2.5K ML RAW Video on 5D3 (3:1)

Started by Budders, May 13, 2014, 10:57:28 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Budders

So having just recently jumped onboard the Magic Lantern bandwagon, and absolutely loving it so far, I've been shooting some test footage to experiment what my camera is capable of and finding a good post processing workflow. I'm thinking that the potential offered by the 3X Digital Zoom, turning my 70-200 virtually into a 210-600 is truly awesome, and the ability to obtain higher resolutions at the cost of vertical resolution is something interesting to play with as well.

Anyways, here's a video sample I shot off of my balcony earlier today at 2560x854 using the 3X digital zoom on my 70-200mm f4L @70mm. I'm using a Lexar 64GB 1066x card, and had memory hack and card spanning on. The image hasn't been tweaked at all, just brought straight through ACR into After Effects and rendered out with media encoder and uploaded.


michaelr_

Hello, this is also my first post on this forum.
The quality in 2,5k is quite stunning. I tend to use Magic lantern only in Crop mode because I love landscapes and cities, and there is almost no aliasing in this mode (because no pixel drop), and the sharpness is amazing. (actually quite close to 4k if it's sharpened with a good smooth and preserving algorithm).

There are a lot of trade-off using this crop mode since you have to choose either the correct framing (with a very slow refresh rate during recording at 1fps...so no focus change possibility, no run & gun), either the x5 Canon framing with makes composition very difficult (one would tend to leave to much space on the top, or center to much the subject in this mode). But the results are so beautiful that it worths the hassle.

One question though, did you achieve this 15 sec clip with by using only small hacks turned on or where the memory hacks also activated.

-With small hacks activated + preview « Auto » I manage to get 10 seconds of shooting at 2560x1090 (2:35:1)
-With small hacks activated + preview « Hacked »  I manage to get 17 seconds.
-With small hacks activated + preview « Hacked » + Memory hacks activated  I manage to get 28 seconds (I don't like this mode because there is a 3 seconds latency when I press record).

I use 2 type of CF that have the same stats:  Lexar 60 pro x1000 and Hoodmann 64 steel x1000 and I use a nightly build from last week.

I use 113 firmware with .raw module (mlv gives me half time recording for now.)
I wonder if going with the new firmware 123 would do any improvements?

When I switch to 2700 pixels at 2:35:1 I only get 3 seconds with all the hacks activated. Does anybody gets any time improvements with 128g cards?

Oh, a big thanks to all the Magic Lantern team for this extraordinary job they are doing!


ps: why do you say « to obtain higher resolutions at the cost of vertical resolution »? I thought in this mode there was no loss...

Walter Schulz

Quote from: michaelr_ on May 13, 2014, 01:16:03 PM
ps: why do you say « to obtain higher resolutions at the cost of vertical resolution »? I thought in this mode there was no loss...

In 2560x854 you have less vertical resolution (854 pixel) than in 1920x1080 (1080p).

You might want to explain what "no loss" means to you because I don't know any method of optical recording without loss: Smell, temperature, wind chill, sound and of course colour and resolution. To name a few.

michaelr_

Hello Walter
what I mean by "no loss" is that  in X3 crop mode there no  downsizing algo that creates a mess in the pixels, like there is in non-crop-mode.
I really prefer the rendering of the crop mode image (for landscapes and city scapes) than the non-crop-mode, that's why I go with the hassle of using this mode. It's much cleaner, and the noise is very natural.

As far as size ratio I use  2560x1090... so I guess no vertical resolution loss here either.

...and of course when you say that there is always a loss in optical recording, one could argue that it is the opposite: the lens enhances the beauty of reality, isn'it? We where just not speaking about the same "loss" I think, or maybe my english is not good enough.

Budders

In terms of a loss, I was meant from a regular 1080P height resolution or at the compromise of a standard aspect ratio.