T2i Re: Faster SD Card to avoid full buffer?

E

ectobuilder

Veteran
Re: Faster SD Card to avoid full buffer?

I have a T2i and T3i running Magic Lantern. My bitrate is constant and at 1x.

I was wondering if upgrading my Lexar Professional SDXC 128GB 133x to the 600x model will avoid the full buffer warning when recording video?

Anyone with experience using the 600x cards on a T2i or T3i with Magic Lantern?
 
Likely not, the speed is limited by the card writer in the camera, which is low in the T2i and T3i. That speed is considerably higher in the T4i/T5i, EOS M, and SL1. I believe you can look up the speed limits by camera model on the ML site.
 
markr041 said:
Likely not, the speed is limited by the card writer in the camera, which is low in the T2i and T3i. That speed is considerably higher in the T4i/T5i, EOS M, and SL1. I believe you can look up the speed limits by camera model on the ML site.
Click to expand...

Where does the 60D fit in the list?
 
I just realized that the card I am using has a Write Speed of 10MB/s which is well under the 21MB/s my T2i can do. So it might be worth while to upgrade... hmmm...
 
Well, the fastest SD controller in the table gets 40MB/s. With that, max resolution at 24p with full sensor would be 1728x578, which has a very wide 3:1 aspect ratio.For 2.40:1 ratio (the 1728x720 I was talking about), you'd need 50MB/s.
For 16:9 (1728x972), it would be 68 MB/s.

So, not looking good if you ask me... But if the IQ for stills in the 70D is not improved over the 60D (and I'm guessing it won't be), then the 60D could regain some steam. Maybe.
 
Samuel H said:
Well, the fastest SD controller in the table gets 40MB/s. With that, max resolution at 24p with full sensor would be 1728x578, which has a very wide 3:1 aspect ratio.For 2.40:1 ratio (the 1728x720 I was talking about), you'd need 50MB/s.
For 16:9 (1728x972), it would be 68 MB/s.

So, not looking good if you ask me... But if the IQ for stills in the 70D is not improved over the 60D (and I'm guessing it won't be), then the 60D could regain some steam. Maybe.
Click to expand...

Well since the price for a 60D at B&H has sunk to $600 for what I can get used is may be better to keep and a C-cam. The upgrade to the next Acam is probably a BMCC 2.5k with EOS mount.
Even though the DR and resolution is lower on the Canons, the picture for YouTube good enough. I have a project through 2014 now where I need multi cameras and You-tube is the final destination.
I've been doing some hands on comparisons of all the flat picture styles since some complain about cinestyle being noisy. They may be right in some cases. I have Cinestyle, Supreflat, and Marvels loaded amd what I descovered is that in brighter high contrast situations Cinestyle does preserve more in clipped bright areas, but in low light it pushes the gain into dark areas creating noise. Superflat is 2nd and Marvels is getting close to Neutral dialed down.
So in really bright out of control daylight I'd still use Cinestyle, but as contrast becomes more under control I will use Superflat or Marvels. I did try your Flatt 10 and 11, but found the red chroma too hot. I tried color correction and was able to reduce the chroma and it looked quite good in the end. What correction do you apply to your Flatt picture style? A lot of shooters like it so I want to see if I can make it work better for me.
 
Last edited:
* I forgot to mention that the 60D seems to have a big buffer, so maybe you can record 5- or 10-second clips at full sensor 1728x720 in RAW; that's not a big limitation for some people


* For Flaat, first thing is to check if the settings appear correctly, because sometimes they get screwed somehow at install; set Contrast=-4, Saturation=-2, Sharpness=0, Tone=1
* If those are correct and you still don't like it, play with the Tone parameter: with tone=0 it is indeed overwhelmingly red; tone=1 is the one I liked best; tone=2 is not too bad but people start to turn jersey-shore orangy to me; test it out and see if playing with that solves this issue for you.
* Apart from that, in terms of color correction, I never did too much: just set white balance (in my case, usually, skin balance: I don't care if white goes a bit off, but the MB mojo skin checker -which lights up if the hue is between 20 and 29- has to say my skin is nice), then apply a curve, then maybe add some MB Mojo or MB Quick Looks.
Color test here: https://vimeo.com/47394255
And a real project I shot and graded this way: https://vimeo.com/53809385
 
Samuel H said:
* I forgot to mention that the 60D seems to have a big buffer, so maybe you can record 5- or 10-second clips at full sensor 1728x720 in RAW; that's not a big limitation for some people
Click to expand...
If I can get 10 seconds it will work for me. I shoot a lot of commercial work where most edits are 1 to 2 seconds. What would you recommend for card speed?
 
No idea. I've never needed an SD card with more than 10 MB/s.

I know I would definitely go for a good brand: no komputerbay or no-brand cards for me.
Maybe in the ML forum you can get some pointers. Daunting to search, but...
http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=5494.0
http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=5653.0


BTW: here's the thread where the updated chart resides:
updated chart: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AgQ2MOkAZTFHdFFIcFp1d0R5TzVPTVJXOEVyUndteGc#gid=5
thread (picture not updated): http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=6215.0
For the 60D, it says it can record 137 frames at 1728x972 resolution. That's 5.7 seconds. At 68 MB/s, a 32GB card will hold 80 of these clips.
 
I really don't know, big if you push me... :)

It would seem that at least Kingston and Sandisk are advertising numbers that are kind of accurate:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/sdxc-sdhc-uhs-i,2940.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/sdxc-sdhc-uhs-i,2940-11.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/sdxc-sdhc-uhs-i,2940-12.html
(The Kingston 233x card -that means 35MB/s- gets 38 MB/s writing average, the sandisk 45MB/s one gets 37MB/s)
(I hadn't visited that site in years; it used to go there every morning... in the late 90s)

So, given that this one is way too expensive, I'd go for this one, which should be nearly twice as fast as what the camera can do.
Just to say it again: never tried any of them.


edit: oh, and btw, I'm no authority either. I spend way too much time here, but you know I'm just an amateur, right?
 
I know the 95MBs is expensive, but cards stick around longer than cameras and new camera need faster cards all the time. There is a new card out Procore. Maybe it's not new but I just saw it yesterday. 95MBs 64Gb for $100. Probably just start there.
 
ML benchmarks:
http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=5471.75

bench-sd.gif


bench-cf.gif
 
The first one, that the Sandisk 95MB/s card gives more than 40 MB/s (which is all the 6D can do) and the 45MB/s one gives more than 22MB/s (which is all the 550D can do). It would be more interesting if they had tested the 80MB/s card on the 6D, but at least it tells you that the very expensive Sandisk is faster than what the camera can do.

The second one is about CF cards.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top