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 - papkee

Pages: 1 [2] 3
26
Alas, it appears there is not a very good way for 650D dual iso footage to be processed.

I've concluded that the combination of having to remove the pink dots from the RAW file and having to interpolate the dual iso lines is just a bad combination for any method I've tried.

With raw2dng_cs2x2_ahdlike_noise.exe and cr2hdr.exe, random and intermittent flickering is experienced with the footage.

With PinkDotRemover.jar and cr2hdr.exe, the pink dots are not removed fully.

a1ex, any thoughts on this? I have a large pile of very interesting Dual ISO fire juggling that I'd love to use, but I can't seem to get usable footage. :(

27
I hate to keep causing problems here, but I've encountered another issue with Dual Iso videos.

It seems that, at random times, the exposure will flicker from light to dark, almost like cr2hdr thought the certain frame should be exposed differently than all the rest.

Has anyone else encountered this issue?

28
Open command line, "browse" to folder where Dual-ISO files and CR2HDR (+ dcraw + exiftool) are and use
Code: [Select]
for /R %a in (*.CR2) do cr2hdr "%a"
Ciao
Walter

Well, it turns out I didn't have to do that. I wasn't aware that both the dngs and the executables had to be in the same folder in order to work. I suppose that was my problem the whole time. I just copied them in to the folder and now it appears to be working great.

Thanks for the indirect help Walter!

29
A1ex, I still can't get cr2hdr to work with my .dng files. They convert fine if I execute them individually from the command line, but dragging them over the .exe doesn't work. It flashes onscreen for a second and then quits without changing the file.

I have a ton of Dual ISO clips from a fire juggling show that I'd love to see. Would appreciate some help here greatly.

Thanks.

30
What happens if you drag a small number of files? There may be a limit on command-line length.

Even dragging one .dng doesn't work. The program flashes for a second before closing, and the file is unchanged. Could it be something with the way windows 8 interacts with command line programs? I read somewhere that sometimes Windows puts "" around the file path.

31
I didn't try both of them, but I don't think it can work in this way. Try with the plain raw2dng.

Actually, it DOES work, but only by using the command line. The problem appears to be with dragging and dropping files onto cr2hdr.exe. Whenever I try with DNGs, either from raw2dng or your special one for the 650d it just quickly closes. Any thoughts? I don't want to have to command line convert every one of my 433 frame individually.

32
a1ex,

I can't seem to get the program to work with my RAW videos. I drag the DNGs over the program, and it briefly flashes open for a second before closing (I hate that command line programs don't stay open to alert you of an error)

I have both dcraw and exiftool in the same folder, but it just doesn't want to work. I extract the DNG's using your raw2dng_cs3x3_ahdlike_noise.exe (because Java can't install on my system) so they should work together, correct?

Thanks for the help.

33
Camera-specific Development / Re: Canon 650D/T4i 1.0.4 [Status: Alpha]
« on: October 26, 2013, 11:24:18 PM »
Alright guys, I'm gonna be heading out in a bit to get some RAW footage of a "Fire Festival" in my town tonight. I have no clue what a fire festival entails (presumably fire) but this should be a cool test of RAW in low light. I haven't been able to figure out dual ISO yet, but I may shoot some stuff with it, for no other reason than to reduce noise.

Wish me luck!

34
Camera-specific Development / Re: Canon 650D 1.0.4 [Status: Alpha]
« on: September 27, 2013, 10:03:31 PM »
Nice video. You seem pretty familiar with ML. I have a question I have asked a few times but nobody can answer it, maybe you can help me. I am using ML digital iso with a setting of -0.3 so I can gain access to native iso's like 160. The problem is the histogram no longer gives the clip warnings and zebras do not work. I was told I need to change threshold settings but I am not sure what to set them to. If you can answer that it would be great, thanks.

I've not had any trouble using Zebras with ML's custom ISOs. I'm not sure what the setting of -0.3 is, as my build of ML has the native ISO values in it by default. If I had my camera with me at the moment I'd try and figure something out, but I'm at work at the moment.

35
Camera-specific Development / Re: Canon 650D 1.0.4 [Status: Alpha]
« on: September 27, 2013, 04:00:33 AM »
Alright guys, the RAW tests are being shot next week, along with many other ML feature tests.

In the meantime, here's a quick showreel of mine, with almost every clip in it being aided by ML in some way. All clips were shot on the 650D with either a 50mm 1.8 or an 18-135mm 3.5-5.6.


Enjoy.

36
Camera-specific Development / Re: Canon 650D 1.0.4 [Status: Alpha]
« on: August 28, 2013, 04:59:32 AM »
Wow this sounds truly great.  You vacation like me :).  So just got an 8 gig 80 mb/s card for grins.   Does not seem to make any diff versus my 45.  My thinking is that here it has been said that above 45 does not make a difference because our cam can not go that high.  Seems to be true but if you have different results I am realllly interested.  Looking forward to your great work.

dave

I feel like using higher bitrate cards gives you more "headroom" I suppose. To me, it just feels a little safer having twice as much bitrate available, just in case. That way, any bottlenecks are for sure the camera and not the card.

37
Camera-specific Development / Re: Canon 650D 1.0.4 [Status: Alpha]
« on: August 27, 2013, 05:53:41 PM »
I'm back from vacation everyone!

I'm planning on compiling a whole mess of tests, benchmarks, and other various checks for the latest ML release. However, I'm currently waiting on a new charger for my T4i. My stock charger was stolen from me while on vacation, and I just used up the last of my remaining juice today.

I'm planning on doing:
-RAW resoultion tests w/ SanDisk Extreme 95Mb/s'
-RAW Pinkdotremover Tests
-Card Reader Benchmarks (using my entire card collection)
-RAW quality tests (sharpness, color, etc)
-A full short shot at the highest continuous resolution.

If you've got any additional requests just let me know and I'll add them in.

38
Camera-specific Development / Re: Canon 650D 1.0.4 [Status: Alpha]
« on: August 13, 2013, 10:01:34 PM »

EDIT: Just tested and I still get the pink dots =(


You've got to use the PinkDotRemover Tool (http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=6658) to remove the dots. It's a bug with the T4i and EOS-M (as well as the t5i I'm assuming) due to the new autofocus tracking point system.

39
Feature Requests / Re: [IMPOSSIBLE] Output recording HDMI
« on: August 12, 2013, 11:45:57 PM »
Sorry to bump an old post, but was this ever explored further? Something like this could be a lifesaver for cameras with a capped card reader (like my T4i) to allow higher resolution continuous recording. Would it be possible then to get the max resolution (1792x972) fed through the HDMI feed to an external recorder?

If this is possible, even in theory, then this could be a major break for people who are limited by their card reader.

40
Camera-specific Development / Re: Canon 650D 1.0.4 [Status: Alpha]
« on: August 11, 2013, 08:27:40 PM »
Hmm i think we should just try this one ourselves. Unfortunately I don't have a mini HDMI cable or adapter, so i can't atm. But it would be good to know.

I don't know if this is already outdated but:http://magiclantern.wikia.com/wiki/HDMI_Output
And how about the FPS of HDMI out? is this fixed to 24 or 25, or what does it depend on?

I'd assume it's relative to the framerate setting in camera. And while cropping up does reduce quality it seems like 119% wouldn't degrade your footage too much. Plus the 4:2:2 is much better than the H264 in-camera, even with increased bitrate.

I may have to look in to this further.

41
Camera-specific Development / Re: Canon 650D 1.0.4 [Status: Alpha]
« on: August 11, 2013, 02:49:04 AM »

Here's a video example of some other guy, if you watch in fullscreen you can see the pink dots on dark surfaces: (He used: Canon EOS 650D + 50mm f/1.8 II)


That's my video. :D

That was filmed long before PDRtool came out. Should probably add that in the description.

42
Camera-specific Development / Re: Canon 650D 1.0.4 [Status: Alpha]
« on: August 07, 2013, 11:58:08 PM »
A question just popped in to my head.

There was buzz a while back about clean HDMI out on the T4i, and while default firmware's HDMI signal is cropped down did ML ever get us full 1080p HDMI out? I'd love to know because I'm debating whether or not to get an Atmos Ninja or similar.

43
Raw Video Postprocessing / Re: PinkDotRemover tool 650D
« on: July 30, 2013, 11:44:41 PM »
Great news! The in-RAW idea really makes a lot more sense. No more triple-sized folders full of 3 different versions of the video!

44
Archived porting threads / Re: Canon 650D [Status: Alpha]
« on: July 03, 2013, 12:15:41 AM »
nice film feel but... i have a felling that raw videos from 650d lacks "quality" i don't know any other words to describe this. i mean, it doesn't look like a raw video from mark iii. of course mak iii is a lot better camera but, i have a 1366x768 resolution laptop, so i can't see too much difference between 1080p and 720p and raw videos from mark iii is looks just  superior on my laptop's screen. i wonder why?

is it because lame postprocessing skills we (i) got?

It's most likely a combination of several factors:

1- The video was upscaled from 1472x612 to 1920x1080 so there's bound to be some loss in quality there.
2- It was shot run-and-gun with little time to adjust for lighting.
3- The light was just bad that day, going from cloudy to sunny and back every few minutes
4. Most of the 5D3 users spend plenty of time shooting and have access to better glass. This was shot in a span of about ten minutes while my family was visiting the tower and I had to kinda keep up with them.

So if I had actually planned shots, spent time on shooting, and/or had a better camera the results would've been substantially different. However for a sub-$1000 camera the fact that I'm able to get any RAW whatsoever is a very big deal itself. Soon I will be shooting a real short film that actually does the RAW on this camera justice.

45
Raw Video Postprocessing / Re: PinkDotRemover tool 650D
« on: July 02, 2013, 07:46:14 PM »
Alright folks, I have a new video out showcasing RAW on the 650D, cleaned up with the remover.


46
Archived porting threads / Re: Canon 650D [Status: Alpha]
« on: July 02, 2013, 07:43:05 PM »
Alright folks, I have a new video out showcasing RAW on the 650D.


I used the latest build along with Foorgol's Pink Dot Remover (http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=6658)

Enjoy!

47
Raw Video Postprocessing / Re: PinkDotRemover tool 650D
« on: June 27, 2013, 06:17:45 PM »
Framing was removed because you dont got any speed improvement from it.


@papkee:
If "almost all" of the points have not been removed... hmmm... what "Framing" setting did you use when shooting the video? The framing must set to "Centered", otherwise the assumed dot locations are wrong.


There seems to be some conflicting messages here.

48
Raw Video Postprocessing / Re: PinkDotRemover tool 650D
« on: June 27, 2013, 04:25:44 PM »
framing is in the submenu under raw video in ML

It's not there on mine. RAW Video only displays Resolution, Aspect Ratio, Preview, Digital Dolly, Frame Skipping and Playback

49
Raw Video Postprocessing / Re: PinkDotRemover tool 650D
« on: June 27, 2013, 01:21:05 AM »
--------------------------------------------------
@papkee:
If "almost all" of the points have not been removed... hmmm... what "Framing" setting did you use when shooting the video? The framing must set to "Centered", otherwise the assumed dot locations are wrong.
--------------------------------------------------

I'm not quite sure where that setting is. Is it an ML thing or a canon thing?

50
Archived porting threads / Re: Canon 650D [Status: Alpha]
« on: June 26, 2013, 11:26:39 PM »
I still do wonder if downsampling of RAW to a lower bit such as 12 or 10 is possible in-camera. Surely this would save bitrates and thus allow for higher-resolution recording.

The max I can get right now is 36.5Mb/s with 1472 as my width and 2.35:1 as my aspect. Bringing down the bit depth would most likely allow for consistant recording in the 1762 range.

Pages: 1 [2] 3