Messages

@Icaab: what difference do you see? Processing engine is always the same, no matter which bitdepth was used. So the result should look the same. The lower the bitdepth, the more noise in dark tones. You like to decrease quality of the high bitdepth clips?

Okay, thanks for answering
I thought that such a small difference between bitness can differentiate the transmission of colors when the saturation of the video increases and the like

Hello. I was shooting a lot of stuff where I didn't have to change the firmware parameters, but I happened to have 14 bits on the second memory card(unlike the first, where 12 bits).
Is it possible to perform a grading video in mlvapp so that the difference between 12 and 14 bits is not visible? How to do this then? Or when exporting to Apple ProRes 4444 there will be no difference?

[flickering]

Just to make sure, you are not talking about "flickering" because of artificial lighting?

I mean by "flickering" is like this.
Because two of your MLV samples have flickering, "M30-0803.mlv" and "M30-0751.mlv" clips.

Also, could you share a rendered "vivid frame" which shows the artifacts clearly?

I don't have such problem on my 700D, and if you was talking about something like fixed-pattern noise, there is no magic setting can remove it, so I can't fix something like this.
Beside, every sensor has its own fixed-pattern noise . . the simplest way I know to get rid of it is to use a darkframe.

He means to use uncompressed MLV RAW format, like 14-bit uncompressed, you can find the setting in "RAW video" submenu which is "Data format".
If the required write speed was too high, reduce the resolution until you have ~80 MB/s required write speed, to be able to do the test.

Also, you need to use hacks and pic quality trick to maximize write speed, these were coverd in first post in this thread.

Hello
Yes, I was wrong: my homemade LED light starts banding when I reduce its luminosity with a dimmer. I will redo it.
Vivid frame - this is the source of M30-_, where banding is visible

Bilal, tell me: I correctly understand that with firmware correctly shooting with minimal ISO? I always lack light and I for the video include ISO 200 because of the fear that there will be a lot of color noise if there is ISO higher.
However, MLVApp has a feature to remove color noise and then with 400 ISO footage looks not so bad. Although the same scene varies between 200 and 400 ISO...are they a little different in their sharpness...
https://mega.nz/folder/a1ojlbwK#ZFBsusu_4owrUakcbfvXUw

[Falling speed]

@Icaab

"Falling speed"

Your SD card seems fine. as Walter said the first benchmark isn't related to what you are facing.
More likely your scenes are complex and you probably always use 14-bit lossless which requires fast write speed in some scenes in UHD 1x3 mode (could be more than 80 MB/s; more than the camera can handle).

You can check how much does RAW video recording needs in specific scene by higlighting "RAW video" in "Movie" tab, and check ML bottom bar.
If the required write speed is too high, you either need to enable "aewb" hack (which could gain 5-7 MB/s write speed) or use lower bit-depth from "Crop mode" submenu, like 12-bit.

"Noisy stripes"

I could see some vertical stripes after pushing contrast and some other settings in "M30-0751.mlv" clip, and it's probably there in "M30-0803.mlv" clip too (barely visible).
I think you will need to use dark frame to get rid of these vertical stripes, have you ever used dark frame before?

You can do that in MLVApp.

for "3 v M15-1653.mlv" Dual-ISO clip, it seems to me these are other type of vertical stripes which can come from Timer A (or B?) at specific values. The main cause for this is by using FPS override in some "Crop mode" presets like UHD 1x3. I am assuming you have used FPS override with UHD 1x3 preset, right?

To make sure, record a clip (like a cloudy sky, the scene must show vertical stripes as in Dual ISO shot), fiirst time using the same settings (5 FPS, UHD 1x3) and another time without FPS override, then upload them somewhere.

Yeah, I know what you wrote. Unfortunately, there are probably failures in the camera and at one point it can not properly shoot a few seconds, as if not changing the bit depth(in the scene only my room).And so the fruitless shooting goes for five minutes, and then the problem disappears by itself and  I can shoot continuously even in 14-bit depth.

Yes, I know about the darkframe, but what's the point when I have a bright picture, shooting was with 200 iso and the exposure settings were not properly changed in mlvapp? I'll try it next time, but I've never seen such a problem with vivid frames

Bilal, what Walter Schulz meant when he said

Redo your test without lossless compression to avoid side effects. Esp. high/overexposure will reduce compression efficiency (and worse).

How do I do that?

Last tests I did was some weeks ago. I used 650D, too and observed no decline doing continuous recording for 6 minute takes until card was full. Speed was shy of 80 MByte/s.

Redo your test without lossless compression to avoid side effects. Esp. high exposure/overexposure will reduce compression efficiency (and worse).

Did you mean in the Movie > Raw video > Data format switch 14-bit losless to 14 bit? In this case, the camera can not record one second of the video, no matter how I reduce the bit (and in "RAW video" it is written that the speed required is 110.6 mb/s)

Yes, with this benchmark speed does not fall
But how then to explain that when you try to continuously shoot a lot of videos - the maximum time that footage can be recorded is reduced. (shot more than a minute, and then no more than 30 seconds - for example)

[Noisy stripes]

@Icaab

I don't have "faliling speed" problem (SD card write speed drop?), could you record a video which shows what are you doing then upload it to Youtube?
For "vertical lines" or "noise stripes" problems, plz share a short MLV clip (1-2 seconds are enough), and upload it somewhere, I can't download big file sizes. It would be better to be 200 MB or lower.

The photos in reply #256 are dead, could you re-upoad them?

Noisy stripes
I didn't know what to show. I think you just wanted to configure the modules for shooting Video. Dual ISO I did not turn on here, and the stripes still came out
https://youtu.be/yPvp4PkfeZo
Here was fog machine and lens sigma 18-35 with f2.0 (the character himself that will stand in the scene, bright and based on it exhibited exposure, not Christmas tree)
https://mega.nz/file/D4J1DRrS#llV30fYvxev6Y5hQP8gOrs2O051t27Kbzm9pFNV616A
Here changed the lens on the Canon 85mm f/1.8 USM EF and exhibited the same aperture 2, but the fog is small and the skin relief itself is quite white and it shows the stripes at the top of the video where there is no focus (however, they are different and not as significant as in the video above)
https://mega.nz/file/qk5z3a7C#NrcwCbYJXHhuOVB-ZWt2JsbxOXixbtvchGdyb0rX3aM
Here with dual iso they are (on dark clouds visible stripes)
https://mega.nz/file/a15SWZhI#29lQ8l_MzLqr8WMHwLkkoQCx5iTn5N5Al2aAtK-ubLc

Falling speed
It happens periodically when a lot of video is shooting in one hour. I went to shoot nature and turned on dual iso and there the fall of speed manifested strongly.
But when there was a lot of filming at my house, but not so often, the speed of recording dropped less.
The same benchmark shows the speed drop over time (I checked both my memory cards - sandisk extreme pro 128gb):

Hello
Are you ever planning to upgrade the firmware 650-700d with the correction of noise stripes, falling speed, etc.?

Hello
The problem began to appear at my camera 650d: the speed of recording began to fall when you shoot several videos at the same time.
Both sandisk cards extreme pro r170/w90 with benchmark show the same results:

Should I turn off some parameters?
Attach my settings profile at the same time
https://mega.nz/file/7ww1lApC#hb2t-nr0_h7Fh-p3dugcSXwgf0Yk49ZhbNzRkweELf8

Edit:
Low-level formatting was done on both memory cards;sd_uhs latest version.

Edit2:
And also about the firmware: I shot with dual iso, fps override and crop mode v2, where I chose preset x5, and when the scene becomes darker - on the video there are pronounced noise vertical lines (sometimes helped to turn on the fix preview, but also does not always work)

Here is the source:
https://mega.nz/file/L95iwR6K#LzE82LuWTq9CZRShWvXlg9scq8x40C_DyWqov_gG-ao

Hello.
Canon 650d. Shooting in the morning with dual iso 100/400 fusion with the sun. After incorporating dual iso in mlvapp -  appears a strange spot in the sun:

Photo with dual iso - in order
Sources:
https://mega.nz/folder/HlxkhZaa#xB_W3KI5mMn9mwOHuhiB8g
Is there any way to fix this? Such a problem on many source videos
(Highlight Reconstruction and White Level Change - do not help)

May I ask which write rate you are trying to achieve?
I just ran some tests and got around 80 MByte/s for video recording.

I meant the speed that is written on the memory card box. I just need to be able to shoot with Crop mode in 4K.
With Sandisk Extreme Pro R170/W90 I was capable to do this. Sandisk Extreme Pro 95 MB/s did give me problems (low-level formatting was)

Still Gold Standard:
Sandisk Extreme Pro R170/W90

Tad slower:
Sandisk Extreme Pro 95 MB/s

My tests with Sandisk Extreme Plus R170/W90 were good, too. Same performance as Extreme Pro R170/W90. Same price, too.

Other cards tested failed at 240 MHz overclocking.
Just ordered a Sandisk Extreme R190/W130. In a week (or later) we may find out how it performs.

As I understood correctly - the speed of the memory card Extreme Pro 95 is not enough to record UHD, because when my test the video shooting was quickly interrupted, and sometimes worked steadily as an extreme pro 170 (and it turns out that the Sandisk Extreme Plus R170/W90 will also behave in this way and for 4K speed is required 170)

I'm sorry to repeat, but I'll write it here
Memory card needed for camera 650d 14 bit Crop Mode UHD

Hello. I wanted to buy a new memory card, but there is no possibility to take extreme pro 170MByte/s.
The dilemma between:
Kingston canvas go plus 170MByte/s(64 and 128)
SanDisk Ultra 120MByte/s (128) or SanDisk Ultra microSDHC 120MB/s (128)
And some Samsung EVO Plus
No table where the comparison of different cards?
Or are there no analogs extreme and it is better to take it from the hands ? (Amazon, etc.)

Hello. I was shooting the timelaps with dual iso. After the program CR2HDR saw that in the source in the last frames began to appear noises in the form of strips. It's not in the brighter pictures:
(cr2,dng and jpg)
https://mega.nz/folder/uhohlaib#j7AelOhk-7cq5PFQ1-coew
Currently, the only solution is to reduce noise during processing.
Is it possible to avoid this by changing the configuration of the modules?
(there were fully manual settings and nothing changed during shooting)

You could also try fast lenses with much bokeh... here those lines are blurred and the effect is less or not visible.

Interesting...the shooting was carried out with the Sigma 18-35 lens and the 2.2 aperture to capture the focus of the character and the instrument
Earlier, I ran tests with the same ML firmware settings, but with a lens Sigma of 16-50mm and an f/2.8 aperture, but I noticed more aliasing on strings than, as you put it, sharp vertical lines.

I think you oversharpened the footage. Or used some setting not working too good. I tried exporting with some minor changes. Looked good to me. Exported to 10bit h265:
https://bitbucket.org/Dannephoto/mlv_app_compiler-git/downloads/M31-0100.mov
https://bitbucket.org/Dannephoto/mlv_app_compiler-git/downloads/m31.marxml

Yes, the defects are now minimal. Thank you , I'll keep that in mind. I'll sit down with your settings.
But in the future, If I shoot for example string instruments, is it better to do it in 1x1?

@Icaab: sharp vertical lines... one of the biggest disadvantages when recording with 1x3 (anamorphic) mode. This problem is also visible in your MLV. The movement of the partial vertical lines is exactly 1pixel in footage (so 3 on your sensor, and/or 3 desqueezed). This is just lack of image information - the compromize when using the 1x3 mode.

In short, got bad source and rewrite everything? ))
Is it possible to record string instruments in any other way? I don't recall seeing musical instrument footages recorded at the expense of the Magic Lantern.
I've never seen 1x3 cause me this much trouble. I thought it was the best adapted
(Recently shot a video with similar settings MG and vertical lines I did not see. I do not understand anything. Would use preset x5 and 1x1 if space allowed)

Hello.
Worked on the latest version of MLVApp. I put already familiar settings for me, but after watching the exported video - noticed a defect: the strings on the guitar are like floating (waves), which was not in the original.
I tweaked the other settings, but honestly I don't even know where this problem comes from.
I've never seen anything like it.
https://mega.nz/folder/WxYl0RSA#bF_IT0yBZtKtZl3lQ-4p7w

[IMG_8014]

I downloaded the processed Dual ISO DNG frames from the included link, I imported them to MLVApp via "Transcode and import" and adjusted the exposure until they became identical, results:

-IMG_8014:
Processed with MLVApp Dual ISO algorithm:                                                                                            Processed with CR2HDR Dual ISO algorithm:


-IMG_8016:
Processed with MLVApp Dual ISO algorithm:                                                                                  Processed with CR2HDR Dual ISO algorithm:


-Results:
Both CR2HDR and MLVApp Dual ISO algorithms produce identical noise level (overall identical image output), if the output was darker in MLVApp Dual ISO processing algorithm --> that's completely normal and it doesn't mean that you will get more noise, it won't affect noise in anyway, just increase the exposure until it looks normal and you will be fine.

Regarding the cat shots, you are clearly underexposing in first place, you will get same noise level if clip was processed in either CR2HDR or MLVApp, that's not MLVApp fault.
You are misusing Dual ISO, you need to expose to highlights and to the right, then if you had dark shadows and if there was usable ISO range left (like 100/800) --> at this moment you should consider to use Dual ISO.

In your case (cat shots), there is no need to use Dual-ISO (it won't make a difference), it's better to use single ISO like 800 or 1600.

-Example:

-ISO 100 (No Dual-ISO):                                                                                                                -Processed Dual-ISO 100/1600:


-ISO 100 (No Dual-ISO) Exposure +1, Shadows +50:                                                                       -Processed Dual-ISO 100/1600 Exposure +1, Shadows +50:


-Exposure +4:
https://youtu.be/m1IhE_a7Ez8

-Original MLV files: Download.

-Notes:
-In ISO 100 clip, I exposed the shot to highlights, if I increased the exposure more in camera I will start blowing highlights, at this case I can consider using Dual ISO:
  If my intention was to recover shadows in post, and get clean shadows.
  If there was still usable ISO range like 100/400, 100/800, 100/1600, 200/800, 200/1600. and not like 1600/6400.


-MLVApp and Dual-ISO:

The only downside here is flickering in some cases, and that's normal because the algorithm isn't designed for video in first place in both cr2hdr and MLVApp, but that doesn't mean it's not useable, cr2hdr can have flickering too in some cases. other than that MLVApp and Dual ISO works fine.

-MLVApp can handle 12/11/10/9/8-bit lossless Dual-ISO processing while cr2hdr can't do that currently.
-Beside MLVApp can also handle at least -to some point- focus pixels fix in Dual ISO clips while there is no other tool can do that iirc (didn't try MLVFS in this case).
-Also MLVApp can handle stretched Dual ISO DNGs (like when using 1x3 mode), cr2hdr gives error, you need to process squeezed 1x3 DNG files then apply the stretch.

cr2hdr has I think two tweaks for fixing flicker, one of them is this, the other one here, But I am not sure if these only used in cr2hdr, they could be also there in MLVApp, we need to check.
If they are not there in MLVApp, we might want to check the possibility of implementing them.

-Lastly:

If there other issues with MLVApp and Dual-ISO other than flickering, feel free to make an argument which says cr2hdr is better (don't forget to mention the issue )
I am still looking for reported issues in this thread, will make a reply if I found one.

In principle, the difference did not notice strong in the photos. May have a little in chromatic abbreviations and white balance, but these are trifles and are easily fixed in Photoshop or Lightroom.
Yes, the ETTR rule. I understood what you mean. If you stick to it, then the Dual ISO videos will contain less noise and more details. But when it's justified in use, unlike a dark cat photo.
I'm not afraid of flickering. I use one of the plugins in Premiere Pro, which turns them off and everything is fine .
I think I have no questions from the others. Only if this one:

(I had a question: is it possible to shoot in Crop_Mode V2 - Preset "Centered x5 zoom" with fps override module? Received videos were not with x5 zoom.)

The rest I figured out. Thank you!

[without examples]

That's not an enough report, show examples, process the same picture in both MLVApp and CR2HDR, adjust the exposure so the two images match, then post the results.
Also, share the original not processed files.

MLVApp Dual ISO works fine here.
We will never know without examples and direct comparison which will show why MLVApp is *faulty* and why CR2HDR is *correct*.

Dual ISO algorithm isn't designed for video processing in first place, I can have flickering issues also with CR2HDR.


During my experiments, there are many types of flickering issues, one of them is about white level output, I think a1ex did add a function in CR2HDR (you need to add a command for it to make it work) for making white level constant, and this fixes one of flickering issue. I think this one MLVApp doesn't have it.

I will make real tests and double check in future, and start a thread for Dual ISO flickering problems in general.
If someone can show (real examples) how cr2hdr performs better than MLVApp, go ahead .

Sources at the bottom are included.
The same photo: DNG - CR2HDR, and dng - MLVApp, in which the photo was transcoded
in mlv, ticked in front of Dual ISO and saved due to the preset "CinemaDNG Uncompressed".
Photoshop only saw the difference that after CR2HDR the result is brighter, but the photos are more or less similar for comparison.
In the case of MLVApp - Camera RAW did not recognize on which camera and lens the photo was taken. The weight of the photos are almost the same.




For speed I better send pictures of my timelapse to CR2HDR.

But I cared about the video. After the inclusion of the Dual ISO video in MLVApp - everything becomes dark and I increase the exposure, after which a lot of colored noise comes out.





(I had a question: is it possible to shoot in Crop_Mode V2 - Preset "Centered x5 zoom" with fps override module? Received videos were not with x5 zoom.)

I decided to shoot more in different variations and getting a new result - made conclusions:
I think it is still right to include Dual ISO in MLVApp, and then export the video to DNG and continue processing in Lightroom or Photoshop (I thought it would be better to set up Clarity and Sharpen in MLVApp before exporting the video to the photos, but somehow the result with these manipulations is not saved and in Camera Raw I re-twist the corresponding settings).
As a result, my Camera Raw does not appear color noise on the same elevated levels of exposure as MLVApp, although the information CR2 photos have more and they weigh 30 with something megabyte, and the video saved in dng - 5 with something megabyte. Therefore, I believe that with CR2 photos more possibilities than with video for post-processing.
By the way for the source video I will attach my Cat, where there were bright rays of the sun and medium light corridor. I think the detail could have gone better, but I don't know how to achieve this result through MLVApp, and these shots themselves came out spontaneously (sharpness is more on noise than on the details of the picture itself).
https://vimeo.com/730993729
(password: dualiso)
If you have ideas - you can sit with the sources video: https://mega.nz/folder/j0QVlTgb#DI90sloYobh1R3oiQSF8ig

[without examples]

That's not an enough report, show examples, process the same picture in both MLVApp and CR2HDR, adjust the exposure so the two images match, then post the results.
Also, share the original not processed files.

MLVApp Dual ISO works fine here.
We will never know without examples and direct comparison which will show why MLVApp is *faulty* and why CR2HDR is *correct*.

Dual ISO algorithm isn't designed for video processing in first place, I can have flickering issues also with CR2HDR.


During my experiments, there are many types of flickering issues, one of them is about white level output, I think a1ex did add a function in CR2HDR (you need to add a command for it to make it work) for making white level constant, and this fixes one of flickering issue. I think this one MLVApp doesn't have it.

I will make real tests and double check in future, and start a thread for Dual ISO flickering problems in general.
If someone can show (real examples) how cr2hdr performs better than MLVApp, go ahead .

I hear what you're saying.
Then in the next few days I'll send examples for comparison.
Personally, I believe that the competent work of Dual ISO in MLVApp depends on the model of the camera(I use 650d), otherwise for some reason, someone is working with quality, someone does not have)
By the way, what function did you say that takes the flicker out of the CR2HDR program ?

Sorry. DualISO is known not to work great in MLVApp and so is not supported. Use other tools for that.

It will work better in the next updates, right?
And for MLV Dual ISO what other tools are there? I only know the good CR2HDR.

Hello .
I work with the Dual ISO module. Shot the sunset on photos and videos. When I process photos in MLVApp, I get a dark picture when I turn on the Dual ISO program and increase the exposure, after which there is a lot of noise in the shadows.Sad outcome(
When I do this in the program CR2HDR - photos get perfect and there is no problem with noise. It is a pity not to process it accordingly mlv.
Maybe I'm doing something wrong in MLVApp? Is there some instruction? In MLVApp, the Dual ISO checkmark is just enabled, right?

[Mark 3 model]

Turning on RAW video and Silent picture will produce memory conflicts, that's why it crashes, especially with "Burst" mode.
Also, Intervalometer seems broken when using Silent picture in some/all cases? e.g. when using Full-Res LiveView. the counter will be broken.

Intervalometer behaves stably when silent picture in burst.

Could you give more details?
I recorded a clip with "RAW video (MLV)" with Dual ISO on, and MLVApp recognizes both ISOs.

It's working.
I used the following combination for photos with Dual ISO: video mode, Raw Video (MLV), Dual ISO and Intervalometer.
For photo manifestation program cr2hdr, after which everything is easily configured in Photoshop.
The photo gets dark after cr2hdr and when the exposure is raised - there is a noise, even if not
minor. In mlvapp is much MORE. (I think now I can take photos).
But this is not surprising, because expensive cameras like mark 3 are better at shooting at higher ISO values than 650 and 700 cameras.
Then out I do everything correctly. Correct if I made a mistake (but how to process video with dual iso
in mlvapp - I don't know when a lot of noise comes out, unlike the manifestation in cr2hdr)

I think my main mistake was that I looked at the results with the included modules: Dual ISO + Intervalometer + Silent Picture(Burst MLV) + Raw Video + Crop v1 or v2(Full-Res 1:1) on the Mark 3 model. Unfortunately 650-700d is not yet very stable.
I was concerned earlier:
Whether I can shoot with a 14-bit(silent picture) intervalometer and a Dual ISO (instead of a bracketing) to minimally wear the shutter at the camera.
That's why I was interested in using so many modules.