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 - DOP

Pages: [1]
1
Raw Video / Re: Inconsistent Framerates
« on: April 12, 2019, 07:37:39 PM »
Camera model?

6D. Sorry, meant to mention that but clearly forgot.

On some models, at certain frame rates, Canon firmware flips the FPS back and forth between two values, and the average frame rate is going to be the requested one, from Canon menu (in your case, 29.970). When recording MLV, only one LiveView frame is checked to find out the frame rate, so... ML is going to pick one value (either slightly above or slightly below the actual FPS).

Makes sense

To work around this in ML, I can imagine two approaches:
- round the reported frame rate to standard values (23.976 / 25.000 / 29.970 / 50.000 / 59.940) if FPS override is not used and timer B differs by less than one unit from the value required by the standard frame rate (preferred)
- average the frame rate over a couple of frames (maybe using a moving average), but one may need one second or so to get consistent results (and even so, I wouldn't exclude a round-off error every now and then).

The first option seems the most reasonable and accurate. Unless FPS override is chosen there should be no reason someone would need or expect the fps to be different from one of the standards so simply forcing it to the closest match makes sense. Seems that would avoid any quirks, miscalculations, etc that might be introduced in the second approach.

If you use FPS override, ML will keep things simple and will pick one value for the timers (i.e. it will not switch back and forth). With Exact FPS it's going to try to find an exact match, otherwise it will just pick something close (but consistent as long as you don't change the settings).

I might try this next time to keep things clean and simple.  Thus far I have used the Framerate override in MLV App when exporting but was curious if it might cause jitter if it's being forced / conformed to something is wasn't recorded at.  Sound like doing it at that stage or the ML recording stage via FPS override will have similar results? What would the pros / cons to each method be? (i.e. in ML vs MLV App)

2
Raw Video / Re: Inconsistent Framerates
« on: April 12, 2019, 04:07:44 AM »
Can you give more details on the process? My 5D always give me the correct framerate.

What are you using to make the original "non-proxied" master footage? Are you using DNG's?

Are you exporting using Prores ffmpeg Kostya or ffmpeg Anatolyi codec? Is your framerate override on in MLVApp?

Workflow:
- ProRes proxies created in MLV App using default settings, which I think is Kostya but have to check
- ...

Actually that’s all that matters right now because those are what’s ending up with inconsistent frame rates. I assumed it was due to MLV App but was told by the dev it’s straight from ML.

Maybe you should just try the framerate override in ML in-camera to see if that fixes the issue. Don't know if that will de-sync the sound though

I am already using framerate override in MLV App although some snuck through due to a bug / missing feature where MLV App wouldn’t retain that setting between sessions (now fixed in source code).

Before experimenting with framerate override in ML directly I wanted to see if this is a known thing. Seems odd that ML itself would record inconsistent frame rates. 

3
Raw Video / Inconsistent Framerates
« on: April 11, 2019, 11:33:29 PM »
Shooting in 1080p 30fps mode in the Canon menu without any Framerate override enabled in ML (edit: 6D). After exporting as a ProRes proxy file via MLV App the frame rates are inconsistent / incorrect in most of the clips.





This is causing me headaches in the post workflow because near the end I replace the proxies with master that are processed in Davinci Resolve which will of course have the correct 29.97 fps frame rate and thus won't exactly match the original proxy clip and will cause a re-linking error.

Posting here because I was told that the frame rate is determined by ML itself and has nothing to do with MLV App. Is this true and if so is this expected from ML? Is yes is there a way to force it to a consistent frame rate while it's recorded? Maybe just use frame rate override?

I am able to force the Framerate in MLV App but very curious why they end up off in the first place.

4
Well, you need to enable it for your specific cam:
Check for this place in sd_uhs code:
Code: [Select]
    if (is_camera("6D", "1.1.6"))
    {
        sd_setup_mode       = 0xFF325A20;
        sd_setup_mode_in    = 0xFF325AA8;
        sd_setup_mode_reg   = 1;            /* switch variable is in R1 (likely all D5 other than 5D3) */
        sd_set_function     = 0xFF78F308;
     /* sd_uhs_patch(); */    }
Change this line to:
Code: [Select]
      sd_uhs_patch();    }
And if you want to loose the complaint on screen add the 6D into the mix:
Code: [Select]
    if ((!is_camera("EOSM", "2.0.2")) && (!is_camera("100D", "1.0.1")) && (!is_camera("700D", "1.1.5") && (!is_camera("6D", "1.1.6")))
    {
    NotifyBox(2000, "sd_uhs.mo is not supported for your camera");
    }

Untested territory. I don´t own this cam myself.

Just found it as you were replying. Enabled and working flawlessly so far! 80+ second recording at max 1824x1026 @ 30 fps 14-bit lossless. Will report back if there are problems.

Appreciate your efforts greatly!

Now if only we can get decent 60fps video without aliasing (at 16:9 without losing FoV)! lol

5
When I compile the crop_rec_4k_mlv_snd_isogain_1x3_presets branch via the instructions in the first post and enable sd_uhs I get the following message on boot up

Code: [Select]
sd_uhs.mo is not supported for your camera
I know I've chosen the right camera under platform because the .zip its named crop_rec_4k_mlv_snd_isogain_1x3_presets_2019Apr07.6D116.zip

A previous crop_rec build with sd_uhs.so compiled by someone else was working but I'd love to use your latest build.

6
Reverse Engineering / Re: UHS-I / SD cards investigation
« on: April 08, 2019, 06:24:39 AM »
You need to be in the correct branch. Check first post, bottom half since the example points to the branch in question. Continue discussion in that  thread too:
https://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=21882.msg199370#msg199370

Thanks, followed those instructions. Will continue this in that thread.

7
Reverse Engineering / Re: UHS-I / SD cards investigation
« on: April 08, 2019, 05:41:15 AM »
It is very experimental and could possibly damage your card so there are no official builds. You need to compile it from the sd_uhs branch or ask someone to compile it for you.

Specifically for the 6D I am attempting to build this myself using the Compiler.app that Danne mentioned but running into some hurdles.

Compiler.app runs beautifully (thanks Danne!) but when I compile the the sd_uhs branch there is no sd_uhs module in the resulting .zip file. I looked into compiling the sd_uhs module on it's own but I get the following output...

Code: [Select]
$ pwd
/Users/username/magic-lantern/modules/sd_uhs
$ make Makefile
Using ~/gcc-arm-none-eabi-5_4-2016q3/bin/arm-none-eabi-gcc (preferred).
make: Nothing to be done for `Makefile'.

Suggestions?

PS I did catch part of the discussion about using some .lua related stuff to load / autoload the sd_ush module and maybe having that stuff baked into newer builds but I assume the module itself still has to be there.

8
Camera-specific Development / Re: Canon 6D
« on: April 07, 2019, 10:28:27 PM »
Unfortunately not. 60fps in 16:9 with full sensor width (1824 pixels) is not possible.
Horizontal resolution, vertical resolution and fps are the factors in play for what is possible.
If you want faster fps, you have to sacrifice horizontal or vertical resolution.
If you want more horizontal resolution, you have to sarcifice vertical resolution or fps.
If you want more vertical resolution, you have to sacrifice horizontal resolution or fps.
Already made a compromise by lowering horizontal resolution to 1688 pixels wide, to get some more vertical resolution.
Couldn't get any lower then 1688, weird stuff happened when testing, otherwise a 1440 x 810 @ 60fps (16:9 aspect) was possible, but somehow 1688 seems to be as low as we could get on 6d for now.

Another thing, horizontal resolution takes less resource of the cam then vertical, since horizontal is readout with 4 columns at one time.
So you can sort of say that you have to sacrifice 4 pixels of horizontal resolution, to get 1 pixel extra vertical resolution.
That's the reason why you see all these high resolution wide crop ratios 1:2.40 and such in crop modes on the different cameras.

Another thing to have in mind is that the 6D sensor reads 4 horizontal pixels at once, and the 5d3 sensor does 8 horizontal pixels at once (So more complex sensor, which can read twice as fast).
This means basically that the 6d can do the same as the 5d3, but only at half the resolution or half the frame rate  :P

Good info, thank you. I assumed there was some kind of relationship like that.

So you're saying that there was "weird stuff" happening at 1440 x 810 @ 60fps? What type of stuff? Corrupt frames, buggy ML behaviour?

To clarify, what is the best 16:9 60fps resolution we can get without losing vertical? Just the ones in your presets that result in lots of aliasing?  I don't mind if the resolution is lower since the raw is crisper than the default h.264 and can be upsized pretty cleanly but I don't want to lose any FoV or have aliasing.  I've played around a bit but it's time consumer and I know you've done lots of great work in this area so probably easier to ask. Apologies for all the questions, just trying to wrap my head around it all and keep track of all the different options / configurations.

9
Camera-specific Development / Re: Canon 6D
« on: April 07, 2019, 12:29:59 AM »
Without the need to stretch the video, the max resolution in 60 fps is 1688 x 754, if you want to use that mode for 16:9 aspect ratio raw recording, you end up with 1340 x 754 @ 60fps.

Tried this out and the results are significantly better than the typic ML 720p. The aliasing is almost entirely gone and similar to the 1824x1026 30fps mode. However, there is a large crop top and bottom which make this exact result unusable for me. Is there a way to get these results without the vertical crop?

10
If you are using Lightroom for grading of DNG's you can actually export an H.264 video straight from Lightroom without having to export as jpeg or tiff and bring into an editor. Of course this limited format would not be good for editing after the fact in an editor but it is hand if you just need to quickly export and view / share a clip.

It requires a bit of a "hack" to the Slideshow template files since the interface does not let you go below .1 (or in newer version of Lightroom 1) for the Slide Length setting.

I have uploaded 2 templates here. One for 24fps and one for 30fps. I've tested the 24fps template but not the 30fps. Should be good based on the math, but...

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/mnczngo798r6v2c/AACGprxZecG1ekfGpktcqtRVa?dl=0

To use it just
  • Import the template into the Slideshow model of Lightroom
  • Select the template
  • Click Export Video below the template browser

I think you could technically add the .wav file in if you wanted sound too but I haven't tried.

NOTE: There is a bug (I presume) in LR that causes it to drop several of the frames at the end of the video, at least in my 24fps test. This might be because it forces the fps of the exported video to 29.97 and there seems to be no way around it. However, the video does playback at the correct speed despite this.  So you may need to add extra frames (images) at the end before exporting to account for this.  Maybe someone can try it with a 30fps export and let me know. I don't have the time right now.

I am also getting a huge black mat around the video for some reason. At both 1080p and even 720p despite my original files being 1824x1026. Will hav etc play with that too.

The massive black matting I was experiencing may have been caused by not using the Zoom to Fill Frame checkbox. I had tested this earlier and it didn't seem to resolve it but is working now. LR does not upsize images for slideshows and there doesn't seem to be any way to change that so if your frames are less than 1080p there will be black matting to fill the space.  Dropping to 720p resolves this.

Updated the presets and re-uploaded to the original dropbox folder above.

You could also use the ones posted by @scrax above. They seem to work the same. However, looking at timestamp in the directory I can see they're from 2010 so there might be some settings that don't translate to the newer versions of Lightroom. So perhaps it's "safer" to use ones created in a newer version of LR. Mine were done in Lightroom Classic CC 8.2.1 which is the latest version right now.

11
Being an old LR user too, I hate where adobe is going with CC and so on, that is just another bad choices from them.
Recently I've sarted to learn and change my workflow to opensource apps for that reason and also because I'm interested in getting a POWER9 IBM processor machine like the Talos or Blackbird

So far only thing that kept me away from linux is LR and PS both are app that I've used since they were in beta so is really hard to change but not always is easy to get thing better, so far I found really nice how LightZone works for example, instead of Darktable that is less intuitive for me at the moment.

I also disliked the idea of CC in the beginning. Mostly the subscription model. Now I don't mind so much because I use LR mobile sync heavily. It's something I tried to DIY for years and it was always clunky. Even just the mobile sync is almost worth the $10 (ish) a month for the plan.  It's also handy to have a web interface for quick photo tweaks and exports if I'm at work or something and need to quickly export a photo for a client.  There are definite downsides but overall I'm relatively happy with CC.

Opensource is fantastic overall and I do use some open source programs here and there but overall it's not usually well flushed out and mostly I need ease of use, efficiency, speed, integration, etc in my workflows more than I need free or highly flexible.

12
I used some presets for making timelapses with LR years ago and they were working ok but can't remember where I got them.
just found this that maybe you can use to compare with yours

Very interesting. Seems they have done the same thing as me for the initial Slideshow presets. It's unclear how to use the Video presets though. Based on the read me it sounds like once they are dropped in Lr's Video Presets folder they should show up as an option in Slideshow > Export Video, but they do not. Perhaps this worked with older versions of LR or I'm misinterpreting something.

Edit: Found this. Seems they may have removed the ability to use Video Presets for exporting. Shitty. https://forums.adobe.com/thread/1234089

13
There's also ae with raw capabilities and tons of export options. And of course Mlv App, dedicated mlv processor, but I assume you prefer lightroom for some reason.

MLV App is what I use for initial conversion to CinemaDNG. The devs have done a great job with it but I have a very long history with Lightroom and Camera Raw (since LR v1 beta) and it's an integral part of my photo workflow. That combined with my proficiency with and preference for Camera Raw makes it a good fit for my workflow.  AE has come up in my reading a few times but at this time I'm not willing to shell out extra money on top of LR/PS & FCPX which is my current video editor.

Ultimately I’m quite happy with this workflow, just stumbled across this ability to set the slideshows to a specific frame rate and thought it might be useful for other LR users to quickly dump out a preview of what their video will look like. Sometimes you notice a problem once the frames are rendered into a video and it’s nice to catch it sooner in the workflow rather than later after pushing everything into another editor, adding to timeline, adjusting things, etc.

14
Post-processing Workflow / Exporting Video Straight from Lightroom
« on: April 06, 2019, 07:54:38 AM »
If you are using Lightroom for grading of DNG's you can actually export an H.264 video straight from Lightroom without having to export as jpeg or tiff and bring into an editor. Of course this limited format would not be good for editing after the fact in an editor but it is hand if you just need to quickly export and view / share a clip.

It requires a bit of a "hack" to the Slideshow template files since the interface does not let you go below .1 (or in newer version of Lightroom 1) for the Slide Length setting.

I have uploaded 2 templates here. One for 24fps and one for 30fps. I've tested the 24fps template but not the 30fps. Should be good based on the math, but...

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/mnczngo798r6v2c/AACGprxZecG1ekfGpktcqtRVa?dl=0

To use it just
  • Import the template into the Slideshow model of Lightroom
  • Select the template
  • Click Export Video below the template browser

I think you could technically add the .wav file in if you wanted sound too but I haven't tried.

NOTE: There is a bug (I presume) in LR that causes it to drop several of the frames at the end of the video, at least in my 24fps test. This might be because it forces the fps of the exported video to 29.97 and there seems to be no way around it. However, the video does playback at the correct speed despite this.  So you may need to add extra frames (images) at the end before exporting to account for this.  Maybe someone can try it with a 30fps export and let me know. I don't have the time right now.

I am also getting a huge black mat around the video for some reason. At both 1080p and even 720p despite my original files being 1824x1026. Will hav etc play with that too.

15
Camera-specific Development / Re: Canon 6D
« on: April 06, 2019, 06:39:02 AM »
The Defringe setting under Lens Correction can help with some artifacts too but proxy. Mostly I tried it to reduce some actual Chromatic Aberration similar to the defringe tweak in the RawTherapee video but it grabbed some other artifacts too with very little if any side effects.

16
Camera-specific Development / Re: Canon 6D
« on: April 05, 2019, 07:24:31 PM »
Very interesting results. Thank you for tackling this!

There are definitely aspects of the RawTherapee versions that look better (pillows) but certain things that don't look as good (light fall-off on lamp, colour cast and light falloff on window).

Will give the recipe a try and see about adjusting the workflow overall in these cases.

Side note: Increasing the Color noise reduction in LR can remove most of the color aliasing / artifacts with little to no impact on the rest of the image.  I discovered that with another scene I had shot elsewhere that has strange artifacts due to a funky bed sheet pattern and it works decently well here too. The only side effect I've seen so far is it removes some saturation is areas that have only small patches of colour (like the spine of a book on a shelf if it's very small in the frame overall). Will be interesting to see how RawTherapee handles that same situation.

Again very appreciative to have such great help in the community. Thanks!

17
Camera-specific Development / Re: Canon 6D
« on: April 05, 2019, 01:01:30 AM »
I don't do video but for photo I usually used masking a lot in LR with sharpening to avoid oversharpened images

It is definitely handy for controlling the "spill" so to speak.

18
Camera-specific Development / Re: Canon 6D
« on: April 04, 2019, 11:25:25 PM »
Found the culprit of the Moire in LR on those pillows. It was sharpening.

I tried RT -> .tif and found that LR was causing the Moire there too. The moire was not present in RT or in Preview (I'm on a Mac), only in LR. A quick google (and filtering through all the 'how to fix moire' posts) I found this thread which attributed it to Sharpening and some other adjustments. https://forums.adobe.com/thread/1312516

If I either

A) Keep the sharpening below 20 (the LR default is 40, even for tifs)
B) Increase the Masking slider to 50-60+

... it seems to completely avoid the moire, for this particular case. Of course that also reduces the overall sharpness quite a bit compared to what I wanted but I'm sure with more playing I can get a reasonable compromise for these cases.

Edit: Here is a video comparison of the before (bottom) / after (top). A few frames in the adjusted version still show some artifacts, but that can probably be smoothed too. Those frames have different / more artifacts than the one I was using as my base, apparently. Now that the pillows are sorted I see other areas jumping out at me like the TV stand and some colour weirdness on the stitched edge of the back pillow at the beginning. I think these are mostly extreme cases compared to other shots I've done so far.

19
Camera-specific Development / Re: Canon 6D
« on: April 04, 2019, 06:35:13 PM »
Interesting suggestion on the RawTherapee > Lightroom workflow. I will have to give RT another try. I forget which other problems RT seemed to introduce but perhaps running the TIFFs through LR after can resolve them.  Hmmm.

Tried to reproduce the bad moire I experienced but I no longer have the same objects (striped pillows at a hotel room) and the objects I have not did not produce the same results. The DNGs I have were extracted from the .mlv via MLV App using the AMaZE debayer so not sure if we'd still get the same results as if we used something like MLVFS to pull them straight out with no debayering? Regardless they are here if you want to experiment with them. Look at the pillows on the right...
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/8ac77he0qnngerb/AABVk6SGDhsRowGZ7GLEUZa2a?dl=0

Very appreciative of the help. Thank you!

20
Camera-specific Development / Re: Canon 6D
« on: April 04, 2019, 01:29:32 AM »
1st of all DONT relay on fixing moire in post :)   if it was that easy it would never be such big topic .... so go with crop mode

also dont expect to go any fancy framerates cause 6D can write only 40mbs (fancy 95mbs cards wont help, bottleneck is the camera)  so your best bet is to go a bit below HD in 23.976 or max 25 fps

for what you need i would rather go with gopro7 .. you can shoot 4k in 60fps

So, I get where you're coming from on those comments but as per my previous comments none of those things will suffice and / or are already being done.

While I wholeheartedly agree that "fix it in post" is never ideal, sometimes there is no other practical option with the given resources. I cannot shoot in crop mode due to the wide field of view that I require (as per previous comment) and at this time I am not willing to add a super ultra wide lens like an 8mm fish-eye just to keep a wide enough FOV in 3x crop mode. Even then it would be a little tighter than I'd like and most likely would have a lot of distortion.

Fully aware of the 6D (and most other Canon bodies) limited write speed. As per previous posts I'm already getting sufficient record times for this use case at 24 and even 30 fps in HD resolutions. So, that's not an issue at the moment.

The GoPro suggestion is interesting. I have a Hero 4 Silver and tried it in 1080p @ 60fps Linear mode (to remove distortion). It's ok but dynamic range isn't nearly as good, shadows have lots of noise, exposure control is limited, etc. A newer model would surely do better but I don't plan to drop $500+ on a brand new one.

21
Camera-specific Development / Re: Canon 6D
« on: April 03, 2019, 06:17:50 PM »
This is basically the same conclusion I came to. If I move slow and cleanly 30fps isn't a big deal. I have a gimbal and once I practice more I should be able to get very smooth footage with little to no stabilization or slow down needed.

The methods to get 60fps just have too big of an impact on image quality and workflow and thus aren't practical in the end.

MLV App is what I use already so good to hear that's one of the better options for post. I no longer have the test .mlv file that showed the really bad moire (just the exported DNGs) so can't compare LMMSE but in other less problematic tests I could see no difference between that and AMaZE.

I did try RawTherapee briefly but found the interface cumbersome and poorly suited for a quick workflow and the results worse in other areas compared to my DNG process in Lightroom. Overall RT seemed similar to the whole 60fps thing. Gave benefit in one area but poorer results in several others.

Will have to try the crop_rec 40fps again. I've had stability issues with that version of crop_rec and it seems easy for live view to go glitchy and corrupt the signal.

Also considering HDR video which has pros / cons like 60fps but there are people who seem to be using it quite nicely for real estate. It's a bit more washed out by it's nature but I think I can add some contrast and punch back in post.
https://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=14774.0

Really appreciate the help. Even though I'm not getting the results I hoped for (and it really makes me want a 5D III or a Black Magic Pocket Cinema) it's still better than the default Canon video and we can only spect so much from this kind of hacking. Lucky to have it at all!

PS: What's the recording limit for 40fps @ 1824 x 1026 and does it require the presets or can it be configured with the original crop_4K build?

22
Camera-specific Development / Re: Canon 6D
« on: April 02, 2019, 04:39:50 AM »
Aaaah, actually the fish-eye trick is a good one.  I was already doing sometime similar with my 70d for some other use cases. Not sure why I didn't think of that :) Will have to try it out.  Not sure if the math will work out because I want to maintain at least a 20mm field of view and have a 12mm fish-eye so if it's literally 3x smaller field of view that will put me at about 36mm FOV?

My main goal right now is real estate videography so what I would really like is the highest resolution for 10+ seconds record time @ 60fps in 16:9.  To be honest I'm getting a little fuzzy on the best way to accomplish that based on all the various presets and ML options.

The best settings I came across so far, I think, mentioned needing to stretch by 1.67x in post but the video seemed to be cropped vertically so I wasn't getting the vertical field of view I needed. Honestly unsure how to stretch in post or if that would help. When I open the files in post (MLV app, ColorCast, etc) they don't appear distorted but they are definitely in a 2.35:1 (-ish) aspect ratio and have lost a lot of vertical resolution.

Suggestions on how to accomplish the real estate setup above?

23
Camera-specific Development / Re: Canon 6D
« on: March 31, 2019, 06:39:48 AM »
Found a few minutes to alter the crop_rec file to NTSC.
For the first 3 presets, camera must be set in NTSC 720p60fps mode.


Tested it really quick, so far it looks good  ;D

Here's the link to the crop_rec module file:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tCe9ryqKpnGx_AKW4CaquCy32WwUmTU2/view?usp=sharing

This looks fantastic and I am eager to try these out.  Thank you very much for all your hard work!

Question: What is the highest resolution setup for the 6D that avoids moire but also doesn't require using 5x crop. They seem mutually exclusive. So much information scattered across the forums it's hard to tell. From my understanding 5x crop can avoid the moire but will be cropped into a small portion of the sensor thus cutting your field of view down significantly.

I am shooting real estate and was quite happy with 1826x1026 at first but certain fabric patterns give bad moire in the post workflow. I need to keep my wide field of view so doesn't sound like 5x crop will be an option. 24fps is acceptable but 50/60 would be ideal for slowing / smoothing motion.

Pages: [1]