Messages

1632 x 2052 @ 25fps
1632 x 2144 @ 24fps

I'm speechless. I will be all over this soon, testing and reporting back.

but instead of line skipping, each vertical line of resolution is recorded.

For video free from lineskipping aliasing

Sorry, but isn't this a contradiction? Or am I missing something?
My understanding is that the difference between 1X3 mode and x5 zoom mode is that the latter one records everything, all lines and columns and the former one bins the columns? Neither should produce aliasing? And in my experience don't, or maybe very small, definitely no funny false color pixels along high contrast edges.

I know the option 1 you described is used by many, but in my opinion this isn't the best if the highest details are needed because it throws away 2/3 of vertical resolution. I prefer stretching video three times horizontally. This doesn't have such a big impact on the final image, since human eyes resolve more resolution horizontally than vertically.

Levas, thank you so much for this, you are a stud!

I myself, after testing all different kinds of raw recording options, decided for myself to stick with these two modes:
- full frame option when no crop is required and I need the most stable option (haven't tested 1x3 enough to trust it as much, for me it's still bleeding edge for now). But, it produces an occasional moire and false colored pixels.
- 1x3 When I need the best resolution and the cleanest picture free from artifacts and can re-shoot. Pushes hardware much harder at the highest resolutions, fastest cards are must. Final files are larger and require more processing times.

Danne - I haven't tested this new edition of crop_rec from Levas, but the previous one I tested quite a bit at 1088x1842 (max vertical res. for this version) and never got corrupted frames, apart from the customary 2nd pink frame, which I get on my 6D in full frame mode as well.

I do have a working 1688 x 1996 @ 25 fps mode   I probably can squeeze out some more vertical resolution if I lower the 25 fps to 24 fps. Will probably give about 1688 x 2080 @ 24 fps.
What do you prefer, 24 or 25 fps ?

Oh sweeeeet! Bloody genius. Could we have both? If not, 1688 x 2080 @ 24 fps please.
2080 vertical would give 3698x2080 vs 3264x1842 we have now in 16:9, and only ~1.5 crop (like Sony APS-C) not bad at all.
If my math is correct for 16:9 it would be 1232x2080 anamorphic, which is 61.5Mb/s at 24f, which I think is close to the writing speed limit we have. In x5 mode maximum res. I was able to get continuous recording with was 2000x1124, which gives 56.2Mb/s at 25 frames. I use Sandisk Extreme Pro.

Pink frames can be considered as corrupted, or can you fix them in post ? I think all frames that can not be fixed in post, can be count as corrupted frames 

No, you definitely can't fix them in post..
I was referring to your original post, in which you said you couldn't get higher res than 1842 without corrupted frames, I was wondering if you meant pink frames or something else..

So, anamorphic preset works in x5 zoom mode, even though we don't set it, right?

.. also, is it possible to control the area that's being captured somehow? Would be great to move the region to the middle of the frame to capture the sharpest part of a lens. The bottom part is very distorted with wide angle lenses especially.

Thank you for the information, Levas, as always..

Inspired by anamorphic video preset on EOS M, I've decided to investigate a similar one we have on 6D. Since I mostly film in 16:9, I was interested in maximum resolution that would give me this proportions. Since our preset's maximum vertical resolution is 1842, I calculated that 1088 horizontal resolution would give me 16:9 video after stretching (1088*3=3264). So, I set 1088x1842 with 1:2 aspect ratio chosen (to get maximum vertical resolution). I also filmed a sample in normal full frame 1824x1026 for comparison. After stretching the anamorphic sample, this is what I got:




Here I over imposed the anamorphic sample over the 1824x1026 one, I also colored the anamorphic frame in orange, so it's easier to see.
I's clear that anamorphic takes only a crop of the sensor, but it is a large crop, considerably larger than what you would be able to film continuously with in x5 mode. I calculated crop factor, and it's only ~ 1.7 (1 and 2/3), slightly bigger than Canon's aps-c crop factor, so not too bad and better than at least X3 crop we get in x5 mode.

If you wonder how resolutions compare, here are illustrations of both:
1088x1842 anamorphic



1824x1026




I know Levas said that 1842 is the maximum vertical resolution we can get on 6D without corrupted frames. EOS M can film up to 1998 vertical , continuous at 1944. I tried it yesterday and I saw a couple pink frames in the footage (are pink frames same as corrupted?), so I need to investigate further. I will report back.

I've just finished smoking this thread starting from page 70. First of all I would like to thank Danne, dfort and many others who helped testing releases and iron out the bugs. It is absolutely incredible what you guys have achieved here. I used to be a Sony guy with 3 Sony bodies and only one Canon (6D), but because of ML and mainly the video raw capabilities that have opened up to us recently I now have 5 Canon bodies (withing a month I purchased a 5Dm3 and 3 x EOS M). Raw video is so addictive.

Now, while I've been reading the thread and came across many 'bug' reports, I felt that possibly?? some/many of them could be related to the cards people are using (which is possibly the reason why they couldn't be reproduced by Danne). For raw filming I personally use Sandisk Extreme Pro cards exclusively and have come across very few glitches with ML on my 6D or EOS M and they have been the same - I routinely get one or two corrupted frames at the very beginning of my takes  with the rest of the footage being fine. Since we 'overclock' the interface, making it write faster than Canon wanted us to, maybe it's crucial to use the highest quality cards.

I only have limited experience with EOS M - so far I've been using the old Nightly.2018Aug07.EOSM202_mv1080p build because it gave me a quick access to full sensor 1736x976 mode which I used for filming two music clips last weekend and a few test takes in the last two weeks. I wanted to read the thread and get up to speed with all the new development that took place after July last year before installing the latest build, which is what I'm going to do now and dive into all the new stuff.

I hope to be useful to the community that has given me so much and give back something. Would there be any interest if I shared my experience with different raw processing workflows?

baris3 - if all you want is trouble free 4K footage and don't care/don't understand/don't need RAW and just want higher resolution videos - I would suggest you stick with M50 and 4K video it can produce. RAW video, especially using ML is much more involved, especially if you want to push it to extract every bit of detail/color information out of it. Do you shoot raw photos or jpgs? If you shoot raw and understand what advantages it gives then you can understand the advantages of raw video - it's the same. However if you take jpg pictures and are happy with them, raw post processing workflow will be overwhelming for you. I can record only about 27 minutes of 1736x976 14bit raw onto my 64Gb card (are you ready for HUGE files?) If you increase these dimensions by a factor of two (which is close to what you will get when approaching 4K anamorphic), that's 4 times more information, so a 64Gb card would be able to hold only about 7min of recording (a bit more if you record 10bit). Do you want/need that?

I have been testing different filming modes in terms of aliasing/moire/false color and discovered an interesting thing. I've been using the latest Danne's build for the 6D with the SD hack.

- If I film in x10 zoom my camera films without any crop an almost full sensor readout, just like in 'no zoom' mode (the captured region is shifted on the sensor), but unlike filming in 'no zoom' mode, which produces quite a lot of false color pixels (I've been testing this by filming very contrasty scenes with lots of small details, like trees against sky/white roofs), filming in x10 zoom produces the same angle of view but with a lot less visible artifacts in a form of falsely colored pixels. First time I discovered this I thought it was some kind of mistake on my part during filming, but since then I've repeated the test 2 more times and every time got the same result. Even asked my wife and she confirmed. It's hard to quantify what I see but it seems there's only about half falsely colored pixels I see in x10 zoom mode. I can't see why it would be like this, because the binning is the same as long as it's the same area readout, right?

Also want to share my discoveries re what lenses to use in x5 crop mode. I'm sorry if it's common knowledge around here, I'll put it here just in case. I've measured the crop we get when we switch to x5 zoom mode. It's pretty much exactly x3 crop comparing to 'no zoom' mode (I'm comparing 1824x1026 resolutions in both modes). This is a heavy crop and brings a question - what lenses to use to get a wide field of view? After quite a bit of thinking and reading/watching around I discovered that probably the cheapest and easiest way to get a usable wide-ish angle zoom is to use the 10-22 EF-S lens. Apparently in can be easily modified to work on our FF body (it took me 5 sec last night - just pull out a piece of plastic from the back of it). So, this lens in x5 zoom mode gives a very usable 30-66mm range, it can also be used in FF mode - starting from ~14mm it doesn't vignette. So, you get 14-22 in FF mode and ~30-66mm in x5 zoom mode. If you switch to higher res in x5 mode (the highest continuous I was able to record so far is 2000x1124), your crop is reduced to ~2.75, giving you ~27-60mm equivalent field of view with this lens. This also makes an interesting point. I imagine it would be impossible to get a wide angle on crop sensor cameras in x5 zoom mode. They would introduce a 1.6 crop on top of 3 times crop of FF sensor, making it a huge 4.6 crop. So, even the widest 10mm lens available would only give you ~46mm equivalent angle of view on the wide end.

Ahmm..  Where to start?

First of all - Levas, Danne, theBilalFakhouri, dfort, of course a1ex and many others here! - you are all freaking geniuses and I'm in absolute awe of what you have done and keep doing here! Thank you all so much from the bottom of my heart!

I discovered ML a couple of years ago after I accidentally bought a 550D (by accidentally I mean I was after a 10-22 EF-S lens, but then found it for sale with the body for less than the lens itself s/h goes on eBay for). At this stage I was 100% Sony guy (used some Canon glass though) and never planned to buy a Canon body ever! So, I ended up installing ML on the 550D and played with it for a while. It impressed the heck out of me and impelled me to get a more capable body with a better sensor. $1100AU later I became a happy owner of a s/h 6D in very good condition. To keep the story short - eventually I ended up just occasionally using the combination of the silent mode with the intervalometer for timelapses because I didn't need all the assisting tools that ML had and the thing that was really revolutionary and sounded like actual magic - RAW video - just couldn't be done in resolutions high enough to be of use for me (and the only body that could do it - 5Dm3- was too expensive at the time). At this stage I decided that since ML had been in development for so long and some very smart people had been working on it, surely they had done everything that could be done or close to it. I couldn't see any dramatic changes on the horizon and so I kind of forgot about it.

A month ago I came across an article on DPreview where ML was mentioned and it gave me an impulse to go and check it out again. I'm glad I did. An hour later, after I realized that a revolution had taken place indeed in the form of lossless compression and an SD card hack, with shaking hands I installed Danne's compilation on my 6D, not believing that it would really work, because things like this just can't happen. Then I filmed my first raw footage ever, processed it in Adobe AE and was blown away by what I got. All the advantages of raw photos - extended dynamic range, recovered highlights/shadows, enhanced local/micro contrast, extreme color manipulations - all this was possible now in video! Exacly what I needed and what my filming was lacking.

After testing raw video and making sure it was stable, I have been using this at least once a week for filming local bands and producing videos. I have never been so exited about my video editing, because now it's much more satisfying and the result always amazes me. The original excitement still hasn't worn off. I got so excited that I decided to get the best body for ML available now and another $1400AU later (the prices have almost halved in the last 2 years, which is great) I became a happy owner of a s/h 5Dm3 in very good condition with very low sc. Originally I wanted to sell the 6D but now I'm thinking of keeping it as a second cam - guys you are making me crazy!

And... just an hour ago I learned that Levas' crop_rec makes it possible to go beyond the stated everywhere 1824x1026 maximum raw resolution of the 6D in 16:9 and I have successfully recorded continuous 2080x1170 at 25fps 14bit lossless (how is this possible Levas? and why isn't this available in experiment builds? because liveview is broken? oh, I think I know - it requires the SD hack and it's considered unstable or something.), and this is without pushing too hard, I will continue my experiments tomorrow, it's 2am now! LOL, I'm going to go crazy from lack of sleep.

It's absolutely incredible that now many older Canon DSLR's - 650D, 700D, 100D - can film raw at resolutions approaching full HD. It is crazy! I will incorporate this new found information into my photography/post processing courses that I do and will educate people about this.

Thank you again!