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.

Messages - P337

Pages: [1] 2 3
ARG! looks like canon set it up that LCD still shuts off if you don't clear overlays, since magic lantern peaking is an overlay it may not even work.

Nightly would support new fw. Can cook the same feature set as alpha 3... but why?

oh the newest nightly works for 1.2.1?  I want both because I like the new "mirror LCD" feature in 1.2.1 so that the Cameraman can use the LCD while a focus puller in on the side of the rig with a field monitor pulling focus, but I also like to have Magic Lantern's focus peak to help the focus puller and also confirm to the cameraman that focus was achieved. 

As it is right now (with 1.1.3) when I plug in the external monitor the LCD blacks out and so the cameraman and AC have to crowd together on the field monitor screen, but they get focus peaking due to magic lantern.  So my choices are less crowding or focus peaking, but I want both naturally :) lol

btw Canon USA still has both 1.2.1 and 1.1.3 up for download

Oh cool, so Alpha 3 might support 1.2.1 also.  Might not have to wait as long as Alpha 4 then.  Thanks 1%

Hey guys.

I used the ML Alpha 3 before with my 5D Mark III previous FW  1.1.3. Worked fine.

Since today when I updated my Mark III FW to 1.2.1 ML no longer works.
Camera Red LED flashes forever and have to take out the battery.

Thanks Goldstein!  You've confirmed my suspicion that ML 5D3 Alpha 3 does not support 1.2.1, looks like we'll have to wait for Alpha 4 to add the support, I might still try the 1.2.1 update though.  Does anyone know a sever still hosting 1.1.3 and would you please post a link to it if not too much trouble, thanks

Yep, if they could be compressed to JPEG all problems would be solved.

True for bandwidth, but from a purely image quality perspective wouldn't even the "Highest Quality" JPEG (8bit, 4:2:2, 2.6:1 compression) produce slightly lower quality than the YUV422 files or HDMI out?  If we had to resort to JPEG, is there even a point to use it over YUV422 or HDMI out? (for 5D3 users especially)

this entire vid is comprised of 5x zoom recordings, 51 frames a piece, on the 5dmkii on a 60mb/s sandisk 16gb 2152x1076 comp size, all at 135mm.

Hmm, still see some exposure hick-ups (or was that something actually in "the scene" or added in post processing during the 0:18-0:19 clip?) 

Was this filmed with the new "YUV/DNG recorder"?  I assume it was filmed with the older 14bit "silent burst pic" DNGs. 

Has anyone got the DNGs from the new recorder open yet? (and are the new DNGs still 14bit or just referenced from the 14bit raw image then compressed?  I don't understand yet why the DNGs from the new recorder won't open)

btw thanks for the test shuggyrasklat (looks sharp)

okay should work now :)

720p, 400 frames, raw @ 24fps should be no problem with a fresh formatted 1000x card.
maybe i can improve it a bit, but for now it is quite useable.

Wow, so you really did mean 400 14bit files then?  That's all I'd need :)

It saves both dng and yuv... a little bit hard-coded for 5d3 and you have to enable lv debug... I haven't been able to process any of the "dng" files yet as they have no header, nothing wants to open them.

YUV and DNG file sizes are similar.

Cool, can a post a YUV and DNG file so we can try to open them?  If Photoshop can't open them I take it they aren't normal DNG files.

By RAW he means RAW. As in RAW image sensor feed. Prior to any color space or compression. 14bit data

Are you sure?  Because this is the "uncompressed YUV422 video recording" thread and it's a very common mistake to make.

Modules Development / Re: 14bit RAW DNG silent pics!
« on: May 02, 2013, 08:53:38 AM »
2K-ish is the resolution. It is perfect for time lapse. Not so perfect for video dreamers who immediately expect 2K raw @ 60FPS.

The biggest I got was 1880 x 1248, that was in 1080p mode without a 5x or 10x zoom, not sure how big the zoom mode would be, I know it's wider but shorter though.

Can anyone explain how to get this speed?  Has anyone attained it?

Wait, by "RAW" do you mean "14bit 4:4:4" or "8bit 4:2:2 uncompressed"?

Modules Development / Re: 14bit RAW DNG silent pics!
« on: May 02, 2013, 02:48:53 AM »
Does SRaw mode do anything to help this situation?

Theoretically it could reduce your resolution sampling, or perhaps offer some alternate compression scheme?

I don't think so, the "usable image" is already just about 1080p so sRAW might shrink that too far, like 240p (I haven't done the math though). 

They need is a way to compress in real time while saving the resolution where it is at
or a way to crop the image in real time
or a way to increase buffer speeds
or a way to increase buffer capacity
actually all of the above

they're working hard looking for an answer but I wouldn't expect continuous 14bit DNG video, honestly I'd just be happy with 10 seconds (which is already asking a lot from this hardware).

Though I wonder, are the 14bit DNGs are using the same "pipe" that the Camera uses for writing CR2 files to card?  What if they were converted to CR2 rather then DNG?  Would that allow them to use a bigger or faster buffer?  Probably not though cause I assume CHDK's DNG converter is already using Canon's built in CR2 converter.

Modules Development / Re: 14bit RAW DNG silent pics!
« on: May 02, 2013, 02:39:00 AM »
I wrote my thoughts in the description on vimeo, i don't want to go too off-topic here. :)

And that's why lots of us are hoping you guys can get continuous recording at some kind of decent resolution, or somehow get it uncompressed to the HDMI out (or the YUV422 to the hdmi out if it looks better than canons version!) to breathe new life into the camera. Great work you're all doing. :)

I just saw a review on the CanonRumors forum(i think) that compared the HDMI out quality before the firmware update and after, the after looked slightly sharper.  Maybe Canon is doing less resizing for the HDMI out now, maybe they're taking a crop from (what I assume) the original 2K 14bit RAW sensor scan for video found by magic Lantern then compressing it down to 4:2:2 8bit and sending it out HDMI.  Maybe that's the best continuous video we can get from these cameras.

1%, in the YUV422 recorder thread did you guys find a way to write to the card faster?  I read 10MB/s faster for round integers and bigger blocks which resulted in double the frames before the recording stopped (400 frames at 24fps/16 seconds I think it was).  COuld that be applied to the 14bit DNGs?  Would we get a few more seconds of recording that way?

Modules Development / Re: 14bit RAW DNG silent pics!
« on: May 01, 2013, 10:05:27 AM »
Awesome, that makes it a world clear! I may be wrong, but the uncompressed clean HDMI output is 8bit 4:2:2@1080...

Would I be wrong in saying that 8bit DNG would still be higher-quality? Yes, it is undoubtedly lesser quality than 14 bit, but this is one of those "take what you can get" situations.

No the best part of the DNG is the 14bit color but I don't think the DNG or CR2 converter in Canon's hardware can do lossy compressions anyway, just a locked in Lossless 14bit 4:4:4 1.25:1 compression.  What the Magic Lantern guys are doing in the YUV422 uncompressed recorder is our best bet,  I would expect similar quality to recording the clean HDMI out that Canon just gave us for 5D3, except without the need of requiring a $1000 external HDMI recorder and hopefully they can include sound :)  (yeah Canon added uncompressed video but REMOVED audio from the HDMI out now!)

Modules Development / Re: 14bit RAW DNG silent pics!
« on: May 01, 2013, 05:36:18 AM »

Raw > gamma curve (flat out) > Jpeg (or 422)


I think that's what this is doing:

RAW/DNG = 14bit 4:4:4 uncompressed
LiveView(HDMI)/YUV422 Recorder(?) = 8bit 4:2:2 uncompressed
JPEG/"M"-JPEG = 8bit 4:2:2 compressed
H.264 = 8bit 4:2:0 compressed

looks like the uncompressed YUV422 recorder is going to be the answer for video here but is it better then the clean uncompressed HDMI out? (other then the fact you don't need an external recorder)

Modules Development / Re: 14bit RAW DNG silent pics!
« on: May 01, 2013, 04:23:58 AM »
Because I too was curious about this, but am not a developer by any means, would anyone explain in layman's terms why recording through HMDI out would not be know, for us dumb monkeys ;)

You mean for 14bit raw?

Basically Canon's HDMI out can't display an image with that much detail.

It's limited to 8bit (which is a huge leap down from 14bit) and HDMI can't display RAW images, it needs to be 'debayered' (reordering the raw pixels into an actual image) and 'sub-sampled' (that means deleting pixels then filling those gaps with clones of the left over pixels) also I think the HDMI spec used in Canon DSLRs don't support anything over 1920x1080 so it would need to be resized or cropped too.

RAW images, are really just a mess of colored pixels until something "debayers" it into the actual image; which is either done in Canon's built in JPEG converter, H.264 converter or LiveView converter (which goes to the HDMI and LCD).

However Canon's built in CR2 converter (for RAW photos) or this added DNG converter (which I think still uses Canon's built in CR2 converter but just sticks it into a DNG container) do not "debayer" so the RAW 'pixel mess' is just saved, the debayer is done (usually automatically) by your computer's picture viewer or image editor.

Modules Development / Re: 14bit RAW DNG silent pics!
« on: April 30, 2013, 10:56:02 AM »
oops after checking my takes its consistent only at 51 frames NOT 102. I missed the break in the takes since the shot was locked down.

51 frames using a 133x cf card on 5d mk2.

Mind if I ask how long does it take to write those 51 frames to your card?  And what is your card's write speed benchmarking at in magic lantern?

Modules Development / Re: 14bit RAW DNG silent pics!
« on: April 30, 2013, 10:45:18 AM »
I'm considering a 1000x card for 14bit DNG, but how many frames are you 1000x card owners getting?

Because A1ex seems to be using a 266x card and mentioned that it took about 30 seconds to clear the buffer of about 30 frames on the 5D3.  Each DNG is about 5.09MBs right?  So 30 would be about 153MBs and if it took 31 seconds to write all that to card that's only like 4.9MB/s and I think Alex's 266x card benchmarked at 20MB/s write so doesn't this point to the frame buffer as the bottle-neck?  If that's right then it wouldn't matter how fast the card is, since the camera is limiting the write speed to 4.9MB/s.

That would mean the only answer to get a sustained 24fps is compression before the "frame buffer" (or increasing the frame buffer speeds) and if the buffer really is limiting speeds to 4.9MB/s it would require a 25:1 compression ratio to fit 24 frames through it.  (5.09*24)/4.9=24.9 

If using Jpeg compression that is very close to a medium level JPEG (23:1 ratio), I don't know much about DNGs Lossy or Lossless compressions but can it do 25:1?  I've only ever seen 3:1 DNG lossy compressions.

Update: With the camera's photo mode set to jpeg only people are getting 53 frames and about 36 seconds to clear which is about 7.5MB/s and would require a 17:1 compression, similar to a "High Quality" 15:1 JPEG compression.  Ted Ramasola just got 53 frames with a 133x card,  I'm pretty sure the cards are not the bottle-neck here, anything that writes faster than an x50 speed (7.5MB/s) seems to have no benefit for these 14bit DNGs. (unless someone can find a way to drastically increase the in camera's buffer speeds)

Modules Development / Re: 14bit RAW DNG silent pics!
« on: April 30, 2013, 10:06:27 AM »
The Transcend 400x 32GB card (which I have) can read more than 100 MB/s (specification says 90 MB/s) and write around 50 MB/s (spec: 60 MB/s) in my card reader. In the 7D the write speed of this Transcend card is only 32 MB/s. The fastest card I've ever tried in my 7D is the Lexar Professional 1000x and I measured 68.2 MB/s write speed, so the 7D is very very far from the speed that you mentioned.

Thanks Pelican, that's a little eye opening. 

UDMA 6 spec is speeds up to 133MB/s while UDMA 7 is 167MB/s so I would expect that a Card or Camera that advertises UDMA 7 is surpassing the limits of UDMA 6, but marketing might not see it that way. 

Were you using the newer 7D firmware (1.2.5 I think) that supports faster buffer and UDMA 7 speeds with that 1000x card?  The bottle-neck could also be on the card's max write speed; the fastest benchmarks I could find the Lexar 1000x card is 65.2MB/s for sequential write and a 135MB/s read speed, which I guess technically makes it a UDMA 7.

Modules Development / Re: 14bit RAW DNG silent pics!
« on: April 29, 2013, 01:17:21 PM »
OMG A1ex, what did you say to EOSHD?

btw haeki, a "400x" card should be about 60MB/s but that 400x rating is probably for read speeds, the 7D supports UDMA 7 speeds which would imply it's faster then UDMA 6, which puts its potential max write speed somewhere between 133MB/s and 167MB/s (that's in 1000x territory).  The 7D buffer also supports up to 25 17.9MP 14bit RAW images at about 20MBs per file...  I think your bottleneck is your card's write speed.

(The 5D3 also supports UDMA 7 speeds but with apparently a smaller RAW buffer and bigger RAW files)

Archived porting threads / Re: First 7D alpha released!
« on: November 19, 2012, 02:41:11 PM »
No, they simply support the exFat filesystem which does not have the 4Gigs limitation. There are no 64 bits ARM CPUs around

Oh ok, pretty much what I thought just wanted to double check that lol

Archived porting threads / Re: First 7D alpha released!
« on: November 19, 2012, 12:10:28 PM »
the 4GiB limit is not likely to get removed in 7D, as it works with 32 bit file sizes.
600D works with 64 bits, so this one is possible to override 4GiB limit.

Sorry to come back to such an old post, but it just hit me, are you saying the 600D and newer Canon DSLRs are using a 64bit OS and Processor?

Archived porting threads / Re: First 7D alpha released!
« on: November 04, 2012, 12:30:19 PM »
True, unless it reads the entire sensor 60 times per second then scales for 720p ...or does it just skip more lines to begin with?

Also my "LiveV FPS" usually displays 60fps, but I'm not entirely sure what that means yet lol.

Hardly, you will see more blocking from jpeg compared to h264, as jpeg lacks in-loop deblocking. You will likely see more motion artifacts from jpeg as it does no sort of motion compensation. It would be better if the h264 engine could be used in place of jpeg, but it's probably impossible due to the h264 encoder's fixed input sizes.

aww :( are you sure it's that bad?  Either way this is the best JPEG could offer so I'm happy for that and if that's still not good enough there's also a full 422 option ;)
I may have miss-termed "motion artifacts", what I meant was prediction errors as these are all full frames like an intra codec.

Pages: [1] 2 3