600D/T3i Raw Video

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

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.

Critical Point

I don't know, but to my eye, I haven't seen anything from the 600D upscaled that really looks better than 1080p/H.264, especially not worth the trouble that comes with the raw shooting. If we could get 1280x720@ 24fps raw, the yes, it would really be something, but shooting at 960x420 or something like that, I don't think it is worth the effort. Everything that I've seen, has terrible aliasing, and you can tell that it has been shot at a very low resolution, especially on the vertical axis.
600D & GH2 / PC.

N/A

Quote from: Critical Point on June 06, 2013, 11:16:57 PM
I don't know, but to my eye, I haven't seen anything from the 600D upscaled that really looks better than 1080p/H.264, especially not worth the trouble that comes with the raw shooting. If we could get 1280x720@ 24fps raw, the yes, it would really be something, but shooting at 960x420 or something like that, I don't think it is worth the effort. Everything that I've seen, has terrible aliasing, and you can tell that it has been shot at a very low resolution, especially on the vertical axis.
A few thoughts on this subject. Keep in mind that these lower tier cams come with lower tier glass as well. A stock 18-55 will display a somewhat negligible difference, but L glass or equivalent will capture color and sharpness much better for raw to work with.
I've shot numerous h264 videos with nice glass, max bitrate and great picture styles. I still prefer working with raw footage for the simple fact that the color is so much easier to denoise, correct and grade. If its a serious paid project then h264 for stability. Raw for everything else.
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?

Critical Point

I don't know, having a webcam type of resolution on the vertical axis, no matter how good it can be for post grading, still gives a bad result at the end of the day, and for the effort that goes into shooting raw, I don't know if it really worth the effort. Maybe for the 600D, tweaking better the H.264 seems the better deal right now.
600D & GH2 / PC.

N/A

Between 1%'s slice 87 GOP 1 hack, and 3x h264 zoom recording, its pretty much maxed.
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?

alephone

Im not sure if I'm doing something wrong but when RAW is enabled I am still getting a sort of lag on the viewfinder when panning. It just seems jumpy. When it is like this there are almost always magenta frames. I tried it having the Canon menu set to the 640x480 and it doesn't do this. Just when the Canon menu is set to 1080. I have everything turned off in ML.  It doesn't seem to happen much on a fresh formatted card, but it seems hit and miss. Is anyone else having this issue?  Also, is my understanding correct that there is no image difference between the having the setting on 1080 or 640 in the Canon menu?

N/A

Yeah 1080 & 640 is the same. What are your settings under raw video?
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?

alephone

960x540
16:9
sound off
GD off
frame skipping off
framing Center
Preview Canon
Start delay 2 secs

ML settings are set for SRAW, everything and anything set to off.  I have tried different combos with no luck. The lag is like the picture jumps to catch up with itself.  Even on really slow pans this happens.  This wasn't an issue before these last four builds or so.  I will just start using the 640 mode in Canon menu.

1%

Weird.. just panned around and no lag in either mode.. only lags on hacked w/preview or ml grayscale for me.

Drewton

Shooting a shortfilm in RAW this week has been fantastic. Most of the shots do not need to be particularly long, so there isn't much worry about frame count and I've been shooting above 720p in 2.39:1 aspect ratio, which is perfect. RAW is definitely looking better than my H.264 shots which I've been using for longer shots. I'm actually preparing less for each shot because I don't need to worry about the exposure or HDR. RAW has made my film look like film, instead of DSLR video.

DJHaze596

Quote from: N/A on June 06, 2013, 11:44:15 PM
A few thoughts on this subject. Keep in mind that these lower tier cams come with lower tier glass as well. A stock 18-55 will display a somewhat negligible difference, but L glass or equivalent will capture color and sharpness much better for raw to work with.
I've shot numerous h264 videos with nice glass, max bitrate and great picture styles. I still prefer working with raw footage for the simple fact that the color is so much easier to denoise, correct and grade. If its a serious paid project then h264 for stability. Raw for everything else.

The resolution is too small to upscale properly.  Of course shooting RAW gives you more Post process power for Rich nice Color.  But I'm still shooting H264 because it does look better in terms of Sharpness compared to the two.  A lot of people think because it's RAW,  you can do whatever you want to it.  You can!  But not upscale from 960x540 to 1920x1080p There's just not enough detail in that small 960x540 image even in RAW. Everyone is saying H264 upscales,  well it does a hell of a better job than RAW apparently right now.   The way the RAW footage is being upscaled just looks pixelated to me instead of being sharp or slightly blurry.  If we got it to like 1600xXXX than it would upscale to 1080p nicely,  but 960x540 just isn't going to work guys.  It sounds like the Camera just can't handle it.  Keep it up though.  I see 1280x720p atleast coming hopefully.  :)

Kakuda

Sharp enough or not, I still trade sharpness for dynamic range and the possibility to work on the footage the way you want:


DJHaze596

Quote from: Kakuda on June 07, 2013, 08:58:06 AM
Sharp enough or not, I still trade sharpness for dynamic range and the possibility to work on the footage the way you want:

Fair enough,  But i think sharpness and Resolution matters just as much.  That's why you shoot raw,  So you can see every little detail in someones eyeball.  Its like people saying it doesn't matter what camera you have,  As long as you capture the moment.  That's True,  But that moment would be even better if it was shot with lets say a 1DX vs a point and shoot. Meaning it looks great,  but imagine Higher Quality. 

apefos

about upscaling and aliasing, I found a solution to make it look better, from unacceptable to reasonable good.

please, see this topic, try it and let us know if it satisfies your needs.

http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=6248

1%

I have to code fixed slice back in (its the easiest)... then when you use sraw should have a bigger H264 buffer.

They're both good. The raw upscales, the H264 is easier to keep on longer.

Sane__

Hello! Just a quick question, 60D have a same max recording bitrate as 600D, why then on 60D is possible to rec at 720p 24fps but on 600d it's not?

1%

60D has way more memory... nobody said you couldn't record 720P or 1080P or whatever at all.. just its not continuous.

Sane__

No i don't need continuous i need just 6-7 seconds 720p 24fps footage.Is it possible with the current build?

1%

Try it... see how much you get. It will depend on your card.

Denwa

Using a Lexar Platinum II UHS-I card (not the fastest by any means), I can get continuous RAW video @ 24 fps with 1088x448 at 2.5:1 (2.46).

I'll be happy if the code guru's here manage to find a way to get 10bit HD output.  Not sure how likely that is but that would still be fantastic output.

N/A

Quote from: DJHaze596 on June 07, 2013, 08:24:39 AM
The resolution is too small to upscale properly.  Of course shooting RAW gives you more Post process power for Rich nice Color.  But I'm still shooting H264 because it does look better in terms of Sharpness compared to the two.  A lot of people think because it's RAW,  you can do whatever you want to it.  You can!  But not upscale from 960x540 to 1920x1080p There's just not enough detail in that small 960x540 image even in RAW. Everyone is saying H264 upscales,  well it does a hell of a better job than RAW apparently right now.   The way the RAW footage is being upscaled just looks pixelated to me instead of being sharp or slightly blurry.  If we got it to like 1600xXXX than it would upscale to 1080p nicely,  but 960x540 just isn't going to work guys.  It sounds like the Camera just can't handle it.  Keep it up though.  I see 1280x720p atleast coming hopefully.  :)
Have a look-
http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=6268.0
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?

alephone

*edit - I apologize, I found someone with the same issue on the second page of this thread. My bad for not reading through more thoroughly before posting.


I have a question a little off topic but still RAW related.  I have been following this forum from day one and trying to learn as much as possible about the RAW capability.  My question is related to a pixel that I have recently noticed in my videos that kind of stands out.  I had never noticed this before until last night after recording 4.5gb of continuous raw @ 960x544 on my 600d. The camera got very hot so I stopped it. I processed the video and noticed this small blue pixel standing out. I freaked out and thought that the camera getting hot may have had something to do with this.  So after doing a lot of side by side tests and reading up on hot vs dead pixels I have noticed that I can't see this pixel in regular recording H.264.  In RAW pictures I have taken I cannot see this pixel either.  I tried the body cap on and manual sensor cleaning option for a couple of minutes multiple times and the pixel is no longer blue but kind of transparent to darkish colored.  I can only see this pixel in RAW recorded video. My question is is this due to RAW being so detailed that it is picking this up possibly?  It bugs me nonetheless and not sure if I should get it serviced, which I've heard is expensive. Sorry for the wall of text, I can post pictures if anyone is interested in seeing.

JohnBarlow

Looks like this thread has gone to sleep.

Perhaps a good time to request some more aspects ratios between 1:1 and 4:3 ?

Please consider 9:8 and 6:5


jordillonch

My request is that the camera remembers the last video settings (aspect ratio & resolution) used every time I switch it on/off.

Thank you!!

1%

Its not dead, I had to fix 600D.. was crashing from a commit.

jordillonch

Quote from: 1% on June 09, 2013, 06:04:04 PM
Its not dead, I had to fix 600D.. was crashing from a commit.

Thank you very much!! You're doing such an amazing work!!