Author Topic: MLV App 1.14 - All in one MLV Video Post Processing App [Windows, Mac and Linux]  (Read 1032167 times)

bouncyball

  • Contributor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 849
I guess we should release 1.14.1 :)

ilia3101

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 980
Wait. A few more days and we could make it 1.15, I wanna make processing more float.

bouncyball

  • Contributor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 849
I wanna make processing more float.
This sweetest sentence pleasing my eyes :D

Danne

  • Developer
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7362
This sweetest sentence pleasing my eyes :D
Roflmao 😂

Icaab

  • New to the forum
  • *
  • Posts: 39
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?

masc

  • Contributor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2003
Sorry. DualISO is known not to work great in MLVApp and so is not supported. Use other tools for that.
5D3.113 | EOSM.202

Skinny

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 197
Is there a way to somehow export dng sequence and then use cr2hdr to process it, then import the sequence in MLV App back again?

Icaab

  • New to the forum
  • *
  • Posts: 39
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.

masc

  • Contributor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2003
It will work better in the next updates, right? ::)
Nope. Nobody is working on that and it is very complex. In the past months we were talking about completely removing it, because it is known to not work 100%.

And for MLV Dual ISO what other tools are there? I only know the good CR2HDR.
Exactly this.
5D3.113 | EOSM.202

ilia3101

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 980
Wait, we’re considering removing dual ISO? What are the reasons for that?

I believe I can fix highlight reconstruction, and the only other issue I know of is that it breaks with vertical stripes. Why remove it?

masc

  • Contributor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2003
The implementation in MLVApp is faulty. The one in CR2HDR (if I remember right) is correct. The code isn't changeable in an easy way. There were many issue reports about flickering etc. with MLVApp dualiso implementation.
5D3.113 | EOSM.202

theBilalFakhouri

  • UHS-I
  • Developer
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 996
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.

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.

The implementation in MLVApp is faulty. The one in CR2HDR (if I remember right) is correct.

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*.

There were many issue reports about flickering etc.

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 :) .

masc

  • Contributor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2003
We will never know without examples and direct comparison which will show why MLVApp is *faulty* and why CR2HDR is *correct*.

All is here in this thread. The problem is just to find it in over 200 pages...
5D3.113 | EOSM.202

Icaab

  • New to the forum
  • *
  • Posts: 39
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 ?

masc

  • Contributor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2003
The difference is not just a function. The versions are so different, that you can't easily take code from the one implementation to the other.
5D3.113 | EOSM.202

theBilalFakhouri

  • UHS-I
  • Developer
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 996
All is here in this thread. The problem is just to find it in over 200 pages...

Okay, I will collect soon all replies here which talk about Dual ISO, and put in one place. I am interested in seeing some examples.

Icaab

  • New to the forum
  • *
  • Posts: 39
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.

Screenshot-1279" border="0
Screenshot-1277" border="0
Screenshot-1278" border="0

(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).
(password: dualiso)
If you have ideas - you can sit with the sources video: https://mega.nz/folder/j0QVlTgb#DI90sloYobh1R3oiQSF8ig

theBilalFakhouri

  • UHS-I
  • Developer
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 996
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.

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:
MLVApp" border="0 CR2HDR" border="0

-IMG_8016:
Processed with MLVApp Dual ISO algorithm:                                                                                  Processed with CR2HDR Dual ISO algorithm:
IMG-8016-MLVApp" border="0 IMG-8016-CR2-HDR" border="0

-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" border="0 Dual-ISO-100-1600" border="0

-ISO 100 (No Dual-ISO) Exposure +1, Shadows +50:                                                                       -Processed Dual-ISO 100/1600 Exposure +1, Shadows +50:
ISO-100-Edited" border="0 Dual-ISO-100-1600-Edited" border="0

-Exposure +4:

-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 :P)
I am still looking for reported issues in this thread, will make a reply if I found one.

Danne

  • Developer
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7362
This clip https://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=20025.msg227661#msg227661 is one of several that will yield different output with mlvfs(mlv app) code vs a1ex cr2hdr and his latest code changes to cr2hdr, which was made very long ago must be said. Bouncyball added bit changes but the overall code is not working proper with output all the time. It could be subtle differences and it could also be very big issues. You never know really.
Personally I ditched this in favor of focusing on other stuff but the discussion comes back from time to time :).

I think you could reproduce the issue by simply recording some edge cases to try and produce an issue or try and find some old test file.

Edit: Seems the file is still downloadable :). Even a shortened test file:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GCa_Y3dczpVH2zjoDkiQJnK4D1xH4XwG/view

Regarding flicker it´s easily fixed with white level tag corrected with exiv2 or exiftool. But, if still flickers it indicates something else is not robust in code.

EDIT:
Here´s a unprocessed dng:
https://bitbucket.org/Dannephoto/mlv_app_compiler-git/downloads/Short_000001.dng

If you can get looking like this from mlv app I would be very interested how you get that result:
https://bitbucket.org/Dannephoto/mlv_app_compiler-git/downloads/cr2hdr_Short_000001.DNG

Icaab

  • New to the forum
  • *
  • Posts: 39
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:
MLVApp" border="0 CR2HDR" border="0

-IMG_8016:
Processed with MLVApp Dual ISO algorithm:                                                                                  Processed with CR2HDR Dual ISO algorithm:
IMG-8016-MLVApp" border="0 IMG-8016-CR2-HDR" border="0

-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" border="0 Dual-ISO-100-1600" border="0

-ISO 100 (No Dual-ISO) Exposure +1, Shadows +50:                                                                       -Processed Dual-ISO 100/1600 Exposure +1, Shadows +50:
ISO-100-Edited" border="0 Dual-ISO-100-1600-Edited" border="0

-Exposure +4:

-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 :P)
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 :D.
I think I have no questions from the others. Only if this one:
Quote
(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!

theBilalFakhouri

  • UHS-I
  • Developer
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 996
@Icaab

Please stop quoting the whole reply, there is no point to do that.

(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.)

Off-topic here, please consider asking in this thread.
Anyway, x5 here refer to Canon preview, if you are looking for x5 crop factor for the RAW data, you need to reduce resolution from RAW video submenu, in your case to 1664x936 (while using 1:1 preset).

Crop mode V2 won't make any difference.

theBilalFakhouri

  • UHS-I
  • Developer
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 996
This clip https://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=20025.msg227661#msg227661 is one of several that will yield different output with mlvfs(mlv app) code vs a1ex cr2hdr and his latest code changes to cr2hdr, which was made very long ago must be said. Bouncyball added bit changes but the overall code is not working proper with output all the time. It could be subtle differences and it could also be very big issues. You never know really.
...

Thanks Danne, finally there is a real issue (no I am not happy for that, I hate issues :P).
I never touched Dual ISO processing code, so we need to find the commit in cr2hdr which fixed the issue, and we need to try to implement it in proper way . .

It might be there other needed tweaks in some areas, who knows.

I will try digging into it, for now if someone encounter this issue, please use cr2hdr :D . . but that doesn't mean MLVApp Dual ISO processing is completely bad, it worked for me and never had the mentioned issue.

Danne

  • Developer
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7362
For occasional dualiso sequences it works but I tried it a little more back then and issues came randomly. Too bad actually since crhdr is quite useful so refining it in Mlv app would be very nice. I looked at the code but hey, couldn't understand half of it.

ML700D

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 150
from my experience, dual iso in mlvapp is good for close object with no problem.. but for far object eg. trees or fence that has narrow structure will show red, green, blue pixels scattered around the edge.. sometimes it can be fixed by CA desaturate.

btw.. thanks for mlvapp new update.
EOS 700D

masc

  • Contributor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2003
Wait. A few more days and we could make it 1.15, I wanna make processing more float.
Hej Ilia... that sounds so interesting. What about your progress?

@all: did someone test the latest commits? I would like to know it working for new releases...
5D3.113 | EOSM.202