Messages

From your tests experience, do you think raw recording without VAF filter is acceptable or there is to much aliasing and color aliasing?

Thanx again

______________

I intend to get one in the next week or so, but it's certainly acceptable without one.

Hope your have a Cinematic day Redrocks and Magic Lantern Community,
I put the June 22 a.d's latest build (cf56893d7be4) in and it took my measure back to 1872 instead of 1880 what going on? So to keep thing somewhat accurate I put the 2013/06/21 0c3188c5134f Build back in at least the measurements right. What's the changes from 2013/06/21 0c3188c5134f Build and a.d's latest build (cf56893d7be4)?

You too, dariSSight. A1ex has this to say about 1880 vs 1872:

"the builds from a.d. contain a number of extra changes, e.g. allows non-mod16 resolutions (which I prefer to stay away from, for DMA alignment reasons)"

"Bigger is not always better, mod16 resolutions are more important IMO, and the EDMAC is very sensitive to alignment."

Which is over my head, but I realised that 1872 is an exact 1/3 rd of the sensor and probably an easier number to work with.

cf56893d7be4, Komputerbay 64GB, GD off, exact 24 fps, resolution 1872:

1250 / just over 3:2 =

187
226
202
224
219

1054 / 16:9 =

575
510
511
561
543

1012 / 1.85:1 =

783
875
803
937
919

936 / 2:1 = one take only 7572 I'd say this ratio is good for 5 mins

850 / 2.20:1 = continuous

796 / 2.35:1 = continuous

I just installed a.d's latest build (cf56893d7be4) and it appears to have variable buffering. Also he has removed his 1880 hack to bring his resolutions inline with A1ex's builds.

Using a Komputerbay 64GB & A1ex's new module on the 5d2:

Max continuous

4:3 = 1472 x 1104
3:2 = 1472 x 982
16:9 = 1600 x 900
1.85:1 = 1728 x 934
2:1 = 1728 x 864
2.20:1 = 1872 x 850
2.35:1 1872 x 796
2:39:1 1872 x 784

[1872x]

I did a test on my old 30MB/s Sandisk Ultras. Bold text is resolution, 1st numbers are ratio and 2nd numbers frames:

1872x

796 182
850 155
936 131
1012 119
1054 107
1124 99
1248 85

1856 x

790 186
844 165
928 143
1004 124
1044 116
1114 104
1238 86

1728 x

736 267
786 267
864 183
934 156
972 151
1036 123
1152 107

1600 x

680 388
728 318
800 250
864 218
900 198
1200 115

1472 x

796 312
828 259
884 220
982 187
1104 155

1344 x

572 3122
610 1456
672 780
726 573
756 447
806 412
896 305
1008 226
1250 150

1280 x

544 6518
582 3526
640 1628
692 908
720 717
768 539
854 399
960 281
1250 152

Sorry for the inference, it's quirky to me in the context of me using a.d's builds is what I meant. I just realised that 1872 is an exact 1/3 rd of the actual sensor, which you just explained is more suitable to the task.

It's just a quirk of A1ex's build, I'm sure he will have a reason for the slight differences between his and a.d's resolutions. I actually set the resolution to 3584 for all the tests, but the numbers quoted are what the camera actually puts out.

Yes dariSSight, I aimed my first test at the maximum resolution and aspect ratio. I've since then updated the post with other aspect ratio tests.

[1872 x 1250 @ 1:2]

5d2
Komputerbay 64GB 1000x
exact 24fps
Cinesco2 overlay (to simulate my typical usage)
comparing A1ex's new build to the normal build I use (thanks a.d.)


A1ex: 1872 x 1250 @ 1:2

200
208
201
190
205

5x 2144 x 1078 @ 1:2

201
201
206
201
208

a.d.: 1880 x 1250 @1:2

174
174
174
174
174

5x 2152 x 1078 @1:2

185
184
185
184
185
__________________

A1ex: 1872 x 936 @2:1 (first unreliable ratio)

2077
2016
2429
2678
2171

5 x 2144 x 1072 @2:1 (first unreliable ratio)

211
209
207
207
211

a.d.: 1880 x 940 @2:1 (first unreliable ratio)

2061
2432
2289
2660
Battery gave out during final clip

5x 2152 x 1076 @2:1 (first unreliable ratio)

59
126
177
185
184
___________________

A1ex: 1872 x 1012 @1.85:1

674
738
676
725
679

5x 2144 x 1078 @1.85:1

207
200
208
201
208

a.d.: 1880 x 1016 @1.85:1

541
661
551
532
617

5x 2152 x 1078 @1.85:1

185
184
185
184
185
___________________

A1ex: 1872 x 1054 @16:9

475
488
466
470
468

5x 2144 x 1078 @16:9

204
205
206
203
208

a.d.: 1880 x 1058 @16:9

408
417
408
417
416

5x 2152 x 1078 @16:9

185
184
185
184
185

Touch wood, it looks like ML RAW video is here to stay and most of us will be using the ML variety to some degree for the forseeable future. The many workflow guides are a godsend, but I searched the thread and found no real mention of it: is anyone interested in conducting some experiments into RAW workflow?

ML RAW video is still bleeding edge and there could be changes to the actual files we are transfering to our desktops, but for now we have 14 bit rough diamonds to polish up and it seems there are many ways to do this. It would be handy if we had a standard set of files that we could use to a) nail down the process for getting the best out of our footage b) establish benchmarks for the constantly updating software we use.

We agree on one set of shots covering the ranges we encounter (low light, sunny, charts...) we host them and each of us has access to the same files. We then run them through our own personal workflow and deliver in the agreed format with info about what we did.

Obviously open to all thoughts on this.

Good idea

What is the plan? What should be in it, what should not be? (I think it should be about raw - there is plenty of documentation for vanilla ML).

The chapter information in EOSHD's guide is the best place to start in organising what's needed:

Chapter 1 – Introduction
Chapter 2 – Enabling Raw Video
Chapter 3 – Recording Raw Video
Chapter 4 – Recommended settings
Chapter 5 – Recommended software and editing codecs
Chapter 6 – CineForm raw workflow
Chapter 7 – Uncompressed Cinema DNG raw workflow
Chapter 8 – ProRes / Ginger / After Effects
Chapter 9 – Kodak, Fuji and Alexa film looks for Resolve
Chapter 10 – Suitable Compact Flash cards
Chapter 11 – Raw shooting advice 

I agree with a lot of what has been said here, but let's not lower the tone. The guy has solved a problem for those with more money than time.

The real problem here is as Audionut says "ML is in need of better documentation" which is something we can all turn our attention to.

I think a set of constants will help all of us in different ways. Do I start the thread on the workflow or RAW board?

Touch wood, it looks like ML RAW video is here to stay and most of us will be using the ML variety to some degree for the forseeable future. The many workflow guides are a godsend, but I searched the thread and found no real mention of it: is anyone interested in conducting some experiments into RAW workflow?

ML RAW video is still bleeding edge and there could be changes to the actual files we are transfering to our desktops, but for now we have 14 bit rough diamonds to polish up and it seems there are many ways to do this. It would be handy if we had a standard set of files that we could use to a) nail down the process for getting the best out of our footage b) establish benchmarks for the constantly updating software we use.

We agree on one set of shots covering the ranges we encounter (low light, sunny, charts...) we host them and each of us has access to the same files. We then run them through our own personal workflow and deliver in the agreed format with info about what we did.

Obviously open to all thoughts on this.

I'm sure the coders will work with you Albert, but they are being pulled in every direction at the moment trying to refine the basic raw code.

I read somewhere on the site in the past few days that VAF filters are designed for the stock h.264 codec and that they are not suited to RAW. Would be nice to see comparisons on any camera though. 

All this talk about BMC, let's not forget that they have yet to fulfill year old pre orders and stop theorising about how existing cameras compare to what are nothing but press releases.

The blackout feature on the Pravdomil build is so handy and it doesn't make my highest reliable resolution unstable. That and af record make it all much easier.

My Raw2dng was upto date as of yesterday, I downloaded the latest version anyway and still no joy. Although my merged file was the same size as its parts.

Thanks for the link to the file joiner. I tried it out and couldn't fathom the naming structure you have to work with, but I'll have another crack at it later and will find a way.

Good luck with the film Francis, looks very interesting. Hopefully the final piece will have subtitles!

No problems with the card. When I format it with the pc there are only NTFS or Exfat options, but I then have to reformat in camera and then install ML.

2. Make it bootable

I've got a 5d2 and a 64GB 1000x Komputerbay, how do I make the card bootable after formatting on Windows?

Thanks for the info Yoshiyuki, unfortunately I seem to be missing something. I'm working with these files:

"D:\raw\DNG\M02-0250.RAW"
"D:\raw\DNG\M02-0250.R00"
"D:\raw\DNG\M02-0250.R01"
"D:\raw\DNG\M02-0250.R02"

and have merged them using the line:

copy /b "D:\raw\DNG\M02-0250.RAW"+"D:\raw\DNG\M02-0250.R00"+"D:\raw\DNG\M02-0250.R01"+"D:\raw\DNG\M02-0250.R02" "D:\raw\DNG\M02-0250-merged.RAW"

But when I go to extract the DNG's from the resulting M02-0250-merged.RAW (using Batchelor) I get an empty folder. When I try to drag and drop to Raw2dng, the Cmd window opens and closes rapidly and nothing happens.

I've also reached out to this guy: http://sbc.rictor.org/index.html

Great find. This guy might get us there.

5Dmk2, KomputerBay 64 GB 1000x, ML nightly builld (13.05.2013)

That's either an ancient build or a typo, try this:

http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=5533.0