, I personally have not had any issues with pink frames or dead pixels and I am totally confused as by how that even happens. I've been using the update #6.1 from the first page (-without LV_AF_RAW) as the last one that got me no problems. I've recently updated to an hourly build "ML-RAW-60D-hourly_2013-06-20_17-40" and will test that out with it's native RAW2DNG and the older one that I've been using and see whether it will give me pink stuff.
I do all my editing on Adobe After Effects CS5, by the way.

60D's Raw(UPDATE #9) + Raw2Dng.app 0.13 or RAWMagic 1.0 makes some Dead / Hot pixels...

A: the ProRes4444 file that made by Raw2Dng.app 0.13
B: Cinema DNG that made by RAWMagic 1.0 + DaVinci Resolve preview
C: Premiere CR6 + Ginger HDR preview
D: AfterEffects CS6 via ACR preview

No dead / hot pixels pattern is only D.

I convert with RAW2DNG and then do all my work in After Effects later, so maybe that's why I'm not seeing any hot pixels?

I haven't been here for a while and I was using the third build (I think). Does the last build offer any longer recording times? Dead pixel things don't bother me because my 60D does not seem to have any (at least I don't see them). Thanks!

What I've noticed when working with RAW footage in After Effects is that AE treats the DNG's as proper RAW files even in 8BPC comps, meaning that any levels or curves adjustments actually work as exposure adjustments (say if I darken up the footage - the highlights don't become grey and the darker parts of the image darken up before the lighter ones, if this makes sense) as opposed to a linear degradation in colors when working with actual 8-Bit footage (unless of course HDR Highlight Compressor is used on the RAW or something). That is really neat for precise CC and grading.

And just for those not-so-tech-geeks out there:
8-bit Per Channel color means Red Green and Blue (and Alpha if present) values are described in 8 bits of information per pixel in each channel (32bits total RGB), which is 256 values (0-255, just as we are used to).
14-bit Per Channel DNG frames that we get here should in theory hold up to 16384 values per pixel in each channel, which is 64 times more data than the 8BPC color space.
Pros of RAW video? 4:4:4 color sampling + exposure adjustments for detail recovery = fucking awesome!

I guess it's safe to say that 32GB SanDisk Extreme Pro UHS-1 card is the best for 60D RAW so far?
I'm getting ~750 frames at 1280x544 24p

What memorycards are you using when you get almost 800 frames? How many FPS? I get 615-frames with 25FPS, and 95MB/s memorycard - and I also get the same result with my 45MB/s cards!

Well, I'm getting ~730+ frames at 1280x544 at 24FPS on my SanDisk Extreme Pro 32GB UHS-1 (up to 95 MB/s) card on the latest build. Pretty decent, I suppose...

Below is a screengrab from when I converted the sequences just now:

I don't know if anyone noticed this, but when you zoom in to 5x mode in live-view and then fiddle with ML RAW Video settings, it actually allows you to capture huge frames up to 2.5K width... But it obviously fills the buffer real fast, I managed only ~60 frames or so while 1280x544 goes on for nearly 800...

@saeed2vfx: you don't open these files in photoshop - they are not .RAW 32BPC HDR files that it supports. You need to convert it to a DNG sequence using RAW2DNG. Once you have the sequence, you can import it into After Effects or other editing/compositing suite (subject to support for DNG sequences) and start playing around with it.

I was testing out the latest build (05-28) and RAW video has some amazing capabilities (I'm not new to RAW photography, so this feature is really exciting for me). The only problem is the speed cap for writing, although even a wee bit of actual RAW footage could sometimes be very useful for artistic purposes.

I was wondering, maybe there is some sort of a soft mod possible to increase the SD writing speed? The connectors for my 32GB SanDisk Extreme Pro UHS-1 (95MB/s) SDHC card are exactly the same as those of some old SD card I have. I know the card itself has some stuff inside to speed it up, but this can't be all just on the hardware end, can it? After all, overclocking CPU's is possible without modifying the hardware... If it's one thing we've learned - it's that Canon likes to lock some stuff in their cameras. Maybe the writing speed is capped somewhere to make the 60D inferior to higher end cameras...
If that doesn't cut it, another idea I had was to maybe somehow push the RAW feed through the HDMI as data to an external device. Not sure if this makes sense though... My backing of this is that HDMI should in theory be able to push some serious data rates through it (we're talking in hundreds of megabits and even gigabits here, depending on hardware).

Hope my thoughts can spark something in the minds of devs here. Amazing work, guys! We've gone a long way since the 5D3 could only push 28 frames at once, so I believe the 60D can go through similar changes too