Author Topic: 5DmkII Raw video Post caparative videos  (Read 8009 times)

lokki19

  • New to the forum
  • *
  • Posts: 10
5DmkII Raw video Post caparative videos
« on: July 26, 2013, 06:39:04 AM »
Hi everyone,

I've been using the Raw video feature on my 5DmkII since May and I just love it! (My thanks to everyone who worked to make this append). The builds are getting better and more stable every time but I feel that the post is still a bit sketchy. There are many different ways to convert the footage and I found that each have strong and weak points.

It is in no way a critic and I have no right to complain about it since I have 0 knowledge or skill in programming. I'm only stating facts observed and issues reproduced.

I'm working mainly on a Mac and the 3 most popular importer on that platform seamed to be raw2dng, rawmagic and Ginger HDR plugin. While using them extensively, i noticed that those 3 methods interpret the same Raw file very differently. So i decided to do a little comparative video with the 3 methods in a somewhat controlled environment.

After seeing the results, it was clear that i needed to separate this video in 3 segments to better see and understand the differences because i found out that the amount of light and ISO setting vary the result considerably (meaning that a high iso does not have the same result in the 3 methods if the image has strong overall shadow or is just low in light). In words, this might sound silly, but if you look at the image, you would probably understand what i mean.

The Specs for this test:
5DmkII
Transcend CF 32GB 1000x.
ML Raw build: July 12, fixed 24fps, noise reduction ON, 1880x940 (2:1) down scaled to 720p for export.
RawMagic: Beta7b
Raw2Dng: July 14
Ginger HDR: June 12
Picture style: Canon X-video
Footage conformed in AE CC
All footage are taken as shot, no grading, no denoiser, no levels correction, no fancy music.


Video 1: At ISO 1250 and in pure darkness, Raw2dng give the best result overall, Ginger HDR is extremely noisy and RawMagic is full of vertical lines.


Video 2: At ISO 640, Raw2dng is sharper and brighter then the other 2 and the color is by default more accurate then the other 2. Ginger HDR introduced hot pixel in certain shot (ex: at 3:11, near the top of the cat's ear, there is a hot pixel, unfortunately barely visible in the compressed version). These burned pixel do not appear in the other 2 methods. Ginger HDR also has more banding in out off focus sections. RawMagic has a lot less vertical lines in pure black pictures.


Video 3: At ISO 100, Raw2dng has a more balanced image and highlight retaint more informations to be recover. Ginger HDR has a lot less noise but lost a lot of information in highlight and color is shifted a little bit in the red. RawMagic color is shifted in the blue but vertical lines are barely visible in strong shadow.

Now, Raw2Dng seam to have the best result overall but a lot of footage could not be use for this test because Raw2Dng was not able to convert the .RAW file properly, every frame was pink garble noise. But where Raw2Dng failed, the others worked.

I really like the result of Raw2Dng but the UI is terrible and since it is creating automatically a ProRes file and a DNG, it is taking 2x as long to process, it take a lot more room on drive, the footage need to be renamed afterword to keep your project organized, and the result are unpredictable. RawMagic interface is great, efficient, fast,  but the result in low light is really bad and unpredictable. Ginger HDR is a incredible tool to monitor your shots live on set. .RAW files can be drag and drop directly in premiere and after effect for quick review to see if the shot is good or not. But for a post production solution I don't find that the image is good enough to work with.

RawMagic has a really sober and functional interface. It lacks a bit of customization for import, like choosing if you want to creat a ProRes or not, and witch compression you want to use (LT, 422, HQ, 444). At the moment, this methods does not work with the audio files created by the camera (.R00).

Audio is another problem in the video Raw post. I found the instruction confusing and having to go trough terminal commands could be a little bit scary for none programming guru (my self including).

In the end, if anyone out there is looking for a challenge (or has some time to kill) and a lot of talent in programming here is a few suggestion for improving post workflow.

-Choice to use DNG and or video file (ex: ProRes for Mac, Motion jpeg for PC).
-Audio conforming to footage in .wav with simple drag and drop.
-Batch process and Batch renaming options.
-Logging camera info and other metadata.
-Simple UI, like RawMagic.

I'm sure other people have there own request and suggestion, I'm just stating a few things that I think would be nice to have.

Hope you'll find some uses to all this.

Cheers.

ahram

  • New to the forum
  • *
  • Posts: 4
Re: 5DmkII Raw video Post caparative videos
« Reply #1 on: July 26, 2013, 02:03:11 PM »
Great, thanks for your tests.
Though, just in color correction topic, i guess that you have so much room in raw that it's not so important the tool you make your conversion.

Cheers.

dariSSight

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 163
Re: 5DmkII Raw video Post caparative videos
« Reply #2 on: July 26, 2013, 03:16:49 PM »
Hi everyone,

I've been using the Raw video feature on my 5DmkII since May and I just love it! (My thanks to everyone who worked to make this append). The builds are getting better and more stable every time but I feel that the post is still a bit sketchy. There are many different ways to convert the footage and I found that each have strong and weak points.

It is in no way a critic and I have no right to complain about it since I have 0 knowledge or skill in programming. I'm only stating facts observed and issues reproduced.

I'm working mainly on a Mac and the 3 most popular importer on that platform seamed to be raw2dng, rawmagic and Ginger HDR plugin. While using them extensively, i noticed that those 3 methods interpret the same Raw file very differently. So i decided to do a little comparative video with the 3 methods in a somewhat controlled environment.

After seeing the results, it was clear that i needed to separate this video in 3 segments to better see and understand the differences because i found out that the amount of light and ISO setting vary the result considerably (meaning that a high iso does not have the same result in the 3 methods if the image has strong overall shadow or is just low in light). In words, this might sound silly, but if you look at the image, you would probably understand what i mean.

The Specs for this test:
5DmkII
Transcend CF 32GB 1000x.
ML Raw build: July 12, fixed 24fps, noise reduction ON, 1880x940 (2:1) down scaled to 720p for export.
RawMagic: Beta7b
Raw2Dng: July 14
Ginger HDR: June 12
Picture style: Canon X-video
Footage conformed in AE CC
All footage are taken as shot, no grading, no denoiser, no levels correction, no fancy music.


Video 1: At ISO 1250 and in pure darkness, Raw2dng give the best result overall, Ginger HDR is extremely noisy and RawMagic is full of vertical lines.


Video 2: At ISO 640, Raw2dng is sharper and brighter then the other 2 and the color is by default more accurate then the other 2. Ginger HDR introduced hot pixel in certain shot (ex: at 3:11, near the top of the cat's ear, there is a hot pixel, unfortunately barely visible in the compressed version). These burned pixel do not appear in the other 2 methods. Ginger HDR also has more banding in out off focus sections. RawMagic has a lot less vertical lines in pure black pictures.


Video 3: At ISO 100, Raw2dng has a more balanced image and highlight retaint more informations to be recover. Ginger HDR has a lot less noise but lost a lot of information in highlight and color is shifted a little bit in the red. RawMagic color is shifted in the blue but vertical lines are barely visible in strong shadow.

Now, Raw2Dng seam to have the best result overall but a lot of footage could not be use for this test because Raw2Dng was not able to convert the .RAW file properly, every frame was pink garble noise. But where Raw2Dng failed, the others worked.

I really like the result of Raw2Dng but the UI is terrible and since it is creating automatically a ProRes file and a DNG, it is taking 2x as long to process, it take a lot more room on drive, the footage need to be renamed afterword to keep your project organized, and the result are unpredictable. RawMagic interface is great, efficient, fast,  but the result in low light is really bad and unpredictable. Ginger HDR is a incredible tool to monitor your shots live on set. .RAW files can be drag and drop directly in premiere and after effect for quick review to see if the shot is good or not. But for a post production solution I don't find that the image is good enough to work with.

RawMagic has a really sober and functional interface. It lacks a bit of customization for import, like choosing if you want to creat a ProRes or not, and witch compression you want to use (LT, 422, HQ, 444). At the moment, this methods does not work with the audio files created by the camera (.R00).

Audio is another problem in the video Raw post. I found the instruction confusing and having to go trough terminal commands could be a little bit scary for none programming guru (my self including).

In the end, if anyone out there is looking for a challenge (or has some time to kill) and a lot of talent in programming here is a few suggestion for improving post workflow.

-Choice to use DNG and or video file (ex: ProRes for Mac, Motion jpeg for PC).
-Audio conforming to footage in .wav with simple drag and drop.
-Batch process and Batch renaming options.
-Logging camera info and other metadata.
-Simple UI, like RawMagic.

I'm sure other people have there own request and suggestion, I'm just stating a few things that I think would be nice to have.

Hope you'll find some uses to all this.

Cheers.


Great Analyzation thanks it will help a lot through my future work with ML RAW. Are you saying from your research RAW2DNG is the best or consistent converter, also what do you think about RAW2DNG to Adobe Camera Raw to QuickTime to FCPX? What are some stable UpRes conversion you were able to achieve without compromising the Quality?
Canon 5D Mark II

lokki19

  • New to the forum
  • *
  • Posts: 10
Re: 5DmkII Raw video Post caparative videos
« Reply #3 on: July 26, 2013, 06:35:54 PM »
Great, thanks for your tests.
Though, just in color correction topic, i guess that you have so much room in raw that it's not so important the tool you make your conversion.

Cheers.

For sure, you can do extensive correction to the colors, I just find it a bit odd that there is a considerable difference in color interpretation. This difference could be link to the difference in the noise appearing, or vice versa.

lokki19

  • New to the forum
  • *
  • Posts: 10
Re: 5DmkII Raw video Post caparative videos
« Reply #4 on: July 26, 2013, 06:44:04 PM »

Great Analyzation thanks it will help a lot through my future work with ML RAW. Are you saying from your research RAW2DNG is the best or consistent converter, also what do you think about RAW2DNG to Adobe Camera Raw to QuickTime to FCPX? What are some stable UpRes conversion you were able to achieve without compromising the Quality?

Didn't try anything in FCPX yet. Personally, i don't really like this version. When I started to use it, i felt like a repair man trading it's tool box for a swiss army knife. But that's my opinion, if you feel comfortable with this editing suite, who am I to tell you otherwise.

But your workflow seam fine. If you shoot in 1880x you can up scale to 1080p without any problem in FCPX. If you want to reach 2k, you would need a upscaler like Instant HD from RedGiantSoftware. You might also want to check for a temporal denoiser like NeatVideo, it help's cleaning high iso artifact and color noise, and make your image look sharper and cleaner.

PlayIt

  • New to the forum
  • *
  • Posts: 12
Re: 5DmkII Raw video Post caparative videos
« Reply #5 on: July 26, 2013, 07:25:47 PM »
@Lokki19

You can Change the settings of RAW2DNG. Just load the app, and then pick the app again, and drop it in the same way you do with the raw files. With that, you can choose not to have proress files.
5d markII

lokki19

  • New to the forum
  • *
  • Posts: 10
Re: 5DmkII Raw video Post caparative videos
« Reply #6 on: July 26, 2013, 09:48:45 PM »
@Lokki19

You can Change the settings of RAW2DNG. Just load the app, and then pick the app again, and drop it in the same way you do with the raw files. With that, you can choose not to have proress files.

Nice! Thx, will try that. Also, I realised that my Raw2dng is making ProRes 422(HQ) instead of 444, any clou why or how to change that?

Abstrak

  • New to the forum
  • *
  • Posts: 33
Re: 5DmkII Raw video Post caparative videos
« Reply #7 on: July 26, 2013, 09:54:04 PM »
Wow the Raw Magic looks really saturated compared to the Raw2Dng and Ginger just looks washed out completely compared to the other two apps.

bnvm

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 159
Re: 5DmkII Raw video Post caparative videos
« Reply #8 on: July 27, 2013, 12:15:53 AM »
At the moment, this methods does not work with the audio files created by the camera (.R00).

Thanks for posting these they are very helpful to see. I think you may be a little confused about what the .R00, .R01, etc... files are. They are not audio, they are parts of a single raw video file that get split due to the fact that memory cards cannot have files larger than 4gb on them. Those files need to get merged back together. For more info read through the first post in this topic.

http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=5533.0