Some quick mostly macro b-roll footage from 5D Mk iii. ML Raw is great!

[TC2]

1080p 14bit is definitely my favorite mode so far. It even up-scales to 4K quite nicely! Plenty of detail in there.

3.5K is an amazing tech demo, but I'm more interested in normal aspect ratios. Even cropping in on 3.5K 12bit tends to have more noise so far.

[allemyr]

Nice shots! Especially the 0:18 with the lens! Quality looks awesome! Seems you have a good workflow for it! Nice subtile grading!

[DeafEyeJedi]

Sick work @TC2 and would you mind me asking which workflow was done in post for this? Thanks for sharing!

[Rob Curd]

I second deafeyejedi would love to know your workflow. Also incredibly sharp focus! Any tips when the awkward live view?

[ilia3101]

I third

[TC2]

Thanks guys. Some shots aren't that great, but I wanted to work through the test footage and get it uploaded quickly.

I didn't have any problems with live-view, aside from not being used to such a tiny screen. The camera was stationary for almost every shot. With motion control it's easier to bring the subject to the camera than try to move a DSLR around without shaking and worrying about nailing focus. Some focusing was done on the fly, but that's just practice.

Happy to share any workflow info: MLV App for intake -> CDNG -> Raw processing in resolve... now, this is where I ended up with more questions than answers. I'm not really sure what the native color-gamut is coming out of the camera, since no combination of input gamut + color-transform node to rec709 seemed 100% correct for color.

And there was some quirks with gamma curves in CDNG RAW settings too:

• LOG-C curve results in weird loss of detail, particularly in mid-tones (after bringing it back to gamma 2.2 in a transform node further downstream). I haven't seen this before.
• Rec.709 gamma seemed to crush blacks hard
• sRGB gamma felt the most accurate, so rolled with that

Unsure why gamma 2.2 isn't listed specifically. Where is this list generated from? Is it file metadata or something similar? I'd assume RAW footage can be set to any gamma curve.

14bit 1080p on this camera is awesome. I can't believe some of the images coming out of it. Pairing the Mk III with something like the new Shinobi 5" monitor would be a killer setup.

[Kharak]

Set resolve to color managed, Set Input Gamma to Linear and Timeline color space to rec709 and output to rec709. The 14 bit ml raw is linear data and can be transformed to whatever colour space you want.. the absolute beauty of ML Raw.

To mix with footage from other cameras, those clips will need two serial nodes  at start with CST to bring them to Rec709.

Really nice B-roll!! Thought it was a canon commercial for a moment.

[allemyr]

Yes that's the big downside with ML RAW, the color management. Every camera that's recording RAW has there own color space and gamma that should be used with them shure you can buy a BlackMagic Camera record RAW with that and then interpret it as Canon or ARRIRAW but will it look as good as if you use the color space and gamma that Blackmagic origianlly developed that camera with? The second big thing is debayer, every sensor is different, different size different amount of pixel so on, so to debayer a sensor the best way you have to have a custom made debayer setting that is developed from the physicallities of the sensor. But the color space and the gamma to have that for this specific sensor is the most important part and thats something that everyone has to elaborate on there own since its not a custom made specific for ML RAW and the specific camera one use.

The data and color is there in the raw file but it has to be transformed in a good way.
I'am not working with this but I have put pretty much time in it.
The next thing I will do is doing the balance of the shot inside Canon LOG Color 3 instead of working with the one I used before. Think the noise can be lower that way.

Yes I agree with you 14-bit 1080p is really great and its so nice to experience while doing the grade and balance in Resolve when you see how much that is recorded in the 14-bit file.




Yes its RAW footage so it can be interpreted in anyway, check out the CameraRAW panel in Resolve

Doing quick test from time to time is something I like myself and is a good way to develop skills Especially when the result looks like your shot at 0:18 !
Haven't used any of my camera gear lately and when I did bring no rig only a 100IS macro and that result in a pretty shaky image.
That slider looks like a really good choice very pleasing to watch footage from it!

[ilia3101]

Yes that's the big downside with ML RAW, the color management. Every camera that's recording RAW has there own color space and gamma that should be used with them

I think the colour management is an upside of raw! As long as the grading software respects the colour matrices embedded in to the DNGs and is set up correctly, it should be as accurate as any cinema camera.

[allemyr]

I think the colour management is an upside of raw! it should be as accurate as any cinema camera.

Hi yes I agree its a upside with raw, but I talk more specifically between ML raw and Canon RAW or ArriRAW were every profile you see has been carefully made for that sensor or when the sensor has been made for that profile.
I would say that its more the characteristics of color of the sensor that matter more then whats emedded in the raw file. Otherwise BMD, Canon C200 raw, ArriAlexa or Red would use the same color profiles and settings when shooting raw and in postprocessing?

[TC2]

Thanks for the tips, appreciate it. I'll be trying out these suggestions. I'm familiar with processing raw footage from the C200. This was just feeling a bit more foreign to me.

That slider looks like a really good choice very pleasing to watch footage from it!

I've tuned the stepper motors for better motion in close shots too, now it can do really small scale work smoothly. I love tweaking hardware. I'm doing some soldering today to add a wireless serial-bridge, which will allow full control from desktop software called Dragonframe.

Awesome work on MLV App Ilia3101. You've pulled off a better raw processing/ingest platform than some multi-million dollar companies have managed to  Super impressed with all of the dev-work by ML authors and supporting projects. So nice to see people openly sharing information instead of withholding it. I've always believed in working this way whenever possible. Happy to share any info or settings that might be useful to anyone along the way.

Haven't used any of my camera gear lately and when I did bring no rig only a 100IS macro and that result in a pretty shaky image.

I used the 100mm Canon macro on a super cheap tripod for most of that video, it's a great lens for a lot of things. There's tricks for avoiding shakes in various shots. If you have a specific example let me know.

This started as a hobby with a Nikon DSLR + $5 shower curtains, but soon I'll be starting some contract work.

[ilia3101]

Hi yes I agree its a upside with raw, but I talk more specifically between ML raw and Canon RAW or ArriRAW were every profile you see has been carefully made for that sensor or when the sensor has been made for that profile.
I would say that its more the characteristics of color of the sensor that matter more then whats emedded in the raw file. Otherwise BMD, Canon C200 raw, ArriAlexa or Red would use the same color profiles and settings when shooting raw and in postprocessing?

This way of thinking implies photographers have worse colour management as it is mainly based on using a colour matrix to convert camera gamut to XYZ or whatever software has internally, and from what I've seen raw files from different cameras look very similar when opened in raw converters so I think it's actually accurate.

I think camera specific profiles by the companies are mostly made to give their cameras a special look. But there will be small differences (errors) in camera colour because of the red/green/blue filters on the pixels, maybe the profiles try to correct for this, but it's not physically possible to make most cameras have truly correct colour. According to what I've read, to achieve true accuracy, the filters would need to transmit light in a way that each channel is a mixture of the XYZ functions:



Can't remember the technical word for it though.

[Pregily]

Amazing shots, very professional, I am new here, and hope will soon share with my first too.

[allemyr]

This way of thinking implies photographers have worse colour management as it is mainly based on using a colour matrix to convert camera gamut to XYZ or whatever software has internally, and from what I've seen raw files from different cameras look very similar when opened in raw converters so I think it's actually accurate.

I think camera specific profiles by the companies are mostly made to give their cameras a special look. But there will be small differences (errors) in camera colour because of the red/green/blue filters on the pixels, maybe the profiles try to correct for this, but it's not physically possible to make most cameras have truly correct colour. According to what I've read, to achieve true accuracy, the filters would need to transmit light in a way that each channel is a mixture of the XYZ functions:

I think this is a very interesting subject on ML RAW, for which ever software NLE you use to interpret ML RAW files in colorspace and gamma. Doesn't mattter if you use ACR, Resolve or MLVApp/RawTherapee?

I don't know how my example on interpreting different videofiles from Arri, Red or Blackmagic has to do with with photo editors like ACR. I just say that you get different results if you interpret a Arri RAW file with Red RAW or Blackmagic color settings . And that each camera is different. Adobe Camera RAW i bet have different profile embedded with each different camera it supports and not visible when grading there just applied the predefined gamma/color for the camera RAW file you are opening for a 5DMKII it uses that profile and for a old Canon 20D it uses another or if Canon has made and adjusteded all its cameras to match each other in terms of color.

I think this unknown colorspace and gamma for ML RAW is why there is so many different usermade workflow in terms of color for this raw files. I guess so. I might be wrong tho, but this is no critic to photoeditor apps since I think they are very similar to videoraw decoders. Its just that every raw file has its own way of interpreting raw files. And you don't have to talk about Photo vs Video editors at all, Resolve doesn't have the answer for example, not for ML RAW.

[allemyr]

I make an example to make it more easy to follow along with my thoughts on the subject. I made a test same exposure between the photo and the recording. The exposure was ISO6400 1/30 F-stop 1.5 for both the video sequenze and the photo. The raw photo is a CR2 from my 5D3 and I used a MLV 14-bit to DNG 16-bit converter. I opened both of the files in Adobe Camera RAW and saved them and they come out different since ACR has different color and gammas for different raw files, one specific for the 5D3 raw photo and one more generic for the unknown DNG file from the video, that's why the came out different.

Photo:




Video:




Hope I made myself more clear now.

Video from Resolve with my standard interpret settings:





 does it look and ready to go as the photo? No and it is very hard to get there, shure it looks better then the generic ACR profile for the video file, but none is made for the video raw file. The photo file looks like it should.