Magic Lantern enables 14-bit RAW CinemaDNG on 5D

squig said:
It's actually possible now without the 8bit colour bleed. I posted to the devs on the ML forum the other day "Canon have a few c cameras that need fixing".

dusty I dialled the contrast down to -100 in adobe camera RAW to get a nice flat log prores 4444 transcode, it worked well with the cinestyle LUT in film convert. I set all the noise reduction sliders to 50 and left sharpness at 25. Those were the settings on my magic hour test.

I love my Leica-r's... from my cold dead hands.
Click to expand...
Thats the power of RAW. It's calibrating your camera after the after the shot. Pushing the sat with the C100 is pretty darn good. Holds well. Not RAW well. RAW is RAW. No arguing that.
 
That little bit of extra wiggle room with highlights is a big deal, grading is a much more pleasurable experience. Can't wait till they figure out how to make the files cinemaDNG so I can start mucking around with resolve.
 
squig said:
That little bit of extra wiggle room with highlights is a big deal, grading is a much more pleasurable experience. Can't wait till they figure out how to make the files cinemaDNG so I can start mucking around with resolve.
Click to expand...
Why wait? Export TIFFs from ACR or lightroom with a prebase grade and jump into resolve. All my Mk3Raw is going through resolve.
 
Thanks for the test, dustylense (and btw, nice music! :) )
As I was watching it, I had no idea which camera was which, in fact I thought you had shot the wides and the closeups twice (one with each camera) and was driving myself mad trying to figure out which was which. All I could see were sharp and clean images, and was ready to call it a tie.

So, I think the race is over: nobody can complain now that the camera is holding them back. This is Hollywood image quality in a sub-$5K package.
There's still one step to climb: bringing this image quality to the sub-$1K cameras so that people on a lower budget can treat themselves to a painful RAW workflow too. But that's about it.

Fun times.
Off to edit (I already went out and shot last week).
 
  • Like
Reactions: j
Hey Dusty- thx for the C100 comparo. Watching on an iPad 4 (latest iPad 3 Retina), the 5D3 RAW footage had better color but even more impressive appears more detailed and sharper.
 
squig said:
I'm using AE, I'm a resolve noob. Are the tiffs any bigger than prores 4444?
Click to expand...

I converted a bunch of DNGs (from Ikonoskop) to TIFFs and the TIFFs were larger, by 4x! I think it was because the TIFFs are 16bit. So even a 10/12/14bit DNG will be padded to 16bit.

From some reading on wikipedia, it seems that DNG and TIFF are essentially the same thing, in fact, DNG is based on the TIFF 6.0 spec.

I think it is safe to assume that ProRes 4444 will be smaller than a TIFF sequence.

Edit: There was an option to have 16bit linear or not, once unchecked, the TIFFs dropped to only 2x the size of the DNGs, still quite large though.
 
Last edited:
Just switched over to the Nikon D5200 for photo and video but now after seeing this hack and keeping up on this thread it makes me want to switch back and get a 5D Mk II (cant afford a MK III) but I know i dont need raw, I just want it (or 10 bit 4:2:2 footage with good dynamic range :P)
 
atarijedi said:
I converted a bunch of DNGs (from Ikonoskop) to TIFFs and the TIFFs were larger, by 4x! I think it was because the TIFFs are 16bit. So even a 10/12/14bit DNG will be padded to 16bit.

From some reading on wikipedia, it seems that DNG and TIFF are essentially the same thing, in fact, DNG is based on the TIFF 6.0 spec.

I think it is safe to assume that ProRes 4444 will be smaller than a TIFF sequence.

Edit: There was an option to have 16bit linear or not, once unchecked, the TIFFs dropped to only 2x the size of the DNGs, still quite large though.
Click to expand...

Most of that is very inaccurate. Let me explain...

Is DNG and TIFF the same? No, they are completely different, the only thing DNG takes from TIFF is the file structure (how metadata is stored and things like that), the actual content is completely different.

The biggest difference is that the DNG needs to be debayered in order to be displayed, whereas the TIFF has already been debayered and only has to be read. Also, ACR does all kinds of things to the DNG while debayering it: shift colors around, apply sharpening and noise reduction, even correct lens aberrations! So, TIFF has a lot of baked-in stuff, but requires a lot less processing.

This also explains why TIFF is bigger: RAW has one 14-bit value per pixel, TIFF has three 16-bit values per pixel; so, yes, nearly 4 times bigger. But it may be easier to work with that, because processing the TIFF file is a lot easier than processing the DNG file. Or maybe not, it will depend on which software you're using.
 
Samuel H said:
Most of that is very inaccurate. Let me explain...

Is DNG and TIFF the same? No, they are completely different, the only thing DNG takes from TIFF is the file structure (how metadata is stored and things like that), the actual content is completely different.

The biggest difference is that the DNG needs to be debayered in order to be displayed, whereas the TIFF has already been debayered and only has to be read. Also, ACR does all kinds of things to the DNG while debayering it: shift colors around, apply sharpening and noise reduction, even correct lens aberrations! So, TIFF has a lot of baked-in stuff, but requires a lot less processing.

This also explains why TIFF is bigger: RAW has one 14-bit value per pixel, TIFF has three 16-bit values per pixel; so, yes, nearly 4 times bigger. But it may be easier to work with that, because processing the TIFF file is a lot easier than processing the DNG file. Or maybe not, it will depend on which software you're using.
Click to expand...

I never used ACR. Also DNG is the same as TIFF, specifically the TIFF/EP extension, because TIFF can be used as a raw image format, it isn't always a debayered image. In fact, the TIFF file may contain a raw image and a CFA pattern tag so that it can be debayered by whatever program reads it.

The main differences is that a TIFF can hold a lossy/lossless JPEG compressed image instead of a raw image, TIFF/EP has its own specific spec for metadata whereas DNG can support multiple different types (IPTC, EXIF, as well as TIFF Standard), DNG has a special set of extension tags for varying types of CFAs, and that TIFF/EP isn't open/free like DNG is.

But in a TIFF holding a raw image, that raw image data is the same as in a DNG.
 
Anyone else experiencing a funny thing where the file size always for some reason is 2.93gb no matter how long you record?

This causes the issue of not being able to convert files bigger than 2gb on a mac with Raw2dng :S
 
atarijedi said:
I never used ACR. Also DNG is the same as TIFF, specifically the TIFF/EP extension, because TIFF can be used as a raw image format, it isn't always a debayered image. In fact, the TIFF file may contain a raw image and a CFA pattern tag so that it can be debayered by whatever program reads it.

The main differences is that a TIFF can hold a lossy/lossless JPEG compressed image instead of a raw image, TIFF/EP has its own specific spec for metadata whereas DNG can support multiple different types (IPTC, EXIF, as well as TIFF Standard), DNG has a special set of extension tags for varying types of CFAs, and that TIFF/EP isn't open/free like DNG is.

But in a TIFF holding a raw image, that raw image data is the same as in a DNG.
Click to expand...

Ok, I didn't know TIFF could be used to store RAW images. In my post, whenever I say "TIFF", I mean "your usual TIFF".
 
atarijedi said:
I converted a bunch of DNGs (from Ikonoskop) to TIFFs and the TIFFs were larger, by 4x! I think it was because the TIFFs are 16bit. So even a 10/12/14bit DNG will be padded to 16bit.

Edit: There was an option to have 16bit linear or not, once unchecked, the TIFFs dropped to only 2x the size of the DNGs, still quite large though.
Click to expand...

Hehe, the last thing I wanna do is make the files BIGGER.
 
squig said:
Careful dusty, the red disciples will crucify you for such blasphemy.
Click to expand...

Posting this on reduser would seem a provocation for sure : D They are different cameras in any case. Try to need for genlocking them and you'll get straight away the meaning for ;-)
 
Well, shot all day at a 1 years old birthday party with the hack is a very very hot sun today. Let's just say my neck fried and the camera made it. Couldn't tell if the camera was absorbing the sun or warming up from shooting RAW, so I did give the camera rests here and there. But the camera seemed to champ through it. Judging by the sunburn, I'm gonna say the sun heated the camera. Regardless, the camera was able to not skip a beat and at times felt super warm in my hands.

Prepping footage now for edit. The workflow blows for sure. But worth it when you see the possibilities and image performance of the Mk3Raw. I'm a bit more excited today than I was yesterday about this development. And let's just say I don't miss the BMCC a single bit. Not trying to start a war, but the Mk3Raw is the better image.

Looking forward to testing footage other than my yard and a 1 year olds birthday. Why do 1 year olds have birthdays? They have ZERO clue of whats going on. NONE.
 
Once you get through the converting and grading you are rewarded with a marvellous image. A bit of warning, when you have the power to tweak images way beyond what you normally could do, chances are you end up on the wild side. Keep grading sensible and it will look gorgeous. There is a bit of a fight to tame the sensor pattern noise but once you get past that it looks just like raw stills from the 5D3.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top