Messages

Not all cameras actually verify the code signatures, it's mostly only the newer ones (I read this somewhere on the wikia, but I can't find it now, there is actually a list of cameras and info about which ones check and which ones don't).

It would be interesting to see that list.

So are there relatively safe ways of disabling the bootflag on any of these other newer cameras which verify the code signatures besides the 5D3, e.g. with suitable disableboot.fir files? It has been my understanding that only the 5D3 lacks a safe way of disabling the bootflag. And if it is just the 5D3, is it more likely that that's so because there are special problems with the 5D3 case (i.e., aside from the fact that the camera is much more expensive, which makes testing riskier), or just because A1ex hasn't gotten around to it yet?

And if the main barrier to progress on this issue is the 5D3's $3K price tag, how can we ever get past this? Will we need to take up a collection to buy A1ex a used 5D3 for testing?

Thanks dmilligan, maxotics, and Marsu42! Great stuff! Over my head to a considerable degree, but fascinating and enlightening. To my mind it's very on-topic (not surprisingly, since I asked the question) because a huge part of what has been frustrating me at any rate about this bootflag issue (and I suspect some others as well) is the almost complete lack of information that has been forthcoming from A1ex and others about the nature of the problem and prospects for a solution since June, and near complete silence about why there's been no information. The situation, summed up by Audionut in August, has been:

The developer says thay it's not safe to remove the bootflag.  That's all there is to it.

That, indeed, is all there has been to it. But these posts of yours are helping me begin to make a bit more sense of it.

Interesting. I was wondering about the signing process but if it isn't public knowledge then that would explain why I couldn't find anything about it! I take it that means there are only certain people who have the knowledge to make a valid fir  

Could anyone offer a brief, non-technical description/explanation of what the signing process is and who decides whether or not to make it public?

I personally feel more comfortable waiting for the stable release of the firmware. Im sure the developers will eventually work something out

What makes you so sure that a safe way of resetting the bootflag (i.e., one that can be released to the public by ML) is possible? If it isn't, there will never be a stable release that includes a way of resetting the bootflag.

As everyone here knows, lots of people are excited about the raw capabilities ML has unleashed for the Canon cameras. In the case of the 5D3, given that almost 40,000 people have seen a single video about installing ML raw on the 5d3 (Dave Dugdale's), it's safe to say that, all in all, at least many tens of thousands of people are interested in ML raw for the 5D3.

The bootflag issue is one that concerns many if not most of those people, even many who feel they can live with it indefinitely. There's no getting around that it can affect anyone wanting to resell their 5D3: Such a person will have to either lie and hope the buyer doesn't want to use Eye-Fi cards or care about a having a normal fast wake-up in which case they may come back angry as hell, or if the seller finds someone willing to buy a 5D3 with a non-resettable bootflag (and delay, no Eye-Fi, etc.), there's a good chance they'll have to knock the price down $100 or more to sell a camera that doesn't function normally. (Which is one good reason to instead pledge $20 or $30 etc. toward our offer! ) I think it's also safe to say that thousands of 5D3 owners who've heard about ML raw and would love to try it out on their 5d3s will not be willing to so long as ML makes changes to the camera's normal functioning that can't be reversed.

So although it's true that I'm interested in having "my issue attended to" (the bootflag), it's far from a "petty issue," and it doesn't mean that I'm not equally or even more interested in helping these other thousands of 5D3 owners also enjoy more quickly, more easily, and with more options, wonderful raw on the 5d3. And if, in addition, A1ex or any other dev can take up this offer and from their perspective come out ahead, that would be great too!

I hope some other people will start adding, even small amounts, to the $300 we have on offer so far.

This offer is just wrong in so many ways.

The responses of devs and others to this similar offer was different:
http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=7739.0

Is there a reason this is important to you other than the two second delay?

For me it's to have the ability to restore the camera to its original "unhacked" state for future resale. Others want the option of using Eye-Fi cards. And many others, I'm sure, simply don't feel comfortable making permanent changes to their 5D3s.

I'll pitch in $100, also payable by Paypal, to a developer* for a safe way for the masses to reset the bootflag on the 5D3. Same deadline of Dec. 1.

* The developer can keep the money, put it toward a donation to ML or a charity, or anything else they choose.

I'm sure you don't want to enable the bootflag on your camera just yet (it slows down startup/wakeup of the camera and prevents Eye-Fi cards from working) so I'd recommend against you running it. Thanks for the offer though!

Although I'm seriously considering installing raw on my 5D3, which would involve both downgrading to 1.1.3 and setting the bootflag with no way to safely reset it, you're right that I'm not yet ready to enable the bootflag (or downgrade to 1.1.3). So I hope others come forward to help. Good luck!

if anyone has a rom dump for 1.2.3 for me I'll be willing to have a go at updating the stubs...  (I don't want to upgrade to 1.2.3 then downgrade back to 1.1.3 as I've heard a couple of people say that can aggravate the AFMA bug)

I've heard that too. My 5D3 has 1.2.1 (and no ML yet) and I'd be willing to update to 1.2.3 and provide you with a rom dump if I had a clue how to do that. If no one else offers, and you'd like to PM me with instructions or links to instructions for doing a rom dump, I'll give it a shot.

In the Download and Installation Instructions for firmware version 1.2.3 Canon states:

Once the EOS 5D Mark III camera is updated to Version 1.2.0 (or later), it cannot be restored to a previous firmware Version (Version 1.0.7 through 1.1.3).

I realize that many have reported downgrading to 1.1.3 without problems, but I also assume that Canon isn't simply lying or making a mistake. Does anyone have any idea why Canon says this?

Is anyone aware whether or not the EULA for the new firmware version (1.2.3) has removed the odious reverse-engineering inhibiting clause, which kept ML from being ported to v1.2.1?

From the End User License Agreement for updating to 1.2.3 on the Canon U.S.A. site ( http://usa.canon.com/cusa/professional/products/professional_cameras/digital_slr_cameras/eos_5d_mark_iii#DriversAndSoftware -- click through and you'll see it just before you download):

You shall not alter, modify, disassemble, decompile or otherwise reverse engineer the Software and you also shall not have any third party to do so.

Interestingly, the EULA begins with this sentence:

The following End User License Agreement applies only to camera firmware updaters.

I'm no lawyer, but that seems to suggest that it doesn't apply to people who buy their cameras with 1.2.3 or other firmware already on it (i.e., who don't update), and so (perhaps?) it needn't prevent ML from being ported to newer versions of the firmware.

Thanks RenatoPhoto. Much appreciated.

[mva]

Preach on mva

Thanks for that, jose_ugs. I hadn't realized how ridiculous I was being.

dmilligan: Thanks. I see that some additional warnings in red have been posted in recent days (including here: http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=5520.0 ). That's good.

I'd also suggest adding in the comments column for the 5D3 in the "current raw video capabilities" chart (http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=6215.0) some text like "bootflag currently can't be reset" or a number for a footnote with text like that.

[start]

Is there any way to fix this?

No.  (But apparently there's a way to lessen the delay a bit.)

If you read the threads on the issue, you'll discover that you and others in your situation should "learn how to read" or something to that effect, whereas in fact at the start of instructions for installing raw on the 5d3 there should be something like this:

Under no circumstances begin installing raw on your 5D3 until you have read this

with a link to a description of the bootflag issue on the 5D3, the effects it has, the fact that most aren't bothered by it but some may some have concerns, any information about the nature of the problem and the prospects for a future solution that the devs are willing to divulge, a reminder not to nag devs about when a solution will be forthcoming, etc.

That would have allowed you to make a choice as to whether or not getting the truly amazing raw capabilities on your 5D3 in light of all this is worth it for you. But you didn't get that choice.

People have suggested repeatedly in the threads that better warnings be posted to help prevent this sort of thing from happening, and for the life of me I can't understand why it hasn't occurred.

Yea, after trying that is my new workflow. AE project inside premiere... nested. After rendering the preview it edits pretty well and you can always go back into AE and change things. CC breaks this?

Where do you do correction, grading, sharpening, noise reduction, etc. in this workflow? Anything outside of ACR?

[very]

In the first post of the thread that RenatoPhoto provided a link to, pay very special attention to the text "This flag cannot be undone yet so may want to read here first" under the heading "SPECIAL CASES". It means that if you enable raw capabilities on your 5D3, there is currently no way to restore your camera to the state it was in before. (In my view this message ought to be displayed much more prominently than it is, and in more places.)

So, the question is: Has anybody upgraded a hacked (and bootflag set) 5D Mark III to a newer Canon FW, yet ? Besides the fact, that ML will not run any more - are there any "side effects" / risks to be feared ?

A similar question was asked about updating to 1.2.1 after ML had been installed, the suggestion seemed to be that there wasn't much reason for concern, and it seems the person updated without problems:
http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=7125.msg83316#msg83316

However, some concerns are expressed here about reverting back to 1.1.3 after the 5d3 has been updated:
http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=5606.msg79324#msg79324

I'm not recommending anything to you here (hopefully more knowledgeable people can do that), just pointing you to some posts that are relevant to your question. I'd be interested in hearing how things work out for you if you do update.

The only limitations I am aware of is a noise remover function...

Beautiful work, Andre. Very inspiring!

I'm curious whether you use any other tool for noise removal, and if so where you fit it into your workflow.

Sounds great. Will look forward to anything you end up posting on the topic, whenever. I thought about calling Mosaic. I may do that. Cheers!

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.

If you can find the time (and I know how hard that is to do sometimes!), I would certainly appreciate tests of some more typical situations (bricks, fences, roof shingles, etc.).   Before shelling out over $300 for a filter I'd want to use primarily for raw on my 60D, I really need to see something of what it can do. (I sent an email to Mosaic Engineering a few days ago asking if they could offer any information on the performance I might expect from the VAF-60D with ML raw, but they haven't replied.) I'm sure lots of other 60D users would be very interested too. I'm not after perfection or success with especially hard cases, just a significant reduction in aliasing and moire in typical cases, as can be clearly seen e.g. in clips made from kgv5's "FILTER ON" and "FILTER OFF" DNGs from his 6D (http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=6577.msg55134#msg55134). It would be nice to know if the VAF-60D can produce results with raw that are close to that in similar situations.

[1080p]

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.

Thanks for the test. It's interesting that forum member kgv5 has achieved some good results for raw with his VAF filter for his 6D. He has made available DNGS with and without the filter, shot at 1808x756: http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=6577.msg55134#msg55134 To my eye, it looks like most of the aliasing and moire has been removed by the filter.

I wonder if the different results you and kgv5 got is related to the fact that the product pages for most of Mosaic Engineering's VAF filters (including the 60D filter) describe the filter as providing a "solution for 1080p moiré and aliasing" (e.g., http://www.mosaicengineering.com/products/vaf/60d/main.html) whereas the product page for the VAF-6D just calls it "solution for HD moiré and aliasing," (The product page for the Nikon D800 filter says it's a "solution for 1080p and 720p moiré and aliasing.")

Makes it look like the filters for the various cameras may differ significantly from one another.

I have a question for you guys. It has probably been answered or it's obvious but.. Why can 60D record max resolution of 1734x976? It's a hardware limitation (processor, SD card, ...)?

It's determined by the size of the liveview image. See here:
http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=5653.msg42453#msg42453

My raw2dng is working now. I think before I turned off the camera too soon after completing the shot and the .raw file was corrupted. I'm getting around 125 frames now too at 1728 x 972 (was getting around 109 before). Very nice!

my raw2dng is processing with no output files.....

Mine too.