Messages

Ok that did indeed seem to fix it.

Glad it helped. I'm on a 5D3 and own a DJI gimbal too, first time I connected it I was so disappointed... took a while to find a way.

Try starting with cam off, then turn on in photo mode. Wait a while and then switch to movie mode.

Which cam?

You are right that it will be better without dual ISO, but I wouldn't say that the difference will be so important, we'll see
https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%20200D,Canon%20EOS%206D(ML),Canon%20EOS%207D(ML)

But why are you charting standard 200D vs Dual-ISO-enabled 6D and 7D?

Check this comparison of 200D with a bunch of ML-capable cams. 200D stems out at ISO 100.

Tested both with default settings and turning correction off, looks fine.

Experiencing wired behavior with Vertical Stripes on 5D3 with Danne's anamorphic 1x3 preset (FWIW, running asintes' 2023Sep01 build for 1.23).

Low-light scene with ISO 1600, exporting to DNG and grading in DVR, I get

• Vertical Stripes = Off => no evident stripes
• Vertical Stripes = Normal [which is default setting btw] => slightly darker stripes appear
• Vertical Stripes = Force => ok, same as with Off

Re-tested with Dark Frame subtraction enabled => same results.

Just wondering if there is some known reason for this.

The only downside is that those cameras were more ISO invariant, so they don't get that big boost that dual ISO can give.

I may be wrong but I think that ISO invariance is the direct consequence of the readout noise being so damn low, making shadows easily recoverable even at base ISO. AFAIK it means that dual ISO (which is a very clever trick, at the end of the day) is nomore necessary -- you don't have to sacrify resolution to gain some DR, as DR is already close to max.

So if I'm right, 200D would be a game changer in DR!

I think that would make it the best ML-enabled cam in terms of dynamic range -- 13.4 stops according to DxOmark, with the current best ML cam (6D) trailing far behind at 12.1 and the most popular ML cams (M and 5D3) at 11.2 and 11.7 respectively. Only the 5D4 (with 13.6 stops) could beat it -- excluding more recent MILCs of course.

Hooray, kudos and congrats!

Sorry, I'm pretty sure this must have been discussed here at some point in time.

However, I compared MLV -> cDNG conversion with MLV App and MLVFS, and found out that

• MLV App exported @12.5 fps, while MLVFS exported @5.3 fps*. Q: is this difference in speed expected? Somehow I expected the opposite.
• Exported (uncompressed) DNG files are 9.4 MB when using MLV App, 10.8 MB using MLVFS. Q: what is this additional 1.4 MB per frame that MLVFS is allocating?

* which is the speed at which I could copy DNG files from the MLVFS mounted virtual drive to my physical drive.

NB: of course test export was performed starting from the same MLV file (3584 x 1500, 23.976 fps, 14 bit lossless, 119 MB/s), in both cases being exported on the same (ultra-fast NVMe) hard drive.

Thanks

S

Don't get me wrong, I love my 5D3+ML, but I bet 12-bit Raw with R5 / R5C outplays 14-bit ML Raw with 5D3 by far.

Guess we are talking about cost / benefits here

even so, i doubt that you will find much improvement on absolute iq

This makes me think that you never tried to recover some detail from shadows on 5D3 crappy sensor

Already been discussed here.
The DR is the same because 3.5k is just a crop of the full frame, the sensor capability remains the same

+1

resolution wise, i doubt there is any eye catching difference between the modes

To me, there is. And rolling shutter makes me sick with FF @ wide angles.

But all of this is subjective of course.

sounds a lot like a free lunch

Cool.

What does 0.4 in your formula stand for anyway? Expected compression ratio?

You are right for sure Walter, but I cannot understand where I'm wrong. Please advice.

With your formula

3840 x ( 3840 : 2.5 ) x 24 x 14 x 0.4 / 8 = 95 MByte/s.

However with UHD my personal experience is that it is difficult to get less than 130 MBytes/s. Typically I will get something more in the range 140-150 (no continuous rec but often long enough for short clips).

What am I missing?

Well, if 3840 = 4K, then 5472 = 5.7K

But 14-bit 1x1 5.7K would require something in the range 250 - 300 MB/s I guess, even with 1:2.5 aspect ratio and 24 fps.

Finally found the time to compile an up-to-date version for Mac Intel.

• Commit 620d7c8 (Aug 22)
• QT 6.6.0
• LLVM/OMP 17

Link here.

Ciao

Whoah... truly terrific. Unbelieavable what you can do with an almost 12 yo DSLR camera.

Kudos to you and to all past and present ML developers

Got my 5D3 for 300 bucks. I was lucky, but you just need to be patient and wait for the right deal to pop out on eBay.

Totally aligned with a.sintes on this. By the way the wonderful1x1 3.5K preset has a 1.6x crop factor, so it even allows you to mount those cheap third-party APS-C lenses on your FF body (think of the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 Art for instance).

IMO 1x3 anamorphic is desirable only when you need to really maximize your field of view. That is, if you want a 24mm equivalent FOV, way better going for 1x1 3.5K with a 16mm lens (yielding ~25mm equivalent) than 1x3 "5.7K" with a native 24mm lens. But if you need to go as wide as 16mm, 1x3 anamorphic may be your only choice.

I noticed when i did format the card in the camera I was still left with the ML/SETTINGS/MAGIC.CFG file which wasnt erased

How come? Always formatted in cam and never happened anything like this to me.

I actually thought that it was better to format in cam than on pc.

Any universally agreed guideline on this?

+1 a.sintes, that would be a major leap for 5D3 users

I need that framerate, not 23.976 / 23.98

Just out of curiosity - why, if I may ask

You seem pretty sure. Good for you. I'm just saying that I'm not so sure.

Check these resources for a start: DSLR Astrophotography and Photons to Photos.

Mmh not so sure. I think each sensor has a sweet spot.

For instance, for 70D this is 1600, while 5D3 should fall somewhere between 1600 and 3200.

[Sweet spot = break-even point where amplifying in-camera the signal more starts leading to a lower SNR (Signal-to-Noise Ratio), I think mainly due to sensor read noise being amplified as well.]

Googling should help.