Magic Lantern enables 14-bit RAW CinemaDNG on 5D

macgregor said:
I'm not quite sure this is pattern noise. At least it's irrelevant of ISO (I see the same level at 100 than at 3200) and it does not look like noise. I feel it's more connected with how the sensor is read out (based on my very little understanding of sensor technology).
Click to expand...

Hmmm, ok I'll look into it a bit more and get onto that body cap test tomorrow. I'm not seeing anything unusual in my footage so maybe it's something in the post processing? mac try the mac raw2dng app and open in AE/Adobe RAW (if you've been doing it another way) What resolution have you been recording? maybe 1280x720 is immune to it. Cou.d also be some function on the camera causing some kind of interference maybe. Or fukushima fallout :Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)
 
squig said:
Hmmm, ok I'll look into it a bit more and get onto that body cap test tomorrow. I'm not seeing anything unusual in my footage so maybe it's something in the post processing? mac try the mac raw2dng app and open in AE/Adobe RAW (if you've been doing it another way) What resolution have you been recording? maybe 1280x720 is immune to it. Cou.d also be some function on the camera causing some kind of interference maybe. Or fukushima fallout :Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)
Click to expand...

That's exactly the workflow I've been doing.
I had a feeling the pattern noise was different depending on the vertical resolution, so I just tried earlier today different aspect rations, but the amount of lines was the same.
Here are 3 different resolution aspect ratios that clearly show the issue.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/13362047/Desktop.rar
Let me know if you also see it.

Side note: I've tested shooting with HTP on and off, and since there's no metadata in the raw files, the file with HTP just loads 1 stop underexposed. Funny.
Side note2: also since there's no metadata on the raw files, there are no color profiles asigned to the images. Camera raw I suspect is using the standard adobe color profile, which in my opinion sucks. Canon profiles are much better. Adobe over saturates blues and skintones are less nice. So I wonder if the ML guys could apply the canon profiles to the dng so we could fix this. We could even use VSCO film raw picture profiles, for some extra fun.
 
mac I think you're trippin' mate, looks like plain old Canon FPN to me. I'll know for certain when I do the ISO noise test but I don't see anything unusual and yes I zoomed in, pushed the exposure, and rode the noise sliders. Ride those noise reduction sliders bro.


Heh, no wonder none of the filmconvert profiles matched up. yeah there's no Canon profiles showing up in adobe raw either. I'll bring it up with the devs but it could be a problem because they don't want to use any Canon code but a third party profile could be cool. I like visioncolor myself.
 
I tried to pass Canon's colors to Adobe Camera RAW by converting a 5D3 still (CR2) to DNG using Adobe's tool for the job, but it doesn't work, a new color palette is applied.

Anyway: macgregor, try this profile, see if it helps: http://www.similaar.com/aarchive/5D3_default.xmp

Once this RAW thing has settled down a bit, I'll try to borrow a 5D3 and create a profile that gives you nice skin tones and an easy-to-grade near-log light response function...
 
Last edited:
squig said:
mac I think you're trippin' mate, looks like plain old Canon FPN to me. I'll know for certain when I do the ISO noise test but I don't see anything unusual and yes I zoomed in, pushed the exposure, and rode the noise sliders. Ride those noise reduction sliders bro.


Heh, no wonder none of the filmconvert profiles matched up. yeah there's no Canon profiles showing up in adobe raw either. I'll bring it up with the devs but it could be a problem because they don't want to use any Canon code but a third party profile could be cool. I like visioncolor myself.
Click to expand...

OK, well, whatever it is we don't want it right?
 
Last edited:
Since there apparently isn't enough on board processing to even write DNG format files directly out of camera I doubt you can write profile metadata either. Have to apply it in ACR or other raw processors that support Adobe profiles.
 
Razz16mm said:
Since there apparently isn't enough on board processing to even write DNG format files directly out of camera I doubt you can write profile metadata either. Have to apply it in ACR or other raw processors that support Adobe profiles.
Click to expand...
You don't need to write profile metadata at the recording stage, you can also do it when generating the DNG stream in the PC. You can also load profiles when importing your footage into the editor, but having some decent metadata to start with would be nice (not a huge deal, though).
 
Now if only they could get this to work on the D800 (yes I know magic lantern is canon only but I can dream right?) because doesn't the d800 have like 14 stops of dynamic range compared to the 5D Mk III 12 stops? If so that would be awesome. Still can't believe the ML Team got this working its crazy. Sadly switched over to nikon recently so this wont effect me :\
 
ReelFilmGeek said:
Now if only they could get this to work on the D800 (yes I know magic lantern is canon only but I can dream right?) because doesn't the d800 have like 14 stops of dynamic range compared to the 5D Mk III 12 stops? If so that would be awesome. Still can't believe the ML Team got this working its crazy. Sadly switched over to nikon recently so this wont effect me :\
Click to expand...

Raw video out of the D800 would indeed be awesome. It is unfortunate that there doesn't seem to be much of a hacking community built around the Nikons as is the case for Canons and Panasonics. On the other hand, it would be nice if Nikon were to come out with a successsor to the D800 with raw video. From a purely technical standpoint, raw is much easier to implement than h.264. It just requires fast cards, so not much R&D. There's clearly demand for such a product, Nikon doesn't have a high-end video camera line to protect, and they seem to be taking video features in DSLRs more seriously, so who knows?
 
pulpfiction007 said:
These cams don't even have to be raw for crying out loud...just 4:2:2 "x codec" would be a god send.
Click to expand...

True enough. I'd be plenty happy with 10-bit 4:2:2, a log gamma, and a decently high bit rate in a body that's $3000 or less.* It doesn't even have to record internally. I've already got a Hyperdeck Shuttle.

Just for kicks, it might be interesting to see how a D800 , tricked out with an HDMI recorder + Mosaic filter compares to the hacked 5D MKIII.



*Yes, I know that I just described the BMC when recording ProRes or DNxHD, but the lack of 60p at any resolution means that it wouldn't quite work for me personally.
 
Last edited:
Wesley Byram said:
*Yes, I know that I just described the BMC when recording ProRes or DNxHD, but the lack of 60p at any resolution means that it wouldn't quite work for me personally.
Click to expand...

Then you wouldn't be plenty happy with 10-bit 4:2:2, Log gamma, and a high bit rate. You'd be happy with 10-bit, 4:2:2, Log gamma, a high bitrate, and 60p.
 
could someone shoot a chart 5dmk3 raw, on closeups there's on vimeo clips, there's plenty of false detail, aliasing,
Squig, how would you rate it as opposed to D800?

also would be great to see it vs C100.
 
OlegKalyan said:
could someone shoot a chart 5dmk3 raw, on closeups there's on vimeo clips, there's plenty of false detail, aliasing,
Squig, how would you rate it as opposed to D800?

also would be great to see it vs C100.
Click to expand...

Destroys the D800 for resolution and recoverable dynamic range, there's no comparison, it's RAW!

BUT the D800 is still a very capable camera.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top