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 - Critical Point

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
Camera-specific Development / Re: Canon 600D / T3i
« on: February 12, 2017, 02:50:59 PM »
Who would have thunk that a 600D could actually be used to shoot 10 bit raw video, 1280 cinemascope (2:35), 24fps continuous.

So let me get this straight ! The 600D / T3i can now shoot continuously 1280x??? 10 bit raw ?
Can someone please show me how to get this on 600D ? I have looked on various parts of the forum but nothing clear to me at this point.

Share Your Videos / Re: Small test.
« on: August 21, 2014, 04:42:53 PM »
Of course, an Igus 1m slider.

Share Your Videos / Re: Small test.
« on: August 15, 2014, 11:28:32 PM »
I think the awesomeness has more to do with the landscape and far less with the camera.  I'm using Tragic Lantern, GOP 1, bitrate about 120-130 mb/s, Technicolor CineStyle (with everything turned to low - sharpness 0, contrast 0, saturation 0) and that's about it, no grading, no messing with levels or anything, because I'm trying to keep as much dynamic range as I can get my hands on. My card is a Sandisk 32 Gb 45 MB/s.

I'm one of those people who likes shooting flat, and doesn't consider grading absolutely necessary when shooting flat.

Share Your Videos / Re: Small test.
« on: June 11, 2014, 12:29:04 PM »
I've used the mighty kit lens, the 18-55mm IS II. :)

Share Your Videos / Small test.
« on: June 11, 2014, 04:26:03 AM »
600D, Tragic Lantern @ ~130 mbs, CineStyle (all low), no grading:

If there is the possibility of running ML + the bitrate & GOP features as an module...that would be lovely. But, until that day comes, I'm stuck with TL.

Well, it doesn't matter, many persons use TL because the GOP & bitrate features work, and recording the audio with an external device is a common practice, it's not such a big deal to most, because they do it anyway, with or without TL, me included. After having used TL for over a year now, it didn't chewed up my camera, and works just fine.

It is called Tragic Lantern for a good reason, and I think 1% explained very clearly that the code is not 100% good, ok, or tested, but there are some of us that accept TL the way it is, only to gain certain features that in ML we can't get. When those features will get ported to ML, I will gladly reinstall ML on my camera, but until that day comes, I'm stuck with TL because I can't give up those controls over the bitrate and GOP.

Give us an alternative in ML and we'll gladly give up TL, but unfortunately this is not happening, you guys want us to give up TL and go back to nothing. I'm sure that before TL was banned, somebody could have said: "before banning TL, let's not rob this people of some good features that they depend on, and lets put them in ML, then we'll ban TL. Lets make first ML be at the level of TL features ways, then we'll close TL."

Make an ML 2.4 with the bitrate and GOP controls included (without sound if it can't be done otherwise), but put those features in ML, they are very important to many, because those two damn features are the reason why many people use TL and not ML.

Well, from what I can see, things get very slowly ported into ML, if at all. I my self am using TL because it gives me control over the H.264 bitrate and GOP. This is an amazing feature, something that really matters, but will this get ported into ML ? Probably not. And why ? Only God knows why not. As long as you don't port into ML things that really are important, you can't blame 1% for offering those features in his TL.

I think that both ML and TL should be accepted on this site, because obviously we can't get all the goodies in one place only. It would be great to see everything only in ML, but since it can't be done, because of this, I think TL should be kept.

The H.264 footage wasn't shoot properly, if it was shoot with CineStyle with the flattest settings possible (sharpness, contrast, saturation all the way down), and also with a proper exposure, and with Tragic Lantern with ~160 mbs All-I, then the dynamic range would have been even better than what you see in this RAW example.

Share Your Videos / 600D / H.264 - quick test.
« on: December 24, 2013, 02:29:33 AM »
Original EOS 600D + Tamron 18-270 VC (Tragic Lantern, GOP 1, ~135 Mb/s, CineStyle - all low, ISO 80, f/11):

Processed (AE - levels, contrast, saturation, unsharpen mask 1-250, neat video, re-encoded with x.264vfw @ 20.000 kbit/s, then quality destroyed by youtube):

Download the original processed file (75 Mb):

Tragic Lantern / Re: Difference between Tragic Lantern and Magic Lantern
« on: December 11, 2013, 07:57:51 PM »
I think people interested in porting TL to ML should donate to 1% and when enough money are raised so that this project is properly funded, 1% will spend the required time to do the coding. You can not expect the man to spend many, many hours of he's free time just so that we all be happy, when he is not getting payed. That's how this problem should be presented and understood.

1% should have a link for donations to this project alone, and when enough money are raised so that he's effort, time and energy spent are properly funded, then it will be done.  Raising a few thousands dollars for porting TL is not such a big challenge for this community.

Share Your Videos / Re: The result of filming raw over 6 months
« on: December 06, 2013, 01:35:23 AM »
Wow, great video man. What I want to know is how did you make those first shoots, where you moved around with the camera and the people are frozen.

I have Tragic Lantern v1 installed because I need the H.264 GOP and bitrate controlls, can I install also this module with dual iso ?

Tragic Lantern / Re: Difference between Tragic Lantern and Magic Lantern
« on: October 28, 2013, 08:14:49 PM »
Yeah, it would be really nice if the GOP/Slice controls for H.264 would be ported to ML. If not, I'm happy with TL, for me it's working very well, no issues of any kind.

For GH2 for example, there are a ton of hacks, all different, who needs a certain thing, can install a certain hack, TL and ML are the same way.

It's been looked into previously and was deemed not possible. The part of memory where styles are stored would be very dangerous to write to.

Yes, but those 3 custom picture profiles that we load via the EOS Utility, are stored in the same place ?

So, basically what is needed is ML to emulate what EOS Utility does when it loads custom picture profiles to the camera, not to modify those default profiles that are stored in I don't know what dangerous part of the memory.

Feature Requests / Re: [WONTFIX] Magic Lantern for Nikon?
« on: August 16, 2013, 04:41:16 PM »
Ugh? I'm not that much into hacking the boot process, but it seems to me if Canon would want to disabled 3rd party fw loading they could prevent it or at least make it much, much, much more difficult with any/real protection. The fact that even the newest cameras are easily modified to load ml imho proves that Canon has no problem with it as long as they aren't associated with ml or have to do bug support?

I believe you're right, I don't think Canon's management team is stupid, I think they are aware of the fact that when a camera gets supported by ML the sales on that model skyrockets.

Feature Requests / ML Custom Picture Profile
« on: August 11, 2013, 06:05:57 AM »
Well, I have an idea. I know it is dangerous to add more than 3 custom picture profiles via a hack, but what if we could get around that ? What is ML would store in it's own directory on the SD card how many picture profiles we want, and we simply load them from a ML menu into one custom slot, ML would only replace one of those three custom profiles just like the EOS Utility does. It would not require any hacks to that dangerous part of the memory where the default picture profiles are stored, simply from a ML menu, we manipulate one custom profile slot, and ML only writes and deletes profiles on that slot just like the EOS Utility does. So we could have 100 picture profiles stored on the SD card, that only ML manipulates from it's menu, and we simply load them into memory just like the EOS Utility does, on a custom slot.

So basically ML would emulate what the EOS Utility does when it changes a custom picture profile, the only difference being that instead of loading the file from the hard drive, we load the file from the SD card via a ML menu.

That would be a great improvement, I mean, I have about 20 good and useful picture profiles, and it is a real big pain in the a** to always connect the camera to the pc only to load them.

Just a few:
Technicolor CineStyle
Marvels Advanced
Ive Lotus

Hardware and Accessories / Re: Android tablet as field monitor.
« on: July 31, 2013, 03:19:58 AM »
Another down side is if you have a USB Follow Focus like me, and you need the USB port for it. There is no comparison between a dedicated USB Follow Focus and the tablet focus, they are in two different worlds it terms of fines and field usability. But I agree, the image on the tablet looks better than on the lcd, I also find it easier to focus with the image on the tablet.

Hardware and Accessories / Re: Android tablet as field monitor.
« on: July 30, 2013, 12:37:02 AM »
Those 15 fps might have to do more with the tablet than with the camera, maybe you get 30 fps on tablets with at least dual-core processors.

Feature Requests / Re: Magic Lantern for Nikon?
« on: July 29, 2013, 07:32:03 PM »
I wonder, just how much money would Canon pay to you guys not to develop ML for Nikon ? :D

Feature Requests / Re: Magic Lantern for Nikon?
« on: July 28, 2013, 02:48:57 AM »
I wonder...what are the SD speed limits on some Nikon models, like 5200D, 3200D...what if they stand better regarding the SD Controller ?

Hardware and Accessories / Re: Android tablet as field monitor.
« on: July 27, 2013, 04:15:45 PM »
Actually it works very well as a field monitor and follow focus, the only down side, is that it takes up the USB port, and in case you have to connect other devices to the USB, you can't.

Modules Development / Re: Focus Infinity Module
« on: July 24, 2013, 03:23:38 PM »
Looks complicated.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4