60D RAW video - it's working !!!

[QUATRO]

well, I've just tested out the vids I shot with ML-RAW-60D-hourly_2013-06-20_17-40 build and it's RAW2DNG - no pink or distorted frames. No apparent visible hot pixels, though I didn't hunt for them because I shot indoors in low light so they may be hidden by noise...

[cthornhill]

Quatro - that is pretty much my point. My results are not even close to what others have seen. I have used build #6, latest build, what have you...they all have the same issues,later ones are a tiny bit better, but still really bad. I am pretty familiar with ML, and code, so I think there is no simple issue but, it is hard to be sure. Something is just not working the same on my camera, but the standard release builds all run fine with all features on my camera. Raw is the only feature that has not worked as described by others I have found in ML. Wish to goodness I could find out why. It is not subtle either - you can't miss half the screen being hot pink... . No real good clues so far, but I guess I can keep plugging away at it. I also use Adobe AE, CS, etc...latest versions all...no other issues in any of them, regular video is all fine, and my Mac & Win (I have both Mac & Win7 systems to test on) tools are all working fine otherwise ( no errors reported) it is just raw footage the does not record well for me as far as i can see. Hight bit rate, under or over crank, etc. all work great with a standard ML release. This drives me nuts...

[cthornhill]

Just thought of a test to run. I use an EVF normally but I will do a test without it. Should not matter, but considering the source of the bitstream is related to live view maybe I should check...will do this and see today when I can ( and report).

[cthornhill]

OK - mystery solved! After all my whining and moaning, I realized the one thing I never tested was recording without my EVF...not something I typically would have done outdoors as a normal habit...sigh...

When I did pull off the EVF (Zacuto for what that's worth), the recordings are all totally clean - NO PINK FRAMES!

SUPER GOOD NEWS for me. My camera is not the issue! I did not mess up the install or configuration. It was having the EVF connected. I was getting really bummed, but now no big deal. Sure, in the long run that may be something to consider, but for now - I can play with raw!

Thanks again to everyone for all the help and patience with me! Now I can go shoot something worthwhile (I hope) and not have the 'pink menace' botch it all up. The odd lost frame is fine - I can deal!

Love it when a plan comes together!

[QUATRO]

OK - mystery solved! After all my whining and moaning, I realized the one thing I never tested was recording without my EVF...not something I typically would have done outdoors as a normal habit...sigh...

When I did pull off the EVF (Zacuto for what that's worth), the recordings are all totally clean - NO PINK FRAMES!

SUPER GOOD NEWS for me. My camera is not the issue! I did not mess up the install or configuration. It was having the EVF connected. I was getting really bummed, but now no big deal. Sure, in the long run that may be something to consider, but for now - I can play with raw!

Thanks again to everyone for all the help and patience with me! Now I can go shoot something worthwhile (I hope) and not have the 'pink menace' botch it all up. The odd lost frame is fine - I can deal!

Love it when a plan comes together!

You have got to be kidding me... xDDD
Great news, mate, but you probably should have removed any camera mods as a first step, haha

[cuttooth]

Here's what came of my test shots using build 2013-06-20_17-40. Had a lot of pink frames throughout my shots, but I just omitted those frames when doing the TIF export from ACR. Here's my workflow (Mac):

Shot at 1728x736 (2.35:1)
Convert RAW using raw2dng.app 0.10
import dng files into photoshop and adjust settings in ACR > Export out to TIF sequence
Open TIF sequence in Quicktime 7 > Export to ProRes4444

If anyone has a quicker workflow I'm definitely open to new ideas, anything that will help eliminate pink frames would be a huge plus because it gets time consuming hunting them down to keep them out of the shots. I don't use any camera mods either.

Thanks in advance!

[koleary]

I've been using raw2dng. Then I open adobe bridge which will give you a preview of all your DNGs (also you'll be able to spot any frames with the pink mess which you can just go and delete the specific DNG file). In bridge, you can edit any frame with Camera Raw which I find nice because most of my first frames in my shots are not ideal for color editing. I then apply my color corrections to the rest of the DNG files. Then I open the DNG sequence right into after effects (make sure your import settings are on the correct frame rate - otherwise play back will be off). It'll bring up Camera Raw again, but I just click done since I've already edited the DNGs.

With this work flow (similar to raw time lapse), I can now go back to bridge and re-edit any DNG files with Camera Raw and go back to AE and click on the imported sequence and click reload footage. It should update any changes you made to the DNGs in Camera Raw.

[Nickbibs]

Anyone know how to get rid of the awful Moire and Aliasing? Very unpleasant in my RAW footage.

[Rollmodl]

Anyone know how to get rid of the awful Moire and Aliasing? Very unpleasant in my RAW footage.

http://store.mosaicengineering.com/VAF-60D-Moire-Aliasing-Filter_p_13.html

[Nickbibs]

http://store.mosaicengineering.com/VAF-60D-Moire-Aliasing-Filter_p_13.html

Thanks. Was just looking at that. A little pricey!

[cthornhill]

I also found the Mosaic filter a bit expensive, but it works a treat! It wiped out horrible moiré issues with brick structures I had. Check out the demos they have for fabric issues too. I have it in place full time (I pretty much use my 60D for video only), but it is not too hard to remove it or re-insert it as needed. Given the limited market, and high quality requirements, I don't think they can sell it for a lot less...they also have superb support and are very nice on the phone and in email. I found it well worth the money.

[Abstrak]

I also found the Mosaic filter a bit expensive, but it works a treat! It wiped out horrible moiré issues with brick structures I had. Check out the demos they have for fabric issues too. I have it in place full time (I pretty much use my 60D for video only), but it is not too hard to remove it or re-insert it as needed. Given the limited market, and high quality requirements, I don't think they can sell it for a lot less...they also have superb support and are very nice on the phone and in email. I found it well worth the money.

Does it soften up the stills? I got the latest build on my card what is the best resolution to shoot at for around 15 secs of video. I shot some lower Res ones last night were pretty noisy in upscaling. I need to get some day shots later in the week my schedule super hectic.

[jayhas]

I've been using raw2dng. Then I open adobe bridge which will give you a preview of all your DNGs (also you'll be able to spot any frames with the pink mess which you can just go and delete the specific DNG file). In bridge, you can edit any frame with Camera Raw which I find nice because most of my first frames in my shots are not ideal for color editing. I then apply my color corrections to the rest of the DNG files. Then I open the DNG sequence right into after effects (make sure your import settings are on the correct frame rate - otherwise play back will be off). It'll bring up Camera Raw again, but I just click done since I've already edited the DNGs.

With this work flow (similar to raw time lapse), I can now go back to bridge and re-edit any DNG files with Camera Raw and go back to AE and click on the imported sequence and click reload footage. It should update any changes you made to the DNGs in Camera Raw.

I have a similar workflow. Also I would save as preset in ACR to make it faster to apply the settings to clips shot in similar environment, or at least a good starting point for other clips.

[Can]

Does it soften up the stills? I got the latest build on my card what is the best resolution to shoot at for around 15 secs of video. I shot some lower Res ones last night were pretty noisy in upscaling. I need to get some day shots later in the week my schedule super hectic.

There are a few different combinations that will get you what you want, here are a couple I have noted:

1728x526@24 in ML (2.35:1), 1280x720@30 in Canon settings will give you around 400 frames,

1280x720@24 in ML (16:9), 1920x1080@24 in Canon settings gets you much the same...hope that helps.


I haven't seen too many other videos that were shot in something other than daylight; not that they aren't beautiful, but has anyone seen anything studio lit and shot?

[cthornhill]

Abstrak - You can't leave the Mosaic filter in place for taking stills - it will radically lower the resolution for stills. Also note the mirror remains up when the filter is in place ( physical design). It is not hard to add or remove it,and they provide tools, a case, and a cloth ( for handling ease).

[QUATRO]

http://store.mosaicengineering.com/VAF-60D-Moire-Aliasing-Filter_p_13.html

I wouldn't say this will reduce moire and aliasing in RAW footage. Think about it...
It is optimized for 1080p video (certain pixels in the sensor), while RAW is somewhat a full sensor output downscaled (and the filter has to be removed for hi-res photography or other full-sensor uses because of loss in optical resolution). Just my thoughts, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. But it's definitely a very good piece of tech to know about, will keep the shop link for the future
The RAW sharpness is amazing as is, compared to the H.264 1080p, but isn't the moire/aliasing in RAW caused by a shitty downsampling algorightm which was only supposed to quickly downsample the image in real-time for live-view purposes? If so, then re-making the algorithm is the only option I can think of right off the bat...

[Audionut]

It is optimized for 1080p video (certain pixels in the sensor), while RAW is somewhat a full sensor output downscaled.

This makes absolutely no sense at all.

1080p is 1080p.  It all comes from the same sensor output.

[QUATRO]

This makes absolutely no sense at all.

1080p is 1080p.  It all comes from the same sensor output.

please read my updated post above

[Audionut]

canon does all of the pixel binning / line skipping and outputs an image to a buffer, updated at the framerate of live view (24fps, for example). all we do is save the image at the buffer 24 times a second to the card to make the video. the image is 14-bit raw data.

Even if ML could access the data before Canon did the pixel binning, the CPU is only fast enough to do so many things.  ie:  Don't expect some super duper resizing algorithm.

[QUATRO]

quote from the Mosaic Design page about the filter:
"When using a VAF filter, the live video image on the camera's small, built-in LCD screen may appear to be the same as without the filter, and may show moiré and other aliasing artifacts.  These artifacts (with or without the VAF filter) are caused by the camera's internal downsampling algorithms that generate the viewfinder display, and as such are unrelated to aliasing artifacts (if any) in the full-resolution HD video being simultaneously recorded."
AND
"VAF-series filters are specifically designed for HD video - and should be removed to shoot high-quality still photography at your DSLR's full, native sensor resolution"

These two things make me feel that this filter may not do much for RAW as we're actually using that same downsampled stream (crappy internal downsampling algorightm) from a FULL sensor pixel array (filter must be removed as it reduces optical resolution). But at this point I can only speculate as to whether or not this is true as I don't actually own it...

[Audionut]

The actual LCD resolution is lower.

Code: [Select]

Full sensor resolution --->  Pixel binning/line skipping (to 1080p) ---> Raw record dumps image buffer to card (Raw video)
    ---> Canon pumps the data through the H.264 pipeline (Regular video)
    ---> Image further resized for LCD
All the data, whether it ends up as Raw, H.264, or displayed on the rear LCD, comes from the same pixel binned/lineskipped buffer.  AFAIK anyway.  There might be some slight difference I am unaware of, but for the sake of this conversation the VAF filter will help Raw video just as much as H.264.

I would actually hazard to guess that the VAF filter will help Raw video more then H.264, as H.264 goes through further processing in camera that reduces sharpness.

[QUATRO]

I don't know, I am still on the opposite end of this camp. Since the filter reduces the optical resolution to acomodate for this downsampling, why would it help the slightly downsampled image sensor stream which is in a different resolution that 1080p?
1080p is also recorded simultaniously to the live-view (AFAIK), we're not getting the same thing. If we were, the RAW output would too be limited to the 1080p or 720p depending on the shooting mode chosen.
That being said, the RAW video is much sharper than the 1080p, even at much lower resolutions. It is still being resized, but we're capturing this raw sensor data prior to the actual 1080p downscale. And since in this case we're using the full sensor here, the optical reduction would mean reduction in sharpness back to 1080p quality as the filter is acomodated for that specific resolution (again, NOT for stills because of REDUCTION IN OPTICAL RESOLUTION as mentioned in the page).
So... I think it is easy to pin-point why I believe in the uselessness of the filter for RAW imaging purposes.
HOWEVER, if someone actually owns the filter and would like to test it out and prove me wrong - I'd be happy to see the results. Until that moment I stand in this side of the YES/NO camp.
In any case, I will probably buy this filter for H.264 use as RAW is not practical a lot of the time (in terms of workflow, reliability and storage), but not now as I've shelled out my cash on a new piece of L glass and I'm moving houses this week

[cthornhill]

The effectiveness of the filter is easy to test,but I have not had a chance to run those test on raw footage.I did a series of test of H.264 a few weeks ago and got awesome results (complete fix for moire). What I would need to do is use my wider lens to get a similar field of view in the raw shots and do tests without the filter and with it. My favorite test has always been Plant Hall at the University of Tampa as the fancy brick work is pretty much a perfect storm for most DSLR's that have moire issues. Alternately a fabric sample indoors will do as that is also pretty useless on the 60D without the filter,I just don't do much product work any more so I have not set up a sample. I will try and run a test I can post, but given my work schedule right now and the weather, it. May be a week or two before I can post one unless I an find a good indoor example. Fine patterned nylon may do it...have to try...a blue Oxford cloth also can be a good test...those are a nightmare in a lot of shots even for the Canon as a stills camera...and they can fudge up a lot. Of broadcast gear too...let me give it a whirl and see if I can get a good test.

My informal obsvation is that I have not seen moire since I installed the filter (except for test when I took it out). I have not done a lot of raw shoots at locations besides natural scenes close to home yet since I was waiting until I got the data corruption fixed ( no point before that). Not much moire in the woods or gardens in summer. Now that I have it fixed, I can go for something more, and will try to answer the question.

[QUATRO]

awesome, keep us posted

[Audionut]

I don't know, I am still on the opposite end of this camp. Since the filter reduces the optical resolution to acomodate for this downsampling, why would it help the slightly downsampled image sensor stream which is in a different resolution that 1080p?

Slightly? 18MP > 2MP!

Everything (Raw (photo/video), Canon H.264, LCD image) comes from the original sensor output.
Canon then pixel bins/line skips that resolution down to the image buffer size.  This is where the VAF filter is useful.  It helps reduce moire/aliasing in the 18MP > 2MP process!