Messages

It is upscaled from 1880, so no, it is not.

Yes, 1880 x 1058 would be 16:9. I would actually prefer to record 1880x1080 (which I've been doing) for a little more latitude in editing.

I can get about 12 seconds at 1880x1080 at 24fps. With 10 or 12-bit and some more optimizations, I can see 1880x1080 at 24fps being available for perpetual recording, but yes, the 5D Mark II is limited to around 65MB/sec by hardware, not CF speeds.

I'm asking the same question Clemens - What bit depth will be possible with 5D2 and full 1920 x 1080 ?

I'm not claiming to be an expert, but this article seems to suggest very little difference between 12 bit colour and 14 bit colour.

http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/nikon-d300-d3-14-bit-versus-12-bit.html

I'd think i'd be happy with just 12bit 25fps on my 5D2 if it can shoot full HD - or is 1880 pixels the widest it can go ? All this info is such a lot to get your teeth in to 

If we can get 12-bit or 10-bit working, then we should be able to record 1880x1080 with no dropped frames, and an unnoticeable difference in image quality.

The 5D Mark II can't do 1920 because of hardware limitations. Even the 1920 available with the stock firmware and h264 is upscaled from 1880, as that is what gets output in RAW form.

olik, check out this thread: http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=5710

I just tried Process 2010, it worked!    Danke.

Now we can make LUTs.

Ok so we're a bit slow, but we're working at 24fps, sometimes it's hard to keep up.

Thanks for the update squig! It's a shame because LR 4 clarity and highlight/shadows are so much better, but I guess it's a small price to pay.

Anyone know if it's possible to use the 2010 process in ACR via Photoshop, or can it only be done in Lightroom?

I've seen this too. I have been using Adobe Camera Raw through Photoshop to process the DNGs. I've yet to try After Effects instead, but I'm thinking it'll be the same thing. This definitely makes a lot of footage unusable, so I hope there's a fix!

I read in an earlier thread that there can be inconsistencies with LR.  Adobe Camera Raw is supposed to work better.  It's what I've used and that problem didn't pop up.

I don't know why I said Lightroom, I did the edits in Adobe Camera Raw. I know Lightroom disabled certain sliders when working directly with video, but I thought that was just highlights and shadows, which I didn't use, but I'm still getting some flickering.

More testing to be done I guess...

Has anyone else noticed flickering between certain frames.

I'll get one frame every second or so that's like .05 stops brighter than the rest, or the whites only are .05 stops brigther or something.

Are their certain sliders in Lightroom that shouldn't be used for video because they create this kind of inconsistency?

So the resultant dng files are the same size too?  Have you tried jpg small?  I'm about to.

Yes, it has 0 effect on the RAW recording, other than I believe freeing up more buffer memory, which gives you more frames. Granted, I don't think this helps you if you are already recording without running out of buffer room, but for those of us with slower cards, it can give another few seconds at least, which is a huge difference when I was only get 150 frames to start with.

Now for 10/12-bit to be implemented and my Komputerbay 64GB card to arrive >: )

This was posted in the "Raw video on 5DMK2" thread, but I thought it was well worth mentioning in case it hasn't been seen by all.

If you have RAW selected as your photo type and record, say you get 100 frames at any given resolution and fps.

If you then change your photo settings to disable RAW and shoot only Small JPG, you'll get MANY more frames of RAW video.

It seems like there was 2-3 more *'s worth of buffer when I did this.

Benchmarks are the same, so it appears it just opens up some more buffer room.

In my tests, I went from 150-170 frames to 290 just like that!

Hello,

one strange thing, when i change the picture quality in original menu it changes the number of frames i can get.

Example:

- select jpg M in original menu. i get 579 frames @ 1880x960/24 (DNG Size 3.122KB)
- select Raw in original menu. i only get 343 frames @ 1880x960/24 (DNG Size 3.122KB)

I'm seeing the same thing. I only got 150-170 frames with RAW selected as my photo capture type. I disabled RAW and chose S JPG only, and got 290 frames! The buffer seemed to have 2-3 extra stars. Very cool!

haysuess I was having the same issue. Take a look back at No clue what causes this, but this voodoo process cleared it for me.
Made a ML card using the files in that post.

Looks like that post is for 5D Mark III, I have a Mark II. I will try other modes besides M though and see if it makes a difference.

Strange.
I tried a 64gb komputerbay card with my 5d mk3. Had 97mb/s in the benchmark with a buffer 27mb. Great result. Then i recorded with 1980x1152 - great! No skipped frames.
Then i played a little bit with the different menus.
Suddenly write speed was only 65mb/s???
So i recopied the 22may build on the card. But no change.. I have disabled nearly everything except raw..
What can i do now..? I can only record 17 frames.??
Please help.. Thx

This sounds similar to my situation. My benchmarks used to be 45-55MB/s write speed, all of a sudden, they are now ~30MB/s no matter what build I use. I'm using a 400x Transcend 32GB on a 5D Mark II. Global draw off. I can't even do 1280x720 at 24fps for more than 150 frames.

Thanks for this. Unfortunately I can't get more than 155 frames out of a Transcend 400x 32GB card at 1280x720 and 24fps.

I've tried every build, and all possible settings.

My card benchmarks used to show 45-50MB/sec write speed, now they are all saying 20-25MB/sec write speed. Even when the benchmarks were higher, I still could not get more than a couple hundred frames at 1280x720 and 24fps. WTF could have happened?

I formatted the card both in camera and in Windows and reinstalled ML and no change in benchmarks.

I can easily do 1200-1300 frames on my Transcend 300x 16 GB card at 1280x720@24p, so try a different build.

I've tried every build so far. The amount of frames I can get is always in the 185 range. With no sound, global draw, and with Hack3d mode on.

I think I'll have to get my hands on a new card and see if the one I have is just bad for some reason.

Honestly I wouldn't worry about
I just recorded the same thing on the 5D Mark 2
1880x720 24p 306 frames

default format
1024 align
4096 align

all of them were still 306 frames
no increase in performance

But the fact that you can get 1880 and I only get 1280 with half as many frames is really bad. Like the card is half the speed it should be compared to others. I guess I just have a bad one, but the benchmarks suggest otherwise.

at that resolution I can get 178 frames from a 133X card.

Exactly! I feel like something is just not right. Global draw is off too, not like that would make such a huge difference. I feel like I'm missing something, but I know I'm not. I'm reformatting my CF card now to see if that makes any difference.

I'm seeing some stuff about aligning partitions on CF cards in this thread: http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=5471.75

But I'm not sure exactly what they're doing because they don't really mention it in depth.

I tried the May 19 build on my 5D Mark II, and I can only get 155-185 frames at 1280x720 @ 24fps on a Transcend 400x 32GB card, even with Hack3d mode.

I know the card isn't the best, but it should only need 36.9MB/s for these settings, and my card benchmarks around 45-55MB/s. I feel like I'm getting way less frames than I should, anyone have any other ideas?

I tried the May 19 build on my 5D Mark II, and I can only get 155-185 frames at 1280x720 @ 24fps on a Transcend 400x 32GB card, even with Hack3d mode.

I know the card isn't the best, but it should only need 36.9MB/s for these settings, and my card benchmarks around 45-50MB/s. I feel like I'm getting way less than I should, anyone have any other ideas?

global draw off, and also set FPS override to 24

I have global draw off, and FPS override set to 24 exact FPS. Any other ideas? :-/

This is so awesome to play with!

I have a Mark II, and a Transcend 400x 32GB card. When I run the benchmarks, my write speed is around 37.5-50MB/s, only at 16384k buffer is it under 40, and with the rest it's usually closer to 50. Read speeds are around 65MB/s consistently.

The anomaly is at 128k buffer it's only 25.5MB/s write speed

I'm trying to record at 1280x720 at 24fps, and it says i only need 36.9MB/s to record, however, I only get a few seconds before it starts skipping bad and automatically stops.

Even at 1280 x 540, which says it only requires 27.6MB/s it starts skipping within 10 seconds.

I can record without skipping at 960 x 540, but I still get a lot of magenta blocking.

I tried with both the May 14, and May 16 nightly builds and the 5D Mark II record module and autoexec.bin that someone else posted.

Is there something I'm missing, or is this normal?