Author Topic: Canon 7D Mark II (Read 436861 times)

Walter Schulz · « **Reply #200 on:** February 25, 2016, 08:10:23 AM »

If there is no ML for a cam I suggest to act like there will be no ML for this cam ever.

"I have said it thrice"

djordje.janjic29 · « **Reply #201 on:** February 25, 2016, 08:25:11 AM »

@Walther Schulz
Nobody wants from you anything, ok, why are you so opposed and pessimistic?

josepvm · « **Reply #202 on:** February 25, 2016, 09:51:19 AM »

Walter is not pessimistic, he knows what is talking about, and he is patient enough to answer to the same questions again and again.

Porting Magic Lantern is a very difficult and time consuming task, that needs a lot of reverse engineering and hundreds of hours of work by a highly skilled programmer. Nikfreak could tell you about it, it has done the most recent ports, for 70D and 100D.

But new Canon cameras need a lot more extra work: they use a different version of ARM code, so ML needs to be rewritten for them, and also most of the tools the developers have written during last years to do reverse engineering on Canon cameras need to be rewritten as well. And no developer here has started this huge task, and they say they have no time and interest to do it.

janjan · « **Reply #203 on:** February 25, 2016, 10:15:51 AM »

I agree, programming a camera would take a lot of effort and reverse engineering makes it even harder.

Still, if no one it pumping new blood (Canon models) to the system, this great project will eventually die, it that not so?
After all, the older models will not be here forever.

Walter Schulz · « **Reply #204 on:** February 25, 2016, 10:49:10 AM »

Please try to understand "And no developer here has started this huge task, and they say they have no time and interest to do it."

josepvm · « **Reply #205 on:** February 25, 2016, 11:04:21 AM »

5D Mark III, 6D, 70D, 100D, are still current Canon models, and they are all supported by ML. And 700D, 60D and the original EOS M probably are still in production, and are also supported by ML. So if you need ML you have plenty of choices.

And to get ML ported to the newer Digic 6 cameras (a huge task, as I said), probably the 7D Mk II will not be the best candidate: it's expensive to do bleeding edge experiments with it, and his dual digic processor makes the programming a lot more difficult. The only advantage it has over other Digic 6 DSLRs is that there is a firmware update for it already distributed by Canon, and this makes ML development easier.

janjan · « **Reply #206 on:** February 25, 2016, 11:23:15 AM »

Ok,
Is there anyone working on developing ML for ANY new camera today or no one?

josepvm · « **Reply #207 on:** February 25, 2016, 11:29:31 AM »

No, as far as I know, for any Digic 6 camera. Nikfreak's ports for 70D and 100D are the most recent efforts to expand ML support for new models. Some initial work has been done on 1200D, also, but then discontinued. But nothing for Digic 6 cameras, as I said, this is way more difficult.

djordje.janjic29 · « **Reply #208 on:** February 25, 2016, 01:49:04 PM »

He is pessimistic and if he already have this forum, then answer the questions or let it some one else do it for him instead. On the other hand, no one asked him anything personally, so he have no obligation to answer, ok.
If people donate, then stop whining, it's hard work, people pay, you do, there's no much philosophy in it.
And of course, existing models will not be here forever and yes if we continue to think like this, then this project has doomed.

Infraspace · « **Reply #209 on:** February 25, 2016, 02:24:30 PM »

To be realistic we wont get ML for 7D2 mark II in a really fucking long time. If im not mistaken the developers will eventually have to write code for the Digic 6 chips anyway to keep ML going. And maybe then the 7D2 can get ML too

josepvm · « **Reply #210 on:** February 25, 2016, 02:30:03 PM »

Quote from: djordje.janjic29 on February 25, 2016, 01:49:04 PM

If people donate, then stop whining, it's hard work, people pay, you do, there's no much philosophy in it.

You are wrong, what you are describing is one possible philosophy, the commercial way. But there is another philosophy, completely different: the open source, community driven projects, based on volunteer effort. The developers here, who have created ML, prefer the second model. And they are afraid that hiring a particular developer to improve ML with a paid job will negatively affect the whole community based project.

So please, do not insist in taking the commercial way, asking for donations, etc. This has been discussed many times, and the answer has always been "no".

Walter Schulz · « **Reply #211 on:** February 25, 2016, 02:48:06 PM »

More than that: ML dev team has declared to drop out if devs were paid.
Dmilligan posted this one and it pretty much contains all: http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=16642.msg162215#msg162215
So: Make ML commercial -> Kill ML as you know it.

Infraspace · « **Reply #212 on:** February 25, 2016, 09:55:43 PM »

I dont think a commercialized ML would be a good plan. As soon as you start capitalizing on a project like this things may escalate. The last thing you want during a shoot is for your camera to start playing an ad

haha.
Edit: English

Brian_Scott_A · « **Reply #213 on:** March 01, 2016, 11:52:18 AM »

Hey everyone,

I'm sure many many people would love to help the team to create the ML for canon EOS 7D mark II.
Maybe Need donation, quick starter, anythings we can help we would do. It will help a lot of people to have ML on this camera and even if it would cost some things to have it, people would buy it!
I'm not good into create program like ML but i would help in the way which I can help!

Cheers from Switzerland

Walter Schulz · « **Reply #214 on:** March 01, 2016, 11:54:04 AM »

Sorry, but haven't you read the "discussion" we had on this very page?

Brian_Scott_A · « **Reply #215 on:** March 01, 2016, 01:32:59 PM »

Yes why

Walter Schulz · « **Reply #216 on:** March 01, 2016, 02:02:28 PM »

Because it was pointed out that by paying someone to do the work devs will drop out and project will die.

janjan · « **Reply #217 on:** March 01, 2016, 02:49:07 PM »

However, as pointed out by you, no ML is available for any of the new camera models with the new processor.
This will also kill the project eventually.

Infraspace · « **Reply #218 on:** March 01, 2016, 02:53:52 PM »

Quote from: janjan on March 01, 2016, 02:49:07 PM

However, as pointed out by you, no ML is available for any of the new camera models with the new processor.
This will also will kill the project eventually.

I strongly agree with that. People will eventually move on to cameras that you guys dont support and by the time you catch up no one will remember to download ML. Personally I am moving on to a different system once i can afford it.

Walter Schulz · « **Reply #219 on:** March 01, 2016, 04:34:44 PM »

If collecting ways to kill the project helps keeping the project alive: Keep em coming.

Okay, now seriously: If there are any ideas solving the problem and not already excluded (as listed above), be my guest.

Infraspace · « **Reply #220 on:** March 01, 2016, 07:36:25 PM »

I may be biased. But honestly I do feel like you could start phasing out some of the older cameras. I dont think too many people uses a 50D anymore, and if they do and ML is super important to them they can get a 70D realtively cheap when the 80D comes out. If not they can continue using a functioning build of ML.

Walter Schulz · « **Reply #221 on:** March 01, 2016, 07:58:01 PM »

Okay, let me take this in order (the one I have in mind, of course).
You are taking it for granted that dropping older cams from support will set free resources and those resources will be relocated to port newer cams.
But that is - at time of writing - just a premise and I want facts before going deeper. And pointing out a specific cam may be not the best start. (For example you have to discuss the fact 70D makes a lousy replacement for 50D for RAW movie).

To do:
First: Ask dev team if dropping older cams will in fact help reducing workload by a significant number.
Second: Will dev team take it into consideration to drop support for older cams?
Third: If so, which candidates are there?

Side effects to consider? Sure. If you get a maintainer for a specific cam pissed because it is dropped he may be not in the mood taking part in porting a newer one. And there may be others. Devs will more likely (IMO) going to drop a cam from support if it is unmaintained/blindly maintained. -> No maintainer -> Nobody there taking up the load.

josepvm · « **Reply #222 on:** March 01, 2016, 08:07:11 PM »

Quote from: Infraspace on March 01, 2016, 07:36:25 PM

I may be biased. But honestly I do feel like you could start phasing out some of the older cameras. I dont think too many people uses a 50D anymore, and if they do and ML is super important to them they can get a 70D realtively cheap when the 80D comes out. If not they can continue using a functioning build of ML.

Bad example.
I use a 50D with ML. This cam records Full HD 1920x1080 at 23 FPS continuous. The 70D can't do that, because the SD interface is limited to 41 MB/S. And several ML functions for stills that work perfectly on 50D do not work on 70D (focus stacking, etc.)

And keeping ML running on older cameras is not as hard as porting it to new models, the initial effort to get it working needs much higher developing skills and a lot of time. And porting ML to Digic 6 cameras needs a much harder work, as already explained.

Posting hundreds of complains saying "Why there is no ML for my cam?" in this forum do not help to get to this job done automatically. We need more people coding, testing and debugging, no more people complaining.

I may be biased also, but biased to have fun experimenting with inexpensive second-hand cameras. But I think that if someone wants more features for the latest Canon cameras, he should ask Canon. The Canon guys can access ML code, it is public, and they could implement ML's features in their cams easily if they want. It's very difficult for a reverse engineered and volunteer based project to catch up with latest commercial products, that land in the market at such fast rate.

cmccullum · « **Reply #223 on:** March 01, 2016, 08:08:16 PM »

I've gotta chime in here because this thread keeps popping up and bugging me haha

The devs said they aren't going to do it, and it doesn't seem like anyone is going to talk them into it so that's that.

If it's really that important to those of you who want ML on the newer cams learn how to develop it yourself then you can be on the dev side and maintain builds and whatever else goes into that.
If you aren't willing to do that, then it isn't THAT important to you.
ML is free and open source and because of the features made possible with it, I know I personally have saved a decent amount of money.

If you're asking for more, you've got to be taking what's already been given for granted. If that's not the case, and you "really care about the future of ML" then, like I said before, do something about it yourself.

Infraspace · « **Reply #224 on:** March 01, 2016, 09:11:18 PM »

Quote from: josepvm on March 01, 2016, 08:07:11 PM

Bad example.
I use a 50D with ML. This cam records Full HD 1920x1080 at 23 FPS continuous. The 70D can't do that, because the SD interface is limited to 41 MB/S.

The 70D records full HD without ML? If you by continuous mean more than 4GB files thats not really an issue as it probably splits the file into multiple ones? At least my 7D2 does that.

Quote from: cmccullum on March 01, 2016, 08:08:16 PM

If that's not the case, and you "really care about the future of ML" then, like I said before, do something about it yourself.

I would if I could. But I simply cant invest the time to learn coding. And i know we cant the demand that the devs spend their time on the ML project either, so I do understand if they do not have the time needed. But if they just made a "Final" stable build for some of the older cameras and then moved on to the newer ones I think that would be the best solution over time.

News:

Author Topic: Canon 7D Mark II (Read 436861 times)