Messages

Sorry guys, almost surely this has been yet discussed before, but I can't find... My question is about Gamma in BMD Film preset.
I loaded my MLVs into MLV-App and I set BMD Film preset to obtain a really flat image. In that preset, default Gamma is 1.0 but it seems to me too dark. I tried 2.4 but it seems too high key. Perhaps 2.0 or maximum 2.2 seems a good middle.
I admit I have not a clear idea: which should be the Gamma value?
Thanks

Hi everyone, sorry if the question is a bit stupid, but I can't convert MLV to Prores only with Switch.
In this case I'm not interested into converting MLV to DNG, but only to Prores proxy.

I tried:
-Output is exactly where I want to save the converted Prores files;
-On main menu I add (p) for Prores output, then I add (12) for rec709, then (r) for run.
The result on target folder: NO Prores proxy file, but DNG files!

Then I tried:
-Same things as previous test;
-On main menu I add (m) for mlv_dump, then I add (19) MLV+proxy, then (r) run.
The result is nothing...

Then I tried:
-Same things;
-On main menu (o) then (08) then (r) run.
The result is a little window with "Claening proxys", but nothing seems happening (CPU not working...)

May you kindly help me? Thanks

Hi everyone,

I think I've made the most stupid mistake: I've shot videos in .MLV format, but instead of shooting white target and color chart in .MLV format too, I've shot them as stills in .CR2.
Now, I'm working on Davinci: if I try to use .CR2 with color chart correction, and then I copy&paste the grade to cDNG file (that comes from .MLV), the result is... funny!
Same thing when I try to use .CR2 with white target for correcting white balance of cDNG file (from .MLV).

Is there a way to use those color and white .CR2 for correction cDNG in Davinci? Or those stills are simply unuseful?
Many thanks

Great A1ex (as always!) Thanks a lot.

Sorry, I gave wrong information! Pins of a CF connector should indeed vary in length...

That's a good new Walter!

If you have access to other 5D3 with ML, there's the "card benchmarking"...

I tried benchmarking on both my two 5D3s and the results are very similar but strange: in video mode both give me write speed around 78 MB/s and read speed around 110 MB/s, while in photo mode both give me write speed around 118 MB/s and read speed around 153 MB/s.
I wrote it's strage because my card is a 160 MB/s Sandisk Extreme Pro, and in video mode I can easily record 1980*1152 RAW14bit (that should be around 95 MB/s) endlessly. So I can't understand the 78 MB/s in video mode from benchmark...
Another thing: I wrote that the results from the two cameras are similar, but NOT identical, and it's strange because I used the same card for the test...

Maybe some info about which pin is affected would be helpful...

Thanks for your reply, Walter. I have two 5D3 and I find out surprisingly that both have the same issue at exactly the same pins:
on both, if you think the slot vertically, in the first pins-couple on top I have right-pin higher and left-pin lower, while in the last pins-couple on bottom I have right-pin lower and left-pin higher.
In your opinion, in which case should I understand that my card slot has to be replaced?
Thanks a lot.

Hi everyone,
inserting a brand new CF card into my 5D3 I noticed it was somehow hard/tight to put it into the camera-card-slot.
After removing the card, I noticed that one pin (in the camera-card-slot) was a bit shorter than the others. Probably it was caused by inserting the card in.
Now, my question: is that shortened pin an issue for RAW recording? And most important: is there a method/software to verify if pins working properly? (since by eyes I don't notice anything wrong in the footage...)
Thanks really a lot.

Hi Luther, thanks for your reply.

I shoot at 25 fps with Canon menu at 25 fps, and "also" FPS Override at 25 fps "Exact FPS" (I don't know if that gives any benefit...) And then I conform 25 fps to 24 fps in post (so the result is just a little-little bit slower).

1/48 shutter speed (in my case 1/50) seems too blurred to me (for this specific kind of shot). As I wrote, it seems to me that the best out-of-the-camera compromise is 1/64... But some doubt remains...

Hi everyone,

I need to make some shots of trees, houses, etc. with a 4-axis gimbal, through the side window of a car running at 30-35 Km/h.
I made some test and I noticed that at T/50 the motion blur is really disturbing. I also tried T/84 and even T/100 and obviously this reduced the motion blur, but added the typical jerkiness of rapid shutter times.
Then I tried T/64 and I must say that to me this is the best compromise out of the camera.

Anyway, I also tried to handle the T/100 footage in Davinci: slowing it down a bit (20 fps), adding optical flow and just a little bit of motion blur. And the result seemed good to me.

My question: which one in your opinion gives the best result? Shooting at T/64 without touching it in post, or shooting at T/100 and then re-touching it in post?

Thanks a lot.

Hi everyone,

I tried to change both aperture and ISO during a single shot. Changing aperture with the Quick Control Dial seems to be accepted: MagicLantern continues recording. Changing ISO with ISO button and Main Dial seems to give some little problem to MagicLantern.

Question: is it "safe" (for the file) changing aperture or ISO during the shot?

Thanks a lot.

Thanks a lot Danne.

About different exposure between MLV 2.0 and Lite 1.1, after several tests it never happened again. The first (and only) bad/strange result is really too heavy to upload it. My impression is that for some strange reason a gradual exposure transition function was activated (but I actually did nothing). Anyway, luckly all seems working normal now.

About white level discussions... I've found 151 topics (that I read...) here in the forum in which there is something about White/Black levels. Infos are too scattered. What would surely be useful (for me, but also for many newbies like me) will be a topic that sums up the discussion, or better a simple guide/tutorial/explanation about White/Black level. Perhaps this topic yet exist and I simply didn't find it, if so please someone link it here! (Thanks really a lot.)

What I've learnt is that 14-bit means 16384 values from black 0 to white 16383, in linear world. "Usable" range differs from camera to camera, and for 5D3 should be 2048-15000, where 2048 prevents color casting, and 15000 prevents purple fringing artifacts (and works well with highlight recovery in Davinci RAW tab).
Dmilligan says these values are not "adjustable" but you could have to correct them when they are wrong (ExifTool, Switch, other ML tools) because "there is a correct (mathematically speaking) value for both of these". But this is math, because g3gg0 says you could try other values (1024, 1700, 1650 for black) "depending on what looks better".

The fact remains that my shots are not in 2048-15000 range: MLV App Info says 2046-16200 for 50% of my last tests and 2047-16200 for the other 50%. But I saw these values also HERE.
So here my questions:
1. Is 2047-16200 a correct range for 5D3 (or it's better to correct values to 2048-15000)? And if not, where does it come from?
2. Does it matter that some shots have 2046 instead?
3. In MLV 2.0 Rec module there si also the Fix Black Level to 2048 option. This makes me think that anything under 2048 is a wrong number. So, should I correct any shot of mine to 2048? (Via MLV App?)
4. Since black/white values are mathematically correct/incorrect, which is the method to calculate them for 5D3?
5. Switch let me change white to 15000/16383 only "if the tag is either 15000 or 16383 to begin with otherwise nothing will be changed to prevent other cameras to get these tags" (HERE), so does it mean that my 16200 is wrong? Perhaps because I'm using MLV Lite 1.1 instead of MLV 2.0?

(Guys, surely these questions are old stuff for you, but believe me it is not easy for me to navigate these waters.)

Thanks

Hi Danne, thanks for your reply.

What's wrong with posting the actual mlv_files? Much more effective.

Well, before annoying you too much it's better I repeat the test... Just to be sure.
Anyway, could you tell me that strange range 2047-16200? Is it an arbitrary assignment of the camera? Can I freely change it to 0-16838? Or 2047-16200 helps avoiding noise?

Thanks for your reply, Levas.

Could it be that you shoot in 12 bit lossless raw option ? Instead of standard 14 bit ?

No, MLV App Info says 14-bit for both, and exactly same ISO/Aperture/etc. for both, Levels for both are 2047 black, 16200 white.
Perhaps stupid question: why does black is not 0 and white is not 16383? (Should I set it manually? Or there is a meaning in those numbers?)

Sorry but... I've always used MLV Lite 1.1 instead of MLV 2.0, and today I tested MLV 2.0 for the first time. Now, same shutter speed, same aperture, same everything, then MLVFS and then Davinci... is it normal that MLV Lite file is brighter (minimum 1 stop) than MLV 2.0 file? Possible?
Is it an "interpretation" of MLVFS? Or really is the file?

When working with them I use uncompressed MLV clips because of speed reasons

You use uncompressed MLV: in the sense that you use MLVFS to "virtualize" DNG on-the-fly, or in the sense that you don't convert to DNG at all?

Sorry for my basic-user questions:

1. I saw that in MLVFS workflow White level can be set at 15000 or 16383. In Davinci RAW tab there is an Highlight Recovery option. Is it the same thing as setting 15000/16383 in Switch, or the two things works together?

2. Switch give me both the options of rendering regular DNG, compressed DNG and on-the-fly DNG (via MLVFS). Is it possible that for playback speed in Davinci, the fastest option is regular rendered DNG over compressed DNG over MLVFS? And if so, is it possible that grading could be slightly different if applied to compressed DNG instead of regular DNG?

3. Believe me, I don't want make a SW-vs-SW challenge: I'm just curious to know which are the differences between compressing DNG with Switch and with SlimRAW (both are in this forum and both are loved by users, and both have a similar function, so I suppose both have great PROs and perhaps are useful in different situations).

Thanks a lot.

...sorry masc... I repeated the same question 2 times... I need some sleep...

2. If no error (e.g. by a bug) happens on transcoding, yes.

And it should be directly visible? (MlRawViewer can see compressed MLV, right?)

Anyway, which MLV workflow do you personally recommend?

Thanks a lot masc!

For a MLV you can easily do RAW Corrections (with some ML tools), for DNG you can't (yet, because of the lack of tools).

This is a very good reason to keep the MLV files. One doubt gone forever
Now, just few doubts remain to me:

1. LJ92 does "visually lossless" or "actually data lossless" compression of MLV and DNG? (Forgive me for inaccurate terms.)

2. Is safe storaging compress MLVs and deleting original MLV? (Can I always recover the original MLV from a compressed one?)

3. Is it better doing 14-bit DNG lossless compression with SlimRAW or with Switch-LJ92?

4. Lossless compressed 14-bit DNGs can somehow slowdown Davinci (in comparison with regular 14-bit DNG)?

5. Is it possible that MLVFS' on-the-fly DNGs slowdown Davinci (in comparison with rendered DNGs)?

Thanks really a lot.

Sorry if this question isn't new (I confess I've read 69 pages VERY rapidly, and all seems in progress still now):
Does MLVFS' on-the-fly DNGs slowdown a bit Davinci? Currently, do you actually recommend a deep color grading stable workflow with on-the-fly DNGs? Or is it still better (for quality of the grading and speed) working with rendered DNGs?

Thanks a lot.

Hi, sorry if I re-open this old topic...
I've seen that also Swicth has an option for compressing DNGs (with LJ92) from MLVs, so which is the difference between compressing DNGs in Switch versus doing it with MLVFS+SlimRAW? (Believe me, as I wrote in another topic, I really don't want make a SW-vs-SW challenge: I'm just curious to know which are the differences between compressing DNG with Switch and with SlimRAW since both are in this forum and both are loved by users, and both have a similar function, so I suppose both have great PROs and perhaps are useful in different situations.)

And I confess I don't clearly understand if SlimRAW lossless compression methods is "visually lossless" or "data lossless", and if someone noticed any slowdown in Davinci playback with compressed DNGs (in comparison with regular DNGs).

Thanks a lot.

Thanks Walter, and sorry for my last dumb question 

Long exposure noise reduction is applied to RAW, too but only if exposure time is 1 sec or longer.

And if my exposure is 1 sec or longer, is it advisable in-camera NR or better doing it in post?

Thanks Walter for your reply.

Lossless means lossless.

Well, sometimes lossless could mean "perceived quality lossless" that's not exactly reversible. This is one of my doubts.
Moreover, in the SlimRAW dedicated thread, yobarry asked "I read in this thread many users advising to keep the original MLV files, is this because later advances/improvements to programs such as MLVFS will increase the quality of the original CDNGs?"... And I share this doubt too.

Anyway, for compressing DNG files there is SlimRAW but also Switch has an option to compress DNG files with LJ92. Which is the difference between these two type of compression?
And the same Switch has a MLV compression option too! So the question is: in which case you recommend MLV compression over DNG compression with Switch over DNG compression with SlimRAW? Which one you prefer and why?

So, there are many similar workflows to obtain the same result: saving space in the RAID. I'd strongly like to know which are PROs and CONs of each one.

Thanks for your help.

Hi everyone, newbie here.
I'm facing the common problem of storage limits for MLV and cDNG files.
I read some topics in this forum about different methods/softwares, but there are a lot of informations all together and I can't understand which one matches my workflow better (that is strictly based on Davinci for color grading).
Up to now I converted all my 14-bit MLVs to 16-bit cDNGs with Switch, and then Davinci. I storaged MLVs for safety reason, and also cDNG for Davinci projects, and this means a LOT of storage... Too much for me.

Now, I've seen at least 3 different solutions for my storage problem:

1. MLVs to compressed MLVs via Switch (LJ92 option), then deleting original MLVs, then compressed MLVs to Davinci via MLVFS.

• Q1: What do I actually lose compressing MLVs? Grading quality in Davinci somehow? Speed performance in Davinci?
• Q2: Is it "safe" keeping only compressed MLVs? Could it happen that Switch introduces some error or similar?

2. MLVs to compressed DNGs via SlimRAW, then deleting original MLV, then Davinci.

• Q3: What do I lose with "lossless compressed" DNGs against "full" DNGs? Again, grading quality or speed performance in Davinci?
• Q4: Nobody in this forum recommend keeping only DNGs and deleting original MLVs, why?

3. Simply keeping original MLVs, then on-the-fly to Davinci via MLVFS.

• Q5: MLVFS is on-the-fly, does it mean a slowdown in Davinci? And the grading is really as accurate as with rendered DNGs?
• Q6: Is there some feature in MLVFS that is unaccurate in comparison with Switch?

Which is in your opinion the most "safe" and "high quality" solution? (Because – as someone else wrote in this forum – I have OCD for quality loss and the word "lossless" is not reassuring to me...)

Thanks a lot for your help.

A detail: in Canon menu I deactivated all the Noise Reductions. I did so in order to apply Denoise only in post (to control it "manually").
Q: Do you think it's better to let the camera doing this automatically? And if so, which values?

Thanks