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.

Messages - markodarko

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5
The problem with your video embed is that you have https:// it only works with http:// (non secure), or maybe if you remove it completely.

Aha! You are a genius! Thank you, @ItsMeLenny!

My general thinking has always been, and this was only when I had basic camera knowledge back when digital cameras were expensive and vhs was difficult to get onto the computer, that the bigger the sensor the less depth of field.

I think this is the general consensus which is one of the things that prompted me to create the video, the other was hearing comments thrown around such as "just bought a Voigtlander Nokton 17.5mm f/0.95 lens for my Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera to give me that awesome shallow depth of field!", when in fact, in Full Frame land they've bought the equivalent DOF of a 50mm f/8 which hardly gives you bragging rights in my book.  ;)

Wow, thank you for the kind words @DeafEyeJedi! Yeah, I felt that video needed doing as there's definitely confusion between users with regards to DOF and crop factor. I'm glad that at least someone liked it.  :D

I've not tried the crop mode in h.264 but all the Super 16 crop simulations in the video were done with that module, albeit in RAW, and it works superbly. The great thing about it is that it centres the image which using the 5x crop mode doesn't - at least for me - so creating those crops was easy.

Let us know how you got on with the footage once you've had a chance to look at it.

Thanks again for your kind words,


Hi guys and gals,

I've just uploaded my Sensor Crop vs DOF video which you may or may not find interesting, but even if you don't, the footage was shot on a Canon 5D III with Magic Lantern RAW at 1920x820 and can be found at the following times if you want to skip the footage:


Direct link is here:
I'm really loving the After Effects approach to convert the RAW cDNGs via MLVFS, I must say!  :D



Raw Video / Re: mlv raw framing?
« on: May 08, 2016, 08:56:55 AM »
It can do, depending on what overlays you have running. Best to do a few tests with the settings you like a few times and playback the footage to check it before using it "in the real world" so you know its limitations.

Share Your Videos / Re: Video for my Media 21 class: PTSD
« on: May 08, 2016, 08:45:57 AM »
As others have mention, lovely color and cinematography. May I ask which anamorphic adapted you used? Also, at the beginning of the video it says "shot in Panavision Ultra 70", but you said that you used your 7D... I'm confused.   ::)

Raw Video / Re: mlv raw framing?
« on: May 07, 2016, 11:03:25 PM »
Yes. Check in case you have set overlays to be off when recording such as in the raw settings.

Hardware and Accessories / Tascam DR-701d with 5D III & ML RAW?
« on: May 05, 2016, 09:06:26 AM »
Hi folks,

Has anyone used the Tascam DR-701d with a 5D III / ML RAW? I'm intrigued to its HDMI IN feature which is supposed to start recording audio when you press record on the camera so both files apparently start at the same time.

Not that syncing audio is a pain, just curious if it works or not.



Raw Video / Re: ML or external video recorder ?
« on: May 05, 2016, 08:38:32 AM »
but there is also externals video recorders which can give native format such as DNG or RAW.

This cannot be true as I'm pretty sure that the (current) HDMI spec only supports up to 4:4:4 video so whoever out there is selling RAW capable recorders over HDMI are selling nothing but desires.

As @axelcine said, if you want to record RAW on your 5D ii/iii then ML is the only option and then recording internally. You can of course record 4:2:2 8-bit uncompressed video out of the HDMI port to your recorder, but this is just an uncompressed version of the h.264 video you're already recording internally, not RAW, and from what I've heard with regards to tests between the interval video in a 5D iii and uncompressed 4:2:2 to a recorder, they are almost indistinguishable in quality. The 5D ii may be worth it though.



Main Builds / Re: Nightly Builds - try the very latest stuff here
« on: May 05, 2016, 08:22:19 AM »
Plus why would anyone drop 1k on a smallHD 501 and want to monitor a lo-fi image?

If you're referring to the HMDI out when running v1.1.3 my understanding is that it's still full HD, but not clean - I.e., what you see on your screen will be on the HDMI monitor too including all overlays from ML etc.

I use an external HD monitor on my 5D III / v1.1.3 with no problems.

I think it's possible to set ML to have zero overlays when recording and hence essentially get a pseudo clean HDMI out (although I've not tried it) with v1.1.3 but of course at the expense of having no overlays. It was certainly possible to do this with the 5D II according to this video.

May be worth looking into if you don't want to go down the v1.2.3 route.



That's not how I understood KB's support staff comment. They were telling using their cards in non-UDMA-7 devices may permanently/irreversible damage cards.

Ohhhhh, well that's even worse!  :o Thanks for the heads-up, Walter. I misunderstood.

All the best,


After my comparison video last week between RAW and H.264 where the H.264 files seemed to hold up pretty well to the RAW files providing you didn't waver too far from what was recorded in terms of color grading, I thought I'd download the Adobe CC trial thing to see what difference ACR would do to the RAW processing - if any - based on a comment @DeafEyeJedi once made on this forum where he mention that AE produced better results.

Holy bajoly. He wasn't wrong! There is quite literally a world of difference between processing the RAW files in DaVinci Resolve and in ACR through After Effects. The amount of control you have before the file gets baked into pixels is astounding. I've only ever previously used ACR for stills photography and that was way back in CS5. Since then I moved to Lightroom for my stills so using ACR for video is quite an eye opener.

The images are sharper (Resolve's sharpen filter is pretty basic to say the least) and just seem to "pop" more, not to mention how easy it is to manipulate the image in RAW-land and how much more control you have on the RAW file before processing. A powerful feature I like is the fact that I can dial in some luminance NR if needed before the file is processed where it's using all the 14 bit color palette to produce far better results than applying NR after the fact. Well, at least to my eyes.

Anyway, I just thought I'd share this personal revelation but of course the downside to this is now I can see how powerful this workflow is, and how much more beautiful the images look through this pipeline, I'll begrudge ever shooting h.264 ever again!  :D


Do you use a good CF card reader UDMA 7 certified, with USB 3.0 connexion ? Like this one :

This is a very good point that GutterPump makes. I've heard that if you don't use a UDMA7 reader then the files can get corrupt during transfer. They'll still be ok on the card though. You'd think they'd be backward compatible, just slower, but no. Apparently they're not.

I use one of these and it works beautifully.

Have you tried running Disk Utility and using the Verify/Repair feature? Sounds like an issue with your cards more than ML though.

Feature Requests / Re: RAW video protect feature
« on: May 03, 2016, 09:12:01 AM »
Have a look at loading the file manager module. Lets you erase individually or by checking files you want to delete and deleting them in bulk. Not tried looking for a protect feature and offhand can't recall if it has one.



Raw Video / Re: Uncompressed 14-bit RAW video testing - 5D Mark III
« on: May 02, 2016, 08:00:32 AM »
I get the impression that the 5D mrk3 installation is a little more complex than the 550D installation,

Not at all. Installation is painless providing you've already downgraded your firmware to v1.1.3 through EOS Utility. That's the only bit that's different. Full instructions here:

Having little knowledge of code and the inner workings, should I stay away from RAW filming? It would massively help my video productions.

No coding necessary. V1.1.3 on 5D III running ML is solid in my experience, however if you're unsure of whether to shoot in RAW I'd urge you to take a look at a recent RAW vs h.264 video comparison that I did. IMHO as long as you take care in exposing and use a non-sharpened picture style when recording, the h.264 results can almost be indistinguishable from RAW in most situations:

Personally I'm going to shoot h.264 now for the main part and use RAW for when a project is "special" or for certain clips that I know that I'm going to want to push-in in post as the workflow speed / storage / machine requirements are a fraction of what they are with h.264 but without sacrificing any perceivable image quality in isolation. At least not to my eyes.  ;)

All the best,


This has been working for me just fine on a MacBook Pro OS X Yosemite 10.10.5

But with exactly the same files - and following the same install - on a 2013 Mac Pro OS X El Capitan 10.11.4 I get a "localhost:8000" error in Safari and the mounts don't appear

The only time I experienced that error was when using an attached drive with characters or length of drive name that MLVFS didn't like. I renamed it to a one-word name and all was well.

General Chat / Re: End of Life – Quicktime for Windows
« on: May 01, 2016, 12:57:48 AM »
If Apple has a legal issue with the Canon cameras producing .mov-files, I'm sure they'll know where to go. But since nothing like that has happened for several years, maybe one may assume, that Canon and Apple have long ago settled any possible disagreement as to the use of .mov file extension.

There will be no disagreement. Canon will have applied for a licence to use it in the same way as Adobe or anyone else for that matter:

All the best,


Thanks, Mark. I liked a your video, h264 seems to hold up pretty well. I might reconsider and change picture profile next time  ;)

You're welcome, and yes - it's crucial that you do. In fact it's crucial that you do all of these:

1. Record with a picture profile that has zero sharpening. My settings were based on the "Faithful" profile with sharpening=0, contrast=1, saturation=2. I've not tried the CineStyle / Flaat picture profiles yet but I'll get round to testing them soon to see if they're better than ol' "faithful". I've read that they can introduce noise but I'll have to test that for myself.

2. Take your time to expose correctly. This is terribly important. My first shots - which I could have easily recovered in RAW - were lost due to clipped highlights or incorrect white balance. Things get pretty ugly quickly after that.

3. Sharpen in post.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that h.264 is a match for RAW as it's not, but it certainly isn't as bad as everyone touts. My guess is that those that diss h.264 from the 5D III recorded with the Standard picture profile with sharpness, contrast and saturation set to the default settings because as I found, in some clips it's hard to tell the difference in what I shot between RAW and h.264.

Just shoot a short reportage in h264 on 5D3, and personally dont like the look of it. Seems like theres a dim layer over peoples faces and some weird sharpening going on. Maybe a flat pictureprofile could help a bit, but still.

Please take a look at a RAW vs H.264 comparison video I've just posted on YouTube as it could change your mind about the "look" of H.264. It certainly changed mine:
All the best,


By default, it doesn't touch the image settings at all.

If you start playing with things like bitrate or custom ISOs, the result may (or may not) be different.


Ah. As always, you are a fountain of knowledge, Alex. Many thanks.

I uploaded my very first video on YouTube today (do I get some sort of badge for that?) which is the side-by-side comparison I did the other day between RAW & H.264 if you're interested. The link is here. I'm actually quite impressed with how H.264 holds up providing one takes care with exposure and picture styles etc so I'll be using that for my day-to-day "learn how to be a cinematographer" video tests as the workflow and storage requirements are so much easier but will be shooting RAW for "important" things, if that makes sense. All through Magic Lantern though, of course!  :D

Thanks again for your help.

All the best,


Hi Guys,

Following on from this thread I thought I'd upload my findings between RAW and H.264.

Enjoy! :-)



Shot using Canon 5D III with
Canon 70-200L f/4 IS for the outdoor shots
Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art for the indoor shots

EDIT: I'm not sure why the YouTube embedding isn't working. Am I doing it incorrectly?

Hi guys,

Is ML doing something behind the scenes on a 5D mk III to improve the quality of the H.264 video over what I'd get from Canon's All-I implementation or would the result be exactly the same as if ML was not installed? (Yes, I could test this but it's late here now and a pointless test if one of you nice developer folk already know the answer.  ;))


After watching Act of Valor the other day for the first time - which was shot 70% on a 5D mk II / H.264(!) as I'm sure most of you are aware - and marvelling at the quality they got out of H.264, I've been running some test of my own between RAW and H.264 on my 5D mk III.

I have to say that I'm gobsmacked at how good the results are. Having seen so many RAW vs H.264 comparison videos on YouTube I previously disregarded using H.264 because all of the videos I saw showed a night-and-day difference between RAW and H.264. In my tests however I can hardly tell them apart (I must be doing something wrong!). Only in a few side-by-side shots can I see the extra detail but it's not by much. In isolation I'd be none the wiser.

Anyway. This got me thinking - I've been shooting H.264 through the Magic Lantern UI so that I can use focus peeking etc. and hence my question. I plan on doing some more tests tomorrow - low-light stuff mainly at high ISO etc but right now I'm encouraged by how good my findings have been and how incredibly useful Magic Lantern is even without shooting RAW.

Thanks for your help and support.

All the best,

p.s. Is there a reason that Auto ETTR only works for shooting RAW and not H.264?

Quite a lot of shimmering artefacts in the water when they're walking - did you slow the footage down even more using optical flow?

Feature Requests / Re: Spotmeter EV difference mode (for lighting)
« on: April 12, 2016, 11:26:50 PM »
Wait, there's an EV mode?!  :-[

Uh oh. OK, I maaaay have overlooked that. <slaps palm on forehead>

Thanks Garry23,


EDIT: Yep, have just been playing with the RAW (EV) mode in the spotmeter and does exactly what I need. Can't believe I overlooked that. DOH! Thanks again.

Hi guys,

I propose that the spotmeter has a new function called "EV Difference" and how it works is as follows:

1. Meter for foreground with the spotmeter
2. Press "some button" (selectable in settings?)
3. Meter for background
4. Press same button again
5. The EV difference is displayed on the screen (e.g. "-3EV Difference" or "+1.5EV Difference")
6. The number stays on screen until "the button" is pressed once more to cancel the function.

Here's the background...

As the spotmeter goes from 0-100% (or IRE) I think of it as going from 0-11.5 stops in my mind (5D III) and therefore if I have my foreground lit at 70% it equates to approximately (11.5/100)*70 = 8.05 EV so if I want the background to be 3 stops darker I will need to light it at (8.05-3*100)/11.5 = 43.91% according to the spot meter.

That's all well and good but I can't do that math in my head ;) hence the request.

I'm guessing that for this to work accurately, ML will either have to know the maximum EV that the camera has at a given ISO so that it can "assign" that to be 100%, or somehow figure it out? For a rough and ready solution there could just be a "Max EV Value" that the user could select from and that would probably do for most cases.

Does this make sense? Thoughts are appreciated.



Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5