600D/T3i Raw Video

[1%]

I wonder if that is caused by the 5DIII vertical banding correction. Its applied to every camera DNG because the camera name is often incorrect. I have to make a raw2dng that excludes this and then it can be tested.

Here it is:

http://www.filedropper.com/raw2dng-nostripe

Does it help or hurt?

[Cypressentgrp.com]

Is this for PC? having trouble opening with wine on my Mac ?

Thank you

[1%]

Yea, its PC. You have to drop files on it or use the command line. I don't have anything with OSX installed.

[Cypressentgrp.com]

Ok thats cool, I'll get back with the results.

Thanks

[MrMehh]

Thank you MrMehh, I was looking here for an answer very often since I asked my question. I really wish to say thanks to your help. Could I ask you some general advice/tips on the 600D raw shooting please? and which sd card do you use?
no aliasing and moire were obtained shooting at 5x? or with which camera settings?

thanks a lot again! have a good day!

I used SanDisk Extreme SDHC 45mb/s cards, 16GB & 32GB. The 90mb/s cards don't make a difference because of the internal write limit of 20mb/s, although it will help copying the files from the card onto the computer via internal card reader or USB3/thunderbolt readers. But I wouldn't go below 45mb/s either just to be sure.

Some tips would be to prepare yourself, know the ins and outs of using RAW, what settings you use, etc. What I tend to do is use ND-filters so I can open up my lenses all the way which purposefully creates a softer image (depending on the quality of lenses you use, I use vintage lenses) which will help a little in getting rid of moire and aliasing. Just as with H264, the lower the ISO, the cleaner, sharper and better your image will look. Also make sure you've got the knowledge and experience of handling the post process (conversion, proxies, grading, editing).
I convert using raw2cdng, note the c which stands for CinemaDNG. Those work natively with DaVinci Resolve which you can use to grade and create proxies. The latest version of Resolve doesn't have any issues with pink dots or dead pixels anymore. My footage looks absolutely wonderful in it. If you have any more questions, feel free to ask Maybe other people can learn a thing or two as well.

Settings I used:

Audio OFF (We used a Zoom H4n for external audio)
Canon menu --> Video mode --> 640x480 (30p)
FPS override to 23.976 fps
Global Draw OFF (no ML histrograms, camera settings, waveforms, focus peaking or zebras, etc)
RAW Video: 1408x528 (2,67:1), buffer warm-up 32mb, no extra hacks, canon preview mode (~240-250 frames)

What I also found was that oddly enough official Canon batteries work better. The first part of the shoot I used my original battery which gave me the full 10 seconds I needed but in the middle I changed battery to a cheaper alternative and it all of a sudden couldn't record longer than 100 frames. I don't know if that was my fault or it not being warmed up or just coincidence, but I grabbed the official battery from our BTS camera.

[3pphoto]

Have a question. Was there that white cropping border showing what is going to be in the frame since the very beginning? Or did that change in some version? How can I stretch it up on the full screen? The screen is small on itself, not to mention this additional cropping frame and only time when its not showing is when I turn off raw recording.

PS: first time writing on ML forum, but I am a long time reader and fan .
You have done a lot of amazing work guys!

[Brawl]

I used SanDisk Extreme SDHC 45mb/s cards, 16GB & 32GB. The 90mb/s cards don't make a difference because of the internal write limit of 20mb/s, although it will help copying the files from the card onto the computer via internal card reader or USB3/thunderbolt readers. But I wouldn't go below 45mb/s either just to be sure.

Some tips would be to prepare yourself, know the ins and outs of using RAW, what settings you use, etc. What I tend to do is use ND-filters so I can open up my lenses all the way which purposefully creates a softer image (depending on the quality of lenses you use, I use vintage lenses) which will help a little in getting rid of moire and aliasing. Just as with H264, the lower the ISO, the cleaner, sharper and better your image will look. Also make sure you've got the knowledge and experience of handling the post process (conversion, proxies, grading, editing).
I convert using raw2cdng, note the c which stands for CinemaDNG. Those work natively with DaVinci Resolve which you can use to grade and create proxies. The latest version of Resolve doesn't have any issues with pink dots or dead pixels anymore. My footage looks absolutely wonderful in it. If you have any more questions, feel free to ask Maybe other people can learn a thing or two as well.

Settings I used:

Audio OFF (We used a Zoom H4n for external audio)
Canon menu --> Video mode --> 640x480 (30p)
FPS override to 23.976 fps
Global Draw OFF (no ML histrograms, camera settings, waveforms, focus peaking or zebras, etc)
RAW Video: 1408x528 (2,67:1), buffer warm-up 32mb, no extra hacks, canon preview mode (~240-250 frames)

What I also found was that oddly enough official Canon batteries work better. The first part of the shoot I used my original battery which gave me the full 10 seconds I needed but in the middle I changed battery to a cheaper alternative and it all of a sudden couldn't record longer than 100 frames. I don't know if that was my fault or it not being warmed up or just coincidence, but I grabbed the official battery from our BTS camera.

you are really kind
thank you my fiend. I wish to ask you one last advice if it's possible. I'll try to explain in short, have been passed some years since I started to    
economize my money to buy a DSLR to make video for cinema. since Magic Lantern has RAW I lost my plans about what to buy, because anything I knew about DSLR body, ISO noise, models, were lost. Now I wanted RAW and my research started from scratch again.
I wish to buy the 600D because it's relatively affordable. And I can use the rest of my money for video tripod, redhead lights, mics. But I have not understand how nice is the quality of the RAW video when it's done and is upscaled to 1080p.
I will try to produce short films and I'll try to show my shots in movie theaters for short film festivals. I believe that sub HD is not a problem because the detail of the RAW is very good also in Sub HD. But I have not understand if we can notice pixel when watching those videos.

how good it's for example 960x540 upscaled to 1080p? can you notice pixel like this image at the edge of the shapes?
I have got the sample from youtube (600D raw video).


those pixels moves and can generate distraction to the people who see them.
source:

thanks again for help.

[deletedAcc.0021]

you are really kind
thank you my fiend. I wish to ask you one last advice if it's possible. I'll try to explain in short, have been passed some years since I started to    
economize my money to buy a DSLR to make video for cinema. since Magic Lantern has RAW I lost my plans about what to buy, because anything I knew about DSLR body, ISO noise, models, were lost. Now I wanted RAW and my research started from scratch again.
I wish to buy the 600D because it's relatively affordable. And I can use the rest of my money for video tripod, redhead lights, mics. But I have not understand how nice is the quality of the RAW video when it's done and is upscaled to 1080p.
I will try to produce short films and I'll try to show my shots in movie theaters for short film festivals. I believe that sub HD is not a problem because the detail of the RAW is very good also in Sub HD. But I have not understand if we can notice pixel when watching those videos.

how good it's for example 960x540 upscaled to 1080p? can you notice pixel like this image at the edge of the shapes?
I have got the sample from youtube (600D raw video).


those pixels moves and can generate distraction to the people who see them.
source:

thanks again for help.

That was an extreme upscale and don't recommend it for production use.  Also, alot of the artifacting is probably due to youtube compression.  The original looks much cleaner.

[ultramar]

I wonder if that is caused by the 5DIII vertical banding correction. Its applied to every camera DNG because the camera name is often incorrect. I have to make a raw2dng that excludes this and then it can be tested.

Here it is:

http://www.filedropper.com/raw2dng-nostripe

Does it help or hurt?

Hi 1% thanks for all the work you've done.

The link to the raw2dng-nostripe is no longer working. Would love to try it out if it's still available.

Thanks.

[Brawl]

Hi 1% thanks for all the work you've done.

The link to the raw2dng-nostripe is no longer working. Would love to try it out if it's still available.

Thanks.

should be this
http://www.sendspace.com/file/q1r8zm

That was an extreme upscale and don't recommend it for production use.  Also, alot of the artifacting is probably due to youtube compression.  The original looks much cleaner.

please can you give me some example, something to see with my eyes shot with the 600D? thank you if it's possible.

[deletedAcc.0021]

please can you give me some example, something to see with my eyes shot with the 600D? thank you if it's possible.

Don't know why you want them, but here are some screen grabs.

Original 960x540  lossless .avi from AE



Upscaled to 1080p using Magic Bullet Instant HD

[Brawl]

Don't know why you want them, but here are some screen grabs.

Original 960x540  lossless .avi from AE



Upscaled to 1080p using Magic Bullet Instant HD

I'm confused sorry, where did you get those pics? Is you the author of this youtube video (the music is awesome remember me the movie "Paris, Texas") ?

[deletedAcc.0021]

I'm confused sorry, where did you get those pics? Is you the author of this youtube video (the music is awesome remember me the movie "Paris, Texas") ?

Yes, that was my video. I got the pics from the orginal files.

[Brawl]

Yes, that was my video. I got the pics from the orginal files.

thanks, what a coincidence! could I ask you a big favor? could you give me the original DNG so that I can try to make some experiment with it? today is also my birthday would be a great gift for me!

thanks a lot if it is possible!

[deletedAcc.0021]

thanks, what a coincidence! could I ask you a big favor? could you give me the original DNG so that I can try to make some experiment with it? today is also my birthday would be a great gift for me!

thanks a lot if it is possible!

Sorry, this was just a test project and the original .dng's were deleted.  Happy Birthday!

[Brawl]

Sorry, this was just a test project and the original .dng's were deleted.  Happy Birthday!

thanks!!

if you have anything else shot at that resolution with the 600D that would be great anyway, I just need to test how does it upscale. or if you can describe it to me. you said that the original uncompressed file were way better. and on that still picture of the video upscaled with magic bullet that you posted it looks without any sort of pixel at the edge of the shapes. can we definitely say that if the upscaling work is well done we get no pixel at the edge of the shapes? also good for cinema projections/professional works? thanks -a lot- have a nice evening!!! I'll buy the 600D this week it works (gift to myself)!!

[MrMehh]

Here's two frames from the short film I was talking about earlier. First one's the source file (RAW --> raw2cdng.exe). The second one is a processed one, upscaled to 1080p. That's roughly the color palette i'll be using to grade the film. Click on the picture so see the full resolution ones.

Shot at 100ISO, Hanimex 28mm f/2.8 @ f/5.6 or f/8 (can't remember), 1408x528 (2,67:1, max 240-250 frames)


Source


Processed


I think it looks great and the image upscales very well. But I have no shame in admitting my cinescope fetish and I love these widescreen images, which allow me to record longer at higher resolutions. Now obviously that's not always an option. The higher the aspect ratio the lower resolution you're gonna need to use.

[deletedAcc.0021]

Here's two frames from the short film I was talking about earlier. First one's the source file (RAW --> raw2cdng.exe). The second one is a processed one, upscaled to 1080p. That's roughly the color palette i'll be using to grade the film. Click on the picture so see the full resolution ones.

Shot at 100ISO, Hanimex 28mm f/2.8 @ f/5.6 or f/8 (can't remember), 1408x528 (2,67:1, max 240-250 frames)

Nice images.  Were you using ML or TL for this?

[Brawl]

Here's two frames from the short film I was talking about earlier. First one's the source file (RAW --> raw2cdng.exe). The second one is a processed one, upscaled to 1080p. That's roughly the color palette i'll be using to grade the film. Click on the picture so see the full resolution ones.

Shot at 100ISO, Hanimex 28mm f/2.8 @ f/5.6 or f/8 (can't remember), 1408x528 (2,67:1, max 240-250 frames)


Source
 

Processed
 

I think it looks great and the image upscales very well. But I have no shame in admitting my cinescope fetish and I love these widescreen images, which allow me to record longer at higher resolutions. Now obviously that's not always an option. The higher the aspect ratio the lower resolution you're gonna need to use.

I falled in love watching this photography work. please let me know when your film is ready I really wish to see it when is done!

about pixel at the edge of the shapes did you have noticed anything at 1408x528 and 960x540? how do you upscale?
for me 960x540 would be useful because reading the clapper boards for taking audio takes several seconds. how do you take audio for sync when you shot at 1408x528 that allow only few seconds of recording video?
my fear (sorry for repeating concepts sometimes I feel like "Sheldon Cooper") is if I show my work to a short film festival in a cinema theater and they see pixels. 

[N/A]

I've noticed that running raw footage through Neat Video to denoise it helps with aliasing as well, from the pixel blending method they use I suppose. I have footage shot at 1280x512 that I've pulled up full screen on my iMac (27", 2.5k rez), and could hardly detect any aliasing.

Another benefit of raw is that with the extra picture information, plug ins like noise reduction and stabilization have more info to work with and you can usually get better results than h264 video.

[MrMehh]

Nice images.  Were you using ML or TL for this?

TL2.0; SixThirty

I falled in love watching this photography work. please let me know when your film is ready I really wish to see it when is done!

about pixel at the edge of the shapes did you have noticed anything at 1408x528 and 960x540? how do you upscale?
for me 960x540 would be useful because reading the clapper boards for taking audio takes several seconds. how do you take audio for sync when you shot at 1408x528 that allow only few seconds of recording video?
my fear (sorry for repeating concepts sometimes I feel like "Sheldon Cooper") is if I show my work to a short film festival in a cinema theater and they see pixels. 

I upscaled using Magic bullet instant HD, it's quite easy to use but I have yet to do some tests between Instant HD and just simple scaling in AE.
The clapperboard is indeed a thing to consider. My short film is meant to be a teaser/trailer to a full short film so it's about 1:30 - 2 min. long which means that we shot everything in one day and there wasn't much that could go wrong. But still, if I really need those seconds I would lower the resolution from 1408x528 to 1344x503 which would give me 2-3 seconds extra.

I don't think you'll need to worry about pixelation. If you shoot RAW 1280x512 or lower, upscale to 720p, not 1080p. That's not necessary. In my case shooting 1408x528 gives me a decent amount of resolution to upscale to 1080p. Also when I import my DNG sequences I first apply a BMD Film LUT which flattens out the footage but also removes any sharpening and denoising, giving me a softer image which results in less aliasing and moire issues. I then use unsharp mask in AE to sharpen it up again.

You can't really go wrong with RAW. The worst thing that could happen is that it looks exactly the same as H264 in terms of sharpness, but it gives you the dynamic range, information to pull back highlights and push colors around to your liking resulting in a much better looking film than H264 could have ever given you. Not to mention that back in the days people shot films on DV cams where you could almost count every pixel during a screening in a festival, but that didn't matter, because what matters is the story you capture. I know it sounds cheezy but I wouldn't worry about pixelation or aliasing.

[Sane__]

Here's two frames from the short film I was talking about earlier. First one's the source file (RAW --> raw2cdng.exe). The second one is a processed one, upscaled to 1080p. That's roughly the color palette i'll be using to grade the film. Click on the picture so see the full resolution ones.

Shot at 100ISO, Hanimex 28mm f/2.8 @ f/5.6 or f/8 (can't remember), 1408x528 (2,67:1, max 240-250 frames)


Source


Processed


I think it looks great and the image upscales very well. But I have no shame in admitting my cinescope fetish and I love these widescreen images, which allow me to record longer at higher resolutions. Now obviously that's not always an option. The higher the aspect ratio the lower resolution you're gonna need to use.

I can't wait  to see some footage!

[zalbnrum]

I am having the same problems as "Cypressentgrp.com" on my 600D, especially noticable in the areas that are out of focus and/or underexposed. I searched for the cause of it on google and here in the forum. Here is a thread http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=5614.msg43075#msg43075 that says it is solved - for 5DMkIII.

I found this on youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0J5gYcOA6ME and some other comments around www, where some people say the banding in 7D, 600D and some other crop canons is due to lack of processing performance of those models.

I started noticing it even when recording H.264, especially in green areas when moving fast.

So my questions are:

Is it possible to write raw2dng wth vertical stripes correction for 600D, 7D, and others separately?

Is it possible that recording in raw makes processor worse, so the banding gets worse?

I ve been using raw just for testing for about a month or so, I tried raw2dng wth out vertical stripes correction - it stays the same, it looks like the script written for mkIII doesnt take any effect...

All in all raw recording is superb, continous size upscaled to 720p is crisp, but the vertical banding for me is why I dont use it for real - no matter all other potential throwbacks like data size or complicated workflow.

Thank you for all the work done and for your help!

[a1ex]

The stripe correction for 5D3 is for highlights (slightly different ISO for each column).

If the stripes are in shadows, you have slightly different black level for each column (the 7D has this in photo mode). In this case, you need to use the banding correction from dual ISO.

To see if this will help, try this test:
- put the camera in movie mode
- enable dual ISO 100/200 (or if you get the artifacts at high ISO, try 800/1600)
- take a silent picture (not raw video!) and run it through cr2hdr
- post the results (DNG and JPEG crops showing the artifacts preferred)

Current raw_rec implementation does not record any info about black correction. It will be possible with MLV (though it's not implemented yet, but it's in the spec).

[zalbnrum]

Tried every possible combination, almost gave up, then found what causes vertical stripes in my raw footage! I was using TL called "NewMem"; then tried Nightly from 2 days ago (nice progress though!). When I put "SixThirthy" the stripes were gone... 100% clear now  (:

A1ex - thanks for helping!