Dynamic range? What dynamic range?

[debrecen]

Hi All -- New to experimenting with RAW video, and so far I can't tell if mine looks any good or not. I am using the latest stable build of ML on a Canon t4i/650d at 720x1280 24fps.

Specifically, I am disappointed with indoor low-light results. Even shooting with a fast lens at 100ISO, I find my results grainy/noisy. I was expecting to be able to bring up the lows, and it is just not there. It seems that the RAW video gives good dynamic range in a well-lit outdoor shot but that's it.

Am I missing some critical basic setting? Does anyone have any tips, or examples? I would/will post my bad results but for now have maxed my vimeo quota.

Best regards.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/m5howc9g0gj8rud/dark2.png
https://www.dropbox.com/s/m5howc9g0gj8rud/dark.png

[gary2013]

maybe try shooting to the right. expose as high as possible, but do not clip the highlights you still want to have detail. some things are okay to blow out, like a light, etc. then in post, lower exposure to get a better look and the noise goes down into the black, crushing it. I have ETTR on my M in ML and that helps. 

[RenatoPhoto]

Exposing properly will minimize noise.  Also post processing will influence the results, what type of post processing are you doing.

[gary2013]

dual iso can also help with more DR and less noise.

[debrecen]

Perhaps I am spoiled already, but I look at the results and wonder why I am going through all this processing. I have to do some direct comparison of RAW to h.264. For me the rationale for RAW would be low-light indoors.

Thanks for the suggestions. I am already shooting as far "to the right" as I can, accepting some blown out highs. I am commenting simply on results before any processing. Any tips on post processing welcome.

[gary2013]

Perhaps I am spoiled already, but I look at the results and wonder why I am going through all this processing. I have to do some direct comparison of RAW to h.264. For me the rationale for RAW would be low-light indoors.

Thanks for the suggestions. I am already shooting as far "to the right" as I can, accepting some blown out highs. I am commenting simply on results before any processing. Any tips on post processing welcome.

I believe raw is for high resolution and pushing your limits more in color grading. you're getting 14 bits instead of the usual 8 bits. I don't think raw is better for low light. fast lenses and higher ISO's are better for low light. I try to stay at 1600 for the highest ISO. Usually 400 or 800. When I do get noise I don't like, I use Neat Video filter for PPro CC and AE CC. I tried them all and I find Neat Video to be the best and easy to use.

what is your whole workflow? the raw is very noisy off the camera. you might need PDR to remove the pink dots. you can find it by searching on here. you need to color grade in post and use a noise filter like Neat Video. You might also need to adjust white balance in post. I use Ginger HDR for white balance in post. 

[Midphase]

Perhaps I am spoiled already, but I look at the results and wonder why I am going through all this processing.

Raw isn't for everyone, and on top of that, you're using it on a camera which is severely limited compared to the CF models. If to you raw doesn't look necessarily better than h.264, then make your life easier and stick with h.264.

[debrecen]

Appreciate the comments and tips.

I believe I should be able to get a lot more out of shadows -- just like comparing a RAW still photo with a compressed jpeg -- as illustrated in this well-circulated example with the campground:

http://petapixel.com/2013/08/08/a-look-at-the-pros-and-cons-of-shooting-raw-vs-h-264/

I'll work on my process more. Only been messing with this a week or so. My workflow, such as it is, is outlined in my prior post:
http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=9743.0

I have been experimenting with Darktable and RAWtherapee in linux, and have been disappointed that I can't pull more range out of my images, there's a lot of noise and breaking up.

That said, my only motivation is like everything with linux: the thrill of the hunt, just making it work against difficulties can be fun. To a point. You're right the 650d is hobbled. Although I'm getting better results from PinkDotRemover today. Frustrating that the t2i is better.

I'm posting just to get a feel for whether it's understood that low light performance is not as good as some other systems or I'm missing something. If RAW is noisy off the camera, what isn't?

here's an interesting comparison of the t2i in h.264 presumably vs. the Blackmagic camera:
https://vimeo.com/59707013

[RenatoPhoto]

Hi All -- New to experimenting with RAW video, and so far I can't tell if mine looks any good or not. I am using the latest stable build of ML on a Canon t4i/650d at 720x1280 24fps.

Try cropped video (use the zoom button) for best resolution.

http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=5441.0

[Audionut]

Raw video is the same as raw photo in that they both output 14bit lossless files.

Where the differences arrive is in the level of detail that is captured.
The 650d captures 5184 x 3456 pixels in photo mode for a total of 17915904 pixels of detail, vs video at 1920 x 1080 pixels for a total pixel count of 2073600.  In other words, photo mode is capturing 8.6 times more detail.

Noise is perceptual, so not only is photo mode capturing more detail (helping to hide the noise), resizing photos also helps to average out the noise. 

This extra detail in photo mode is simply discarded in video mode.  It doesn't get resized, it gets thrown out.

Try cropped video (use the zoom button) for best resolution.

http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=5441.0

As RP points out, you should try cropped mode for the best resolution.  Here, the detail doesn't get thrown out, instead video mode is sampling a direct 1:1 of the sensor.  The trade off being that you lose focal width.

If you can't handle the reduced focal width in cropped mode, you should either buy a wider lens, or a camera that has better low light capability to offset the problems in standard video mode.

[debrecen]

Upshot seems to be that RAW offers an improvement in picture quality that can be described in different ways -- but dynamic range, it ain't. Occam's razor applies.

I can see a use for it, for example in capturing some beautiful establishing shots in a documentary, where most material in less-controlled circumstances will look good in h.264. 

Don't get me wrong, I'm very impressed with the programming skills and initiative evidenced at ML.

[Audionut]

The upshot of raw is that you get data that hasn't been compressed by the worlds worst H.264 encoder.  Throw more bits at it, she'll be right!

[debrecen]

The upshot of raw is that you get data that hasn't been compressed by the worlds worst H.264 encoder.  Throw more bits at it, she'll be right!

Not sure what you mean by that, but for the world's worst h.264 encoder, it ain't bad. When you look at everything one has to go through to get RAW footage in your timeline from a 650d, it's clear to see why Canon doesn't offer it out of the box. If it did Just Work that way, well better quality would be... er, better. And it will be, in less time than it takes to shoot a feature. Partly thanks to these developers 'motivating' manufacturers by creating demand. I appreciate ML mostly for lighting a fire under Canon's ass.

[Midphase]

Upshot seems to be that RAW offers an improvement in picture quality that can be described in different ways -- but dynamic range, it ain't. Occam's razor applies.

If you're saying that shooting in raw doesn't magically augment the sensor's ability to resolve more stops of dynamic range then we're in agreement, however the h.264 codec is so bad at handling the wide dynamic range of the sensor that when you shoot compressed you're effectively narrowing the dynamic range considerably.

Shooting in raw gives you what the sensor has been truly capable of producing all along and that you never knew you could get!

[Audionut]

I was being facetious.  The point is still valid though depending on your own opinion of encoder quality.

If Canon provided raw out of the box, there wouldn't be PP problems.  Simply because there would be a bunch of well paid devs making sure there was a workflow that mum and dad could use.  That's not a personal attack on your ability, simply an educated guess!

[debrecen]

I was being facetious.  The point is still valid though depending on your own opinion of encoder quality.

If Canon provided raw out of the box, there wouldn't be PP problems.  Simply because there would be a bunch of well paid devs making sure there was a workflow that mum and dad could use.  That's not a personal attack on your ability, simply an educated guess!

If Canon provided RAW out of the box, it wouldn't cost $469, but if you want RAW out of the box, you can get it. It costs more than $469. Not an attack on your grasp of market economics, just an educated guess that you've got skin in the development game, making you a bit sensitive maybe. I find ML to be worth every penny. Pardon me while I go change the ribbon on my typewriter, I can't get my brain around this whole workflow 

[RenatoPhoto]

Upshot seems to be that RAW offers an improvement in picture quality that can be described in different ways -- but dynamic range, it ain't.

If you want to increase dynamic range then use Dual ISO: http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=7139.0

I think you must be blind if you don't see the great improvements that RAW brings to this community!  Each tools has its own strengths so you may want to learn how to used them and not confuse them.

[Audionut]

If Canon provided RAW out of the box, it wouldn't cost $469, but if you want RAW out of the box, you can get it. It costs more than $469.

Exactly.  You're getting something for well below the market cost.  More importantly, you have a choice.  You can use that thing between your ears to learn and understand how to make the workflow easier for you, and get raw video for what is essentially free.  Or, spend some $'s and buy something that comes with the support that you appear to need.

You have the opinion that Canons H.264 encoder isn't that bad.  I have an opinion otherwise.  It really didn't have to go past that point, but if you want to get into a little bitch fight over it, and throw accusations about the sensitivity of others into the mix, whatever. 

[Midphase]

Agreed, I also don't see much PP issues either. While iMovie is probably not the best choice to handle raw files, it should be noted that now Premiere Pro has begun supporting CDNG files, and even though the first implementation is a bit clunky, I'm sure updates will follow quickly and I wouldn't be surprised if within 6 months or so Premiere Pro supports .mlv natively! Meanwhile the free Resolve Lite supports CDNG flawlessly and is a very powerful editor app as well.

In the meantime, converting .raw to CDNG or ProRes is fairly quick and painless thanks to the free apps provided by the community, and it's bound to get even easier as more developers see the potential in entering this market.

[debrecen]

Audionut, I can see by your youthful tenor that maybe you haven't realized that there's rarely any salutary effect to that kind of posting.

Obviously when you are developing something, anything in this world, it is useful to speak about it with honesty, candor, and constructive criticism, and view your own work and associations with modesty. The difference between RAW and h264 is clear to see, and it comes at a cost in time, among other things. There's no need to freak out about a little skepticism toward the value of it. If this topic was not interesting to discuss, people would not have been posting. They have.

[50Deezil]

I did some research on the 50D and it's sensor isn't one of the best in terms of Dynamic Range.  It's about the same as a Panasonic GH2.  In fact it's VERY similar.  What I do believe is that RAW allows us to keep more of that dynamic range however limited it may be.  Canon's later sensors are all superior in this regard, but still not the best in the sensor world.  The best Dynamic Range is going to be at the base ISO.  So for the 50D that's about 100-200 ISO.  The measured Dynamic Range for the 50D is 11.6 EV max using ACR, but with a real range of 8.5 EV from ISO 200-1600 and the 5Dmkiii is about 12EV max.  Realistically we're probably talking about 10 stops of DR.  The thing is that the Canon Sensors aren't that great in the shadows.  Whatever Dynamic Range there is to be had will be better using RAW and the available RAW editing programs than the standard H.264.  This is just one aspect of the image tho.

The beauty of RAW is going to be the flexibility and the smoothness of gradation on color.  It just has a look that is much more pleasing in the end IMO.  Also we're getting some serious detail as opposed to the normal low detail Canon default video.  It's just a superior image using RAW.  It's extra work but for those who can appreciate the benefits it could be well worth the extra work to get a better overall image.