JasonMillard81
Active member
Anyshot of this working on a 5D Mark II? I'd rather spend $1500 than $3000 for a body to produce similar images 
???
???
Magic Lantern enables 14-bit RAW CinemaDNG on 5D
- Thread starter refocusedmedia
- Start date
Ted Ramasola
Veteran
Anyshot of this working on a 5D Mark II? I'd rather spend $1500 than $3000 for a body to produce similar images
Shot and put this together a couple of hours ago using a crappy 133x card. If you get the fast ones, you could go up to 1880x1080 resolution.
Mostly 1280x720 uprezzed to full hd. Theres a couple in there at 1880x720 and a short chart test at 1880x1080 near the end.
Ryan Lightbourn
Well-known member
Has ML commented on the vertical patterns? That's the only thing stopping me from picking up a MkIII. I'd love to once again have a DSLR in my arsenal.
JasonMillard81
Active member
If e 5d 2 can do raw why would anyone buy the 5d 3? Not being sarcastic, I'm actually curious?
bumkicho
Well-known member
5d2 shoots raw stills. Yet, many upgraded to 5d3 that shoots raw stills. same reason.
How about 2 f stops better.
squig
Veteran
I just shot some more tests and I'm really not seeing anything other than the normal Canon fixed pattern noise which you can fix with the Adobe RAW denoiser.
simonpwood
Well-known member
61 AF fields, dual card slots, earphone socket, larger and better screen, clean HDMI out, better low light handling, faster fps, better handling of moire and aliasing, more DR, Digic +5 Processor etc...
Ryan Lightbourn
Well-known member
Thanks Squig, and by fixed pattern noise do you mean the vertical lines people are seeing (see thekreative's example on thread p. 12)?
squig
Veteran
I've done some more tests and looked at other peeps DNGs, it is just sensor FPN. The Adobe RAW denoiser cleans it up nicely. If I hear another person whinge about I'm gonna throw something. :badputer:
I saw it several days ago, it isn't too big of a deal. It's there, always, not a big deal. However, this is the cycle and I've already posted it on another forum:
1. Excitement.
2. Why is this so noisey?
3. Aw man I got burned on a shoot. =[
4. Quiet.
5. So who's waiting on that next camera we heard about?
3 is optional, one would actually have to shoot to be burned on a shoot. =P
RAW workflow comes with the responsibility of denoising. ACR and LR4 have auto chroma and luma noise reduction, and added sharpness on when you load a DNG. Most people don't know this, might be a good thing as all of the lowlight DNGs so far have been as noisey as I would expect from anything RAW.
That's all to say you'll be fighting the good fight if you care too much about what other people are getting.
Edit: Also, you seem to be the most invested in this topic here, how are you judging exposure now? Technically, pre-existing Waveforms etc do not work if it's factual linear data. There isn't an indicator to tell you what clips at the sensor, what are people doing to figure this out?
I'll have the camera and a 1000x card right from the UPS guy in a few hours, trying to get a lead on this data before then.
Last edited:
squig
Veteran
Yep, every Canon DSLR and C camera has it. Record with you body cap on, cycle through the ISOs and push the file 3-4 stops in post and you'll see what it looks like. The level of FPN varies between ISOs. It's more visible RAW, the nasty way Canon records H.264 hides it a bit but it's much harder to clean up.
photochris
Well-known member
+1
AF and the noise/moire/aliasing improvements are worth the difference, everything else is icing on the cake.
RAW capability has me on the verge of killing my BMPCC pre-order and buying more Zeiss.
This is HUGE.
Yes. Also, now I'm curious: how has selecting different ISOs affected it? Was going to try this today as well, but I'm assuming you likely already have. It should NOT affect it, but you would know if you've already tried. Again, one less thing that I have to do so I can just go out and grab footage.
squig
Veteran
Yeah I've been meaning to do a body cap test, I expect it will look like H.264 just more detailed :cheesy: 160, 320, 640, and 1250 have the least FPN in H.264. I looked at some dudes dng where it was visible in the shadows and I set the luma and chroma noise sliders to 50 and it was almost gone, if you set them to 100 it's almost totally invisible. I set them to 100 on my night street test. Most of the FPN is barely visible on my macbook screen but I can see it on my 24" samsung. Overall it's much less of a problem with RAW than it was with H.264 because denoising H.264 softens an already too soft image.
thekreative
Veteran
THanks Squig, Just got the kids to school and saw your post. off to clean it up now.
squig
Veteran
Hehe. Beats testing cats and great focus pulling practice.
macgregor
Veteran
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).