Canon EOS M

[dfort]

Does this build break any of the other platforms?

It would be great if we can get all the great work being done being done recently on the EOSM, 100D and 700D into merged into the experimental branches of the main repository. Then maybe see if some new resolutions can be found for the 6D and 650D as well.

[optical-work]

is there any way to get the "framing" liveview work on an external display? whatever i choose for preview, it's showing "realtime" for hdmi external. by the way, i searched but i couldn't really get 1x3 crop mode, it shows at liveview and records very wide. i can provide footage does it need to be dng or are compressed formats okay? (i'm using mlv app on windows and i'm really grateful to both firmware and software developers.)

[norek]

Hell yeah @dfort.
No footage yet but hopefully some of the downloaders could provide. There's a focus pixel map for the mv1080p setting already? Only one needed for 1x3 right?

Danne,

First, thank you again your hard work!!!

And can you explain what you need to the focus pixel map for new fw?

[Danne]

One file recorded with 1x3 setting showing focus  pixels. Might be hard to find them. You can load the file in Mlv App and uncheck all focus pixel fixing function and look.

[norek]

One file recorded with 1x3 setting showing focus  pixels. Might be hard to find them. You can load the file in Mlv App and uncheck all focus pixel fixing function and look.

Danne,

here is the file:
https://we.tl/t-t1OpChmFaN

[norek]

something I do not understand, the file is what i upload is 696px height and the focus pixels showing. on/off the eos m changed the height to 1120px and the focus pixels not showing... hmmm which setting is wrong?

[dfort]

Interesting, MLV App is changing the height with the focus pixel fixing on/off?

I tried it with the current version of MLV App and didn't experience that. Here is your file with the focus pixels removed:



And without fixing the focus pixels:



I obviously stretched the colors to make the focus pixels more obvious.

I've seen height changes because of the "Default Scale" tag in the exported DNG file. The Default Scale tag is useful when shooting mv720 (5x3 sampling) though not all graphics applications honor that tag. Your sample file exported as DNG in MLV App and mlv_dump show different Default Scale values:

Code: [Select]

Software                        : MLV_DUMP CDNG
Default Scale                   : 1 1.666666667
Reel Name                       : M30-0960_.MLV
Image Size                      : 1736x696


Code: [Select]

Software                        : MLV App
Default Scale                   : 1 1
Reel Name                       : M30-0960_
Image Size                      : 1736x696

This means that the DNG files with the 1 1.666666667 Default Scale tag will be stretched vertically, depending on the app used.

Interesting that mlv_dump keeps the filename extension in the "Reel Name" tag while MLV App drops it. (Used exiftool to look at the tags.)

Your file appears to be shot with the crop_rec module using 3x3 sampling so the correct Default Scale should be "1 1":

mlv_dump -v

Code: [Select]

    raw_capture_info:
      sensor res      5184x3456
      sensor crop     1.62 (APS-C)
      sampling        3x3 (read 1 line, skip 2, bin 3 columns)
I'm not sure if mlv_dump needs a "fix" for this or if the problem is in the MLV file because the crop_rec module is using the mv720 raw buffer but modifying it with 3x3 sampling in place of the default 5x3 sampling. It should probably be fixed though it is easy enough to rescale the height in post for now.

The the new crop_rec module resolutions are a relatively new development and mlv_dump (crop_rec_4k version, a.k.a. mlv_dump on steroids) doesn't handle these focus pixels yet:



Just for fun, here's the same frame using MLV App with the correct aspect ratio and focus pixel fix turned off:



In this case the DNG files were converted with Adobe Camera Raw and manipulated to get the focus pixels to show up clearly.

[norek]

No, the MLV App is working ok, not change the height. I thing upload wrong file yesterday (non-crop).

https://we.tl/t-lzgOVocvSr crop mode is: 1x3_1736x1120, but I don't see the focus pixels...

[Teamsleepkid]

my mlv app is showing the video correct and then outputting it squashed too tall not wide. i had to stretch it out in final cut. like it was anamorphic footage. looks great lots of detail. very good quality this 1x3 footage. I'm doing 1120x1120 which looks like 2:66:1 aspect ratio very nice. i use chroma smoothing 2x2 to get rid of focus pixels

[Danne]

1x3 mode is supposed to be used in regular mv1080p mode, not in x3 zoom which already can do 1:1.

[critix]

For version 203 of firmware:
https://bitbucket.org/ccritix/magic-lantern/downloads/crop_rec_4k_mlv_snd_isogain_1x3_presets_2018Dec01.EOSM203.zip

[dfort]

No focus pixels -- Yay! Got a similar sample from the 100D and it does show focus pixels so maybe you just got "lucky" and shot a lighting situation that doesn't show the focus pixels. This is actually happens quite a bit and makes hunting down all of the possible focus pixels a challenge.

Found some interesting stuff with these 1x3 sample. I'm a little lost as far as figuring out which app is doing the "correct" thing because there is nothing to guide us in this image. I guess you can say that there's no image in this image.

mlv_dump -v

Code: [Select]

    Res:  1736x1120
...
    raw_capture_info:
      sensor res      5184x3456
      sensor crop     1.62 (APS-C)
      sampling        1x3 (read every line, bin 3 columns)

Note that the sensor resolution is 5184 pixels wide but the sampling bins every 3 columns so the maximum width should logically be 5184/3 = 1728. Well, there's an area that normally gets cropped so the sensor resolution is actually a bit more -- 5208.

Another thing to watch out for is that while resolution is written as width by height, the sampling is written as height by width. We had a conversation about this on another topic:

I was used to Octave notation (line/column) when writing the binning notation (5x3 etc), but relating these to resolution seems more logical; too late to swap them?

Probably not necessary. Besides, it makes the "desqueezing factor" super easy to figure out -- 5/3 = 1.67x

So, for 1x3 sampling the "desqueezing factor" should be 1/3 = 0.3333...

Let's see what some of the MLV apps are doing with 1x3 footage when exporting to DNG.

mlv_dump

Code: [Select]

Software                        : MLV_DUMP CDNG
Default Scale                   : 1 1
Reel Name                       : M01-0745.MLV
Image Size                      : 1736x1120

dcraw -T (1736 × 1120)


Adobe Camera Raw (1736 × 1120)


Not that exciting yet. There's a difference between the way ACR and dcraw rendered the DNG file but that's expected.

MLVFS

I recently updated my Mac to Mojave and it wasn't working when I was checking out that previous file. After updating osxfuse to 3.8.2 it is working again.

Code: [Select]

Software                        : MLVFS
Default Scale                   : 1 1
Reel Name                       : /M01-0745.MLV
Image Size                      : 1736x1120

dcraw -T (1736 × 1120)


Adobe Camera Raw (1736 × 1120)


No surprises there.

MLV App

Code: [Select]

Software                        : MLV App
Default Scale                   : 1 0.3333333333
Reel Name                       : M01-0745
Image Size                      : 1736x1120

It makes sense that MLV App shows the correct Default Scale because some of the developers working on this app are also experimenting with the new crop_rec resolutions. This app also allows you to save to various types of image files so you don't have to create DNG files to work with. Let's export a tiff file from MLV App

MLV App (1736 × 373)


Let's take a DNG file exported from MLV App and run it through dcraw and ACR.

dcraw -T (5208 × 1120)


What's up with that file size? Instead of reducing the height dcraw increased the width to get the correct aspect ratio.

Adobe Camera Raw (1736 × 373)

[Danne]

Cool findings dfort

[dfort]

What are everyone's thoughts on updating the EOSM to 2.0.3? The original pull request has been up for nearly two years. Recently @critix and I have been running tests on it and it is as stable as 2.0.2. I can do it on some of the experimental builds to get started--provided @a1ex approves.

[DeafEyeJedi]

Cool findings dfort

Indeed cool findings!

What are everyone's thoughts on updating the EOSM to 2.0.3? The original pull request has been up for nearly two years. Recently @critix and I have been running tests on it and it is as stable as 2.0.2. I can do it on some of the experimental builds to get started--provided @a1ex approves.

Sounds good. I’m all for this plan. In fact, I’ve wanting to get my hands dirty again w you guys sooner rather than later.

[liuk718]

How can I release shutter buttom when I. Use a sigma 56 lens?

[tupp]

How can I release shutter buttom when I. Use a sigma 56 lens?

In the Canon menu, go to the "4th wrench" and enter the " Custom Functions" menu,  setting #7 -- "Release shutter w/o lens," and select "1:Enable."

[liuk718]

In the Canon menu, go to the "4th wrench" and enter the " Custom Functions" menu,  setting #7 -- "Release shutter w/o lens," and select "1:Enable."

Thanks dude,i knew this settings for manual lens. sigma 56 ef-m lens is a fully auto lens,i can take a photo when i was using sigma 17-70 ef old lens. but this time if i press and relase shutter bottum ,it seems try to pre foucus onece and do nothing.
If i uninstall ML,it will take a photo and no false.

[tupp]

Thanks dude,i knew this settings for manual lens. sigma 56 ef-m lens is a fully auto lens,i can take a photo when i was using sigma 17-70 ef old lens. but this time if i press and relase shutter bottum ,it seems try to pre foucus onece and do nothing.
If i uninstall ML,it will take a photo and no false.

Well, if your lens is automatic, you could be experiencing the ML EOSM "shutter bug."

You might try partially unmounting the lens.  Also, I seem to recall that certain SD cards prevent the shutter bug.

[liuk718]

This works :-)

[ctfire]

Hi every one, can somebody tell is it possible in future to make a proper real time framing in crop modes? and also is it possible to make reviewing the mlv files more smothly in file manager in camera?

[Walter Schulz]

Smoothness: Unlikely. There isn't enough processor power inside.

[vicenzzopaiva]

Hi every one, can somebody tell is it possible in future to make a proper real time framing in crop modes? and also is it possible to make reviewing the mlv files more smothly in file manager in camera?

Smoothly, as said above, nope... but you can change to exact and fast, then you'll get a B&W preview almost in real time playback (20~24fps) in-camera

[gravitatemediagroup]

has this thread moved?

[Walter Schulz]

No, this thread has not been moved. If you are looking for discussion about Danne's builds: This has been splitted and moved to https://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?board=66.0