Show posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Show posts Menu

Messages - Pyriphlegethon

As it currently stands, this isn't meant to be used as an online/offline proxy solution, right, it's more of a 'confidence check'? With the h.264 file starting before and ending after the raw, and having no option for timecode (unless with the 5D3 there is a way of ML 'reading' camera timecode I don't know about) there's really no current solution for re-conforming offline proxies to online raw in post, cierto? Not to mention filenames are different. But the h.264 file can be set to inherit timecode from the camera clock which ML has more than frame-accurate access to no?

Finishing a shoot, popping the SD card into a laptop, editing, and reconforming and processing only the needed ML clips would be quite the treat. The only camera that does this well for me currently is any DSMC2 body from Red and even then it's on the same media as the raw file which is less convenient. The lack of a simultaneous proxy solution was the one thing that kept me from buying an Ursa mini pro. Would be delightfully humorous if ML ends up being able to do this ;)
Is there currently a solution for sending a trigger signal via PC sync port on camera (or attached to hot shoe) when the silent picture is 'taken'? Some way to trigger external intervalometer/motor setup would be great, but uncertain how feasible this idea is as a search doesn't yield much success on any idea similar. Thanks.
Andy, I know you had previously recommended that ML users opt for BMDFilm 4k. I noticed that the guide recommends the sans 4k version. Is there one or the other you'd recommend when using Magic Lantern?

Thank you.
Andy, will Cinelog have a presence at NAB?
Please Clarify:

A Cineform raw file opened in Resolve (without the patch) would contain all the 'raw' data of that original DNG right? The potentially cumbersome part is that you need to use Resolve's controls to get the image looking 'normal' rather than having a nice Cineform UI built in to Resolve. But you still have the ability to retain the highlights like you do in the raw file and affect color before the demosaicing which Resolve does in this case, cierto? So the .RAW to CDNG to CineformRAW workflow colored in Resolve gives us a result comparable enough to ACR with a much smaller file size and the ability to do an 'online only' workflow. (Minus some features like ACR's highlight regeneration based on unclipped channels.) Is this a correct understanding?

Using the Resolve patch for Cineform means that Cineform does the debayer and raw processing and 'hands' that image to Resolve. This means that the image is subject to older (but still respectable) debayering technology and that the raw data is no longer quite as 'raw'--more like medium rare.

Please shed light if this understanding is incorrect.