EOS-M RAW Some explanation and clips

[maxotics]

I've noticed that many people think the decision is whether to use in-camera MP4 or RAW.  They both have their benefits. In this video I explain why RAW video may be appropriate for some shots, and show side-by-side clips where you should see the difference between Magic Lantern RAW and MP4. 

Shooting in 1728x586 seems good until the card starting filling up.  I switched to a lower resolution and then it continued on fine. 

[davidjm]

Sorry this is not a good example of ML capability.

[maxotics]

Sorry this is not a good example of ML capability.

I think the real sorrow is you write one sentence to say something unkind about an effort that was hours, if not days in the making.  Why is  it not a good example? Have you created RAW from the EOS-M camera?  Where are your clips?  Are you an authority I should listen to.  I would be happy too.  What are your credentials?   Are you on the Magic Lantern team?  Do you think what I did is so bad as to turn someone off from trying Magic Lantern RAW on the EOS-M?  If so, why?  I find it very rude that you would post a judgment on something, that someone went to great effort to make, without the courtesy of explaining why.  I thought this is a forum for people trying to work with Magic Lantern.  I'm not making a demo real here.  What are you offering?  What do you think you have accomplished, or should have accomplished, with your post?

[PeteMarlboro]

compression has only one + to compare with RAW - size of the files.
this is the reason why it calls the compression.
that's all

[davidjm]

You are being dramatic sir... my answer is simple...  compared to some other members quality footage yours is the least inspiring for anyone considering ML. If one is trying to make an impression then they only allow there best footage to be viewed.

[maxotics]

You are being dramatic sir... my answer is simple...  compared to some other members quality footage yours is the least inspiring for anyone considering ML. If one is trying to make an impression then they only allow there best footage to be viewed.

You bring the drama out of me   I love looking at the best footage too.  However, the kind of footage you're talking about usually doesn't have side-by-side comparisons of what non RAW footage looks like so it's difficult to see where the quality is due to RAW, or the videographer's skill.  I have analyzed a very narrow issue.  Let me back up and explain in more depth, what I am doing.  Hopefully it will help you think better of what I have done.

First, I am working with the EOS-M camera, which does not have a stable release of ML to work with.  I've had a difficult time getting RAW video out of the camera.  I have had many freezes, re-installs, etc.  That I can get anything out of the camera is not easy.  Most people realize that. 

The RAW footage I get out of the 50D (or one would get out of one of the 5D) is very good because you can write up to about 75MBS per second to a CF card.  The most the SD card will probably do on the EOS-M is 40MBS on the EOS-M (if that).   The question then is if the EOS-M camera, with lower-resolution RAW, will have enough RAW benefit to use over its native, much high resolution and frame rate, 1080p H.264. 

What I did in the video is picked scenes where a filmmaker might want a high dynamic range shot; that is, they wouldn't want high contrast.  I shot in dimly lit rooms.  I shot in the fog.  I found the RAW footage to match the actual scene as I saw it.  That's my personal opinion; why should anyone take it?  I went to the trouble to demonstrate what they might have gone through if they tried H.264.  When I tried to get the H-264 to match the feel of the light I either ended up blowing out the whites or blackening the shadows.  In the RAW, enough detail exists, in my opinion, to give a film-like look to the scene.

However, the way RAW is done there is moire.  I could have reduced it through crop mode, but want to keep at the lens' expect focal length.  I also want others to see the weaknesses.

A person who takes video seriously who has an EOS-M, or is interested in one, should be able to use my video examples to get an idea of how much dynamic range they can get from RAW shot from the camera.  They can see how much moire to expect.  I don't see that anyone else has done that yet. 

Yes, I could have post processed using individual frames, instead of Cineform, etc., etc.   I would have LOVED to have shot a video that is  inspiring to someone who doesn't know the first thing about RAW.   I"m just trying to move the ball by an inch.  Thanks for reading.