600D/T3i Raw Video

[CFP]

Since even upscaling the 960 X 544 videos to 1920 X 1080 doesn't improve the image enough to make it look equal or better than the default H.264 videos, I played around with Avisynth a bit to create a script that should help us to achieve higher quality. It reads TIFF images, combines them into a video and doubles this video's framerate. How does this help? I allows us to record at 12 frames per second with higher resolutions and make it look fluid again in post. I tried it, and it works quite well.

At 12 frames per second we can record 1344 X 768 (16:9) or 1536 X 656 (21:9 | 2.35:1) ... Here's the link for the script:

- Magic Lantern forum: Avisynth script for doubling the framerate | Twixtor alternative

Of course, if you own Twixtor, you can use that instead. But if you don't have Twixtor, I think that you should try this script.

Also, if you have an idea how this script can be improved, it would be great if you post it.

And @ 1%: Thanks for keeping on the good work. You are great

Especially for scenes without much motion the 600D can deliver some really nice videos with your amazing firmware add-on and my not so amazing script

[N/A]

Has anyone tried upscaling 5x zoom footage? Im thinking it could come in handy for sports photographers, wildlife, etc. if the image can be manipulated any.

[1%]

Theoretically the 5x has slightly better quality.. same with crop mode... probably less aliasing from resizing.

12fps isn't that bad I guess, you can probably do more than that. This camera is pushed to the edge though, almost using all memory/maximum write/etc.

[apefos]

"Still Working" is a great build

some questions:
why did you re-enable the black side bars in the 640x480 LV, did you find it allows better performance?
what does the new "idle" overlay information meas? sometimes it shows 2%, sometimes it shows 49ms...

feedbacks:
enabling a time count while shooting was great idea
the overlays position are ok now for resolutions up to 1344x768 (16:9)
the bottom overlay half line more to down will be even better for 1344x768 and for 1664x944

[1%]

It depends on the timing for the black bars and when the screen is cleared. I'll have to mess with it so it works... idle I think is idle CPU time.. which we probably have very little.

[vicnaum]

The only real aspect ratio that I think is still missing is 2.40:1 (Bluray 1920x800 standard), cause 2.39 doesn't divide evenly.

P.S. But assuming that resolutions are equal to multiples of 32, it makes no difference between 2.39/2.40 anyway...

[NewNoise]

I think this 12-18 fps limitation could led to some new creative use of the camera!

[N/A]

Yeah I'm thinking of shooting some music video scenes at 12 fps for a stutter type effect

[N/A]

Elapsed time, thanks! And frame count updating once per second is much less distracting. This is the most intuitive and stable build yet. Combine this with RawMagic and this is a damn nice workflow. Now if we can get some logs/metadata, I'd be in heaven. Great work man.

[batca.dragos]

I still can't figure out why sometimes it allocates 31M+30M and not 31M+30M+25M. Why is that happening ?

[jordillonch]

Check out my last video test with the "MovedInd" version: http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=6353.msg49379#msg49379

Still a lot to learn, but the camera performed very well, loosing only 5 or 10 frames of 9 minutes of video shot in total, and stopping the recording 2 or 3 times.

[Critical Point]

I have a question. If I understand things right, the 600D feeds a low resolution image to the H.264 codec, then it is upscaled to 1080p resolution, so basically, this means that the 1080p H.264 it's NOT a real Full HD resolution, isn't it ? Well, in this case, what if we match with RAW the same original resolution that H.264 gets before rescales the video ? In that case, doesn't it mean, that we have obtained the H.264 1080p, only this time in RAW ? We just need to upscale the raw video to 1080p just like the H.264 does. Correct me if I'm wrong on this please.

[vicnaum]

I have a question. If I understand things right, the 600D feeds a low resolution image to the H.264 codec, then it is upscaled to 1080p resolution, so basically, this means that the 1080p H.264 it's NOT a real Full HD resolution, isn't it ? Well, in this case, what if we match with RAW the same original resolution that H.264 gets before rescales the video ? In that case, doesn't it mean, that we have obtained the 1080p ? We just need to upscale the raw video to 1080p just like the H.264 does. Correct me if I'm wrong on this please.

That resolution is 1732 X 974, just slightly smaller than 1080p.

[Critical Point]

Oh, I see. And for the 720p ?

[CFP]

Our RAW videos are nothing but the images that you see in LiveView. Well, our RAW videos are just a tiny crop of that images

That's the same image which gets feeded into the H.264 encoder. In 1080 & 640 mode the LiveView resolution is 1728 X 1152 and in 720 mode it's 1728 X 672 (The same as in 1080 mode, but with some vertical lines left out. That's why it appears streched).

But yes, in both modes the H.264 encoder streches, crops and resizes the image until it becomes a peace of muddy, pseudo 1080 shit.

(Okay, it doesn't look that bad. But since I saw what the 5D Mark III and even the 50D can do, I'm a little bit more selective than usual )

Damn. I wish Canon would have given us 1728 X 1152 H.264, so it wouldn't look so muddy or simply a better SD controler (Or CF card slot) ...

[Critical Point]

And can't we just set global draw:off, and then record to an external source through the HDMI port ?

[CFP]

What's impossible:

- Get 2K, 4K resolutions
- Get any kind of lossless compression
- Get any kind of lossy compression
- Send the RAW videos out to the HDMI port
- Increase the write speed of the SD-Controller

You see: the 600D is just no good camera for raw video. Film H.264 or get a better one

[Critical Point]

Just a thought, but has anyone really checked if the HDMI offers a better quality than the video that is present on the SD card ? Maybe the HDMI goes through less compression, or through a less number of cycles regarding compression.

From what I understand, the raw video data goes first in the jpeg algorithm, then it is passed through the H.264 chip, and maybe on the HDMI, we get only the jpeg compression, who knows ?

[CFP]

JPEG compression? The H.264 videos have nothing to do with JPEG compression

The 5D Mark III has a clean HDMI output. I suggest to watch some comparisons between the default H.264 video and the "uncompressed" HDMI output yourself. You'll see: There's almost no difference. The uncompressed videos have a very little bit more detail and no motion artifacts. But they are as muddy as the default H.264 videos and they have the same tiny dynamic range and the same bad colors. If the Magic Lantern developers would give us the 422 YUV videos back, we could get these results even withou buying an expensive HDMI recorder.

The Canon EOS 600D doesn't have clean HDMI out anyway ...

Like I said: H.264 is the only choice at the moment. Mabye we'll get some kind of yuv_rec some day. I'm really hoping that the EOS 70D will have an CF card slot ... And the 5D Mark III's anti aliasing. That would be awesome.

[N/A]

Sure, the sd speed is crappy, but between stock & 3x zoom h264 and pic styles, audio features, standard def raw video, full photography capabilities, the whole selection of Canon lenses (catches breath) AND the massive amount of available accessories, you can't find a better all-around camera for what 600D's cost now.

[robrock_68]

If the .h264 is good enough for broadcast television and feature films**, then this, even though lower resolution, opens up a number of possibilities. There are "optical" ways to limit aliasing and and other issues, plus using higher resolution raw for shorter shots (planning) then this is a viable tool, even on the 600D/T3i. I've gotten wonderful results at higher resolutions in 720 mode, even with the line skipping, and using 40+ year old lenses minimizes the aliasing without additional filters. As with all tools, there is a time and place to use them. Forget about looking at 100% crops, look at the overall aesthetic of what you are shooting. Granted, the 600D/T3i is not as robust as the 7D or especially the 5DII or III, but for my purposes, which are primarily DVD, Standard Def Television, or web, this raw mode is a godsend. I will be using it for very specific purposes, such as greenscreen (where you can never have too much data, and shots that require high latitude. but for general shooting, I will likely stay with the .h264. Granted, the 600D is no 5D, but is close to the 7D in many ways with the exception of dual processors. Same line skipping, same codec, very similar latitude, and if you use high quality glass I would hazard a guess anyone would be hard pressed to tell the difference. I routinely crank up the bitrate (thanks ML team) for certain projects, and raw is just another tool. Remember, a few short years ago, many of us were either stuck with DV or HDV for professional work. Though I've used a Cine-Alta on a few occasions, there are far smaller, and more manageable cameras that yield similar if not superior quality these days. Just trying to keep perspective here.

**Canon DSLR's have been used on:

House - 5D Mark II

24 - 5D Mark II

127 Hours - Canon 1D Mark IV, Canon 5D Mark II, Canon 7D

Act of Valor - Canon 5D Mark II, Canon 7D, & Canon 1D Mark IV

The Avengers - Canon 5D Mark II & Canon 7D

Black Swan - Canon 7D & Canon 5D Mark II

Captain America - Canon 5D Mark II

Iron Man 2 - Canon 5D Mark II

Like Crazy - Canon 7D

The Pirates! Band of Misfits - Canon 5D Mark II

Red State - Canon 7D

Red Tails - Canon 1D Mark IV, Canon 5D Mark II, & Canon 7D

etc...

[AriLG]

If the .h264 is good enough for broadcast television and feature films**, then this, even though lower resolution, opens up a number of possibilities.

Absolutely agree.

We tend to see every difference but the average viewer does not. and if he does, then the movie can be already tagged as "bad" because it draws the viewer attention from the MOVIE. I have seen not so long ago a real movie (in the theaters) shot entirely on 7D. I haven't been able to differentiate it from a "real" movie (and believe me I tried). it was great, because I could focus on the movie and not think about aesthetics.

OTOH, the whole first half movie of "Skyfall" (shot with an Alexa), I couldn't stop thinking how old and crumpled Judi Dench ("M") looked. it was overwhelmingly and painfully sharp (for my taste, at least).

There are "optical" ways to limit aliasing and and other issues, plus using higher resolution raw for shorter shots (planning) then this is a viable tool, even on the 600D/T3i. I've gotten wonderful results at higher resolutions in 720 mode, even with the line skipping, and using 40+ year old lenses minimizes the aliasing without additional filters.

Most odds are that the lens is a "natural limiter" on its own (ie. not sharp as modern lenses, and therefore, cannot resolve enough and relay information to make aliasing apparent...)

As with all tools, there is a time and place to use them. Forget about looking at 100% crops, look at the overall aesthetic of what you are shooting....

I wholeheartedly agree.

BUT

I will be using it for very specific purposes, such as greenscreen (where you can never have too much data, and shots that require high latitude. but for general shooting, I will likely stay with the .h264.

From what I have tested, RAW and H264 does not intercut very well on the 600D. the RAW "pops" (resolution wise they are quite the same after you upscale a continuous shot which is in my case 1024x432). color wise, I've tried to quick match them and its not an easy task.

[Critical Point]

Yes, I agree, the 600D/T3i is a good little camera, especially if we consider that only the 600D and the 5D MK III, can get rid of all the aliasing problems, from all the affordable Canon DSLR lineup. That is a big deal, and it seams few realize this fully. Because of this single reason, in my opinion, 600D is a better camera for video than 60D/7D.

[1%]

The other cameras should be moire free in 1:1 zoom but you don't get the full frame nor can you do H264 with that.

Also 600D was made when UHS was barely coming out.

[Critical Point]

On a 600D, you activate the 3x zoom feature, take a few steps back, and done, no more aliasing and moire problems. Not even the mighty 5D MK II can't do that. A 600D is a must have camera if you are in the video business, if you are interested in cameras from Canon that is.

Or you strap a 50mm f/1.8 lens, activate the 3x zoom feature, and presto, you now have a 150mm lens, with no moire and aliasing, and with god night capabilities. On what other camera can I do this ? Can even the 5D MK II do this ? NOT !

The 600D is a keeper, nobody should give up on this little camera, even if he or she buys a much more expensive camera from Canon.

This 1:1 crop video mode in 1080p, was a slip up from Canon, they have now quickly taken it out from the newer cameras, T4i, T5i, none of them have this feature anymore, and probably we will never see it again to soon, because it really hurts their zoom lens business. Just imagine how much money they're loosing if I want to film with a 800mm lens, and instead of buying from Canon a 3000$ lens, I just put on the 600D a cheap 300$ 250mm lens, and activate the 3x zoom feature. A low cost segment, hurts a high dollar segment from the Canon business, so, that is probably why they have taken it out so quickly, and it was not present even on the MK III. The fact that the 3x zoom feature was not present on MK III, says it all.

Probably the guy who put the 3x zoom feature on the 600D was fired by Canon.