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 - RavingRover

Camera-specific Development / Canon 80D vs 5D IV
October 04, 2018, 08:05:12 PM
80D has a DIGIC 6, the 5D IV has a DIGIC 6+, i do not know if either has been shown to be multi-core, but then why should that matter.

I believe i saw that typically the '+' DIGICs were just faster clock speeds, maybe something diff about them, don't know.

The 5DIV has only a sinlge DIGIC, & the 80D.

It appears that the 5DIV is progressing well in its port.

So why does not some/most/all of the 80D port (besides addresses) not benefit from the 5DIV effort and success ?

Just wondering since I have used ML on my old orig M model and do see lovely benefits, ML is nice and would love to see some of its benefits on my 80D as we all would.

Happy porting and much success !!
Generally ML can retrieve the shutter count from all ported cams, and is view-able via ML on cam.

Currently the ONLY method to get the 80D shutter/mirror count is to PAY $$ ($6 for winblows, $3.81 for mac - 2 diff apps), neither APT astronomy app, nor gphoto2 (linux) show it either - both free.  And no the jpeg does not show the shutter count either using a jpeg meta editor.

It appears ONLY via a usb conn and knowing specifically where the data is located, and dumping it and interpreting it correctly, is the only way to get this data.

So has anyone seen via a usb conn, some way or the place that the shutter count is stored, (maybe someone decompiling the rom dump, while trying to port ML, might have seen something like this or some hint to where ??)

But like many Canon cams, the SD writer is likely a very limiting factor, at least for raw video.

The M3 is certainly a step forward, but honestly, the ML team should wait (maybe?) for the obvious very needed f/w update from Canon for the M3, it has several important issues for some, and until fixed many/some are NOT buying it.

That said, the M3 is fine for most now, just not as good as a f/w fix and ML could make it, and unlike  other makes has a nice touch screen - once you have one, hard to NOT want one for any/all cams IMO !!
Camera-specific Development / Re: Canon EOS M
April 16, 2015, 01:03:00 PM
Are the pink dots/patterns the Phase Detect &/or the Contrast Detect sensor locations - anyone really know ?  They certainly do not cover as much of sensor (total coverage area) as I would have thought.

Saw the posts about CBR and this must be a build issue. I certainly was seeing up to 235mbps bit rates for 2kHD using a TragicLantern load a while back. I recently did some video w/ latest ML, set to 2.5CBR, and the resulting vids were peaking at 114mbps rates, some at same setting only show around 99mbps.

Just performed a 2.9CBR vid out the window and it shows - peaks to 155mbps, mostly 135mbps peaks. I then upped it to 3.0CBR and got - crash/stop - 4-5 secs only - peak around 160mps!

I loaded in the 'last' TL build - tragiclantern-v31337.TRAGIC.2014Dec19.EOSM202 - at 3.5CBR it crashed - <10secs only (saw a peak of 168mbps), went down to 3.2CBR and got peaks of 133mpbs.

Put in my old TL load (used for audio remote trigger) which I believe was where I saw 235mbps peaks and - only saw 150mbps peaks - and 3.5CBR crashed after 10 secs, whereas 3.2 worked fine - about 133mbps.

So either I am GREATLY MISremembering getting peaks of 235mbps (saw when SD card was new) OR since my card has been useds LOTS, a reformat and so forth may show those higher results - which I think some ppl have seen when attempting RAW video.

So, 133mbps = 133/8 is ~16mBps, FAR from the 30mBps M SD writer speed capability (30mBps * 8 = 240mbps) of M (once again I think we think that is the speed limit of the writer ?).

So something has changed in the year or so I saw 235mbps peak, and the only change was/is the fairly heavy use of my SD card and NO reformat or conditioning !! (Sandisk  UHS-II 80mBps read, 60mBps write or some such)

So maybe reformat/condition your fast SD card before doing critical video - test and see !!

On the other hand, I do not think using the Canon encoder algorithm, that a 200mbps recording is any usefully better than is a 133mbps or maybe lower.

Most of the above testing was done in 'crop' mode, both TL & ML so a higher bit rate and crop mode will give you the 'BESTEST' Canon video, maybe as good as RAW via ML/TL or better !! 

PS: But honestly Canon 1080p 2kHD video is so soft that it barely looks better than other makes 720p !!  This really is a shortcoming of Canon at the moment - IMO ! And 4kHD blows it away even via an iPhone 4kHD !!

Good Luck ALL !!
Quote from: oenopion on July 05, 2014, 01:05:20 AM
I had a 4.1 Gb h.264 file come out of my eos-m as a .dat file today?
I've read something about this coming from going over 4 gb, or something I may not have had set right?
Anyway, can that file be retrieved, salvaged, or is it toast?

Have you simply tried to change the file type to .MOV, .mov or .mp4 ?  A diff file extension/type means NOTHING to the content (many times) just the 'packaging' of the contents!  Do not erase until you check a few things!

ex. - .3gp is just .mp4/H.264, aac audio, etc contents in a file wrapper.

Good Luck!
Quote from: Oswald on July 02, 2014, 01:27:45 PM
It increases noise. It is true, I have tested it. Crop mode reduces aliasing and moire. because there is no lineskipping.

I do not see increased noise, actually next to none, but then I use higher bit rates, usually 2.0x CBR. 1 example of this was taking a still of the same shot of same scene of crop vid, the video was much better in shadows (details & low noise) and less geometric distortion.

I do hope the 'next' M (M3? or Pro model) will address the fairly poor H.264 encoder used by Canon (or Texas Instruments - their DSP (DIGIC) suppliers - I assume f/w encoders as well?)

The M3 could be a BMPCC fighter but it has to have much more attention to the video, if not 4k at least state of the art H.264 encoding with higher bit rates and true raw &/or HDMI output & 4:4:2 as well ?
Anyone know if any effort to enable 'Remote Shooting' via USB & EOS Util. via ML/TL ??

Its incredible that Canon gave us no way to remote control shooting w/ the M !?

If I have missed this capability via ML/TL &/or EOS Utility, plz let me know.

Quote from: 2blackbar on May 08, 2014, 10:19:13 PM
Class 6 card is too slow now for magic lantern? My recording stops itself after a couple seconds depends how complicated scene is.

You need to specify more info - are you using a CBR of 1.0, for example or RAW video or .....
Quote from: gary2013 on January 06, 2014, 03:44:15 AM
I am now trying the new ML, Jan 5, for the M 2.02 and it makes the shutterbug come back on my cam. When I use any of the TL versions, I do not have the shutterbug (after I do my reformat workaround that I explained a few times so far on here).

IIRC, the person porting TL to ML was mostly concerned with 'picture taking' changes to TL, NOT video. So this is of importance to him, I think !!  I am sure it is not easy getting all the code deltas correct, assuming his tools are not so great, shame there is not a 'versioning' code repository to keep each code 'effort/changes' independent by 1% & others.

I do get the shutterbug occasionally, but I seem to get out of it via changing modes (this may be a general freeze problem not the shutterbug), but another one (shutterbug I believe - less often), I have to take out battery. Very annoying as there is NO prediction when this can occur.

Good Luck.
Quote from: nick.p on January 05, 2014, 04:55:39 AM
You only need a 45 or 60 mB/s card because as you stated the writer is only capable of 40mB/s.

On the other hand that h264 video was probably in megabits not megabytes and hence it was 17.5 megabytes per second.

Yep, thats why I put the 'mb' in lower case! Me knows the diff!! Me use to be an Electrical Engineer. Me are used to bits/nibbles/bytes/words/double words/etc. Me be cognizant of the diff. Me prefers 'MB or mb' rather than 'mB or mb', for the emphasis, as well that is what is shown on ML screens - 'MB/s'.

The statement of compressed video is that it will NEVER likely be able to be written at the speed of raw or M SD writer, as the H.264 encoding does take time and the encoder chip is likely processing limited, or I would see a higher bps, wouldn't I?

Also, I can set CBR to higher than 2.9x (4x is where I quit) with my card, just the output NEVER gets higher than about 140mb/s (saw peaks of 150+mb/s), so VERY likely processor/encoder/bus speed limited.

Also, the ultimate speed of compressed seems to a degree dependent on ISO, maybe - limited use/testing of this.

Thanks anyhow.

PS: It is going to be interesting when UHS-II (240MB/s writes) SD writers are in cams, and also when H.265 encoders are in cams, then the Digic engines (dual/triple Digics?) will have some REAL work to do & will be so capable !! 

BTW, FYI: Canon works (has work done by?) with Texas Instruments (TI) on their Digic processors - Nikon has FujiFilm do their h/w work & firmware work!
I can shoot Raw ONLY? when using the 12/31 TL !!

I was able to get Raw in both crop and non crop modes !  1280x434 non, 1280x720 crop modes !!
(must put Canon video in 2kHD 24fps mode for crop to work BTW!)

So I believe NO TL or ML builds beyond the 2013/12/31 TL build works, I have tried a couple newer ML as well as older TL builds !!

Note: non crop is writing at about 27 MB/s, whereas crop is writing at about 35 MB/s !  (this means likely the fastest/highest resolution possible for M SD writer !!)  Sad!  :-[

This is with a Sandisk Extreme Plus UHS-I 32gb card - 60/80 MB/s.

So I A$$ume this means not ALL fixes/etc are in the ML stream yet or those for video at least !

Thanks for the help!

PS: Now the question is, is it worth the huge trouble processing raw 720p when the world wants 2kHD or even 4kHD !?  Especially considering the ability to get high bit rate compressed H.264, would anyone notice the diff for a huge amount of situations? Maybe only for high ISO situs?
Quote from: belmore on January 04, 2014, 10:24:39 PM
I played around with the 12/31 build for a while. While continuous raw recording at 720p worked pretty consistently in TL, with this build, I couldn't get a raw recording more than a few seconds.

So you think maybe not all the 'fixes' in the last TL has been migrated into ML builds?

What card did you use for 720p in TL?

Quote from: nick.p on January 04, 2014, 07:29:13 AM
140mb/s is 140/8 = 17.5mB/s. Raw video requires a lot of speed.

Its compressed video, maybe slowed down by ACTUAL processing - who would imagine?

So what card?  M only has a 40mBps SD writer, my card is a 60mBps card, so How much is required ? Plz answer the question, not show math skills !! ;)

I have a 60/80 MBps SDHC UHS-I card, I can get up to 140mbps compressed video with this card - CBR 2.9x.

BUT, I can NOT get any more than the buffer's worth of RAW video.

I have tried both TL (Nov 30 & Dec 26 zips) and ML (Jan 02 zip) builds.

What exact settings, loaded modules are needed, and ANY other advice to help solve this - PLEASE !!

OR does RAW not work at all yet ?

Tragic Lantern / Re: Tragic Lantern for EOS M
December 27, 2013, 11:45:16 PM
Quote from: feureau on December 25, 2013, 05:28:14 PM
Dot Tune AFMA is to tune the phase detection auto focus in regular DSLRs. EOS-M has phase detection, but it seems it's more reliant on contrast detect, and there doesn't seem to be a need for AF microfinetuning. Also, is it just me or does the EF to EF-M adapter doesn't use the phase detection?


My understanding of the EOS M/650D hybrid AF is that the initial focus is PDAF (gets close and sets direction needed for CDAF focus completion), then the CDAF finishes the AF.  Whereas AFAIK, the Panasonic mirrorless AF is all CDAF.

I am sure Canon can justify their approach and maybe it has to do with backward compatibility? (I doubt) Or is it that the Canon AF system (cam h/w and lens focus mech) simply can not do that fast/no hunting CDAF like Panasonic/(4/3) can do on newer lens?

I believe micro-finetuning makes no sense on a CDAF system, only on PDAF, but I wonder if it could make AF on hybrid faster ? (ever so slightly)

My store testing of a SL100, seemed the focus as fast as I would ever want (1/4 sec?), and I believe this is the EOS M2 AF system, but NOT 1D X PDAF speed for sports/etc of course !!
Tragic Lantern / Re: Tragic Lantern for EOS M
December 22, 2013, 02:31:50 AM
Let me modify that, IF you want to focus at infinity or macro, then AF matters! 

I almost always want infinity focus, YMNC!

I agree, the M has god awful hunting dog AF via servo AF in video mode, USELESS most of the time - not worth using IMO. Shameful servo AF!! I do full manual video only.

The M2 likely has usable servo AF for video, hunting is the killer though.
Tragic Lantern / Re: Tragic Lantern for EOS M
December 22, 2013, 02:24:25 AM
No AF focus NO manual focus, I suspect you do care!  AF can move the focus mech. as far as it can go, understand?
Tragic Lantern / Re: Tragic Lantern for EOS M
December 22, 2013, 12:31:26 AM
Quote from: AnthonyEngelken on December 21, 2013, 11:40:01 PM
Auto-focus aside, wouldn't changing the flange focal distance affect focus in general? Beside focus distance not matching the lens' markings, you might also prevent a lens from focusing as near or as far as it previously could. Would be a cool experiment though; might buy one of the cheap after-market adapters on eBay and try modifying it. The light circle that hits the sensor only has to have a diameter of 9.93mm in movie crop mode, while with the adapter, EF lenses are producing a 43.23mm circle I think. Anyone that's a lens expert wanna do the math on this?

Sure there might be situations that 'infinity' or 'macro' may be affected but look at how on sensor CDAF/PDAF works, it has NOTHING to do with the lens beyond being able to control the focus mechanism. Correct?

This is a deficiency of the focus mechanism - ie it just can not be moved far enough NOT due the CDAF/PDAF control system not being able to tell it what to do - beyond of course the AF attempt 'time out' which already occurs!! AF is a open loop system simply due to the limited AF mechanism.

Also this problem of near and far will be dependent on each Len's capabilities, some lens will have the issue others will not, but if the distance of coupler/mechanism is too large ALL lens will be effected of course.

I believe CDAF has always been more accurate than PDAF just simply prior to last few years, where Panasonic and others of the 4/3 group got CDAF quite fast with little to NO hunting, it was way too slow compared to the 30yr old fast PDAF tech!

Part of the reason PDAF is not as accurate is that the AF sensor is dislocated and not on/at the sensor, but with Hybrid AF I/II, Canon put both CDAF & PDAF sensors on the pic sensor, but CDAF is how YOU do manual focusing NOT PDAF ! We see focus as highest contrast via sharp edges - CDAF.

Canon is now close but NOT leading in the CDAF focus speed, it will get there hopefully but it is a combination of CDAF controlling algorithms AND lens focus mechanism speed ! 

The 22mm M lens AF is far slower than the 18-55mm! The 22mm lens focus moves the complete group of lens elements, the 18-55/11-22mm move a smaller/lighter sub-group of elements! lens design!

Panasonic and 4/3 group had to optimize their lens for AF speed, and some are still pretty slow, as slow as the 22mm M lens or maybe worse!!

And yes it would be a fun test!
I believe overall PDAF is faster on more lens than is CDAF, especially for pro level great lens - sports/BIF/etc must have very fast focus, not yet for CDAF on more lens.
Tragic Lantern / Re: Tragic Lantern for EOS M
December 21, 2013, 11:18:00 PM
Quote from: AnthonyEngelken on December 21, 2013, 08:05:38 PM
An alternate solution that may be plausible would be to capture in 5K and have the transcode chip downscale before storage. That being said, I understand that the black box is an enigma, and the M's buffer wouldn't likely put up with a 5K throughput. I don't even expect that the sensor is fast enough to deal with 5K capture at movie frame rates without ridiculous jello/roll. Even if all of this were possible, the transcoder's scaling algorithms might be shit and make your footage look terrible anyway.

That's a lot of ifs, and not even an ideal solution. What I would actually LOVE however is a high quality EF mount behind-lens wide angle converter to compensate for a 4.3x crop. Alas, nothing like that exists to my knowledge.

I wonder what a shorter EF mount adapter would do on the M beside screw with focus?

Why would CDAF be bothered by a shorter EF mount?  CDAF is sensor based, and as long as it can communicate to the lens and change its focus mechanism, it keeps trying until the 'optimum' contrast occurs? Correct?  Same for PDAF, just a feedback system of AF.

The shorter EF mount would only effect the light 'cone' from lens, and in the case of EF to M, I would think it would improve but marginally 'crop' the cone a bit, no effect to AF, me thinks!

But a 5k video, not likely, I think the canon h/w & encoder h/w is not capable, so it all would be done via SD card memory - or post processing of RAW video.

Or are you suggesting still image processing at fps of 24 or something?

What is the highest bit rate for compressed video ppl have gotten from the M ? 

I have seen peaks of 140mbps (CBR 3.2x), but my card is I believe not the fastest around.
Tragic Lantern / Re: Tragic Lantern for EOS M
December 21, 2013, 11:00:20 PM
How do you change the RAW resolution and fps rates diff from defaults ?  (ie - do you need to change files or is it via ML menu?)

Tragic Lantern / Re: Tragic Lantern for EOS M
December 21, 2013, 07:20:25 AM
Quote from: jordancolburn on December 20, 2013, 05:42:04 PM
While I never experienced the camera restarting, I had issues with a class 10 transend card.  Try turning on FPS override to something like 8 fps just to test the stability and post workflow, and look for something like a sandisk 45 MBs card once you're ready to take the next step.

I also do not get more than the buffer's worth of raw (*.mlv files)!  I use a 60w/80r MB/s Sandisk Extreme. I am attempting RAW at the default rez of 1408x792 @ 24fps.

I get as high as 139mbps compressed crop video via CBR 3.1x setting - high ISO.

HELP: I do not see how to change either the resolution or the fps, thus have not tried any other.
PLZ tell me how to change these someone.

Also, why can I not get at least a bit more RAW video?

Thanks for any help!!