600D/T3i Raw Video

Started by N/A, May 18, 2013, 04:16:46 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

vicnaum

Quote from: gebo on May 21, 2013, 08:03:10 PM
Since shooting larger than 1120x434 RAW at 24fps is causing frame skipping I thought that if I decreased the frames per second then I could increase the resolution. With FPS override on 12fps I was expecting to be able to shoot at 1734x694 (or somewhere near that) but the result I get is dng's with pink noise. It wasn't just noise, it's possible to see parts of an image there but it's not usable.
I wonder if this is happening to others.

Also had this idea. On 1740 I get trashy corrupted video. Maybe try 1600.

clkvang

Great idea on the lower frame rates and higher reso. I'm going to try 720p on lower FPS to see if it is usable.

On another note, I'm getting RAW files that have the error: This Ain't an LV_REC file. I thought that was fixed.

For reference, this happens to 1 out of 3 files and it's happening on the OSX raw2dng.app gui.

Was this fixed for the windows raw2dng.exe application? If windows doesn't have this issue, I might have to switch workflow to windows 7.

Andy600

@clkvang - I'm on Win 7 64bit and not had that error once. There is also a newer raw2dng.exe available
Colorist working with Davinci Resolve, Baselight, Nuke, After Effects & Premier Pro. Occasional Sunday afternoon DOP. Developer of Cinelog-C Colorspace Management and LUTs - www.cinelogdcp.com

Alia5

No chance of getting pink frames, or corrupt pixels for me with latest build from 1%
everythings working perfect, aside from the slow SD-controller... but theres no fix for that

1%

1740 I'm not sure if it works..

vicnaum

Had made some more tests with my 600d and canon720p streched mode.

As far as I understand - in RAW menu you show bitrate needed for clean raw recording (e.g. 25 MB/s), and during REC you show the bitrate that the card is writing with (e.g. 21.0 MB/s). So if the second actual writing speed is less than the first needed speed - then we'll get buffer overflow and => frameskips (at least I've got them). So, when recording 1600x400 I need 25.6 MB/s, and only have ~21.0 MB/s actual speed - then I get around 5 skipped frames every ~1.5s (30mb) of recording.

So, I've got 1440x360 maximum resolution without any frameskips during 4GB recording (I stopped it at 4GB cause I heard it can cause problems if larger than that).
Only one <*..> buffer was used, and sometimes rarely the second one <**.> was flashing for a micro-second.

What's the most important - there are NO pink frames, and NO skipped frames during these >3 minutes of recording! Bravo!!
(and looks that there are NO bad pixels also!)
Uploading to youtube, will post later.

Will try again with some tricky card formatting (using EOStool or smth), maybe can get a bit more of resolution...
Btw, are the resolutions strictly set by the step of 40? I mean 360, 400, 440... Can I do, say, 395?

1%

The resolutions are hard set so they have to be added... better to have a taller image than a wider one, IMO. Sometimes you can get away with using res that says it needs 25MB even though write is only 21 at least for a while.

Andy600

I'm getting a couple of seconds at 1600x680 (2.35 aspect ratio) on a slow card (10MB/s) and it scales nicely. What can you guys with 21MB/s write speed get at these settings? 
Colorist working with Davinci Resolve, Baselight, Nuke, After Effects & Premier Pro. Occasional Sunday afternoon DOP. Developer of Cinelog-C Colorspace Management and LUTs - www.cinelogdcp.com

N/A

I'm not getting continuous 1152x480 with the newer builds, only between 500-600 frames... Hmm, gonna do a full format again.

Definitely better to have more height than width, except for maybe landscape shots. Anyone tried an anamorphic lens to get more width?
7D. 600D. Rokinon 35 cine. Sigma 30 1.4
Audio and video recording/production, Random Photography
Want to help with the latest development but don't know how to compile?

Andy600

@N/A - Andrew Reid has been playing with his anamorphic glass on the 5d3. Looks pretty cool and he's getting 2.5k (width) http://www.eoshd.com/content/10450/2-5k-cinemascope-anamorphic-raw-on-the-5d-mark-iii
Colorist working with Davinci Resolve, Baselight, Nuke, After Effects & Premier Pro. Occasional Sunday afternoon DOP. Developer of Cinelog-C Colorspace Management and LUTs - www.cinelogdcp.com

1%

Also misalignment of the 1740 might be from that 4K buffer thing. Will have to look at this and the green image issue.

leojames

" I'm not getting continuous 1152x480 with the newer builds, only between 500-600 frames... Hmm, gonna do a full format again.

Definitely better to have more height than width, except for maybe landscape shots. Anyone tried an anamorphic lens to get more width? "

whats the best Frame  to test out the anamorphic lens 1120x400 ? i have an LA-7200

vicnaum

Here's the 3 minute test:


1440x400 => 1920x800, ISO 640, light source: single 40W table lamp

Added too much grain from FilmConvert, need to be more accurate next time...

vicnaum

Reviewed my other shots yesterday and a couple today - there are still green/pink frames (pic sliced in a half by these colors), around 10-15 frames per 1-2 minutes of recording. Although there were no skipped frames reported and the settings were same (1440x360).

Today I shot a test with 1600x400 again. I can shoot around 170 frames (near ~170Mb) without any skipped frames @24fps = that's ~7 seconds. Nice!

Here are the tests:

First one is super low-light, ISO6400, moonlit clouds, 1440x360, stretched to 1920x800 and then shrinked to 1280x532:

Noise reduction with RAW and Neat Video.

And the second one is sunlit landscape @1600x400, streched to 1920x800 (ratio 1:2.40):


But here you can see horrible aliasing on small contrasty details (that's because of 400 vertical lines skipping).

So, still questionable on detailed scenes. I'd happy to shoot 1280, but it crops the half of sensor (which is already cropped 1.6x by canon). So 1.6x * 1.36x = we get 2.175x crop, so my 18mm lens becomes 40mm - too narrow (as for my taste).

Still need more tests and investigations, though...

Ideally, I'd be happy with 1280x532 (1:2.40 ratio) @24 FPS recording, which covers the whole frame (so no crop). It's 15.58 MPixels/sec. If it'd be 11 bit - then it fitted into 21.4 MB/sec.
So the only (yet unsolvable) problems for these are - how to cover the whole sensor with 1280px image, and how to compress the RAWs to 11bit/pixel.

(P.S. if it's 8bit/pixel - then 1280x720 will fit in 21.1 MB/sec)

CFP

Quote from: N/A on May 21, 2013, 11:39:18 PM
Definitely better to have more height than width, except for maybe landscape shots.
Well. I haven't checked how the images look ... The idea is a bit weird, but it works:

In 720p mode, set the resolution to width to 720 and height to 694. And rotate the camera around 90 degrees.

This will give you real 720 pixels height and fake 1152 pixels width, after upscaling (16 : 10 aspect ratio). I can reach the card's 4 GB limit in this resolution at 24 fps, and even 25 fps should be possible too.

The downside of this: It will increase your normal 1.6 cropfactor to 2.4 :(

And like I said, I haven't checked the results yet. Maybe this looks rubbish. But it's at least possible to record continous in this resolution.

Maybe somebody else could give it a try? I have no time now.

@ vicnaum: Wow. The aliasing is horrible :( What did you use to upscale it? Maybe my idea might help a bit, since it avoids horizontal line skipping? I have no idea. Have to try it ...

southernstyle

so I had this idea, it's really usable for ppl who shoot with tripods. So the biggest problem we have is cropping. What if we saved a full size dng every x-seconds and used it as a background to the smaller cropped shots.

So if you are shooting landscape, and you want the center to be your work area, but things in the scene change, but not that much, couldn't you overlay the cropped images to the larger full shot? It wouldn't work for everything, but somethings it could. It wouldn't mess with the buffer too much either, I don't think. Just throwing some ideas out there.

I do a lot of videos from a tripod for other edits that you need it for, like duplicating myself and timelapse, etc. I could see it working for some of the scenes I work with, and possibly for other people. Again, just throwing ideas around that might inspire others.

vicnaum

Quote from: CFP on May 22, 2013, 04:54:39 PM
@ vicnaum: Wow. The aliasing is horrible :( What did you use to upscale it? Maybe my idea might help a bit, since it avoids horizontal line skipping? I have no idea. Have to try it ...

I tried different upscaling methods:
1) Simple AE vertical scaling 166.66%
2) MagicBullet InstantHD
3) MagicBullet Resizer

Honestly - not much difference. This one was done using InstantHD.

The trouble is that the demosaic creates these artifacts - so they are there even before upscaling.
Maybe different demosaic algorithm will help (rawtherapee or smth...), but it's starting to get too complex that way.

P.S. Tried some things to manage this aliasing:
http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/8532/201305221905.jpg
http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/1807/201305221903.jpg

Tried to smooth the image as much as possible:
1) No sharpening in RAW
2) Luminance and Color noise reduction in RAW
3) 2003 RAW process (dunno if it's better, but... It's different)
4) Some RAW grain
5) Gaussian blur 0.3-0.5px (hor,vert)

Anyway, it's still "flashy" on small details, but a bit smoother and there are no colored lines at least. Dunno, maybe I should use a crappier lens or smth (but what can be worse than 18-55 kit?! :-) Maybe something soviet or an old-zeiss).

N/A

Quote from: leojames on May 22, 2013, 06:27:29 AM
" I'm not getting continuous 1152x480 with the newer builds, only between 500-600 frames... Hmm, gonna do a full format again.

Definitely better to have more height than width, except for maybe landscape shots. Anyone tried an anamorphic lens to get more width? "

whats the best Frame  to test out the anamorphic lens 1120x400 ? i have an LA-7200

I'm not too familiar with anamorphics but wouldn't you want something closer to 4:3 so that you can stretch it out properly in post?

Maybe 720x540?

7D. 600D. Rokinon 35 cine. Sigma 30 1.4
Audio and video recording/production, Random Photography
Want to help with the latest development but don't know how to compile?

N/A

Read in another thread about using Canon native iso's for raw, so I did a quick test and found no corrupt frames or bad pixels in iso 1600, but 4 or 5 corrupt frames but no bad pixels with iso 1250. Could be a coincidence but it makes sense.

Can someone else test this? Done on the newest 600D build, 640x480 mode, 1152x480, about 200 frames each clips.
7D. 600D. Rokinon 35 cine. Sigma 30 1.4
Audio and video recording/production, Random Photography
Want to help with the latest development but don't know how to compile?

Andy600

Quote from: N/A on May 22, 2013, 06:45:52 PM
Read in another thread about using Canon native iso's for raw, so I did a quick test and found no corrupt frames or bad pixels in iso 1600, but 4 or 5 corrupt frames but no bad pixels with iso 1250. Could be a coincidence but it makes sense.

Can someone else test this? Done on the newest 600D build, 640x480 mode, 1152x480, about 200 frames each clips.

It must be card related. I'm getting 88 frames at 1152x480 and 350+ 640x480 on a 10MB/s card. Some corrupt frames in both. Bad pixels should be fixed in 1%'s last update
Colorist working with Davinci Resolve, Baselight, Nuke, After Effects & Premier Pro. Occasional Sunday afternoon DOP. Developer of Cinelog-C Colorspace Management and LUTs - www.cinelogdcp.com

vicnaum

Hurray!

Solved the aliasing issue with defocusing the lens juuuuuuuust a bit.

And btw (canon640) 1280x540 => 1920x800 is much much cleaner and sharper than (canon720p) 1600x400 => 1920x800. But more croppier, of course :(

Just tried 1600x680 (1:2.35), it can record only for 2 seconds, but.... The picture is SOOO AWESOME! Detailed, big, crispy!
http://img534.imageshack.us/img534/8125/201305222012.jpg
Just compare it to aliasing samples from my post above, everything is clear without any words.

I'm so jealous to 5D owners right now ;-)

Andy600

Quote from: vicnaum on May 22, 2013, 07:02:41 PM
Hurray!

Solved the aliasing issue with defocusing the lens juuuuuuuust a bit.

And btw (canon640) 1280x540 => 1920x800 is much much cleaner and sharper than (canon720p) 1600x400 => 1920x800. But more croppier, of course :(

Use a shallower DOF if you can. If you don't have an ND filter increase shutter speed. Better to have something in focus than everything out of focus :)
Colorist working with Davinci Resolve, Baselight, Nuke, After Effects & Premier Pro. Occasional Sunday afternoon DOP. Developer of Cinelog-C Colorspace Management and LUTs - www.cinelogdcp.com

N/A

The small crop does kinda suck but at least we have manageable file sizes, I can render out all the footage I record to 1280x720 prores 4444 and they're still not even outrageously large as full hd files. Not to mention the footage has a film-like quality to it, esp. in a 2.40:1 crop and rendered out at 23.98 fps. Even the uprezzing imparts a bit of film softness onto the clips.

It ain't all bad  ;D
7D. 600D. Rokinon 35 cine. Sigma 30 1.4
Audio and video recording/production, Random Photography
Want to help with the latest development but don't know how to compile?

vicnaum

Quote from: N/A on May 22, 2013, 07:44:31 PM
The small crop does kinda suck but at least we have manageable file sizes, I can render out all the footage I record to 1280x720 prores 4444 and they're still not even outrageously large as full hd files. Not to mention the footage has a film-like quality to it, esp. in a 2.40:1 crop and rendered out at 23.98 fps. Even the uprezzing imparts a bit of film softness onto the clips.

It ain't all bad  ;D

Yeah, the only that calms me down is thinking about BMC having even a smaller crop :-D

Need to manage VM and environment installation, and try to play with sources... 1% are there some special instructions for raw module compilation? Or I just can use general guidelines?

DJHaze596

If the Camera Is not able to handle RAW 2k and up.  This may sound crazy,  But what about a 1DX style encode.  Motion JPEG?  It'll still be much higher Quality than what we get now from the 600D.

The Cards are just not fast enough to Handle the High Resolution.  I Can see 1280x720 Happening at the stable Frame rate but anything else is a stretch,  Also Upscaling the Video is a complete waste of time.  It just makes the Video look worse.  Yes it's a RAW Image but you cannot start with something Small and make it better,  You start with something Big and make it better.