600D/T3i Raw Video

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

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

CFP

Quote from: southernstyle on May 19, 2013, 05:00:22 AM
is there a certain way to format it to give you no frame skipping? I only get 20.1 mb/s max out of the card for some reason. I turned off everything and still get frame skipping.
Quote from: southernstyle on May 19, 2013, 12:58:08 AM
what were you shooting this at under raw settings? I still get random magenta and skipped frames with 960x540
You haven't set "Pic Quality" to "SRAW" yet, right? Do it and reboot your camera (It's in "Shoot" tab). This will increase the size of your buffer on the 600D.
And since a small buffer results in skipped and magenta frames, the increased buffer size should help you :)

Is it possible, that the issue with the green shadow areas also changed the green tone itself? Because in every H.264 vs RAW comparison I saw so far the color of trees and grass looked quite unnatural in the RAW shots. Or is that just the difference between 8 and 14 bit? :D

While recording I'm also getting 20.1 Megabyte/s. But according to the card benchmarks 21.3 Megabyte/s would be possible too.
If the EOS 650D can get up to 40 Megabyte/s it should handle 1280 X 720 at 24 fps (about 39 Megabyte/s) right? 700D is probably the same ...

Quote from: vicnaum on May 19, 2013, 05:34:42 PM
And right now I can't see any improvements in dynamic range here - CineStyle is really flat and gives pretty much all range it can give from sensor, and in raw - noise eats it all. [..] (if die Sache lohnt die Mühe nicht).
What software did you use to process the raw files?

I haven't tried cinestyle yet. But I compared H.264 with "Neutral" Picture Style and RAW. I overeposed a lot of shots to see how much I could recover in post. On one shot the sky was completly blown out and I was sure that there would be no way to get it back. And for H.264 that was true but with the RAW video I was able to recover the whole sky and even the clouds (Using Lightroom 4. Maybe your software doesn't handle the DNGs so well?) ... So there's a huge difference between H.264 and RAW. At least without cinestyle.

I'll see if the black level fixes helped with the green tones and how much worse cinestyle is compared to raw in terms of dynamic range ...

And are you German? :)

CFP


a1ex

QuoteShould I just skip 2px so the calculations aren't done on 0

You have a valid top bar, so we can use that. Check repo.

1%

You have 106MB... I have 104MB... we need like another ~30MB somehow

21MB buffers would slow down writes and not sure how the chunks are now since its picking all chunks >16MB

For everyone that says 650D is better... the AF points are burned into the DNGs and not easy to remove... plus all the other issues that cameras has (in addition to being EOL)

*Thanks a1ex... its 100% now for video/silent DNGs.

Photo Raw histo needs a check for skip right I think.

CFP

Quote from: 1% on May 19, 2013, 05:53:34 PM
For everyone that says 650D is better... the AF points are burned into the DNGs and not easy to remove... plus all the other issues that cameras has (in addition to being EOL)
Good to know. Thank you for the warning. I was really thinking about "upgrading" :D

Well. 1280 X 400 RAW video is still nice enough for the moment.

Andy600

@1% - Thanks for the reply. Doh, dunno where I got 106 from  :-[
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%

First I had 103... then I had 104 and you have a higher amount. Also people are getting the flip/flop with recorded frames based on memory. So basically SRAW amount given back isn't the same all the time.

Andy600

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

Fixed already? Hot damn. Gonna test it on the beach later.

@cfp: And not to mention, Cinestyle is utter shit on skin tones.
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?

xaled

Got a bug.

600d latest TL 2.0

Modules ->
   Load modules now - raw_rec ok
   Unload modules now - beep and raw_rec unloaded
   Load modules now - ml freezes, no reaction to any key
   Turn camera off - camera turned off
   Turn camera on - no reaction, red diod blinks
   Turn camera off - red diod blinks
   Battery out, in - works again


   

1%

Not sure module unloading works on any camera.

xaled


southernstyle

Quote from: CFP on May 19, 2013, 05:51:29 PM
You haven't set "Pic Quality" to "SRAW" yet, right? Do it and reboot your camera (It's in "Shoot" tab). This will increase the size of your buffer on the 600D.
And since a small buffer results in skipped and magenta frames, the increased buffer size should help you :)


Thanks a bunch, that's exactly what my problem was. I had no idea that setting was in there, guess I can go test it out for real thanks to you.

tbreade

Hello everyone! I have a problem with large RAW file. When I drag it to raw2dng.exe it says "This ain't a lv_rec file". I think file is not corrupted, since it played back in camera. File is 13 Gigs, recorded in 960x400 with sound, card is pretty fast Trancend 16Gb(UHS-1). Is there a way to fix this?

1%

Use the linux raw2dng instead of windows or mac.

CFP

Quote from: southernstyle on May 19, 2013, 07:34:21 PM
Thanks a bunch, that's exactly what my problem was. I had no idea that setting was in there, guess I can go test it out for real thanks to you.
I'm glad that helped you :)

But keep in mind that you have to switch it back to "RAW" or "LargeFine" before you start shooting stills. Otherwise they may be corrupted.
And be carefull, taking out the SD-Card doesn't reset this setting. It will stay "SRAW" and you can't change it from the Canon menu.

But for video it's really nice when you're using "high" resolutions.

I just did some testing and Cinestyle is better then RAW in terms of shadow recovery because the RAW images get extremly noisy when you bump up the exposure in post. But the Cinestyle is very, very weak in terms of detail. It's even worse then Neutral Picture Style.

And when you try to recover the highlights, Cinestyle doesn't really help at all. Of course, you have a little bit more detail in the highlights then with Neutral, but everything that's blown out stays blown out. With the DNG files I can get back everything I want. And since I overexposed the shot, there was no noise at all. And even in 1280 X 400 the DNG files had much more detail and sharpness then the cinestyle could ever have.

In daylight I would prefer RAW instead of Cinestyle. Just expose right to your subject and bring back sky and highlights in post. Or overexpose your subject a little bit, if there is no sky in the background, to lower the noise. Fixing it won't be any problem (At least not with Lightroom 4. Other programs may have different recovery abilitys).

Rush

QuoteAnd still doubt what is better in matter of resolution: 1920x1080 h264 vs 960x540 raw.

Try to compare 1920x1080 h264 with 1280x434 raw (shoot in canon 720p) upscaled to 1920x1080 (without borders)
Greetings from Russia!

vicnaum

Quote from: CFP on May 19, 2013, 05:51:29 PM
You haven't set "Pic Quality" to "SRAW" yet, right? Do it and reboot your camera (It's in "Shoot" tab). This will increase the size of your buffer on the 600D.
And since a small buffer results in skipped and magenta frames, the increased buffer size should help you :)

Is it possible, that the issue with the green shadow areas also changed the green tone itself? Because in every H.264 vs RAW comparison I saw so far the color of trees and grass looked quite unnatural in the RAW shots. Or is that just the difference between 8 and 14 bit? :D

While recording I'm also getting 20.1 Megabyte/s. But according to the card benchmarks 21.3 Megabyte/s would be possible too.
If the EOS 650D can get up to 40 Megabyte/s it should handle 1280 X 720 at 24 fps (about 39 Megabyte/s) right? 700D is probably the same ...
What software did you use to process the raw files?

I haven't tried cinestyle yet. But I compared H.264 with "Neutral" Picture Style and RAW. I overeposed a lot of shots to see how much I could recover in post. On one shot the sky was completly blown out and I was sure that there would be no way to get it back. And for H.264 that was true but with the RAW video I was able to recover the whole sky and even the clouds (Using Lightroom 4. Maybe your software doesn't handle the DNGs so well?) ... So there's a huge difference between H.264 and RAW. At least without cinestyle.

I'll see if the black level fixes helped with the green tones and how much worse cinestyle is compared to raw in terms of dynamic range ...

And are you German? :)

I use Lightroom 4 for processing. "Neutral" for sure will blow out everything - lights and shadows, cause it's contrasty.
My point was - I'm shooting a bright window with sky, setting the exposure to the top I can (look at the histogram and false color) - setting the exposure right where the brightest clouds start to overexpose. That means that I can't get them back - nor in h264, neither in raw (histogram now has RAW clipping mode, as far as I remember) - cause it's over the top already. And then I look at the shadows inside the room - how Cinestyle handles them, and how Raw does. The result is on my screenshot - I can't recover more highlights from raw, as from the cinestyle. But the shadows are better in cinestyle, cause the camera does some noise removal or what... and on raw we have individual pixels and banding, and low resolution not enough for a good shadow details.

But, there's one little "but" in all my thinking above.

The point where I was wrong is - I really CAN recover some more highlight from RAW. Even if there is some clipping (or maybe histogram isn't so RAW afterall? need to check this moment).



The top one is RAW, and bottom one - cinestyle (you can see the sky is white and I can't do anything to it).

So. Need further testing.

The one thing I can almost surely tell - testing shouldn't be done on one exposure, cause it seems there is some headroom in RAW.

P.S. Nope, I'm russian :-)

vicnaum

Quote from: Rush on May 19, 2013, 09:02:53 PM
Try to compare 1920x1080 h264 with 1280x434 raw (shoot in canon 720p) upscaled to 1920x1080 (without borders)

canon 720p - is it 720p 60fps or some other mode?

1%

Remember using 720P mode you get a downscaled raw image vs 1080P... So better comparison for 720P is 720P. If 720P raw winning or the same as 1080P H264 then what's better?

CFP

Quote from: vicnaum on May 19, 2013, 09:03:58 PM
P.S. Nope, I'm russian :-)
Quote from: vicnaum on May 19, 2013, 05:34:42 PM(if die Sache lohnt die Mühe nicht).
I know it's totally off topic but ... What's the deal with it?

"die Sache lohnt die Mühe nicht" is German ... I'm just curious why a Russian uses a German phrase in an English forum ;D

But I see your point. You might be right with the dynamic range ... Or wrong. I don't know. How much steps of dynamic range do the DNG files really have? And how much does the Cinestyle have? Is there a way to measure easily?

Quote from: 1% on May 19, 2013, 09:23:33 PM
Remember using 720P mode you get a downscaled raw image vs 1080P
I thought that in 720p mode there's just even more line skipping then in 1080p? And because of that the image appears streched. But it's just missing lines in horizontal resolution. If you resize it in post to 1280 X 720 you should get a pretty nice 720p image, right?
I haven't tried it yet. But it's a littly bit like recording 720i instead of 720p ...

But I think the problem with comparing the different resolutions is that most people don't change the focal length if they compare 1920 X 1080 H.264 and something like a 1280 X 434 (Upscaled to 1280 X 720) RAW video. But they should, since the cropfactor changes ... Otherwise RAW will always win when you compare both at 100 % view ;D

Nspa32


vicnaum

Quote from: CFP on May 19, 2013, 09:43:00 PM
I know it's totally off topic but ... What's the deal with it?
"die Sache lohnt die Mühe nicht" is German ... I'm just curious why a Russian uses a German phrase in an English forum ;D

It's just a good old proverb, that I don't know in English :)

Well, here are the dynamic range tests:


http://img832.imageshack.us/img832/9494/testis.png

Looks like we have the winner :-)

Without Highlight Tone Priority - cinestyle is not even close to what RAW is.
And with it - it's still too noisy and blurry in the shadows, while the RAW is more clear (even with Lum&Color noise reduction applied in Lightroom).

Now I just need to test it in that ^^misterious^^ 720p mode, and it finally gets more clear to me.

CFP

Niiice! These RAW videos are just insane. Thank you for testing it. Maybe I'll try something too ...

vicnaum

Managed to try the 720p mode (finally!).

The results are even more greatful:
H264: http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/7394/test2h264.jpg
RAW: http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4582/test2raw.jpg

H264 is 1920p.
RAW resolution was: 1600x400 (that's 60% shrinked of 1600x664), and then it was streched to match the 1920p h264 video.

And I think, that even after so much streching - there is still more sharpness in raw than h264!

Well, now the only thing left is - getting a stable recording without frame-skipping, and we can move to tests on field (although I already shot some 1280x400 field tests today, will show later).

P.S. btw I get only trash&garbage when I set 1740px resolution in RAW. So 1600 is max for me.