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

[masc]

Any updates on the possibility of Cinelog?

I haven't read about any update, so there probably won't be one. We are not working on that. MLVApp is open source, so feel free to integrate it for your personal use.

[clubsoda]

Hello

Is there any plan to implement more debayer options in mlv app, also options for the user to tweak and finetune directly in the interface? For example Fast CinemaDNG Processor hast the MG Debayer 23x23 BBGR as default which tends to give some of my clips way better results with some weird artifacts disappering completely. Amaze is amazing but sometimes i wish that there would be more settings or more debayer options to tweak and test with. Some raw clips could be saved by changing the debayer already in a project of mine

[masc]

@clubsoda: if you have the source code of other nice depayer algorithms, we could try to add them to MLVApp. A while ago I tried with many other debayer algorithms: some were extremely slow, others were not good enough to add them to the release. I can't remember about MG - so if you have open source code for it, I'll try to add it.

[Skinny]

Hi guys... one question about sharpening.. As I understand, if I resize a video when exporting, MLVApp add sharpening before resizing? So it's better to sharpen later in premiere for example?

[masc]

Hi guys... one question about sharpening.. As I understand, if I resize a video when exporting, MLVApp add sharpening before resizing? So it's better to sharpen later in premiere for example?

Exactly.

[clubsoda]

@clubsoda: if you have the source code of other nice depayer algorithms, we could try to add them to MLVApp. A while ago I tried with many other debayer algorithms: some were extremely slow, others were not good enough to add them to the release. I can't remember about MG - so if you have open source code for it, I'll try to add it.

I am no expert on this field by any means therefore i am a so called noob for everything "code" but i searched the web and "MG" is used by FastVideo. On this link it is listed right at the bottom: https://www.fastcompression.com/products/debayer-moire.htm

Maybe you can contact them (on the bottom there is a link) for any further information or if the sourcecode is somehow available. I found out about it in the software Fast CinemaDNG Processor (there are also other algorithms like DFPD and HQLI) which you can buy from them.

They have also a freeware available thats called Fast Debayer on CUDA which lists these algorithms too. Here is the download page: https://www.fastcompression.com/download/download.htm

Everything looks like this works with nvidia gpus only but as i said i am a par excellence noob

I will search further too if i find anything useful i will report back.

[masc]

If this algorithm was developed by fastompression.com, it is a commercial product and can't be added to MLVApp. If it is open source, the code should be easy to find somewhere in the internet. CUDA will not be added to MLVApp soon - I have no NVidia card and don't plan to buy one. The application would be very limited with that, same as all CUDA only applications.

[clubsoda]

Ah! I understand! No probelm thanks for looking into my question

PS: There are also some other debayer algorithms available in raw therapee, for example DCB (looks like it trades details for better false color prevention). Was there any reason not to include them? https://rawpedia.rawtherapee.com/Demosaicing

[Milk and Coffee]

When exporting .MLV using "CinemaDNG fastpass:" if the .MLV was recorded with lossless compression, does "CinemaDNG Fastpass" export CinemaDNG Lossless?

[masc]

When exporting .MLV using "CinemaDNG fastpass:" if the .MLV was recorded with lossless compression, does "CinemaDNG Fastpass" export CinemaDNG Lossless?

Trying out is the best you can do. Example: I tried with a 21MB MLV:
- DNG Fastpass: 21MB
- DNG Lossless: 21MB
- DNG Uncompressed: 34MB
So what could be "Fastpass", if the MLV was lossless? 

[Milk and Coffee]

That’s pretty cool! Thanks masc!

[Eugenia]

I hope that some exporting optimization can happen on the MLV app. I tried on two computers, a PC and a Mac, they make for an unusable experience.

ffmpeg Prores or h.264 exports is abysmally slow on both (16 minutes for 28 seconds of 4k anamorphic footage), while when using Apple's Prores exporting libraries (instead of ffmpeg) on the mac, it's much faster (10 minutes), but still not fast enough. No filters or changes were done in the RAW tab (just a straight export). i know for a fact from FCP exports that Apple's prores libraries are not that slow.

What this tells me is that the FEEDING of the footage to the encoder that is the bottleneck, not the encoder. Please optimize the reading of the ML files. The way things are now, it makes ML not serious at all, not even for fun. In fact, it takes all the fun away.

[IDA_ML]

The way things are now, it makes ML not serious at all, not even for fun. In fact, it takes all the fun away.

This is not true!  I use MLVApp all the time, also for serious work and it does a hell of a job for me.  If you have a lot of footage to process, you can run several copies of the software simultaneously.  In such cases, I typically run 4 copies in parallel, everyone for a different part of the footage and this cuts the overall processing time by a factor of 4.  This apples to a PC with a 4-core processor.  With more cores you can do even better than that.

[masc]

@Eugenia:
Do you have any idea what you're talking about? The encoding takes less than 25% of the time. The "reading" of an MLV is faster than real time (for 25fps), even on a 10 years old computer with HDD. MLV contains RAW data. You can try sending RAW data to the encoder and tell me what you see. Wait... I can also tell you: You don't see anything - maybe digital noise with a little luck.
RAW data must be processed! The comparison to FCP is misleading, because FCP can't process RAW data (reasonably or at all).

The way things are now, it makes ML not serious at all, not even for fun. In fact, it takes all the fun away.

If RAW processing is too slow for you and takes away the fun, you shouldn't use it. You'll have to decide between quality and speed.

[bouncyball]

@Eugenia:
Image processing is the beast, it takes most of the time to get usable 16bit RGB data to encoder.
Everything can be improved and this is not an exception and can be optmised. Project is open source so feel free to help us improve the speed .

RAW data must be processed! The comparison to FCP is misleading, because FCP can't process RAW data (reasonably or at

Agree with FCP statement completely.

[Eugenia]

Do you have any idea what you're talking about?

Yes.

The "reading" of an MLV is faster than real time ...

That statement is NOT true here. I tried it BOTH on a Windows (fast Xeon CPUs), and a maxed out Macbook Pro (2016).

I shot 4k anamorphic MLV using an EOS M (non-stretched resolution is in the ~1400 pixels range, can't recall it exactly now as I write this as i don't have the files with me), in 10bit, 1:39 ratio. So I did not even shoot in 14bit, just 10bit. I DID NOT process the files in any way. Just a straight export to prores (using the default ffmpeg settings as provided by mlv app). It was *very slow* on BOTH my computers. So, yeah, explain that. Why is it so painfully slow here while you claim that is real time for you?!?

The mlv files don't playback realtime on the mlvapp either btw.

[masc]

The "reading" of an MLV is faster than real time ...

That statement is NOT true here. I tried it BOTH on a Windows (fast Xeon CPUs), and a maxed out Macbook Pro (2016).

I shot 4k anamorphic MLV using an EOS M (non-stretched resolution is in the ~1400 pixels range, can't recall it exactly now as I write this as i don't have the files with me), in 10bit, 1:39 ratio. So I did not even shoot in 14bit, just 10bit. I DID NOT process the files in any way. Just a straight export to prores (using the default ffmpeg settings as provided by mlv app). It was *very slow* on BOTH my computers. So, yeah, explain that. Why is it so painfully slow here while you claim that is real time for you?!?

The mlv files don't playback realtime on the mlvapp either btw.

The statement is very true. See: just reading a MLV is for nothing. As soon as you see an image, it MUST BE PROCESSED! And this needs time. MLV data can't be viewed without processing, because it is RAW!
Download the code and disable processing in code just after reading, and you'll see that you'll get more than 25fps with that - even on a 10 years old computer. The problem is, nobody needs MLV reading without processing or transcoding, because you can't do anything with that.
What bitdepth you use don't cares at all. Processing is always done in 16bit.

[Eugenia]

I just told you that this is not what happens here. I open the file in MLV app and it's VERY slow. It does not playback real time, as you suggest.

[masc]

I just told you that this is not what happens here. I open the file in MLV app and it's VERY slow. It does not playback real time, as you suggest.

Please read again my posts. Nobody is saying that MLVApp PROCESSES ( = playback ) MLV files in realtime. I think you should read a lot in the forum to learn what RAW footage is and how to handle it.

[Eugenia]

I've been shooting RAW for years with other cinema cameras without ANY such issues. BRAW from Blackmagic completely flies, for example. So is ARRIRAW.

Are you telling me that something special needs to be done inside the mlv app after loading the file, to make the raw file playback faster? If yes, then what is that special thing? Will that make the prores export faster? Because the way things are now, it's *dead slow*. And I've tried playing with the raw settings and change things around (e.g. removing AF points, getting back highlights etc), but the speed did NOT improve.

[12georgiadis]

I've been shooting RAW for years with other cinema cameras without ANY such issues. BRAW from Blackmagic completely flies, for example. So is ARRIRAW.

Are you telling me that something special needs to be done inside the mlv app after loading the file, to make the raw file playback faster? If yes, then what is that special thing? Will that make the prores export faster? Because the way things are now, it's *dead slow*. And I've tried playing with the raw settings and change things around (e.g. removing AF points, getting back highlights etc), but the speed did NOT improve.

If you want speed, just go with fastcinemadng. It reads MLV via CUDA and is faster. Here everything is processed by CPU. BRAW = CPU+GPU, that's why it's faster.

[masc]

I've been shooting RAW for years with other cinema cameras without ANY such issues. BRAW from Blackmagic completely flies, for example. So is ARRIRAW.

And why don't you use these cameras if they work so fine? You really compare the most expensive professional solutions with open source free time projects? And then you cry because the professional solution is faster?

The only Blackmagic cameras you can really compare to ML record cDNG. This footage brings exactly the same speed using exactly the same applications (e.g. Resolve). BRAW is partially preprocessed and works differently.

But I'll stop now to answer and to explain, because it seems you still have nothing read I wrote, still have nothing understood I wrote, but you're still rumbling.

[Eugenia]

If you want speed, just go with fastcinemadng.

This won't fix the AF points or help me with other MLV-specific raw fixes though. It's not really a full solution. The only app with the proper raw controls is MLV app. That's where Cuda needs to be added (along other optimizations, let's not put all the blame to the lack of GPU support).

And why don't you use these cameras if they work so fine?

Because I also own an EOS M camera, so I'd like to use it too.

The only Blackmagic cameras you can really compare to ML record cDNG. This footage brings exactly the same speed using exactly the same applications (e.g. Resolve). BRAW is partially preprocessed and works differently.

I also own the original BMPCC, so I have worked with CDNG too. It's miles faster than MLV.

But I'll stop now to answer and to explain, because it seems you still have nothing read I wrote, still have nothing understood I wrote, but you're still rumbling.

No, I'm not. I have provided the information needed to get to the bottom of this. I simply reported that is slow to decode and export. I provided my setup. Instead, your replies have been "mlv is very fast, you're an idiot", only to change the tune later to "mlv is not as fast as in other raw pro cameras, you're rambling". You're the one who does not offer a lucid reply or solution. You're just angry that I badmouthed your beloved MLV App. That's all there is to it. Blind loyalism. Well, I'm not loyal to any app or camera.

And no, I don't accept replies to the type of "this is just open source". ML is an 8 year old project by now. Some form of software maturity should have been evident by now. Also: I've been using Linux since 1999. So I'm not some newbie who doesn't understand OSS. But I'm also --again-- not a loyalist to anyone. I'm a realist, and a very practical person. If something doesn't work adequately, I'm not going to give it props just for being open source. That's NOT a feature in my opinion. It's a political aspect of it, but not a software feature that makes work get done. I rather pay $50 and have it work better.

[names_are_hard]

@Eugenia - in case you're not aware, you're coming across as aggressive and rude.  It's fine to want things to be better, but your tone is making other people defensive.

There's no need to insult others here (including the people that made the software you use, and gave it to you for free!).  If you express what you want politely, you'll get better responses.

[Volumetrik]

And no, I don't accept replies to the type of "this is just open source". ML is an 8 year old project by now. Some form of software maturity should have been evident by now. Also: I've been using Linux since 1999. So I'm not some newbie who doesn't understand OSS. But I'm also --again-- not a loyalist to anyone. I'm a realist, and a very practical person. If something doesn't work adequately, I'm not going to give it props just for being open source. That's NOT a feature in my opinion. It's a political aspect of it, but not a software feature that makes work get done. I rather pay $50 and have it work better.

You illustrated your own solution.

pay $50 and have it work better

No one forces you to use open source software created by a team of volunteers, on cameras which were not initially intended to have any of these features, on a forum where information is freely available to learn.

Your tone comes off like someone who did not receive what they paid for.

Did you pay for any of this ?