Why RAW insn't Cr2, and it is DNG, instead?

[ToniX]

I shortened "RAWVideo" in the title

Premise:
When shooting  video in RAW, the output file is .RAW
When taking a photo in RAW mode, the output file is .cr2, that's the Canon version of standard .RAW

Here is the  question:
When converting a .RAW Video file, it is being converted to .dng
but .dng is the same format we have by converting a .MOV, that is the native Canon output format.

To me it seems it is like doing the same thing, either cases: what is the difference?
 
I would aspect to work with .cr2 files when post-processing .RAW video files, instead.

Is it that wrong, or something I've missed?

[a1ex]

Hint: we are not Canon.

[ToniX]

I see.  The canon  .mov is the container used to store H.264 files
the ML mov is the container used to store the.dng files
the .cr2 is the  raw format fot photo.

something like that?

pity, would have been great for me to work with cr2, I  have some problem using dng,
since the setup for post processing, it require software that is too heavy for my HW.


Any suggestion welcome.

[CFP]

I think you are a bit confused?

DNG (Digital Negative) is an open lossless file format for raw stills. It was developed by Adobe to replace all the other formats like Canon's CR2 or Nikon's NEF and become the only standard for raw stills. CR2 isn't open. You can't simply make a RAW2CR2 converter without license. And it wouldn't help you since both formats, CR2 and DNG are based on Adobe's TIFF format. They don't differ in quality. And if your hardware is too weak to handle DNG sequences it won't work with CR2 sequences either.

Short: DNG and CR2 are both equally good raw formats. But one is open, and one isn't

And .mov is only an ending. The container format is called QuickTime and it's a standard by Apple. It supports a lot of audio and video codecs and is used by many video cameras together with the H.264 codec. That has absolutely nothing to do with RAW or Magic Lantern. The videos inside the QuickTime container are compressed and edited. But the compression is too strong and the editing that's applied inside the Canon DSLR is quite bad as you may know.

The frames inside the .raw files are raw. As raw as possible. Even more raw than Blackmagic CinemaDNG raw or Canon CR2 raw. They are no DNG frames, nor CR2. No compression and no more editing than croping the edges to lower the resolution. Anything else.They are even a bit too raw so you have to convert them to something else to work with them. And if you chose DNG or CR2 makes no difference. But since you can't chose the CR2 option anyway ...

If you convert a .mov (QuickTime) file to several DNG images you won't get raw images. That's no the way it works.

[a1ex]

Photo DNGs converted from CR2 are roughly twice as fast in ufraw here

[ToniX]

  you're right, I made confusion.(I was so tired but urged understanding, ..you know how it is)

Thanks or all the explanations, even if a bit contorted, my fault.

You can't simply make a RAW2CR2 converter without license
 
 I was asking the opposite: being cr2 canon RAW propietary, would possible a CR2-2RAW,  to be able to use an  alternative open RAW, instead of dng?

In my experience RAW files can be edited in many opensource and even free software, instead .dng, that mostly require expensive HW/SW upgrades, best results achieved with top Adobe suites, propietary.

I am learning digital movie, and DSRL video,  I just want to learn how to make decent video on a 600D, to express my creativity, with the given tools. Need to see some result before to consider investing on it.

Quick question: in ML RAWmode,  it is possible to choose between: RAW, SRAW MRAW, explain pls.  ....they are?) .

[a1ex]

Quick question: in ML RAWmode,  it is possible to choose between: RAW, SRAW MRAW, explain pls.  ....they are?)

Huh? that's photo mode quality and you choose it from Canon menu...

(or maybe you are not running ML?)

[CFP]

@ A1ex: On the 600D you can't set them from the Canon menu

These settings don't affect the .raw video but the CR2 stills's resolution. Set the "Pic Quality" to "RAW" to get 5202 X 3456 set it to "SRAW" for 2592 X 1728. "MRAW" doesn't work properly (Files are corrupt) but it would be something in between. But you should set the "Pic Quality" to "SRAW" if you want to film something in RAW because it increases the shoot_malloc buffer size. The bigger the bufer the better.

If you don't want to work with normal DNG files, use CinemaDNG. Or write your own converter.
Here's a innofficial specs site for the CR2 file format: http://lclevy.free.fr/cr2/
And why on earth do you want to have a converter that creates useless .raw video files from usable .cr2 image files?
Sorry, but I think I don't understand your point

I think all you want is not using DNG. Am I right?

And if you need a video that shows the (very poor) possibilies you have with the 600D, search on YouTube. You'll see that it has some serious hardware limits. Reading the official thread could help too: http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=5494.0
And here's a very little project I made with the EOS 600D and Magic Lantern a few days ago:

Did anything from my post answered one of your questions?

[a1ex]

On the official Magic Lantern? If yes, it has to be deleted, because it's dangerous.

[CFP]

You mean the "SRAW" and "MRAW" settings? They aren't in the official nightlies, but in 1%'s Tragic Lantern 2.0 build. I haven't tried the RAW Modules that come with the new nightlys but they didn't work last week on the 600D. So you need to use 1%'s build. Please don't delete it!

The SRAW images work fine in Digital Photo Professional and the SRAW option increase the buffer from ~70 to ~100 Megabyte. Without that the 600D's RAW feature would be as useless as on the 550D ...

I know that it is dangerous because it's not saved on the SD-card but in the camera. Who cares?

[a1ex]

Then, please call things by their name.

I do care about safety. If something it's likely to cause permanent damage of the camera, I don't include it in public builds. But Tragic Lantern is not maintained by me, and it does not meet my safety standards (e.g. patching assertions in Canon code without understanding the implications is a no-no for me).

If you don't care about that, you are on your own and I will no longer help you if things go wrong.

[CFP]

I'm sorry if I offended you. And I apologize for my last words.
Please don't get me wrong: I'm totally with you about safety. And I admire and appreciate your awesome work. (Guess you heard that way to often, hm? )

I know that you are a great programmer and I respect your high standards.

I just thought this guy here would show that I wasn't completely serious:

But since we are talking about a "hack" (firmware add-on) and not even about the official and stable version, I guess that most people are okay with a certain risk. In my opinion it is okay as long at it's labeled as dangerous in the menu. And that is the case. That's why I said what I said. But I agree with you: The feature shouldn't be in the normal version. It's just nice to have the option to use a different build if you are willing to risk your camera.

Anyway, I don't want to argue or waste your time. And it goes offtopic too (At least if I understood the topic ). It's just very nice how it is: The stable version for the shy people, the nightlys for the more anxious ones and the unofficial extras for more careless experimental ones. It's good to be able to chose instead of letting Canon do that for you. And like I said, I'm gratefull for that.

Of course I understand if you won't forgive me. I wouldn't do it either

[ToniX]

Thanks all for your replies.

 This thread it is turning too difficult for me to manage.

After some reading:
 http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/products_y7.htm
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/openraw_tragedy.htm

and others, I get to the conclusion that probably the ML project is DNG oriented, because standardization, and the DNG format,  at the present is the only succesfull attempt in such direction. (and If not that, who care?)

I also realized  that I did  asked a malformed question (but I realized it later), so I couldn't avoid to receive odd answers.


This one is really cryptic (I just love it).

Q:    Why RAW insn't Cr2 (and it is DNG, instead?)
RE:  And why on earth do you want to have a converter that creates useless .raw video files from usable .cr2 image files?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Back to people

@CFP..... And if you need a video that shows the (very poor) possibilies you have with the 600D, search on YouTube. You'll see that it has some serious hardware limit
(thanks for motivating me further.....to sell my just-bought-for-that, 600D).I am not serious here.


question:  at a first glance the video looks nice(!)
In your opinion, considering also the post production job, how much better is this, if compared with the best result obtainable without using ML? 

@A1EX    Thanks for advice about SRAW potential danger. I came across this issue,  I had just formatted my card with the EOSCARD as you suggested in a dedicated topic, and this saved me.


I will continue to search how to set up a low end postproduction workflow.

Take care.




 

[CFP]

(thanks for motivating me further.....to sell my just-bought-for-that, 600D)

All I wanted to say is that the 600D is way more limited than the other Canon DSLR and that most tests on YouTube look like crap
Sorry if I killed your enthusiasm about your new camera. That wasn't my intention. But don't forget that the 600D can film in normal H.264 too and that it doesn't look bad. Just because it can't film perfect RAW videos you don't have to sell it!

question:  at a first glance the video looks nice(!)
In your opinion, considering also the post production job, how much better is this, if compared with the best result obtainable without using ML?

I'm also quite happy with the quality of 1280 X 512 RAW. It is not as good as a 5D Mark III or 50D and probably even the Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera will be way better than that but it's OK. And it's very nice to work with it.

My workflow isn't perfect since I don't use expensive software. But I'm happy with it. It's time consuming, but I'm happy with the result.

I think, I'll use RAW for some projects if I know I'll have much time to edit it. Otherwise I'll stay with H.264 and 1%'s great hacks with slice control and all that (See here: http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=6913.0 + Download: https://bitbucket.org/OtherOnePercent/tragic-lantern/downloads). Both versions have their benefits and I think you can make amazing stuff with both too: RAW & H.264.

Oh and by the way:
This sentence of mine: "And why on earth do you want to have a converter that creates useless .raw video files from usable .cr2 image files?" was the answer to this question:
"I was asking the opposite: being cr2 canon RAW propietary, would possible a CR2-2RAW,  to be able to use an  alternative open RAW, instead of dng?" Maybe I haven't understood the question ...

[ToniX]

My workflow isn't perfect since I don't use expensive software. But I'm happy with it. It's time consuming, but I'm happy with the result.

Would you give me some detail, pls ?

thanks

[CFP]

Would you give me some detail, pls ?

thanks

Sure

It's in the description of my YouTube video:

- Converted the .RAW files to .DNG files with RAW2DNG
- Color grading in Adobe Lightroom 4, exported as uncompressed 8-bit .TIF files
- Opened the .TIF files in AviSynth, upscaled them to 1920 X 768 and exported as .AVI files using VirtualDub and Lagarith Codec
- Edited in Magix Video Deluxe MX and exported as .AVI using MJPEG Codec

(You see, a very time consuming, low-budget workflow. I'm using a few selfmade Batch scripts so that I only have to do the color grading)

My AviSynth script looks like this:

[Spoiler]
LoadPlugin(ScriptDir()+"..\Avisynth-plugins\nnedi3.dll")
# Get the Plugin here: http://web.missouri.edu/~kes25c/nnedi3.zip
# Edit the path if necessary

LoadVirtualDubPlugin(ScriptDir()+"..\VirtualDub\plugins\msu_sharpen.vdf", "MSUSmartSharpen", 0)
# Get the Plugin here: http://www.compression.ru/video/smart_sharpen/src/smart_sharpen.zip
# Edit the path if necessary

ImageSource("PATH TO YOU TIFF FILES\%d.tif", FIRST_FRAME'S_NAME, LAST_FRAME'S_NAME, FRAME_RATE, false, false, "RGB24")
# That works only if your TIFF files are named like this: 1, 2, 3, 4, [...], 678
# Example:
# ImageSource("D:\Videos\%d.tif", 1, 300, 24, false, false, "RGB24")

nnedi3_rpow2(rfactor = 4)

ConvertToRGB32()

MSUSmartSharpen(3)
# decrease the number if it looks oversharped. The max. value is 5.

ConvertToRGB24()

Spline36Resize(1920, 768)
# If your aspect ratio isn't 2.5:1 you may want to change the second number
[/Spoiler]


It loads the TIFF files which are created by Lightroom, upscales and sharpen them. Open this script in VirtualDub and export the video. It's easier with a Batch script. But I guess there are a lot less comlicated workflows out there- Just search and decide which one is best for you.

For any other questions you have to relie on the communitie. Tonight I'll fly to England for hollyday