Author Topic: MLV App 1.11 - All in one MLV Video Post Processing App [Windows, Mac and Linux]  (Read 503518 times)

names_are_hard

  • Contributor
  • Senior
  • *****
  • Posts: 294
  • 200D idiot
I'm not surprised that phones are "fast", they're amazing for what they can do.  But they're optimised for efficiency not speed and they're not anywhere near as fast as desktop chips.  Desktop can do easily 10x a phone, without considering GPU (100x or more vs phone),and it can sustain that for hours, a phone will have to thermal throttle relatively quickly (1 minute?).  And that's the last I'll say about it in this thread as it's a massive derail.  Happy to benchmark / discuss etc in a separate thread!

ilia3101

  • Moderators
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 924
Id love to have some app on pxel that has tonemapping exactly like You did it in MLVApp.When i shoot RAW on pixel i always conver in MLVApp because of tonemapping.
Is there a new version in repo with some color fixes for cyan and magenta ?
Not yet.

I'm not surprised that phones are "fast", they're amazing for what they can do.  But they're optimised for efficiency not speed and they're not anywhere near as fast as desktop chips.  Desktop can do easily 10x a phone, without considering GPU (100x or more vs phone),and it can sustain that for hours, a phone will have to thermal throttle relatively quickly (1 minute?).  And that's the last I'll say about it in this thread as it's a massive derail.  Happy to benchmark / discuss etc in a separate thread!
Yes, if we ran MLV App's processing on a phone it would be realllly slow. But I'm sure it would be possible to write a processing engine that runs fast on a phone. And not like MLV App runs fast on Intels anyway so who cares :D

Also @Luther your examples might be my favourite, they show the problem in context. I don't need any more footage now. Thanks everyone. I have loads now.

gambler

  • New to the forum
  • *
  • Posts: 2
Omg I lovve you! Great samplels plus I really wanted an ACR comparison. Great to see where we are both at. Soon MLV App will be destroying camera raw in this comparison.

Hello! do you mean about this?

I want to ask about, am I do something wrong? This is light from RGB LED Strip.  Sorry for my english...


masc

  • Contributor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1722
Hello! do you mean about this?

I want to ask about, am I do something wrong? This is light from RGB LED Strip.  Sorry for my english...
HSL elements make such artifacts even worse (because of further color transformations).
5D3.113 | EOSM.202

ilia3101

  • Moderators
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 924
Hello! do you mean about this?

I want to ask about, am I do something wrong? This is light from RGB LED Strip.  Sorry for my english...



Could you send the raw file? I want to see how it looks without those Hue adjustments...

And does anyone know why adobe looks so much cleaner in terms of noise sometimes? It's frustrating.

2blackbar

  • Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 431
IMO its contrast and gamma in tonemapped algo that makes dark parts brighter and reveals the noise, default rec.709 from dngs when i preview dng files inside MLV containers looks darker in shadows and more contrasty but i dont like it , i prefere tonemapped and when theres noise i just darken shadows in MLVApp.Also rec.709 Looks very similar to tonemapped, im not sure if its typical rec.709.
We can do comparisons with frames opened in something like adobe raw and mlvapp to see if its cleaner because dark areas are... darker and hide noise better.
MLVApp:

UFRaw:

Same frame, no adjusting , just opened.

Luther

  • Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 317
And does anyone know why adobe looks so much cleaner in terms of noise sometimes? It's frustrating.
I get the opposite effect. Can you post an example? AdobeRGB gives chroma noise in saturated cyan/blue for me. The three usable gamuts on MLVApp for me are sRGB, LogC and AP1.

gambler

  • New to the forum
  • *
  • Posts: 2
Could you send the raw file? I want to see how it looks without those Hue adjustments...

And does anyone know why adobe looks so much cleaner in terms of noise sometimes? It's frustrating.

sure, here is https://fex.net/ru/s/tlxfbsy
previous file is very big to send, I shot new one shorter

togg

  • Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
the expansion of the whole preset section is very good. Nice to see tonemapping, gamut, and (display?) gamma all separeted like this.

So the reinhrd function is something like this ? http://filmicworlds.com/blog/filmic-tonemapping-operators/ Can someone recap the other operations than the app is doing for the preview? I remember something like +2 exposure? Kind of what I had manage to match in Resolve.

togg

  • Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
Sooo!

I came back to this. By following a couple of juan melara tutorial on youtubes and using is film lut I changed my post production process again!

No more 3d export lut in the preferences. I've moved into the color transform nodes.

I made 3 powergrades at the moment, the general idea is to put your wb in the raw panel, bmd film, +2 exposure (not needed if you expose correctly MAYBE) then first node a color transform to bmd to alexa log c just because it's more cool, then your corrections node, then another color transform where you bring it into rec709, apply the tonemapping options there, and then if you want add SOME of the nodes (not the contrast curve one) of the kodak poower grade that melare recreated.

One of the 3 is only the color transform and some clean contrast, another the color transform and some lifted contrast, a third the color transform and the extra kodak nodes that make film saturation and stuff.

Try them out!

https://www.mediafire.com/file/ojcqpc76pax6brz/MLV_dngs_color_transform_power_grades_for_davinci_resolve.zip/file

ilia3101

  • Moderators
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 924
sure, here is https://fex.net/ru/s/tlxfbsy
previous file is very big to send, I shot new one shorter

Thank you. You can also shorten clips in MLV App.

ilia3101

  • Moderators
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 924
Improvement...


Nicer highlights than Adobe...

ilia3101

  • Moderators
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 924
I get the opposite effect. Can you post an example? AdobeRGB gives chroma noise in saturated cyan/blue for me. The three usable gamuts on MLVApp for me are sRGB, LogC and AP1.

No I meant does anyone know why Adobe image processing looks so much cleaner, it just shows nice grain instead of noise, while MLV App and other raw converters show blotchy colour ugliness.

masc

  • Contributor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1722
No I meant does anyone know why Adobe image processing looks so much cleaner, it just shows nice grain instead of noise, while MLV App and other raw converters show blotchy colour ugliness.
At least in LR5 Adobe uses a chroma denoiser for this. This is the default. At 0 it looks also worse. (Farbe = Chroma/Colors)

So if you increase RBF Denoise Chroma in MLVApp, it looks nearly the same. MLVApp just gets very slow with this single threaded RBF filters...
5D3.113 | EOSM.202

ilia3101

  • Moderators
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 924
But even without denoising, compating adobe with other software, Adobe has almost monochromatic noise, other software shows colorful noise. And at high ISO adobe noise does go a bit purple, but still not much colour variarion in the noise. Could you show me an example of colour noise in Lightroom compared with mlv app? (without enabling denoising in either)

masc

  • Contributor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1722
I would say LR looks even worse when I set chroma denoise to 0. For LR6 and later, I bet Adobe implemented an chroma denoise offset of 25... becaues LR5=25 looks like LR6=0.

(EOS 5D2 @ ISO3200, a bit underexposed frame)
5D3.113 | EOSM.202

Dmytro_ua

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 202
  • Kyiv, Ukraine
In my ACR denoise is set to 0 in default mode.

Here is some horrible example in a dark church with 3200 iso:

MLV App by default:


MLV App zoomed dark area:


ACR default:


ACR Zoomed:


ACR +1 exposure:


ACR +1 exposure Zoomed:



DNG file 1 frame:
https://bitbucket.org/Dmytro_Kn/ml/downloads/M24-1501_frame_1.dng
5d3 1.1.3 exp | Canon 16-35 4.0L | Canon 50 1.4 | Canon 100mm 2.8 macro
Ronin-S

masc

  • Contributor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1722
In my ACR denoise is set to 0 in default mode.
Then you have probably a newer version... as I said: LR5 Denoise=25 looks the same like LR6+ Denoise=0.
5D3.113 | EOSM.202

masc

  • Contributor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1722
Here your DNG, screenshot from LR5 at a similar (not identical) looking white balance. Noise, noise, noise...
5D3.113 | EOSM.202

ilia3101

  • Moderators
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 924
I would say LR looks even worse when I set chroma denoise to 0. For LR6 and later, I bet Adobe implemented an chroma denoise offset of 25... becaues LR5=25 looks like LR6=0.

(EOS 5D2 @ ISO3200, a bit underexposed frame)

So I am wrong. Good to see that Adobe is not magic.

I just don't have it, so I never have a clue how things really compare :)

Then you have probably a newer version... as I said: LR5 Denoise=25 looks the same like LR6+ Denoise=0.

Interesting.

IDA_ML

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 885
In MLVApp, I use Chroma separation and set the Chroma blur radius to 6 or 7.  If the shot was not taken at some extreme ISOs or the darks were not too underexposed, this reduces these ugly color blotches almost to zero and I end up with monochromatic noise.  Then I just push the RBF denoise luminance  slider to the right to smooth out the monochrome noise a little, so its not so intrusive.  And that's basically it.  In most cases, this provides a satisfactory result.  You cannot do much more than that to clean the noise of a noisy shot.

ilia3101

  • Moderators
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 924
In MLVApp, I use Chroma separation and set the Chroma blur radius to 6 or 7.  If the shot was not taken at some extreme ISOs or the darks were not too underexposed, this reduces these ugly color blotches almost to zero and I end up with monochromatic noise.  Then I just push the RBF denoise luminance  slider to the right to smooth out the monochrome noise a little, so its not so intrusive.  And that's basically it.  In most cases, this provides a satisfactory result.  You cannot do much more than that to clean the noise of a noisy shot.

RBF chroma denoise is much better then chroma blur though! Have you tried it? I find it much better. But most of the time I don't do any chroma noise reduction, don't like smeared colours.

bouncyball

  • Contributor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 806
RBF chroma denoise is much better then chroma blur though! Have you tried it? I find it much better. But most of the time I don't do any chroma noise reduction, don't like smeared colours.
Yup, sometimes chroma blur is good at the same time with RBF to further clean the chroma noise but very small amount of blurring have to be applied to not smear/wash colors out.

Dmytro_ua

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 202
  • Kyiv, Ukraine
Then you have probably a newer version... as I said: LR5 Denoise=25 looks the same like LR6+ Denoise=0.

Camera Raw 11.2
5d3 1.1.3 exp | Canon 16-35 4.0L | Canon 50 1.4 | Canon 100mm 2.8 macro
Ronin-S

IDA_ML

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 885
RBF chroma denoise is much better then chroma blur though! Have you tried it? I find it much better. But most of the time I don't do any chroma noise reduction, don't like smeared colours.

Yes, I tried different options including the RBF chroma denoise and combinations between chroma blur and denoise but did not like the result.  I prefer to kill the color noise first and then try to reduce the monochromatic one to an acceptable level without too much softness or smearing.  This works best for me, especially in shots with underexposed and noisy shadows.  In my experience, RBF chroma blur does not introduce softness or smearing of the finest detail and works quite well with wide angle videography, especially in combination with some sharpness, (typically 85-90).