Messages

You should aim for a half or one third of your target framerate

eg, 12p to 24p is easy because it retains original frame data and tweens the missing frames from that.

18p to 30p has to compute all 30 frames, so not so good since original data is discarded, 15p tp 30p would be better

For complex motion use a high shutter speed >250

There are two types of horse race:
One is on the flats
The other is over fences

In other words "Horses for Courses"

In both cases you have to be in it to win it

Yeah, anamorph is great, sure.

But to me - it's unreal. Firstly the price, then focusing trouble (two focuses instead of one) so need an assistant (or two), and lens limitations/mounting trouble.

1088x960 is probably too big to record at full speed. 650D should be close to 6D so 720P works, etc. Just 650D has a lot of other "catches".

Agreed, if by full speed you mean 24p

But at 12p is within the 21MB bandwidth

Moire is the patterns you see when focussing on say a loudspeaker grill, roof tiles etc.

The best way to disguise Moire is to break up the pattern

The best way to break up a pattern is to sprinkle random noise on it (dithering)

just sayin'

All this sounds pretty defeatist to me

If you want full frame using regular lenses this workflow is for you

1 Shoot 960 x 960 with a 2x scope @ 12p
2 In post stretch to 1920 x 960 and Twixtor to 24p (perfectly suitable for narrative)

The 960 vertical is the same picture height as Canons 1080, also its slightly wider when stretched

PROS: your cards dont fill up so quick and cheaper cards , CinemaScope aesthetic, High vertical aquisition means better sharpness
CONS: you need a 2x scope, Twixtor & some more rendering time

If the devs can see their way to providing 1088 x 960 then true Cinemascope aspect is doable, on both 550D and 600D

Btw, people, please understand:

Say you want to shot 50mm (on 5D fullframe, normal lens, real 50mm, pretty standard and close to human fov)

To get the same FOV, you will need a 17mm lens when shooting RAW 960x540 16:9 on 600D (because of 2.88x crop factor (1.8*1.6))
And if you also use 3x crop, or zoom, or something - you'll need a 8mm fisheye, or even wider to get an ordinary normal 50mm field of view.

So now all talks about best quality 960x540 stretched to 1080p on youtube fit more to shooting the moon in the sky, birds in the forest and girl in the window next block - very special purpose, not for everyday shooting.
With all these crops, zooms, cropped raw little windows - you're getting a really-really-really long lens which isn't quite suitable for ordinary shooting (especially interior shooting). And if you cut it to cinemascope 2.39:1 - then you get even less space and less fov.
If you like to shoot long-lenses - then 600D is for you. If you're more to shooting wide - then nope.

Although, I can get a full 1728x960 (stretched from 1728x576 sqeeze in 720p mode) at 12FPS continuous recording (19.9MB/s stream) - and that's good for slow-movement shooting.

And btw, if 650D has twice the bandwidth - then we can do 1728x960 stretched in 24FPS, correct? That would be best for me.

One of the image artifacts lumped under the heading moire/aliasing is the annoying color rainbowing that you see.

Avisynth has a filter which works wonders with this.

Looks like this thread has gone to sleep.

Perhaps a good time to request some more aspects ratios between 1:1 and 4:3 ?

Please consider 9:8 and 6:5

It doesn't work that way, sizes have limitations for writing. You think it will write 3MB faster but it will write slower if not fitting the 64Xw or 512 constraints.

Can't add any more widths, used all multiples already. More aspect ratios I can.

I am running 18.4MBs at 960Hx960V @12p (Scope plus Twixtor to 24p) Looks good

I request 21 MBs at (W)Hx960V @12p where (W) is anywhere between 10-20% wider than 960. Surely this is possible while keeping the vertical at 960V?

It would have to be a specific config file for raw_rec. All you would get to set is W and aspect.. doesn't seem worth it.

It would be worth it to me and anyone who wanted to experiment with custom sizes, but I have come to expect that useless begging wont help me

Its such a shame that I have 3MBs of available bandwidth that I am not using

Can we have a feature to input custom aspect ratio and frame size via an editable data file?

It seems to me this would remove the need to beg for custom settings to be hard coded, which is a practice that has not worked for me ever, so far

Thanks

Can we have a feature to input custom aspect ratio and frame size via an editable data file?

It seems to me this would remove the need to beg for custom settings to be hard coded, which is a practice that has not worked for me ever, so far

Thanks

I found that other vertical resolutions than 960 gives more moire (dont know why)

so 1088 x 960 would be good even if a new aspect ratio to replace the 9:16 which I cant see a use for

Thanks

There is 1088 already. 1088 x 832 is the closest. I'd have to add another aspect ratio.

I just shot 2k frames 960x480 and not a single pink frame... also hacked LV stopped bouncing.

Forgot to add that camera is shooting slightly wider than the indicated crop in 960x960 mode

In that case can you provide 1088H x 960V

thanks

I made 960 default in the next one. Can't chose resolutions that aren't multiples of 64 anymore.

For me 960H x 960V @12fps  seems to be the sweet spot at about 18MBs. Twixtor is your friend


a 1080H x 960V @12fps would make more efficient use of bandwidth coming in just under the threshold for SD controller.


Of course these are for scope uses

Maybe you can find the info from user 1% ?

Thanks. Unfortunately it's a compiled version. I need the sources of this version, but i cannot find them inside the commits. Do this correction was already merged into the official ML nightly build ? If yes, I can check in the official repository current sources.

I used the one from this page

https://bitbucket.org/OtherOnePercent/tragic-lantern-2.0/downloads
[600D] Still Sprinkle Free.zip   281.4 KB   2013-05-27   153

I tried to search the forum for this 600d fix, but I cannot find it. Can you give a link ? So I can try to port the fix into 550d also ! Many thanks ! 

Using a 2x scope reduces this effect, since the sensor effectively sees a 2x vertically stretched image

At keep in mind that when shooting in Canon's 720p mode you'll get even more aliasing than in 1080p or 480p mode since it has even more line skipping. It's only usefull if you want to get as much width as possible to keep the crop factor small.

use a 2x anamorphic lens 

I did not get that.. what do you mean?

Hints for 550D users

1 Record 12 FPS and use Twixtor to 24 FPS -- see what Twixtor can do here
https://vimeo.com/54986947#

2 Record 720P mode and scale height by 1.66x -- 720P mode has pixel aspect ratio embedded

3 Record with 2x scope at 12 FPS, tested with 1360 x 694 for 2.35 and 1440 x 694 for 2.48
Stretch 1360 x 694 to 1632 x 694 (2.35) and 1440 x 694 to 1728 x 694 (2.48)

No bad pixels on sensor!

Its the same issue on 600d that was fixed

see spinkle fix build 600d...

You have probably some bad pixels on the sensor: with normal video & photos they are masked in the canon firmware, but in ml raw not

Getting odd sprinklies pixie dust on 720p mode using this hack

ML_Raw_fps_ETTR.rar


Tested up to 10gb , no frame outs, 1360 x 694 , 12fps, shutter override 1/48

I now have the exFAT working with the new build.

Tested 1136x694 @12FPS and reached 10gb files everytime no frame drops.

All I need now is better write speeds

EDIT: tested with Liveview Global Draw and Luma zebras and Luma Histogram. -- works great

ML won't boot from an exFAT card

Thats great, Thanks a bunch

I didnt know Canon EOS worked with exFAT

That's no firmware issue. If you want to save bigger files, just format your SD-card as exFat.