MLV App 1.14 - All in one MLV Video Post Processing App [Windows, Mac and Linux]

[bouncyball]

@Ilia3101

Yay!!!

[Danne]

I might finish WhiteBalance re implementation today.

Most welcome and deeply appreciated.

[theBilalFakhouri]

Nice work @Ilia3101!

I saw today enhanced pull request for RawTherapee for Shadows/Highlight module it might maybe very useful for enhancing Shadows and Highlight in MLVApp too, see:

Shadows/Highlights off


Shadows/Highlights old (It have similar looking when using the Highlight/Shadows sliders in MLVApp)


Shadows/Highlights new


Here the link of pull request:
https://github.com/Beep6581/RawTherapee/pull/4849

[bouncyball]

@theBilalFakhouri

For my taste:
1st picture still looks more natural and pleasing.
2nd one very HDRish!
3rd a bit HDRish with good shadows but needs more contrast

[theBilalFakhouri]

@bouncyball

You are right, the photos aren't mine it's only for showing the new and old shadows and highlights. There is a lot of enhancement it can be used for different cases without the High contrast edges and etc.. . See more examples in the pull request link there is a demo video also.

Here is a example from me using MLVApp:

Normal Dual ISO:


Pushed 2.5 Stops:


Highlights recovery:


Some shadows also:


Now same things but with Adobe:


Don't look at the colors

MLVApp BW


Adobe BW


Look at the high contrast in the edges it doesn't look natural (not good) and look at Adobe it's more smoother and natural, Of course I am not asking for Adobe quality,, But it seems now RawTherapee has enhanced these Highlights and Shadows recovery and it looks more closer to Adobe and natural also (Sorry for saying natural too much ).

[ilia3101]

For filters like shadows/highlights you need the source image and a blur image. For the blur image you can literally just blur it, which leads to ugly edges, or you can do some really fancy filter that preserves edges. Most of the fancy filters are slow. Here's a good one: http://www.cse.cuhk.edu.hk/~leojia/projects/L0smoothing/ - this would probably give Adobe like results.

[masc]

@theBilalFakhouri: you'll get better results, if you set Exposure to the negative and Lighten to the positive. If that is not enough, push Contrast to the negative too. Edges will be way better! Shadows and Highlights should be used as last resort, then results get better.

[bouncyball]

Shadows and Highlights should be used as last resort, then results get better.

Right! In mlv app Dark/Light Strength/Range is so powerful that I barely touch highlights and shadows at all. BTW highlights alter a bit broader range than it should. Shadows are fine.

[theBilalFakhouri]

@theBilalFakhouri: you'll get better results, if you set Exposure to the negative and Lighten to the positive. If that is not enough, push Contrast to the negative too. Edges will be way better! Shadows and Highlights should be used as last resort, then results get better.

Yes now it's seems better:


But also it have a different look than Shadows/Highlights method but I think now it's more *natural* to my eye like in the real world. It is good to have two nice options

[masc]

Both dock areas are now resizeable - if you can compiled it, especially Windows Users: please test!

(Screenshot at 2560x1440 at 150% scaling)

And there is now also a matrix icon mode in session list:

Hope you like it

[theBilalFakhouri]

In Windows it's working nicely! Thanks for that!

[Danne]

Question. Could exposure tab go further towards brightness? I set whitelevel to around 6000 on this mlv file and it seems dualiso exposure could go further. Maybe the exposure slider could be expanded when dualiso is set to on?
MLV file:
https://bitbucket.org/Dannephoto/magic-lantern/downloads/short_M18-1960.MLV

Sorry about the crappy clip. Was using nd filter of real cheap quality.

[theBilalFakhouri]

Is this doable?

...Now 1x3 files is cleaned perfectly even with Dual ISO files. The only small problem we have already knew it is the "height" value in "raw_info" or should I say the offsets. Using mlv_dump -v in 1736x2214 MLV file: (EDIT: of course the resolution was dropped in crop_rec not in mlv_lite, if it was from mlv_lite it will be no offsets)

Code: [Select]

Block: RAWI
...
    Res:  1736x2214
    raw_info:
 ...
      height           2244
      width            1808
By changing the 1x3 focus map name from 80000326_1808x3508.fpm to 80000326_1808x2244.fpm now the focus pixels will be cleaned nicely in 1736x2214 files. I have tried it in MLVApp by dropping the focus pixels map in the MLVApp.exe directory.

I think we should a trick for that like using the full focus pixels map (The original one) and makes MLVApp checking the height in raw_info and make a calculation for the offsets depending on MLV files info --> Hello @masc @bouncyball @Ilia3101 is this possible ?

Same thing with 1x1 Binning but I think this will affect the "width" value too.

Here are MLV files in 1736x2214 Normal and with Dual ISO: Download (The internet speed is bad, will upload ASAP Edit: Uploaded).
...

[masc]

Question. Could exposure tab go further towards brightness? I set whitelevel to around 6000 on this mlv file and it seems dualiso exposure could go further. Maybe the exposure slider could be expanded when dualiso is set to on?

No problem in principle. Try it out:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/4mpcad6qd9l3lo9/MainWindow.ui?dl=0
You just need to change the minimum and maximum value of the exposure slider (EV * 100).
The problem is, the precision becomes very bad, especially around 0EV it feels not good...

Edit: what is the correct white level? For more than ~4400 AMaZE, LMMSE and IGV do strange things in the light of your lamp...


@theBilalFakhouri: Bouncyball should be able to answer this question - I have no idea about that correction part...

[Danne]

I'll try to find time to test @masc.
I think white level should be around 3000 but I tried getting some extra range. Wishful thinking 

[bouncyball]

I think we should a trick for that like using the full focus pixels map (The original one) and makes MLVApp checking the height in raw_info and make a calculation for the offsets depending on MLV files info --> Hello @masc @bouncyball @Ilia3101 is this possible ?

How it works now:
Code checks camera model ID in IDNT block header, from "RAWI.raw_info" struct it gets raw buffer height/width, gets bining/skipping values from RAWC block header and crop/pan values from current VIDF block header. All this information is sufficient to pick the right focus pixel pattern type and generate map on the fly in memory (no .fpm map file needed).

If ".fpm" maps are found in the mlvapp dir then some parts of procedure explained above skipped and after FPM name parsing, the resolution checked against MLV raw buffer resolution (also if FPM has a header it accounted) and appropriate map is loaded.

Now... everything is possible but I'm waiting for @dfort to update his focus pixel generating bash script. After that I'm gonna port it to mlvapp/mlv_dump.

regards
bb

[theBilalFakhouri]

@bouncyball

Wow great thing here I didn't know some of these stuff.Thanks for explaining!

[bouncyball]

Wow great thing here I didn't know some of these stuff.Thanks for explaining!

U R Welcome

[Lars Steenhoff]

I was using the new build with the gallery view on the left.
It's a great feature to have.  Now I was thinking about space and it seems that for my setup and monitor I would love to have the gallery view on the bottom of the app.
Would this be something possible without too much work?

As another option, not removing the old one

Thanks








It's a bit like in Lightroom

[masc]

Not exactly the same, but I could offer this with only a few lines of code:

[Lars Steenhoff]

Wow super!  that would be really useful!

 

[whitelight]

Not exactly the same, but I could offer this with only a few lines of code:

Looks really great to me. Thanks

[masc]

Yay... got also this:

So we see more sliders from edit area.

[Lars Steenhoff]

Even better!

[masc]

You can check out and compile... it is on github repo.