Messages

couldn't figure out how to embed, so i hosted them on my website and posted a link.
Is that what you mean?

edit: just checked the rules.
sorry your right, will keep that in mind in the future.
Do you want me to change them?

full size images

c1

c2

b1

b2

a1

a2

blind test

tech specs:
latest nightly vs oct 24
1856 vs 1880

lens: 100mm F2.0 (really sharp if you don't know it)
indoor shots at F8
outdoor at F4 (couldn't reach ideal F8)

Iso 100
1/30s
Tripod mounted
Manual focus

Raw_rec => raw2dng => acr (only white balance) saved as 1080p


we'll name them top to bottom:
a1 / a2 (lots of detail far away)
b1/ b2 (dirty pillow test)
c1 /c2 (dark shiny textures)

please let me know which one is 1880

Still have that one.
I keep an extensive archive of all software I've ever used, so no worries there.

Was going to fuel the discussion with some real world tests.
But there is no more 1880 res in the latest nightly.
How far do I have to go back to get that option?

I like the latest nightly by the way.

Preferred settings for tests?

If you are alarmed by the idea of us (who gave you all this stuff for free) trying to make our life easier by simplifying the code, feel free to get your hands dirty and implement a clean solution. Complaining without logical arguments will not do, and will only encourage us to stop the raw video development and focus on something else.

I was thinking the same thing!

Hi, and first, a massive THANKS to all the Devs who have made RAW on the 5D2., possible.

However, I am alarmred with the 'idea' of downgrading the 5D2 to only 1856 !
I have always believed that the core of Magic Lantern, was the pursuit of quality, not convenience.
Unified ?  Mass marketing - Consumer - " One size fits all".

I bought a 5D2 because of Magic Lantern, not because it was a Canon.
I am therfore sadened by the idea that it maybe downgraded, to 'fit' in with other cameras.

There is no argument, that can show that less pixels are, 'the same', or,  better than more.
In pure science, and in the 'real' world, this is NONsense.

I offer my total support to Reddeercity, who speaks sense.

Quality first,    Please !

The one argument is for the devs who put their time into creating ML and maintaining out of production camera's.

I would ask you to look at the big picture. Camera's can be rented now with ML and big productions use many different camera's, giving the 5D2 footage with black borders is like killing it. People will just choose other camera's.

Not only will the 1888 exception make the camera less desirable for recording but if one day the devs decide they will no longer support the 5D2 because of exceptions like this, you will be forced to upgrade. That is what I think the essence of ML is. Upgrading existing gear through firmware updates, unlocking and creating features, so you don't have to buy new gear every year.

Future first!

I'll check later.
If it is possible with the standard software I'll find it!
But I think the OP is right since I always shoot in m-mode and haven't seen any auto ISO option anywhere (should be the lowest ISO setting)

The only thing I can think of is that auto-iso disappears if you turn the extended ISO's on.

The closest thing I can think of is to take a long exposure, then actuate your mechanical shutter.

That is what I mean.
The sensor thinks it is one long exposure, but the shutter can open and close at will.
Creating a strobe effect. This has been done in post and also with a strobe flash.
So from your reply I understand it is possible to actuate the shutter from ML?
https://www.google.be/search?q=athlete+multiple+exposures+photo&espv=2&es_sm=91&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=nZElU9WsHqT-ygPA_4KoBg&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ&biw=1440&bih=735#q=athlete+multiple+exposures&tbm=isch

I really need to learn how to write my own code for ML.
It is the next item on the list, after iOS apps.

And please A1ex don't waste time on this, knowing it is possible is good enough for me.
I'll just learn the code and make a module for it in time.

Bit off topic but your work on the new ISO's is amazing. The Raw development I was able to follow, but the ISO improvement and research behind it is way beyond my ability to understand.

Hi,

At the moment I'm building a shutter from an old hard disk to use with an old kodak brownie lens.
The shutter is controlled by an arduino and the arduino also controls my leaf digital back and triggers the flash.
It is all mounted on wooden plates that fit my View Camera.

Although it started as a project to use very old lenses, I soon realised the potential of controlling all parts of the camera independent from each other.
Before doing this, I had already build a sensor trigger with an arduino to take pictures of bullets and stuff.
This was the next logical step, allowing greater control over the picture taking proces.

So I was wondering if it is possible to control the shutter of a Canon DSLR separate from the sensor activation and flash triggers.
My guess is no, but I thought I'd ask.

Thanks

Camera-specific exceptions are not always desirable (they make the code harder to maintain and they have a negative effect on testing coverage). I've asked you to convince me that the extra effort to add the exception (and to maintain that exception from now on!) is worth it. I'm trying to simplify things, since this will reduce the burden of maintaining the code base (and this is one of these things that can be kept simple and portable).

There is a difference in quality (2048 looks amazing by the way) but for those who work with different cameras on one project I'd opt for 1856.
Camera-specific exceptions are also not desirable for post processing.
I'm not being lazy and I do care about quality, but keeping ML "simple" to use is important I think.

Also the 5D2 is no longer in production and keeping the code simple will make it more likely the camera will be supported by Magic Lantern for the coming years.

p.s. why is there so little moire in the 2048? Such a big difference between 2048 and the others.

From a workflow point of view it would be better not having to crop in post.
Keeping things "simple" is important I think, to keep usability as high as possible.
Cropping exactly on the pixel can be tricky, and if you forget to crop and enlarge or sharpen the black border will effect the image.

If people worry about those lost pixels, they should buy a purpose build film camera with native Raw support.

Daily reader but not a dev, so just ignore me if you like.

In my opinion it is "time" for a new release. Been quite a while since 2.3
But the very big new feature that Raw is, doesn't feel quite ready yet.
MLV has only recently been conceived.

So personally I do not mind waiting many more months for a new release.
I know it is going to be awesome when we finally get it.

I think it comes down to supply and demand, my guess is that Komputerbay pays about the same price for a 64gig chip than they do for an 128gig one so the price difference is relatively minor.

I'm one of the lucky people (knock on wood) that got two very fast 64gig 1000X Komputerbay cards a few months ago. I really need more cards, but weirdly enough I prefer 64gig over 128 since it forces me to not rely too heavily on a single card should something go horribly wrong.

It is likely that the chips of the 1000x 64gb, 1000x 128gb and 1050x 64gb are exactely the same.
At the current nm proces there are many flaws on the chip and when they do quality control they check how much of the surface is usable.
Then they upload the right firmware deciding size and speed.
http://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?p=3554

Same thing happens with cpu's. There is no difference between an intel 2.0ghz and a 2.4ghz.
The 2.4 just met a higher quality standard and is therefore capable of handling the 2.4ghz load.

So the 1050x cards are probably just 1000x cards which have showed to run at 1050x during quality control.
Maybe the manufacturing proces improved and their yield of 1050x cards increased.
But because not every chip gets checked (only a sample of each batch) you might get a very good 1000x or a bad 1050x.

If it were up to me I would wait until a new generation of chips come out.
Unless if you have cash to burn now and need to be a bit more sure you get enough speed, but like I said there is no way to know.

Would be interesting to know if maybe the controller changed, but because it is only a 5% bumb it is more likely an improvement of the yield.
(you also see intel doing this, between refreshes they often release chips with a minor bumb of 0.1ghz, this is also because of improved yields)

This is really amazing.
I work mostly on ads and editorial portraits. So I always use strobe light and I almost always end up setting up a strobe as a fill to take down the contrast a bit.
Really curious how these new iso's will compare to the fill light with the canon iso's

I know it isn't really the same, but instead of flattening my light and adding contrast in post I might be able to shoot more stuff the way I actually like it.
Reminds me of shooting on film. Slightly overexposing and under developing to get nice shadow detail.

I was also wondering about something.
The ISO 50 you can choose. Is it iso 100 on the sensor and then adjusted in the conversion to digital?
If so you probably also lose DR with ISO 50.

I didn't see any mention of it on the charts and they go down towards the higher ISO's put probably also lower towards lower Canon Iso's because the only good one is 100?

Curious because I often use 50 to get a wider aperture.
Thanks

No Luck, still getting the "Error: This ain't a lv_rec RAW file" error.
Is this just a broken file or am I still doing something wrong?

I successfully joined one .RAW with one .R00 the combined file is also the size of the 2 together so I think that went well.

Found it:

OSX/LINUX
Start Terminal
1. cd /Volumes/my_destination_folder
2. cat xyz.RAW xyz.R00 xyz.R01 > xyz.RAW

what are the steps you do to convert the the.RAW files? You have to join them first via cmd prompt then drag over the raw2dng.exe.
If you did not join them first and simply dragged the spanned file, ex ( ******.R00 ) to the raw2dng.exe then you get pink noise.

I did not know that.
I'm on a mac, does this also apply? (probably yes)
I had no trouble with files smaller than 4gb, but I also only got the .R00 files when I crossed the 4GB "barrier".

Workflow:
Record, copy to HD, throw in RAW2DNG, develop in ACR to tiff.

Where can I find detailed instructions on this? As I said, I first followed these topics for a couple of weeks, but I missed some info.
Thx!

Hi, long time user of ML and have now also switched to RAW on the 5D 2.
I had some trouble on my last test. A file bigger than 4gb wouldn't convert to DNG with the latest build of RAW2DNG, the ML RAW build was from 31/05.

Just reporting, no complaints keep up the good work!!

Thanks for the quick reply.

I googled it when C1pro 6.4.3 had just come out, and then there wasn't any report on it yet.
When I posted this here I hadn't rechecked it.

I hope they fix it quickly.
In the mean time I'll keep on using .2

Hi,

First topic, but really need some help here.
I really love MG on my 5DII and have been using it with capture one for the past year.
Not trouble at all.
Since the last update of C1pro however it gives an error when connecting.
No other software is affected, neither is the camera.

Even without the MG CF card it fails to work, so somehow C1pro detects that the firmware is not generic canon.
Is there a way to make it work again?
Or will I have to make a choice between perfect workflow and perfect capture.

specs:
Macbook pro 2.0 i7 16gb Ram SSD hardrive for start-up and HD for storage. Running OS X 10.8
5DII with latest MG and latest canon firmware.
Capture one 6.4.3

Thank you