Messages

If you wan't a 10 bit log file out of AE you can use DPX. It has a 10 bit log option and is an industry standard for film.

Doesn't work like that when decoding DNGs with AE. Unless he were to put an sRGB to Linear then a Cineon Conversion Lin->Log. And I believe we was looking for a compressed format. DPX isn't one. And AE doesn't support DPX-C.

Has anybody noticed any quality loss when using GingerHDR? It's my first time shooting RAW and it seemed like the quickest/easiest workflow but I'm now finding it hard to tell the difference between a H264 shot and a RAW shot.

Really, I can tell there's better color manipulation, finer noise, and it's worlds sharper. Yeah it's going to take some time before it's at the highest quality. I think the point of it is to debayer and leave all post processing up to the user after the fact.

I don't want to start a big discussion here, but the way data is encoded in the image, stretching the image horizontally produces a less artifacted image than stretching it vertically so going from 1920 to say 2500 will still look quite acceptable, especially coming from RAW.

By artifacts do you mean aliasing? The reason there are less artifacts is because there is less detail. And I have to ask, do you see the artifacts when viewing the image at 100% or 50%? Or are they there at some weird zoom like 63%? Viewing at the weird zooms will cause artifacting because of complications with scaling.

What he just said!   

The idea of recording an an inferior resolution than what the camera is capable of giving you, just to that you can stretch the footage back into what the camera could have recorded in the first place seems bizarre.

The way to record anamorphic on the 5D3 is to record at 3:2 resolution (1920X1280) and then stretch that out in post to roughly 3008X1280 for a 2.35:1 ratio. That assumes that your anamorphic lens is a 1.5X stretch and not a 2X stretch which will give you a much wider image that you'll need to crop in post.

Anyway, the point of using an anamorphic lens is to increase resolution, not decrease it. Yeah, I know, you also get the nifty horizontal flares and oval bokeh...but seriously, resolution should be the most important.

That's not what I said. Yes, he should record at the highest resolution possible for the format he wants. I don't know the highest 4:3 ratio the 5D3 will do, but you'd want to use that one (1706x1280?). In post, you don't want to stretch your footage out as that causes you to lose resolution. You want to compress the footage vertically in post so you don't lose resolution. Anamorphics don't increase resolution since a sensor has a fixed number of pixels it can record. Anamorphics widen the horizontal field of view through horizontal compression onto the sensor. So to correctly counter it you have to compress vertically. So your end result will truly be 1920x818, and not upscaled 1440.

I tested RAW video at 12.5fps at 1280:720.
Please tell me what you guys think or what i could do better, or email me at [email protected]
https://vimeo.com/71616275

Also the speed increase when going from 12.5 to 24 is there any way to get it back to normal without t looking choppy.

Kronos, Twixtor, or AE's Time Warp(based on Kronos).

While shooting anamorphic to get exact 2.35 ratio we need the resolution be recorded at 1440x1080. So that it would fit to 1920x818 cine 2.35 ratio. So is it possible to implement the custom resolution / 4:3 ratio?

Wouldn't that yield 1440x612, not 1920x818? Shouldn't you capture at the final horizontal resolution you want so you don't have to upscale and lose detail? So you should be capturing at something like 1920x1440 and compress it vertically in post instead of stretching it horizontally. But I believe the max recording resolution of 1:1 crop on the 5D3 is 1920x1280. My point is record as close to the final resolution as you can to minimize the need to stretch your footage.

Hi!
I know, the right light, using steady cams or stabilizers, the right sound ... everything is importend to have a good movie-like look.

But it doesnt matter how good the set is up- people and object movements allways look like VIDEO - not like cinema!

Why is this?

Decreasing the playback tempo or framerate will bring more cinema-feeling, but everything is moving slower.  Its not the same like we can see on a cinema-screen!
Is there any other option like a special shatter-setting or anything else to get that classic film-cinematic-feeling?

I'm assuming you're talking about motion artifacts within the frame that are sometimes subtle, but still give away the fact that you shot on a DSLR. I think it has to do with the actual motion cadence (I believe that's what it's called) of the sensor.

I just tried the latest nightly with raw capability. Modules load fine and raw recording works.  The only problem I'm having is I'm getting large amounts of magenta frames with this build compared to no magenta frames with TL 2.0 with the exact same settings.

I take it this is a memory or buffer issue?

I thought TL 2.0 was the nightly for 600D. Are you using the ML nightly from http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=3072.0

Is anyone else getting crazy amounts of dead pixels on their footage?

Fake HDR (or it better be called as a look/feel) is an aesthetic choice for me. I don't care about dynamic range or stuff. But because of raw i can produce this type of result. Its all about story telling needs imo. Halo is an artifact of faking an hdr which i buy it. It doesn't bother me. If it does bother me on my 24 feet screen then i will look into it. This is a test of some movie and i was not very careful while processing this.

My apologies. I thought you were doing this to try and get the most latitude out of the file, I hadn't realized you were doing it as an artistic choice.

Would someone mind explaining the benefit of fake HDR since you already have all of the dynamic range you're going to get in the raw file to begin with?

Shot with ML RAW for an feature film, mark3 body and processed. What you guys think?

It looks like there's a white halo on the bottom of his shoe. Try working from a log curve or http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=7022 so it looks natural.

Just wanted to clarify a few things, as I'm not an expert on raw workflow...

Is Cineform Raw truly lossless raw? I like the idea of that in theory at the compression ratios that I'm getting, but I'm not sure if it offers me any more quality than what I would get with the (free) Apple Prores which compresses to a similar size. Anyone have any opinions? I do not want to be working with CinemaDNG/Resolve/proxy editing workflows, I'd just like to commit to a quality intermediate codec and not have any regrets later in coloring.

In favor of ProRes:
Free
Works on all computers with latest version of QT
Uses debayer of whichever program processes the files (could be good or bad)

In favor of CF Raw:
Raw (DANewman actually mentioned being able to convert back to DNG eventually)
Smaller than ProRes of similar quality

You are right, thanks for that. About converting straight from the card: what would happen if you lost power whilst doing this? I use BATCHelor and raw2cdng alternately, but I don't like the idea of processing the files till they are on my hdd. Ideally, I'd have backup copies before I do that - has anybody used bluray disks for longterm archiving?

Not sure on the power loss part. I'm guessing since it's only doing a copy and not a move, no data should be lost. Or at least it should be recoverable. Best case: you just have to power up and start the process from where you left off. Worst case: your card becomes corrupt and you lose your files. I've used BluRay for short term storage and for giving large amounts of files to clients who wanted their projects in disc form. Never tried it for longterm though.

It doesn't fix dead pixels, but it looks like it handles FPN pretty well for the samples that I've done so far.

Just tried some other clips with the new beta, and it does not do well with FPN. Still no dead pixel fix or highlight reconstruction.

Has anyone found out how to delete clips yet?

I think Blackmagic Design has a 16-bit Uncompressed QT codec. All you have to do is install the Desktop Video thingy from their website.

True but to get the 4:4:4 version it will run you about 300$ too right?

Yes, $250 at video guys.

But this only works with tragic lantern, which I never would use.

Is there even another build for the T3i that enables raw?

I've not seen an image that can't be corrected with primaries and saturation clip point.

RAW as the camera shot it.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/jg5rkyxmwa6gzyd/RAWcolor.jpg

Turning on White balance and the color matrix from camera metadata, with Sat. Clip point off (1)
https://www.dropbox.com/s/7t7aacdqpoxcqqg/CameraMatrix%2BCameraWB.jpg

Primaries to remove clipping and fix shadows and mid-tones
https://www.dropbox.com/s/yvxf6hg2ipzz6z4/CameraMatrix%2BCameraWB%2Bprimaries.jpg

Setting Saturation Clip point
https://www.dropbox.com/s/uzwxaduent435qz/CameraMatrix%2BCameraWB%2Bprimaries%2BSatClipPoint.jpg

If the sun or clipped object was in the scene, it would be correctly clipped to white.

That's why I couldn't get it to work! Thanks, makes so much more sense to me now.

It is not really a matrix problem nor is it a raw2gpcf problem, it to be expected when the green channel clips in camera. It is easy to address in post, plus it teaches us to underexposure a little more.

Okay, in post would I just use something like levels or a highlights adjustment to bring it to where all oh the channels clip? And what would we do for the unavoidable clips like speculars, the sun, etc?

I mentioned this before, the raw - > DNG -> CFR is not using the camera's color matrix, so the comparison is with or without color matrix -- pink highlights relate to the color matrix and white balance.  If you prefer to color correct without the color matrix you can do that on RAW2GPCF conversions.  In the workspace area of Studio Premium you can select color matrix as "Neutral".  If you are using free version of GoPro Studio, click on the "None" preset.   

I get that; I was trying to figure out how to recover highlights in protune with sat clip point. But I guess it will always go to pink? I like grading from the raw2gpcf clips because they do include the source matrix. But I guess I'll just have to recover highlights in AE or whichever program I'm working in. Also, are the yellow highlights a matrix/color temp problem? Because everything else looks correct.

Could you send me a short CineForm clip that you can't correct with the saturation clip point. I've never seen that.

Guess I should specify that it's only with clips that come from raw2gpcf. When I go raw -> DNG -> CFR, I get no problems with magenta or green highlights when using Sat Clip Point. But it also seems like Sat Clip Point has no effect on the CFR files that came from DNGs because it seems like all of the highlight data is there even when Sat Clip Point is at 0. I can recover highlights in AE just fine on both. Also I've noticed that recovered highlights from raw2gpcf clips go toward yellow instead of white.

Here are some clips that show the problem. All are at default import settings. Also note the ones that come from DNGs are clean. These also show the Custom Log 255 problem.

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0Bytymz6r53EjN2lnTkdIQXNxVzQ&usp=sharing

The -l400 will be support with GoPro Studio 2.0 software out soon -- I guess that wasn't supported within v1.3.2.

-l400 works when converting DNGs directly inside of Studio, but setting -l400 in raw2gpcf doesn't work for me. It always comes out as Custom Log 255.

http://hdcinematics.com/tools/AWProClient.html

This converts to ProRes. You could also use CineForm or DNxHD.

I do the usual, RAW2DNG, Camera Raw, move to AE as image sequence, and export.

AE seems to do it frame by frame, and since I am recording at 1280x720 at 60FPS, it takes hella long for only a 30 second clip... I'm pretty sure its not my computer (i7 2600k, 560TI GPU). Anyone have advice for optimizing/minimizing time for the post-processing process to getting the videos ready for timeline?

I plan to have many "clips" and moving them to AE individually to render would take quite a while.

Adobe Camera Raw does an extremely high quality debayer plus a slew of other processes (denoise, sharpen, de-fringe, etc). It was optimized for still photography, not video. That is likely why you'll not see fps above 6 or 7 at best. If you want to use ACR you'll have to live the slowness.