Messages

The hdmi port is active. You need to test with your camera and monitor. I found on my 60D that some devices caused data corruption, and others worked a bit better ( I lost some shots but not others). This is just what I experienced, others with different cameras say they get different results (some appear to have issues, some not). I have not heared from a developer yet.

Some people suggest using the monitor to set up, then removing it to shoot the final take.

You mileage may vary...

Audionut - yeah, the main reason I decided to get the Mosaic for my use was that I often find that on a wide shot I have subjects in the background (typically architecture) that have 'troubles' - especially the dreaded brick buildings...Even at F2.8 (about as low as my wides go) a lot of the background is sharp enough to give trouble in an establishing shot. It just gets worse if I am trying to fly the camera on stabilizer since I don't have a wireless follow focus and have to depend on hyperfocal technique.

Anyway, I will see what happens, and maybe get some shots that are actually worth posting.

Audionut - yes, I suspect that would be a good test. I spent some time with the engineers at Mosaic via phone discussing what I am seeing and the issues. I myself have done quite a bit of image processing (software for medical and broadcast products in my case,not optical, but of course digital processes mimic optical processes in many cases). One thing they said struck me as very true and important - interpretation of visual results are very subjective...charts, etc. often don't tell you as much as using the camera in real settings...:-)

One thing is very clear - raw provides a huge amount of extra detail over the H264 signal. That is going to come with drawbacks too, since it will show this sort of artifacts as well...every imaging system I know of has to tune these issues out (really they detune the system). What surprises me is how bad moire and aliasing on the 60D in H264...it really is quite bad in many situations - even though the signal (which we now can see is quite sharp in raw) has been hugely degraded in terms of resolution by the compression process.

To me, this is not so much a 'problem with raw', - the 60D has the issues of moire and aliasing and they are uncorrected in the camera as it comes from Canon. While I like Canon, I have to say that I would prefer to buy a camera that came with these video issues corrected out of the box. This is not just an issue for Canon - Sony and other vendors like Black Magic now sell products with real moire and aliasing problems in many scenes...and most of them sell products where these sorts of image artifact issue are better corrected, mostly at higher price points...I do sort of personally find that a bit of an issue, but hey, I can 'vote with my wallet' if it gets to me too much...:-)

The Mosaic filter does address the moire and aliasing issues on the 60D and other cameras with an aftermarket solution. That solution was developed and tested on systems that only offered H264 to test against. The current solution will perform as it was designed, and may or may not be as effective as we hope using raw, but it is just what we have access to now.Now that raw is available, it may be that a solution might be made that has also been tested  and optimized against raw data streams - if that is something Mosaic decides makes business sense.

I want to try and get some shots that will show different situations, and have much better exposure. I would also like to control the scene a bit more, and use some different lenses. I was running my Canon 17-55 wide open, and that is not the best situation (nor is the high ISO). Also, like I indicated, the fabric test I did is a 'worst case' I could easily stage - that fabric would be an issue for most broadcast situations, and it is quite troublesome even on medium format sensors in stills. I would like to try as scene more like what you showed with brick walls and power lines, etc...might be a more typical test.

I did a bit more analysis on my images. I think the filter did more good than I originally thought, but it did not totally correct the issues...this is sort of what I expected. This is just a theory, but the strength of the optical low-pass is tuned for the spatial acuity of the 60D recording in H264. I expect the engineers at Mosaic did not make it any stronger than they needed to, to minimize impact on resolution and overall IQ. Raw is higher res, and may need more 'umph' in a low pass to totally correct aliasing and moire. Anyway this is just a guess on my part. I think it may be less what res you shoot at and more what you get when you shoot - sharper pixels show more artifacts...that is my theory anyway.

I did see quite a bit of correction on my images but not as much as in H264. I put some of them on Dropbox and will post the URL once I test it. Please remember this was a very quick and dirty test in a very short time - it is at ISO 800, and I did nothing to 'make it pretty'. Better exposure (more light) would have allowed a better DOF, and lower noise...but the basic tests is still there.

here is the link (hope this works for all):
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/eq8pqvw8pv3di6m/IzK709GYiz

Revised conclusion - I see more benefit than I thought, but some artifacts remain. Check out the lapel as a good example to see the correction. - I expect to keep the VAF-60 in place and do more tests, but it appears to help some, just maybe not fix every situation. Heck, even the H264 in this case is not perfect and is MUCH lower quality in terms of acuity.

Great posts, this is very helpful. I did some tests on mu 60D with and without the VAF-60D, but did not get great results with raw at lower resolutions. My ISO was very high for this quick test, and I need to repeat it with lighting to see how that might impact the tests. I did see better results the higher the resolution went, but not as good as those where I used full HD in H264 (where the AVF-60 fixed the issues super well). My test was a nasty one - a herringbone fabric, so it was 'asking for trouble'...anyway, I a happy with the AVF myself, as it is very useful on H264 for me, and I expect to get some benefit at least in raw, depending on the way I shoot. I really appreciate hearing what others see, as it helps me get a better idea what to expect, especially if I eventually change camera bodies. Thanks for the hard work.

POSTSCRIPT - I reviewed my data and found more correction than I originally saw when I looked closer. My estimation is that some subjects are easier to correct than others. I think that the VAF for each camera is only as strong as needed for what they tested for - and the 60D in raw is a LOT sharper, so maybe it could stand a stronger filter for raw work, but mine appears to help even if it is not perfect in all situations.

POSTSCRIPT - see revised test data below - the results are a bit better than first glance showed, but correction was not total for raw. This may be a source of the apparent variable results - some subjects correct easier than others it appears.

Re: Mosaic, I am not trying to start a war! I am a happy user of the product for my 60D in H.264, but my test so far on raw at lower res have not shown the same level of correction. My test was a nightmare for moire - herringbone fabric... :)It would give trouble on most TV cameras (HD/SD) in my experience, and can give trouble to still cameras as well (again in my experience working on product shots). I think the closer to HD res the better the correction, but I have not had time to be more thorough. 6D results might be different.

POSTSCRIPT - see revised test data below...my original conclusion was somewhat altered on closer inspection - I got a bit more out of the VAF60D than I first thought, but it was not perfect in raw.


I did a very rough test of the 60D with and without the Mosaic VAF-60D Optical Anti-Aliasing Filter. I tried two raw resolutions for this test, 1600 x 670 at 2.39:1, and 1728 x 972 at 16:9. I also shot the same target scene using H.264 with and without the Mosaic filter. For today's quick test I did not have much time or optimal conditions (did not have my lights, etc.). I used ISO 800, and my Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM lens at F2.8 and set to 17mm, and room light mixed with daylight. Color balance was set to 5600K. Yes it was a slapped together test! My target was a wool herringbone sport jacket in tan and black. My initial findings were:

1. The jacket showed lots of moire and aliasing without the Mosaic filter using H.264.
2. Using the Mosaic filter and recording in H.264 moire and aliasing were essentially removed - note that at ISO 800 there is some inherent chroma noise, so this is not the best evaluation of fine pattern noise,  but gross artifacts were clearly removed by the filter.
3. At raw 1600 x 670 with no filter, there was VERY pronounced moire and aliasing - much worse than H.264 (which was itself bad).
4. At raw 1728 x 972 with no filter, there was VERY pronounced moire and aliasing - much worse than H.264 (which was itself bad).
5. Using the Mosaic filter at 1600 x 670, there was still moire and aliasing. Subjectively I could not see much difference with or without the filter at this resolution.
6. Using the Mosaic filter at 1728 x 972, there was still some moire and aliasing. Subjectively I think it was a little better, but not good enough to suit me - it would have to be cleaned up to be used in a final output (by some means).

My tentative conclusion is that the Mosaic VAF-60D Optical Anti-Aliasing Filter is so closely optimized for the image size of HD (1920 x 1080) and default H.264 downsampling process on the Canon cameras, that at other resolutions it is not effective, or not as effective. Mosaic has indicated that alternate recording sizes might require unique solutions and I think this is the case.

I will try to post some pictures when I get time (may take a few days) and see what I find in further tests, but for now, I think that the problems of moire and aliasing in raw footage at sizes below full HD are not effectively treated by the filter. I suspect various image processing filters might be able to help reduce the problems, but those may need to be applied as part of the deBayer process to be most effective. This is just early speculation.

The effectiveness of the filter is easy to test,but I have not had a chance to run those test on raw footage.I did a series of test of H.264 a few weeks ago and got awesome results (complete fix for moire). What I would need to do is use my wider lens to get a similar field of view in the raw shots and do tests without the filter and with it. My favorite test has always been Plant Hall at the University of Tampa as the fancy brick work is pretty much a perfect storm for most DSLR's that have moire issues. Alternately a fabric sample indoors will do as that is also pretty useless on the 60D without the filter,I just don't do much product work any more so I have not set up a sample. I will try and run a test I can post, but given my work schedule right now and the weather, it. May be a week or two before I can post one unless I an find a good indoor example. Fine patterned nylon may do it...have to try...a blue Oxford cloth also can be a good test...those are a nightmare in a lot of shots even for the Canon as a stills camera...and they can fudge up a lot. Of broadcast gear too...let me give it a whirl and see if I can get a good test.

My informal obsvation is that I have not seen moire since I installed the filter (except for test when I took it out). I have not done a lot of raw shoots at locations besides natural scenes close to home yet since I was waiting until I got the data corruption fixed ( no point before that). Not much moire in the woods or gardens in summer. Now that I have it fixed, I can go for something more, and will try to answer the question.

Abstrak - You can't leave the Mosaic filter in place for taking stills - it will radically lower the resolution for stills. Also note the mirror remains up when the filter is in place ( physical design). It is not hard to add or remove it,and they provide tools, a case, and a cloth ( for handling ease).

Thanks for the data! I was wondering what a 5DM3 might see...it is a much more powerful and modern set of hardware than my older 60D!

Sounds like connecting an HDMI device does impact data transfer in at least some cases. Other's appear to have external monitors with different results (and are on other Canon cameras like the 600). I can only assume that the raw record process might be sensitive to the availability of system resources (some buffer or port or register, etc.)  that also are used for output of data to the HDMI port. Anyway the result for now appears to be that you may have issues if you send to both locations (the storage chip and the HDMI port device) at the speed needed. Not sure anyone has time to look into it much more right now, but at least we know a way to avoid the issue - unplug the device causing the issue... .

I expect that once things settle down developers may have more time to consider this sort of thing, but I expect it is not 'top of the pile' right now. I certainly understand. Personally I am just going to work with the built in screen for now, and wait to see what happens.

I also found the Mosaic filter a bit expensive, but it works a treat! It wiped out horrible moiré issues with brick structures I had. Check out the demos they have for fabric issues too. I have it in place full time (I pretty much use my 60D for video only), but it is not too hard to remove it or re-insert it as needed. Given the limited market, and high quality requirements, I don't think they can sell it for a lot less...they also have superb support and are very nice on the phone and in email. I found it well worth the money.

Felix,  that is  pretty interesting.

I just did a super quick test with my small 5" generic field monitor attached to my 60D (not a fancy unit, just a basic small - 5" monitor from CoolLCD). My first two tests had some pink blocks (up to 18 ruined frames), but the next runs (two more) were totally clean. I never had a single clean run with my Zacuto EVF attached (not blaming Zacuto, but just reporting). Now my EVF does lots of fancy stuff and understands a lot about HD modes, but my simple monitor is just that - is shows pixels on a screen...no offense, but it is just an affordable monitor - not something fancy.

Loosing the first two runs is something BioskopINC says happens to him on his system (see post #595 in the 60D thread), so I sort of expected that as a possible outcome...not sure why. For me, with no attached HDMI device all runs are clean now. I can get more details if you want...with the simple monitor the first two runs are bad, but subsequent runs look good...with my EVF no runs are good.

I expect it is a timing issue with the HDMI port but that is just my guess, and I suspect some devices have more complex interaction with HDMI ports than others, but that is a guess at this point.

Cecil

vickersdc - glad to hear it! I am about to try testing with a plain monitor. I will post the results. My issues were traced to my Zacuto EVF, and I am anxious to find out if the issue is unique to the EVF or if I also see it on my field monitor too. It also may be unique to the 60D or even unique to my camera or some setting...hard to say just yet. Most of the time I keep my EVF on my rig, and when testing outdoors (especially in bright sun here in Florida) I use it not only for peaking, but for exposure control, etc. so I just did not think of not using it at first...hence it took me a while to trace the issue. I use my field monitor a lot less except for indoor shots or when I am configured so that the EVF would not work (Steadicam or crane, etc.). I will see if I can get the tests done today...

Again - really glad if this is not an issue for others on their systems, but since it was the dickens to find for me, I wanted to let people know what I saw.

Just a note to document what I found today. I have a 60D and was having a lot of issues with corrupt frames (about 10% per shot) in raw recording. Took me a bit but I finally thought to try recording without my EVF. I use it as a matter of course and had not even thought about it at first. Of course that worked and I did test with and without it to check. Clearly there appears to be an issue sending data to the card and the HDMI port at the same time. I am not sure how many people might need to know, but in case it helps I wanted to post this note.

Perhaps in the future it will be possible to use the HDMI port for external monitors and do raw, but for now, that does not appear to work.

Let me know if anyone needs further details or tests.

OK - mystery solved! After all my whining and moaning, I realized the one thing I never tested was recording without my EVF...not something I typically would have done outdoors as a normal habit...sigh...

When I did pull off the EVF (Zacuto for what that's worth), the recordings are all totally clean - NO PINK FRAMES!

SUPER GOOD NEWS for me. My camera is not the issue! I did not mess up the install or configuration. It was having the EVF connected. I was getting really bummed, but now no big deal. Sure, in the long run that may be something to consider, but for now - I can play with raw!

Thanks again to everyone for all the help and patience with me! Now I can go shoot something worthwhile (I hope) and not have the 'pink menace' botch it all up. The odd lost frame is fine - I can deal!

Love it when a plan comes together!

Just thought of a test to run. I use an EVF normally but I will do a test without it. Should not matter, but considering the source of the bitstream is related to live view maybe I should check...will do this and see today when I can ( and report).

Quatro - that is pretty much my point. My results are not even close to what others have seen. I have used build #6, latest build, what have you...they all have the same issues,later ones are a tiny bit better, but still really bad. I am pretty familiar with ML, and code, so I think there is no simple issue but, it is hard to be sure. Something is just not working the same on my camera, but the standard release builds all run fine with all features on my camera. Raw is the only feature that has not worked as described by others I have found in ML. Wish to goodness I could find out why. It is not subtle either - you can't miss half the screen being hot pink... . No real good clues so far, but I guess I can keep plugging away at it. I also use Adobe AE, CS, etc...latest versions all...no other issues in any of them, regular video is all fine, and my Mac & Win (I have both Mac & Win7 systems to test on) tools are all working fine otherwise ( no errors reported) it is just raw footage the does not record well for me as far as i can see. Hight bit rate, under or over crank, etc. all work great with a standard ML release. This drives me nuts...

Per the suggestions I got, I tried a new set of tests. I decided to stick with my current build (ML-RAW-60D-hourly_2013-06-22_15-30) since it was essentially about as close to BioskopInc's build...mine should have the last commits from A1ex and Giovanni C, since I don't see any updates to Rocket's builds since this point in the commit log. This effectivly should be a current build. My Raw2dng is from this build too (automated with BATCHelor 2.0. My card was a freshly formatted (in camera) 16GB SanDisk Extreme 45MBs card (pretty new).

I tried setting FPS override on and off - it looks like I got more frames (a couple more) with it on and set to 23.976 and a few shots with it set to flat 24. ISO was 100, Cannon Audio off, Cannon picture quality to S2, Canon video to 1080, Gobal Draw Off, aspect ratio 2.39:1 1600 pixel width. I shot a couple sessions first to let the camera 'warm up'. BTW - the new memory use and bandwidth reports are really much nicer than the old stars. I notice that it takes a good while to clean up all the buffers after a shot is ended, but I just waited and then shot again. The camera reported a data rate of 20.1 MBs or so, count gets to 244MB before stopping, never more than 2ms idle, and yes it says it skiped 1 frame every darn shot. I got about 202 - 280 frames per attempt, so pretty good for this resolution.

Alas, no good news to report. ,  27 frames in whole or in part ruined by pink blocks out of 284 is about average...in fairly random burst of one or two (lots of two at a time pink lego blocks). I get these spread across a shot like ugly seasoning... So about 10% of the footage is corrupted in some way, and it is spread randomly and in about every shot. I am not trying to be a downer, but to me that is really bad news.

I look through about 16GB of clips of this length, and none are defect free, they all have about the same random pattern of 20-28 pink block runined frames and one frame skip (1 skip frame reported, not too bad unless there are people or animals or other clear and continuous motion in the frame).

The images that are there are wonderful and clear, with great dynamic range, but alas for me, not really something I can use just yet. ML FPS override in the release build does a great job at undercrank/timelapse for me, and maybe raw might do for that, but even there, if the frames are not all good I would just have to stick with the release build or my intervelometer and Canon raw.

I am glad to see so much progress in raw, and it is wonderful if it works for others. I really hope this continues to get better and I will test some other options, but so far, I am just not getting the sort of results other appear to have. I keep hoping it is just me and I can find out what I am messing up, but I have a sad feeling that not all 60D's are going to behave the same way...and that will be a shame so I hope I am wrong. Anyway, at least I have high data rate H.264 to work with for now - all thanks to ML! So I at least have a fall back until I can get some raw joy .

Maybe I will find out what I need to do, or maybe there really will be a code breakthrough or some other good thing...but I guess I better keep saving up for that next camera until I find some luck.

Again - not giving up, and LOTS of thanks to the community and the Dev team, I will just be patient and try some other options. If I have any joy with raw using other setting or cards I will report it, and will try experiments or report other values if anyone needs them.

Lots of thanks again for all the help and all the great code!

@cthornhill: That is quite unusual, i am also using a Sandisk Extreme 45MB/s card, in fact two of the 32gb flavor and i get pretty decent recording times. As Hailburton said, the ExtremePro shouldn't show any differences, however perhaps there is a problem with your current card.

Benllben - could not resist a short 'rant' - I am SO GLAD to hear this! One of my biggest gripes about all raw (not just ML - Red and BM, etc.) is the storage pain...space and costs are REAL issues for commercial shooters I speak with. I know there is nothing much the ML team can do right now (they have no support from Canon to find compression options, so they are working with their hands tied), but uncompressed raw is not such a great thing for those of us from image processing...I mean it is an easy fix (gives you great access to sensor data at native bit depth/res), but if you ever worked with sensor development or the processing pipeline, you must know that everything the sensor sends out is not so great on CMOS (the sensor data typically needs lots of post processing in most cases to provide optimal response curves - I think the ML raw data is post some amplifier options and maybe cleaner, but have not gotten deep into it...believe it is before profiles in the pipeline, but think it is after amps/linierizers), and in any image like that there is a HUGE amount of data that can be dropped with no large impact to image fidelity. I worked on lots of broadcast and medical devices over the years (motion and still) and it makes a HUGE difference to performance if you can just get even a little compression from the bitstream...Now I know that dealing with a Bayer sensor makes all this a huge pain compared to the mostly clean streams I typically got back in the day, but I know this can be done to (did it just a little)...but I guess this is not going to be an option here, as the ML team just don't have either the processor  power or access to it if Canon has it hidden away in the chips.

Anyway, even without compression, there is at least the option to look at storage costs...the guys on the 5DM3 are sort of at the whim of the market...the good news is they have a fast storage path, the bad news it costs a bundle to buy certified devices at that speed right now, so everyone is going for the 'seconds' market (which is cool if it works for you)...in our case, the bad news is we have a slow path to storage on the 60D, but I keep hoping that the silver lining there is lower costs.

I hope that the 45MBs cards are really all we need...if so (if they keep write speeds that exceed the chip limit of just about 20MBs) we have a vast cost effective storage option...if there is really no need (from a shooting perspective) to use 95MBs cards...sure transfer is an issue that is helped on the faster cards...but the cost difference is HUGE...they are basically giving away the 45MBs cards right now at my local outlets (less than $20 US for a 16GB card)...and I hope that means all prices drop for all cards (when they flush the pipeline and have new options to sell us).

Anyway I am really hoping that the results I get are about the same on my 45MBs and 95MBs cards (on record frames per shot)...if so, at least that is a HUGE win on storage costs. I guess I will see what I get when I try some more config and storage tests.

Notes: yes, Red does offer (and everyone I know shooting them uses) compressed raw...I can't say it is cheap on their media (considering you will need at least two copies for safety since it is likely a movie you are shooting and can't afford any losses of critical takes), but compression helps. Why BM has not done this yet I don't know, but they keep threatening to give people a compression option...hope they do. Raw when you get to 10bit is a funny thing... I know folks who shoot log on 10bit, but I have not seen anyone excited about raw on top of the line systems as it gums up the post chain a lot...I suspect there is a lot of flux in this end, as storage costs is not so critical in the budget but time costs is...it may change a lot but not my direct issues... .

PS - Benllben -I was using the latest raw2dng (from the hourly builds by Rocket...many thanks to him too!) Bioskop, my build was ML-RAW-60D-hourly_2013-06-22_15-30 and as noted I used this raw2dng as well (I replace the version in BACHelor2.0 when I update versions and keep the old ones renames in case). In general with a code team I trust like the ML team, and an active dev project, I sort of prefer to stay up to date on code releases (for most things I have stuck with the release build but can't do that on active projects like raw). I am being lazy and not compiling myself (too much of that at work), but I can grab an interim if one is preferred and stick with it for a while...if that helps. I try to read the check in comments each day to see what is going on, and I got super excited by A1ex's work on buffers, and other's additons/refactors too so I updated to this newer build. I will try some of the tests suggested and see what I get...also - should I follow the FPS override notes on the 5DM3 page as the test? For frames I guess...I use that a lot in the stable release for undercrank and love it, but never tried it for normal 24FPS...Thanks for any ideas, I am hoping to get a viable 1600 res mode for me (viable for me) in at least 2.39:1...or when it all finalizes maybe even 16:9, but whatever works for now...and yeah, I know it will only be for as long as the buffer holds out (limited frame count) on the 60D!

Bioskop, Benllben, et. al, Thanks for the good advice! I will also be patient, I really do appreciate all the work and progress the Dev team is making. I used to write assembler and C to support video processing for early HD systems, and I have a great respect for anyone doing that sort do fiddly, high speed data transfer...heck, I had my work cutout for me and I had the darn manufacturer's direct support... !

Pulling the sensor data from the buffer direct to storage was a brilliant move...I only wish the team had access to ASIC logic/processing to run light compression to get rid of some redundant data for a more efficient raw stream...Canon really ought to consider doing that themselves or helping ML do it...even 2:1 or 4:1 (visual lossless, non temporal compression) on the bitstream would make such a huge difference in write speeds possible ( in terms of frames at lower bandwidth to storage)...but anyway what we are getting is great as it is...the optimization and resource juggling the Devs are doing is fantastic.

On a positive note, I am seeing 1.5+ stops of DR head room in my tests. You really can ETTR (I just do it manually via my meter and EVF waveform/zebra). I can recover blown out image elements and hold subject detail in high contrast really well...it is no Alexa, but it blows away 8bit 4:2:0 H.264! Of course the added sharpness is great too, and we get radical color depth, so it rocks all round as a concept. The post stream is going to keep getting better too...and it is nice now (great free tools). I really am a fan!

I will test some of the options suggested, and try some alternate cards...I can live with some 'pink', I just have to get it way lower than 10% of my frames. Is there a range of serial numbers to identify the versions of 60D? I would be happy to check that too.

Glad to get some positive actions to try! That is all I can needed, just was not sure what was working for others. Also  - does anyone find frame skipping helps? I will go back to the older version and report buffers and to the new...I liked the buffer chnanges in the latest builds, as I got a lot more frames, but whatever works is fine with me...if I can get 240 - 340 frames or close to it I expect it will do for a lot of shots! Also, yeah 1600 or even 1440 or so is pretty darn good at 2.39:1 for me, I am not trying to be greedy...much as I would love a 5DM3's rates! I know I could insert money and fix it, I just like Super35 fine, and want to get the most I can from my 60D (and that leaves more money for glass anyway) !

Haliburton - Thanks, I agree other cards are well worth a try. I have been using regular 'extreme' (45MB) cards before and was hoping the 'Pro' might be better ( not so much that the 60D interface can use it, since it can't) but hoping that maybe the card might deliver smoother write performance at the speed the 60D can do...voodo really, so the engineer in me says 

Just not sure what to try next...hence the extended whine feast above.

Oh - also wasn't to say how great the last couple video's are...I reall got pumped by them too, I just need to get s set of code and settings so I can give ita whirl. I hate to wast limited location time if I can't use the footage - better to stick with X2 mode and do my best to grade it...not as flexible as raw, hence my casting about for a debug/solution...guess I just have to keep trying new builds and cards and settings for now.

PS (Yeah I edited it once it posted) - I know this is 'experimental' code. I know what development is like - I have managed commercial imaging products before. I am not trying to be unreasonable...but I just feel like either I am missing something, or there is WAY more variability in the 60D performance than I expected...Any diagnostic or settings advice is welcome - I WANT to find a way to use raw on this camera if I can. - CT

PPS - more data - I just added a test at 3:1 )1280 x 426. Once again, pink blocks and a couple mostly pink frames, at least 18 in 10 seconds (again, ISO 100, 180 degree shutter 24FPS defaults, Global Draw off, audio off (may not mater in raw), latest build, SanDisk Extreme Pro).  I did a test at 1280X536 as well, 3 frames in 10 seconds. As far as I can see now it is just pretty random...I can take a shot and hope for the best, but there does not appear to be any combination that wont get messed up at random right now...I just can't appear to find any 'safe' settings for 7-12 seconds that are consistent shot to shot (no single shot is actually free of bad data in some frames). I am continuing to try, but so far I can't find a way to get consistent footage in raw.

BTW - 2X data rate in H.264 works GREAT on this card and camera...I can go all day and not loose a shot...which is nice, but not quite as flexible as raw...but may be all I can get for now.

I downloaded the latest build from the hourly compiles by Rocket, and gave it a try on my new SanDisk Extreme Pro to see if the combination of this card and using a 2.39:1 lower res might get me past the random pink frames I got before.

I tried 1600x670 and 1472x616, and while I did get pretty good long recordings, I also got some (not as many as in older builds or 16:9 aspect ratio) pink blocks in my frames (sprinkled in the clips). Major bummer...

I have my audio turned off, I have Global Draw turned off, I have my still style set to S2, and every other setting I know about 'optimized' for RAW. My ISO was set to 100, speed to 24 (well you know it's really 23.976) FPS, shutter default to 180 (again, I am rounding the GUI off)...in short I did all I know to do with the fastest card I could buy (way faster than the interface on the 60D).

I know this sounds ungrateful, but I am a bit frustrated. I would really like to evaluate raw as a tool, but if I can't get consistent useful shots even at very short burst (7-14 seconds) how can I really use it as a tool at all? If I could find an aspect ratio and resolution that worked I would be at least able to do serious shots and decide if I can use the footage.

If I just get random messed up frames, is there any real way to easily extract them (automagically or not)? I suppose I can mark and delete them by hand, but frankly, at the amount I see in a 9-11 second clip I can't be sure the result will be worth looking at.

I am really just looking for even one resolution that actually works consistently (say more than 8 out of 10 times)...and yeah, I know, maybe I should just come back in 6 months when more code has been written and tested...I am an image processing specialist myself so I appreciate the code issues and hard work...but I am also a guy who wants to get good image quality out of his Canon camera gear for HD...and a happy Magic Lantern user before all this.

I can accept it if the 60D just won't ever work consistently for raw, but I think other folks may be getting MUCH better results, and I just want to figure out how.

I love the sharpness and DR of raw (just like stills), and I am not expecting full HD or any other impossible goal - I just can't for the life of me figure out what to change to get the sort of results others are posting from the 60D with apparently (from the correspondences I have had) no more data corruption from 'pink blocks'. 

Is there any sort of diagnostic test or settings 'bible' I can use to figure out a way around the darn pink menace? Or is everyone else getting it and just removing those frames and I should expect to do the same?

I understand it may boil down to cards too (or serial numbers of 60D), but if there was some way to test in advance and know what your results would be (or a source for cards that was consistent) that might help...like I said, if it is just my camera, well, I guess I will deal with it the old fashioned way (pay for another) if that works (same for cards),  but I really can't just keep playing 'pot luck' with every shot or every purchase (at the costs of cameras and high end cards).

Again - if this sort of thing is really just normal now, I can accept that, and I guess I can just wait and see, but it there is something I can actually do to get solid shots (or mostly solid shots) I really want to do it.

Perhaps you have a card issue. I have a 60D and can record at 2X normal bitrate for as long as I want (with sound off) on a SanDisk Extreme or Extreme Pro card. I can get 3X for short burst, but find 2X more reliable. You may need to try another card, and I suggest keeping the ISO low (that appears to help) and turn off any tools you don't need in the GUI. I suspect the card - remember that you may be limited by your controller depending on your camera (mine is limited to not much more than 20MB/sec). 5DM3 or M2 with CF are faster.

Thanks for the posts guys (esp. marekk and sarotaz) your other posts got me fixed too...I updated my raw2dng, and rebuilt my ML cards with build 8. This cleared up my 'double raw menu' issues. I then turned off global draw, and did a test...no more pink blocks (at least in 960x540), and of course the new raw2dng fixed the stuck pixel issue. So WAYYYY better than my last run at this over the weekend... :-)

I do hope we can actually reach a point where global draw can run when we grab raw...I really like having my waveforms or histogram, but for now at least I can swap that on or off as needed.

Again - many thanks for all the posts from everyone - it let me infer what I needed and get things cleaned up.

in other topics (in case it helps others) I do have A Mosaic Eng. filter, and when I get a chance I will try some shots in raw and see if it does impact the image - I know in normal (compressed HD) footage the filter does what it advertises and clean up moire and aliasing...I will let you know what I find out, but it may be a few days before I can do a good test.

Many thanks to the dev tea for the code. Just got a chance to try recording some raw clips today. I used the post #8 code and found the following:
1. modules auto load fine, but raw settings don't save at shutoff9are not persistent)
2. raw video shows up twice in the menus (don't know why, but I use the first instance)
3. at 960 (16:9) I never run out of buffer - did not try to get over 1GB as I was just trying to get a clip to try workflow
4. at 1280 (16:9) I got about 320-345 frames, with automagic shut off
5. I did not get any clips that did not have pink  blocks or other ugly artifacts pink in some  frames (not all, but many)...yes I did have global draw on...maybe I should not...
6. Post processing per Nick Driftwoods process steps worked fine (all clips read and process just fine to make dng files and go into to AE).
7. I used an San Disk Extreme 16GB card (way over 21MBs) capable.
8. I do have a Mosaic filter and did not notice any negative impact using it at crop resolutions, but I will have to test at another location to see if it impacts moire in raw (it fixes moire and aliasing just fine in normal recording on the 60D).

Honestly at this point stability of clean recording is more important to me...I appreciate raw DR, but I can live with resolution limitations as long as the footage is clean and record times are well established...that may not be as critical to others...I really don't need a lot of options - a few fixed sizes that work well are better for me...but maybe not for others.

I used my meter, and histograms for exposure - that was not really an issue, nor was noise (I shot at ISO 100 using deep ND to get to F4 in about 6400 fc). dead pixels and corrupt blocks are the issue to me.