Messages

I wanted to ask, is this version more stable than the last 2018Jul22 croprec build? Particularly regarding bad frames and such.

@togg: you could plan to do the color correction and grading in MLVApp - it is made for this.

I guess you are right. Like a primary grade on MLV App. It's just not a standard approach. But I do appreciate how well MLVapp works. I moved to another camera now but I still film from time to time with the 5D and it makes sense to export prores directly from here.

Processing in MLVApp and importing this into Resolve? I don't understand the need of replicating, when you can use the original for free.

To have the option. It is a baked look after all, and it would be nicer to have a stronger grip on the first steps on the software where you plan to do your colour correction.

I think you are wrong. All the detail comes out very different and shadows look just dead with this setting. It is way more than just a curve... If you look for the MLVApp look in another application, the closest should be ACR. Using Resolve for MLVApp look this is a really hard task.

You are right. So what do you suggest to replicate MLVApp look in Resolve for every image? If the base settings are not enough a 3D LUT should cover it, no?
Maybe I forgot if there has been in the past a complete explanation of what MLVApp does to contrast and colours.

To get the same look in Resolve you can use rec709, no need to make it more complicated. It's just a curve that MLV app does, unless I am wrong. I played a bit with the raw panel contrast, gain, and a curve. Almost perfectly match.

Oh ok. I wouldn't even claim MLV App matches the exposure correctly. The 1.2 stops is just an absolute guess. Adobe camera raw probably knows better about this stuff (at least on CR2s)... although in the case of DNGs generated from MLV, the exposure offset metadata may be missing, so it's possible camera raw doesn't do the 'hidden exposure' with those. Just guessing.

If you have any interest in doing it, I'd love to see a comparison between:
1. CR2 photo through camera raw
2. MLV video through MLV App
3. A DNG created from that MLV, through camera raw

Where the MLV and the CR2 use the same aperture, ISO and shutter settings. ISO 100/200/400/800, not the inbetween steps. I'd do it myself if I had Adobe software.

My (likely wrong) prediction: 1 and 2 exposure will match, but 3 will be darker.

Adobe Camera RAW brings a very similar amount of noise and similar looking results, when I compared both. At least if you setup the chroma denoiser sliders to comparable values.

Well I did the tests and it looks like you were indeed right

exposure on MLVapp match both CR2 on ACR and rec709 2.4 gamma on davinci raw panel.
MLV's dng in ACR don't match, need that 1.2 boost and higlight roll off.
dng treated as blackmagic color space + bmcc to recv2 in last node of Davinci don't match, same thing.

The last case is what I am more interested in and where I was trying to get bet results by default. That's where my mistake originated. I understand now that for a non-tandard dng you need to give that boost that is done as a gamma correction by default on native solutions. Sorry for the confusion!

I can surelly do this test. I will also had Resolve to the equation, since that is the main comparison.

neat location, found it thanks

I was also comparing it with the dngs imported on photoshop camera raw, but then again I vastly appreciate the mlvapp default look.

Do someone knows where the bad pixel map is located?

Well you're describing how digital exposure is allocated. Of course you can bring it up in post, or log allocates it better. The thing is that in this case MLV app clearly gives out a noisier picture by default. Maybe because it doesn't do any kind of smoothing that the camera would automatically do on the jpeg, I don't know. I like it because I appreciate the cheated dinamic range boost, but it still feels very noisy. It's a hidden number that you cannot discover on the program, this of itself is an issue in my opinion.

I think that it is the right choice to have this boost of exposure and the tone mapping by default, but I do think that it woudl be better to have the exposure boost removes in the rec preset, at least to understand what's going on. The shadows clearly becomes noisy at +1.2, if you can get more light it's better to do so, the first result that MLV app provides and the difficulty to understand what's going on can be misleading.

Also I was wondering, could there be a way to fix the missing header error inside MLV App? I need to try to recover a few shoots that probly got corrupted because of a dying card and I will start looking for other tools.

Well just to have a preset by default with a "clea" option, nothing fancy. I like the loo of the tone mapped preset though.

I'm using MLVapp for a shooting this week and loving it as always. I was wondering is there a preset that doesn't apply the hidden +2 exposure that the software gives? Also is the transfer function only affecting the gamma part of the preset right? There are more hidden numbers about colours I guess. I'm not sure I get it right.

edit: a bug, the installed bad pixel map visually shifts place if you load it again, it fixes itself as soon as you place another correction. Also how can I export it?

I know this is an old thread but... did someone buy a 6K/PRO and made a comparison (even stills) with a 5D 3?

I know I said it before but I'm doing some export and I'm very happy about the look that MLV App gives as default, it's vibrant and balanced, for such old cameras it is a treat!

super reportage ! les gars sont passionnés !

so what was your set up ?

Merci!
I'm going with a simple smallrig cage, smallhd monitor, some CF cards from komputerbay and a big one from lexar. In the evening I copy the MLV files and backup. The day after I do some simple corrections in MLV App, export the ProRes 422 and then edit in FCPX.
(various lenses used, I have canon, tamron, vintage tokina with promist, vintage nikkor and then some)

+1 to the fact that the default values are perfect. It's one of the strenghts of the app. Here a video where I used the ProRes straight from the app (a few h264 shots are in) https://vimeo.com/519886116

Maybe I get it, my files are compressed 14bit.

Even on a 10 years old quadcore CPU you can have "close-to-realtime" playback in MLVApp when using default settings. For 1080p I get 22fps on my iMac2011. The more fancy features you use, the slower the processing will be.

Wait, how? I get 5fps if open in normal resolution, 10fps in low resolution. Everything disabled. My cpu is an i7 9th gen 2.6 ghz.

Got it, fair enough.
The only thing really missing from the app for me is the fast playback that MlRawViewer has/had.

small "bug", if you mute/unmute during playback is on there's no effect. Not a big deal, more of an excuse to come say hi

@togg: the .bpm is auto generated as soon as you start telling MLVApp where the pixels are.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xwd2DFGjMx0

OK I see it now! I mean I see it working. Even if I am unsure where the map is located, but all good! Great feature.

@togg:
1) how did you get this picture? What exactly does it show?
2) no need for this
--> you define the bad pixel map for any clip. This map is saved as .bpm in the MLVApp folder. As soon as you activate bad pixel map fix for any other clip using the same camera raw stream settings, the same .bpm will be used again. So ideally, you create this map once for your setting and use it forever for all future clips (in the same setting).

1) it shows a set of hot pixel that I have selected in another picture on the same project that are displayed misaligned in other clips, but still work as intended. It's hard to explain ahah
.
2) mmm I'm not sure this is even working on my side. I don't have a .bpm file on the MLVApp folder and I'm almost sure than when I opened another project there was no past memory.

A couple of questions,

1) I'm getting the map of bad pixels out of track when copying it to other pictures. They still work fine but they look misaligned.

https://i.imgur.com/vBmTeFq.png

2) Is there a way to export the bad pixel map and use it in another projects?

It depends on your shooting style, I personally don't like to hold the camera out in front of me, it creates too many shakes and with all the added gear it quickly becomes a heavy brick that shakes when I get tired.

If not shoulder mounted ofcourse, I usually keep the right hand on Top handle and left hand on focus wheel/lens barrel and shoot from the hip or chest. But the caveat is after a long day of staring down in to the monitor, the neck is gonna hurt.

You already have a side handle, I don't know about this wooden one, maybe it is better, but it looks like your rig will pull down on the left because of the center of gravity being placed where the camera sits, this will most likely cause more shakes for you as you battle the gravity pulling down to your left.

Yea some of the shakiness is impossible to remove, I like the classic feeling of the shoulder mount but not for a longtime, not even when it's well done in big movies. Also for a very low profile crew no shoulder mount is a blessing.

Your handling and height is what I usually do as well, but sometimes having it higher is needed!

In the end I went with the blackfriday smallrig promotion and bought the whole set, cage + listed accessories, for around 160 euro. https://imgur.com/a/XtKoM4y It is waay more comfortable than the previous configuration. The tallness of the monitor on the handle can seems weird at first but it's OK for me, or you can put it lower, on the right.