Author Topic: MJPEG  (Read 10976 times)

painya

  • Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 321
  • 6d 50d 550d 5dc
MJPEG
« on: October 17, 2013, 03:18:35 AM »
Ok this may be a bit of a long shot, but last I checked it wasn't on the Troll question list ::)

MJPEG- With MJPEG (I am speculating here) we could possibly get higher resolutions (I am not proposing 4k or anything like that) just like we see in RAW crop mode (2000x1080 is the best I can get on my 50d I am not sure how it is with the 5d's or 7d).

With an alternate codec the possibility of overcranking (just 35 fps not anything crazy.) could become more stable.

I realize that with RAW the first step to realizing the awesome developments has been to take a silent DNG picture so wouldn't that need to be replicated but in a Jpeg form? Theoretically the camera already records JPEG's so that is a definite plus. Or could, because less processing power would be required by the camera because it is not RAW video, an HDMI out be configured (speculating here) to the desired frame rate and resolution.

Some extra advantages of this crazy idea could be sidecar deflicker files recorded with each individual low res Jpeg.

(stretch question) Would this help reduce traditional DSLR issues such as moire?
Just throwing ideas out there and trying to help in any way I can.  :D


Mods: If some parts of this post are ridiculous feel free to cross them out.
Thanks,
Painya
Good footage doesn't make a story any better.

RenatoPhoto

  • Moderators
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1509
  • 5DM3 / 7D
Re: MJPEG
« Reply #1 on: October 17, 2013, 04:28:31 AM »
A little search on MJPEG leads to this:
http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=4400.msg25260#msg25260

Try the search button on the top right side.  It is useful!
http://www.pululahuahostal.com  |  EF 300 f/4, EF 100-400 L, EF 180 L, EF-S 10-22, Samyang 14mm, Sigma 28mm EX DG, Sigma 8mm 1:3.5 EX DG, EF 50mm 1:1.8 II, EF 1.4X II, Kenko C-AF 2X

painya

  • Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 321
  • 6d 50d 550d 5dc
Re: MJPEG
« Reply #2 on: October 17, 2013, 05:24:10 AM »
That's HDR MJPEG and almost ten months old. I wanted to see if there were any further developments, and just a year ago (I think) RAW video was just a fantasy  ;D
Good footage doesn't make a story any better.

Tai.Fighter

  • New to the forum
  • *
  • Posts: 31
Re: MJPEG
« Reply #3 on: December 16, 2013, 10:05:41 PM »
That's HDR MJPEG and almost ten months old. I wanted to see if there were any further developments, and just a year ago (I think) RAW video was just a fantasy  ;D

+1.

I'd like to see MJPEG, no dual ISO isn't such a big deal, I just want a happy medium, because while I really appreciate the increased sharpness and detail, noise performance, and dynamic range over H.264, the instability, file sizes, and max resolutions bog it down. Don't get me wrong, these are completely understandable given what it's trying to accomplish, I'm not asking for a magical fix on those. Thing is, right now we have the two polar ends of the scale. A really bad stock codec, and then the highest of qualities of one. I feel like a lot of us would be happy with a healthy compromise option.

What do I mean by that? What if we didn't have RAW, but instead had JPEG instead or something similar. 1/3 of the file sizes, so the camera, global draw, etc. would not have to work as hard. More stability, less storage space required, not as speedy cards required, and yet retains all of the detail image quality and sharpness of RAW. Yes we lose a lot on dynamic range, but think of it as basically a higher quality codec, a step up from H.264, the only difference from RAW being that 14-bit colour depth, everything else the same. Basically the ONLY change being the format of capture. Instead of RAW, it's JPEG.

Is this possible? I think this would be an amazing feature, and very usable as well. This might allow for non-H.264 true 1080p on the 5D Mark II (which isn't possible now) since it doesn't have to work as hard, as well as perhaps higher frame rates? I also feel like it would be possible because if you can get 24p RAW working, shouldn't it be easier/ a step down to get JPEG working the same way? I don't know, so if I'm wrong, let me know of course.

jordancolburn

  • Freshman
  • **
  • Posts: 76
Re: MJPEG
« Reply #4 on: December 16, 2013, 10:07:43 PM »
I mean, I think your options are either deal with the "Bad" codec.  It is actually not that bad, really, tens of thousands of people use canon h264 every day for content that looks great.  It might not push or pull in post as much as you want, but for small file size, one man band or a small budget team, if you can't make a decent looking video in h264, raw isn't necessarily going to be the silver bullet that solves all your problems.

The raw hack is a super interesting way of getting better quality out of these cameras, but is still getting the kinks in shooting and post worked out.  Most of the negatives you had to say about raw apply to raw in general and not just ML.  The large file sizes, need for fast media and extra post work make raw still a little unreasonable for most projects that have a time or budget crunch (what project doesn't).

If you want a camera that shoots a nicer codec, with still decent file sizes, look for something like a c100, sony fs100 or prores on the blackmagic cameras (having used none of these cameras, I'm only recommending based on reviews).

Tai.Fighter

  • New to the forum
  • *
  • Posts: 31
Re: MJPEG
« Reply #5 on: December 16, 2013, 10:13:33 PM »
I mean, I think your options are either deal with the "Bad" codec.  It is actually not that bad, really, tens of thousands of people use canon h264 every day for content that looks great.  It might not push or pull in post as much as you want, but for small file size, one man band or a small budget team, if you can't make a decent looking video in h264, raw isn't necessarily going to be the silver bullet that solves all your problems.

I think I was misunderstood, I'm saying that yes, the RAW is incredibly hard to make completely reliable, and is often overkill. All I'm saying is that if we also had the option to shoot plain MJPEG, we'd get increased sharpness, detail, and noise performance, without the limits and file sizes of RAW. Also I have to disagree about the stock video quality. The Panasonic cameras blow the Canon DSLR's stock image quality far out of the water at the same bitrates and less than half the price, it's frankly embarrassing, especially considering that the GH2 came out 5 years ago and the 5D3 came out last year. The pushing/pulling isn't an issue, it's that even now, the only option to get true 1080p video is to shoot RAW (stock 5D can't shoot true 1080p, only 720p scaled up to 1080p). That is slightly frustrating.

As for using other cameras, the C100, 300, and Sony FS series, those are all like $5000+... Incomparable. The 5D Mark II can be found for $1000, and makes a hell of a stills camera as well, in a DSLR form factor. If it had the option for MJPEG, it would really be a jack of all trades for great value.

jordancolburn

  • Freshman
  • **
  • Posts: 76
Re: MJPEG
« Reply #6 on: December 16, 2013, 10:34:32 PM »
Yeah, C is expensive, but the sony is closer to 3k and BMCC is 2k and BMPCC is 1k, so there are options.  I guess my point is, when you can get a BMPCC new for the same cost as a used 5dII, as a shooter I would rather not deal with a hack to get a midrange mjpg and would rather go with the out of the box prores with no need for developers to reinvent the wheel.  Granted, you can argue ergonomics, or photo capability and everything and it's all valid. But, the way I see things now is the best value is in the sub $600 DSLRs (t3is, eosm) b/c such video quality for such little money is insane!  If you really need a better codec, try raw and deal with the limitations or there are all kinds of cameras with an astounding variety of options from 1k-10k that have great compressed codecs.  People are obviously eager to see how far we can push DSLRs since: 1) It's fun, 2) We already have them and 3) it's cheap, but if someone is doing a real paid work, I would encourage them to examine all the great options that are out there.

1%

  • Developer
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5936
  • 600D/6D/50D/EOSM/7D
Re: MJPEG
« Reply #7 on: December 16, 2013, 11:53:46 PM »
You won't get higher resolutions... there is a jpeg LV buffer, you can already kind of try it with an app like eos movie recorder. Size and quality there is similar to what you could expect. None of us figured out a  good way to resize the images to full size.. ie > 1024x768, nor on some cameras to start the buffer untethered to USB.

Saving/recording at this point after beating the reverse engineering hurdles would be easy.

Tai.Fighter

  • New to the forum
  • *
  • Posts: 31
Re: MJPEG
« Reply #8 on: December 16, 2013, 11:59:10 PM »
Yeah, C is expensive, but the sony is closer to 3k and BMCC is 2k and BMPCC is 1k, so there are options.  I guess my point is, when you can get a BMPCC new for the same cost as a used 5dII

Agreed. I was actually considering the BMPCC before I got the 5D2. I mean, ok, the form factor, no stills, really not ideal, I can live with that. But the crop factor was the dealbreaker. I love ultra-wides, and it seemed impossible to get a 14mm (full frame equivalent) on it. If not for that, I would've picked it up in a heartbeat. Also I use Windows so ProRes is useless to me.

chmee

  • Contributor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1031
  • raw2cdng
Re: MJPEG
« Reply #9 on: December 17, 2013, 12:49:43 AM »
its just the little small mini thing: as i understand, there's no(!) option to take any calculations on the sensor-output, because theres no processingpower for it. by now. raw works, because its raw, funny hmm. h.264 "could" be a hardware designed encoder engine, we're even not able to control fully..

we not even need mjpeg if a jpg-sequence would work, but it doesnt.

Quote
..stock 5D can't shoot true 1080p, only 720p scaled up to 1080p..
i disagree.
 

regards chmee 

Tai.Fighter

  • New to the forum
  • *
  • Posts: 31
Re: MJPEG
« Reply #10 on: December 17, 2013, 07:46:31 PM »

i disagree.
 
regards chmee

You disagree? I'm pretty sure it's not opinion-based.

reddeercity

  • Contributor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2094
Re: MJPEG
« Reply #11 on: December 17, 2013, 08:06:34 PM »
You disagree? I'm pretty sure it's not opinion-based.
I also disagree, if you do some research the 5D2 out puts 1880x1250 raw 
Crop & upscale in the h264 chip 1920x1080p if I not mistaken.

chmee

  • Contributor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1031
  • raw2cdng
Re: MJPEG
« Reply #12 on: December 17, 2013, 08:12:02 PM »
@TaiFighter - could you please show/link some evidence?

aaphotog

  • Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 356
Re: MJPEG
« Reply #13 on: December 17, 2013, 08:26:16 PM »
I recall someone talking about how the camera shoots h264 1080p that is downscaled only to be upscaled again before recording the image to card. So he is correct. 1080p, isn't really 1080p. I don't feel like finding the evidence, but I'm sure with enough time on google, it can be found. I think it was in one of the articles, on like eoshd or something. Might of been on the forums not much later after raw started working well

chmee

  • Contributor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1031
  • raw2cdng
Re: MJPEG
« Reply #14 on: December 17, 2013, 09:31:11 PM »
yes, i read the 5diii review of andrew on eoshd. its one thing to say its blurry in 1080 so it cant compete as 1080-resolution, but its another thing saying "1080 is upscaled 720". But by the way, 720 H.264 does not look as 720, so where's the point? all H.264-data isn't freaking me out either. (i recorded in 720/60 for slowmotion and the only people mentioning its mushy were technerds/forum-writer. so finally - just to be clear with that, speaking technically its not enough, yes, i'll go with you. but in terms of storytelling resolution is by far the weakest point)


Tai.Fighter

  • New to the forum
  • *
  • Posts: 31
Re: MJPEG
« Reply #15 on: December 17, 2013, 11:05:25 PM »
I also disagree, if you do some research the 5D2 out puts 1880x1250 raw 

It can be proven to you that a stock 5D cannot shoot any form of raw video. My research isn't the issue.

With an easy google you'll see that it only resolves to about 700-800p. I admit my wording of "capturing 720p and upscaling" was incorrect and terribly worded. Thank you for clearing it up. Regardless, the point still stands, Canon's video processing is subpar thanks to a greedy (but fair and logical) business model, and the ML team's hard work has taken long strides. True 1080p capture (non-RAW) would be an amazing option, if it is possible. That is all I am saying.

And yes, in terms of storytelling, I value things like motion rendering and dynamic range over resolution. However, the issue here is that the H.264 output is honestly far below standard in comparison to other, cheaper cameras. So while it is not paramount, to me it's a seriously and constantly lagging issue in my opinion.

chmee

  • Contributor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1031
  • raw2cdng
Re: MJPEG
« Reply #16 on: December 17, 2013, 11:23:50 PM »
but(!) honestly saying, that the broadcast/news/documentary-world isnt the same since 5dii broke the rules of expensive stuff - every channel you switch in is showing dslr-footage without any flaws. manual settings, highiso, changeable lenses, low weight - thats all pro dslr.

regards chmee

kyrobb

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 131
Re: MJPEG
« Reply #17 on: September 20, 2014, 06:20:03 PM »
I know this is an old thread, but has anyone discovered anything more recently that could make higher resolution mjpeg or jpeg sequences at 24fps a possibility?

Levas

  • Contributor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1482
  • 6d - Nightly build user
Re: MJPEG
« Reply #18 on: September 20, 2014, 06:27:48 PM »

kyrobb

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 131
Re: MJPEG
« Reply #19 on: September 20, 2014, 07:10:43 PM »
Pretty neat actually, but I was wondering if anyone thinks it's possible in-camera.  ;)

yousefi

  • New to the forum
  • *
  • Posts: 2
Re: MJPEG
« Reply #20 on: September 22, 2014, 01:36:56 PM »
i think if we can control  mjepg compress or even choose color sampling 4:2:0 or 4:2:2 or 4:4:4 can help us
in some cases we dont need raw like chroma key that color sampling is more important
some codec like mxf in canon c500

Levas

  • Contributor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1482
  • 6d - Nightly build user
Re: MJPEG
« Reply #21 on: September 22, 2014, 02:51:41 PM »
As weird as it may sound, but one of the biggest reason raw recording works is because it is raw data,  nothing is done with it, it's raw... no compression no nothing.
It's there and it is written as fast as possible on your memory card.
The DIGIC is probably sleeping 8) , while raw recording.

So instead of what most people think, it's actually more CPU heavier to do MJPEG recording then raw recording.
14bit, 1920 x 1080 x 24fps means 87 Mega Byte of data per second that has to be compressed by some CPU...





a1ex

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12314
  • Emergencies only
Re: MJPEG
« Reply #22 on: September 22, 2014, 02:56:50 PM »
Hint: the CPU can't even do a memcpy at 24fps...

kyrobb

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 131
Re: MJPEG
« Reply #23 on: September 24, 2014, 03:03:04 AM »
Well shoot... Can't go wrong with Raw though! Thanks for all the awesomeness guys!