Show posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Show posts Menu

Messages - goran


There are three builds from the 20th of June, all built within a range of about 30 min. with only the first one (oldest) having a changelog. Two newer builds don't have any notes inside the changelog so I'm wondering if these are idenitcal or is there an actual change between the last three?

Thank you,
By the way this morning I had an update to my Premiere Pro called Premiere Pro CC 2014 which reads CinemaDNGs natively without the pink cast and plays them at real time!

So if you have the latest update, you should be able to cut your CinemaDNGs in PP natively and than export the project to Davinci for grading and all without transcoding or creating proxies!

This should speed things up :)

Quote from: actingnurse on June 18, 2014, 08:26:32 AM
I'm curious for other feedback too... been considering getting the Osiris LUTS..
Also - anyone have a solid workflow for Davinci to Premiere or Davinci to Avid where I can link the files and truly work off of the DNG files instead of compressed mess?

Here's a workflow I use.

Basically you create proxies for editing and once you start coloring, it links to the original CinemaDNGs. It works quite well.

Hello all,

After searching online for the best way to process ML Raw files for use with VisionColor Osiris LUTs and not finding a clear answer, I decided to do some testing on my own and here's the process I've found to work the best for me so far.

The main problem with using VisionColor Osiris LUTs is that they're really "optimized" to work with their VisionLOG Raw and that means using AE for handling the Raw files which is slow. If you're using Davinci Resolve to handle your CinemaDNGs you're stuck with the BMD Film for debayering and gamma which is, well, made for completely different camera than the 5D MK III or any other Canon and applying the Osiris LUTs to BMD Film processed files gives a completely different colors from the ones you get using the VisionLOG.

Of course you could match the colors from BMD Film processed CinemaDNGs to the ones processed with AE and VisionLOG but this workflow is for the "one-click" type of work where you get 95% of the way with just applying the LUTs.

So here's my workflow, I hope you find it helpful:

1. Convert .mlv files using RAWMagic. Check 16 bit CinemaDNG Output. Check Vertical Stripes Correction.
2. Import CinemaDNG files into Davinci Resolve.
3. Debayering in Camera Raw:
   Decode: Using Clip
   White Balance: Choose Appropriate Value
   Color Space: BMD Film
   Gamma: BMD Film
   Check Highlight Recovery
4. Create two serial nodes.
5. On the first node apply BMD Film to VisionLOG LUT 64 version. You may download the LUT here:
6. On the second node apply creative LUT such as VisionColor Osiris M31 for example or any other Osiris LUT.
7. Adjust exposure on the first node using Camera Raw accordingly. I've found that you may need to adjust the exposure up to -2 on properly exposed files (incident light meter reading) in Camera Raw since the BMD Film to VisionLOG LUT will make the image much much brighter. I don't think it's a good exercise to underexpose during filming because it may introduce grain. At least in my testing properly exposed files at 800 ISO look clearer than the underexposed ones by one stop at 400 ISO. Mainly in the shadows. From what I've seen the BMD Film to VisionLOG LUT doesn't blow any details on properly exposed files, so decreasing exposure in Camera Raw retains all of the original info in the file. Underexposed files show excessive grain after applying BMD Film to VisionLOG LUT.
8. Make any additional adjustments.

I need to test this a bit further but so far that seems the best way to me.

I'd love to hear what you think of the process and I hope you find it useful.

All best,
Hello all,

I created a Fincher ground glass crop marks for Magic Lantern for you to use. First here's a download link:

For those of you not familiar with the Fincher crop marks here's some background even though I'm pretty sure most of you know this stuff.

There are many aspect ratios that are used in cinema. Most common ones are:

4:3 - The academic ration. Old square-ish ratio.
16:9 - Most common ratio currently among TV materials and of course web.
1:1,85 - One of the two cinematic ratios. Usually associated with the lower budget non-Hollywood movies and arty stuff. The main reason why it was used is because it's wider than the the 3:4, but used to be cheaper comparing to the anamorphic process when shooting film. Not sure if it's really used today cause it's almost identical to 16:9.
1:2,40 - The modern widescreen. Long time ago it was 2,35 and now days sometimes it's still referred to as 2,35 though it's technically a mistake. Previously expensive and associated with hi-budget only as it was used with expensive anamorphic lenses and required much more light, because the lenses had to be stopped down to around f/5.6 in order to get a sharp looking image. That resulted in a much higher production value and was accessible almost exclusively to expensive Hollywood movies.

Today there's no financial aspects involved when choosing a format so choosing a format is either strict (like when shooting for TV) or totally a matter of creative needs.

One thing you should consider is the TV factor even when you shoot for the big screen as almost no tv channel will broadcast a widescreen picture and they will crop it to 16:9. This can be done either in a simple way - just cropping equally from the left and right sides, or with a pan-scan, meaning choosing crop for every shot and sometimes adjusting the crop dynamically during the shot in order to not loose important objects. The main problem is that you don't have control over it and your film might end up awfully cropped when broadcasted on tv.

The most common way to deal with it is framing your 2,40 with a 16:9 "safe zone" inside of it - meaning not including important things outside the central 16:9 zone of your frame, so when it's cropped by the tv channel - everything will still be more or less in place.

Personally I don't like that idea cause it limits your framing freedom and you're limited in fully using your widescreen frame. So that's where Fincher glass comes into picture. This is something David Fincher came up with quite recently. In Film cameras where you have optical viewfinder there are replaceable ground glasses with different formats (just for curiosity take a look here, but these are not all available: ). One is called "common top" that means that the 2,40 area is not in the middle of the frame but in the very top leaving extra space below it. Fincher realised that a much better way is taking your 16:9 sensor area and putting the 2,40 area not in the top or middle, but a bit lower than the top. Leaving 1/5 of the extra space at the top and 4/5 below.

Here's how it looks:

That way you can frame your 2,40, just making sure you don't include any unnecessary stuff in the whole 16:9 image and later you can export 2 versions of your footage - one with the 2,40 crop and the other one - full frame 16:9 and both will look good cause in most cases adding space below your frame won't kill your composition and to compensate the relatively big addition to the bottom, you add a little bit (1/5) on the top. That proved to work really good!
There's also a version with 1/4 offset instead of 1/5. The one I made is the 1/5.

The Common Top crop marks I made include the 1:2,4 crop marks inside the 16:9 aspect ratio as well as the classic 4:3 crop marks on the sides. I hope you'll find it useful the way I'm finding it useful.

How to "install":
Just copy the .bmp image inside the cropmks folder. The image is already rle compressed.

How to use:
Set your camera to 16:9 aspect ratio and load the Common top crop marks and frame your movie using the 1:2,4 marks making sure nothing important is located below and above the marks. I'm using these crop marks with 1920x1080 resolution shooting in .mlv raw and it works fine.

Since ML is such a gift to me, I'm trying to give back something and that's why I made these.

A huge thanks goes to my DP friend Mark Ziselson who pointed me in this direction. You really should check his last two features shot in 1:2,4 using this very technique.

These I'm afraid where shot with Alexa though :)

All best,
Goran Ljubuncic
That did the trick.


After searching this forum extensively, I've yet to find an answer to this so I'm asking for your help.
I'm using the latest nightly with 5dmkiii 1.2.3, recording in mlv with sound.
In the menu I set aspect ratio of 1:2.35. Before I hit record in Live View I see the image in the correct aspect ratio. Once I hit record, the whole screen fills up with the video and the aspect ratio of what I see changes. This way I cannot know what is in and what is outside of my frame.
The file gets recorded in the correct 1:2.35 ratio.

Is there some setting to change this cause I haven't found or is this a bug?

Thank you in advance,

Thank you for the replies. For what it's worth, in case somebody else encounters this and looks for how to restore the default behavior, you can change it under crop mode to Canon, and than the x5 and x10 zooms behave as they originally do.

Thank you.


Just installed ML after being long time on the fence. Great work! I finally get quality I want for my videos.
2 issues I noticed:

1. When I press the SET button to zoom x5 and than x10 to check focus, at x5 zoom the image is pixelated, blurry and black and white. At x10 zoom it looks ok just as always and I can check the focus. The problem is, sometimes it's easier to find focus at x5 zoom instead of x10 zoom so it would be nice for it to work properly or am I missing something?

2. The Live View image of the video doesn't fill the entire LCD on the camera back but instead it covers about 80% of the screen. I'm attaching an image to show what I mean. Once again, am I missing something is this a feature, a bug or a changeable setting?

I'm using the latest nightly 1.2.3 firmware build fro 5dmkiii.

Thank you,