# Magic Lantern... CONTINUOUS raw recording @ 24fps on 5D3



## AAPhotog (May 12, 2013)

Go Magic Lantern!!!

http://www.redsharknews.com/technology/item/713-massive-magic-landern-breakthough-1080p-raw-video-on-canon-eos-dslrs


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 13, 2013)

Insane!!
And look at this:
14-bit RAW on Canon 5D Mark III vs. factory default - Night Image Quality & Dynamic Range on Vimeo

and:
http://www.eoshd.com/content/10324/big-news-hands-on-with-continuous-raw-recording-on-canon-5d-mark-iii


Good god man Canon fire your marketing droids!! The 5D3 would still be out of stock to this day if you had released doing all it could a year ago. Black Magic may have folded before even trying. Etc.

But man those Canon engineers. What amazing hardware! This is just awesome! 5D3 is pretty amazing in the end isn't it.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 13, 2013)

More stuff getting posted:
And compares both again:

original 5D3:
1080p video test. i-frame canon 5D Mark III

5D3 with ML:
Magic lantern 1920 x 1080 2.35:1 aspect ratio raw test Canon 5D Mark III edit 2

wow


----------



## arcanej (May 14, 2013)

A (perhaps) stupid question. What software do you use to edit the raw video output? I'm very interested in installing this and giving it a go on my camera but my video experience is about nil.


----------



## Drizzt321 (May 14, 2013)

arcanej said:


> A (perhaps) stupid question. What software do you use to edit the raw video output? I'm very interested in installing this and giving it a go on my camera but my video experience is about nil.



The EosHD has a better, full description. It looks like you need to convert it with another tool into something that pulls the DNGs apart so that something like After Effects can pull them in as a sequence. See the Workflow section on the link.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 15, 2013)

Drizzt321 said:


> arcanej said:
> 
> 
> > A (perhaps) stupid question. What software do you use to edit the raw video output? I'm very interested in installing this and giving it a go on my camera but my video experience is about nil.
> ...



yeah that which is basically:
1. make a folder and plop rawtodng.exe and the RAW video file into it
2. drag the RAW video file onto rawtodng.exe, wait a while
3. move the RAW video file and the rawtodng.exe to some other folder
4. start After Effects and then select Import -> multiple files and select the first DNG in the folder
5. then it will open up ACR and you adjust it up all as you wish
6. then it will open up the file dialog again and this time near the bottom right you select "import folder"
7. then it boom does that and automatically applies the same ACR settings to every frame
8. then you click on the that imported file set name near the upper left
9. then go to the menu and do export to render queue
10. then in the render que you can fiddle with the various options there if you wish (you need to at least set the output name style and then it asks for directory)
11. then you hit Render and then like 45 minutes later of your CPU burning up (for like 50 seconds of footage) you get a video file, maybe AVI lossless or maybe Cinemark or ProRes or something depending upon what codecs you have and select (using different HDs for buffers and out put and internal fast ones might speed this up, as might selecting more core usage, having faster computer, having 16GB of memory, etc.)
12. Then you can import that into Premiere and do whatever.

a bit slow in the stuff the computer does but in some ways it saves tweaking time since RAW+ACR have tons of power compared to video programs handling 8bit files

quality is crazy compared to the regular video it produces


----------



## arcanej (May 15, 2013)

Thank you for the explanation!


----------



## RLPhoto (May 15, 2013)

Holy Detail Batman!


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 15, 2013)

You do get a bit more aliasing though so it's perhaps a touch more of a video-cam digital look than as filmic but OTOH all the detail isn't smeared away and it's much easier to control dynamic range and colors.


----------



## dirtcastle (May 15, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> 1. make a folder and plop rawtodng.exe and the RAW video file into it
> 2. drag the RAW video file onto rawtodng.exe, wait a while
> 3. move the RAW video file and the rawtodng.exe to some other folder



Can I do these first three steps in Windows, and then perform the remaining steps on a Mac?

Presumably someone will develop a Mac version of rawtodng.exe in the next few months.

I'm still stunned by the possibilities here.


----------



## cayenne (May 15, 2013)

Slighly not safe for work, but hilarious with regard to the ML breakthrough...

Hitler finds out about ML breakthrough!!
Hitler finds out about Magic Lantern RAW video for Canon DSLRs


----------



## AAPhotog (May 15, 2013)

dirtcastle said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > 1. make a folder and plop rawtodng.exe and the RAW video file into it
> ...



I'll do you one better. Here is the raw2dng app compiled for mac. Same thing applies. Just drag your raw file and drop onto this app(after unzipping app of course) and it will create a folder wherever your raw file is with DNG's

https://www.dropbox.com/s/01ms48zavggcjzu/raw2dng.app.zip


----------



## Artifex (May 15, 2013)

Does anyone know if this kind of shooting could be possible on the 6D in the future?
By the way, fantastic job (again) to the ML team!


----------



## dirtcastle (May 16, 2013)

AAPhotog said:


> dirtcastle said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



THANK YOU !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 ;D 8)   8)  ;D 8)


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 16, 2013)

Here is a comp making the rounds:
left is ML RAW video frame cap and right is without ML video frame cap (both are 100% crop crops)


----------



## Nishi Drew (May 16, 2013)

Artifex said:


> Does anyone know if this kind of shooting could be possible on the 6D in the future?
> By the way, fantastic job (again) to the ML team!



They said they're working on other cameras as well, and there is a limited build for the 5DII, and appears to be working well, albeit not as good as the 5D3. The problem though here is with the cards, SDs don't go as fast as CF and even then you need the fasted available CF cards. So the SD only 6D may not work well. Though, lower resolution with the fasted SD cards could work, not sure, much is in development with so many changes coming so quick~


----------



## AAPhotog (May 16, 2013)

dirtcastle said:


> AAPhotog said:
> 
> 
> > dirtcastle said:
> ...



You're more than welcome.


----------



## Albi86 (May 16, 2013)

cayenne said:


> Slighly not safe for work, but hilarious with regard to the ML breakthrough...
> 
> Hitler finds out about ML breakthrough!!
> Hitler finds out about Magic Lantern RAW video for Canon DSLRs



That made me start the day with a laugh


----------



## Artifex (May 16, 2013)

Nishi Drew said:


> Artifex said:
> 
> 
> > Does anyone know if this kind of shooting could be possible on the 6D in the future?
> ...



Thanks for the respond! Makes me regret a bit buying the 6D a few weeks ago 
Do you think with HDMI out, the writing speed could be fast enough? That might be a solution to get pass the SDs lower writing speed.


----------



## cayenne (May 17, 2013)

Artifex said:


> Nishi Drew said:
> 
> 
> > Artifex said:
> ...



I think so far, they're ruling out HDMI. But then again, they do seem to pull of miracles.

I did hear them talk at one time of USB, but not sure if USB2 would be fast enough.

There has even been talk of doing some kind of CF card adapter to cable, but that won't help with the SD card situation.

Right now, the best speed to capture size is the extra speedy CF cards, and the cheap ones aren't working too well, especially the one that starts with a "K" and is 128GB. The 32and 64 of that seem to do ok at times, but not the cheap 128GB one.

At least, that's what I've been reading.

C


----------



## LOALTD (May 17, 2013)

USB 2.0 maxes out at 40-45MB/s

At 1920x1080, I'm getting 60-90MB/s 

Don't think it will happen unfortunately.

The most frustrating part of shooting this video right now is that raw2dng app. It will not recognize clips bigger than 2GB in the OSX version, which really limits what you can do!

Or maybe it just means I'm a sloppy shooter


----------



## cayenne (May 17, 2013)

LOALTD said:


> USB 2.0 maxes out at 40-45MB/s
> 
> At 1920x1080, I'm getting 60-90MB/s
> 
> ...



Have you tried running Win7 in a VM with VMWare or Parallels, and doing the raw2dmg that way? 

That might help...?

C


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 17, 2013)

I was just thinking that you could probably batch the .DNG files not just in AE/ACR but in PS/ACR with with full PS power and various other plug-ins and have video frames processed with full on stills photography quality tools and all sorts of fancy, fancy processing and super advanced sharperning, NR, coloring tools.


----------



## LOALTD (May 17, 2013)

cayenne said:


> LOALTD said:
> 
> 
> > USB 2.0 maxes out at 40-45MB/s
> ...



I thought about that...but, alas, I am too lazy. It should be fixed shortly...hopefully!


----------



## LOALTD (May 17, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> I was just thinking that you could probably batch the .DNG files not just in AE/ACR but in PS/ACR with with full PS power and various other plug-ins and have video frames processed with full on stills photography quality tools and all sorts of fancy, fancy processing and super advanced sharperning, NR, coloring tools.



Ding, ding, ding!

I'm mainly a stills photographer but I’ve been starting to get into timelapse and video over the past year.

You are EXACTLY right. This is HUGE for people that are mainly stills photographers. Just as you describe, you can process this raw video EXACTLY like you can stils. Exactly. This is driving the video people nuts, but it’s huge for me. The workflow is a bit complex but not as hard and time consuming as you’d expect. I’ve made one crappy comparison video (will post later). Here is my workflow:

1) Shoot video, staying under 2GB (it tells you in real-time how much space it’s hogging)

2) Convert .RAW file into .dng files using raw2dng. TIME: about a minute

3) Import .dng files into Lightroom (this is where my workflow is a bit different than most…) TIME: about a minute

4) Process .dng files just like you would a raw from a camera…because that is exactly what they are. (I convert my Canon .CR2 files into .dng files anyway) TIME: how many images have you edited in LR?

5) Export .dng files as full-res jpegs TIME: a couple minutes (I guess if you were really anal about quality but not about HDD space you could convert to .tif's)

6) Import full-res jpegs into Quicktime 7 Pro as an image sequence (exact same way you make a time-lapse) TIME: one second

7) Export image sequence as Apple ProRes HQ 422 .mov’s (if you don’t’ want to do any video editing you can just export these as h264-compressed .mov’s or .mp4’s instead) TIME: a couple seconds for ProRes, a couple minutes for h264

8) Import Apple ProRes 422 .mov’s into Final Cut Pro X TIME: instant

9) Edit… TIME: see LR comment, I suck at video editing

10 Export to whatever format you want TIME: a couple minutes


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 18, 2013)

Warning: Komputerbay 128GB cards are too slow. They won't work for this. I hear their smaller sized cards are faster though.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 18, 2013)

LOALTD said:


> 4) Process .dng files just like you would a raw from a camera…because that is exactly what they are. (I convert my Canon .CR2 files into .dng files anyway) TIME: how many images have you edited in LR?



How long does it take for LR to apply the edit done to the initial .dng to the rest of the batch?

AE seems to be pretty slow at this (like 45 minutes for 49 second long clip or in that ballparl).


----------



## deleteme (May 18, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> How long does it take for LR to apply the edit done to the initial .dng to the rest of the batch?
> 
> AE seems to be pretty slow at this (like 45 minutes for 49 second long clip or in that ballparl).



In LR the edits are applied super fast... it's the export of the edited RAWs to JPG that takes the time.
In my experience the more local adjustments one does (burning, dodging, gradients etc.) the longer the rendering of JPGs. As long as you have a reasonably powerful machine with adequate RAM and fast HDs it doesn't take too long per image.


----------



## cayenne (May 19, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Warning: Komputerbay 128GB cards are too slow. They won't work for this. I hear their smaller sized cards are faster though.



I'd kind of think any CF card that was "cheap" would be suspect for any real high speed recording like this.

I'm thinking going with 64GB quality cards, and having 2-3 three of them on hand..one in the computer unloading while the other two are in rotation.

I don't think you'd need a full 128GB at a time with this...how often for video do you record more than a few mintues at a time?

C


----------



## Drizzt321 (May 20, 2013)

LOALTD said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > I was just thinking that you could probably batch the .DNG files not just in AE/ACR but in PS/ACR with with full PS power and various other plug-ins and have video frames processed with full on stills photography quality tools and all sorts of fancy, fancy processing and super advanced sharperning, NR, coloring tools.
> ...



Canyon do this with PNG or TIFF? In theory You can get better quality if you output the final movie at full resolution. Although...if you're outputting in a lossy format anyway, it might not make a difference.


----------



## peederj (May 20, 2013)

Yes do it in TIFF. Cinema5D published a workflow that way.

http://www.cinema5d.com/?p=18065


----------



## cayenne (May 20, 2013)

LOALTD said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > I was just thinking that you could probably batch the .DNG files not just in AE/ACR but in PS/ACR with with full PS power and various other plug-ins and have video frames processed with full on stills photography quality tools and all sorts of fancy, fancy processing and super advanced sharperning, NR, coloring tools.
> ...



A question about #1.

Why stay under *2GB*?

Thanks,

cayenne


----------



## LOALTD (May 20, 2013)

cayenne said:


> LOALTD said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...


Good question!

This issue is caused by the mac version of raw2dng not being able to convert files over 2GB in size. On a PC you can go up to 4.28GB. It's frustrating, but is an issue in the post-processing, not in the ML firmware.


----------



## LOALTD (May 20, 2013)

Drizzt321 said:


> LOALTD said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



Of course you can! See step #5! I chose to edit/grade the video in LR, not in my video editing software, so jpg is just as good as .tif in my case. If you want to grade it in your video-editing software, you should DEFINITELY export as .tif instead of .jpg.

For my workflow I doubt there would be much difference since I use LR to grade the .dng's and then I don't really touch them in FCPX...I also am quickly burning through HDD space ;D


----------



## LOALTD (May 20, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Warning: Komputerbay 128GB cards are too slow. They won't work for this. I hear their smaller sized cards are faster though.



Yeah, read the FINE PRINT about the WRITE speeds of the cards. You need at least 90MB/s WRITE for 1920x1080 24p raw video. Not all 1000X cards are created equal unfortunately. Seems like you can just have a fast read speed and call your card 1000X...

My Komputerbay 64GB is working great so far, I was definitely a skeptic...


----------



## Drizzt321 (May 20, 2013)

LOALTD said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Warning: Komputerbay 128GB cards are too slow. They won't work for this. I hear their smaller sized cards are faster though.
> ...



Yea, the write speeds have to do with how many NAND devices and the type and the controller. More devices, SLC instead of MLC, good garbage collection algorithms. Those all contribute to faater write speeds. And higher costs.


----------



## LOALTD (May 22, 2013)

They have fixed the Mac GUI version of raw2dng, no more 2GB recording limit! That was very fast and very un-Canon!


----------



## Drizzt321 (May 22, 2013)

LOALTD said:


> They have fixed the Mac GUI version of raw2dng, no more 2GB recording limit! That was very fast and very un-Canon!



That's because it's not Canon, it's the MagicLantern team


----------



## rpt (May 23, 2013)

Has anyone used the latest ML release (alpha 3 or nightly build) with the 1.2.1 firmware? Also how do I get the nightly build? Do I need to build it?

Thanks in advance.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 23, 2013)

rpt said:


> Has anyone used the latest ML release (alpha 3 or nightly build) with the 1.2.1 firmware? Also how do I get the nightly build? Do I need to build it?
> 
> Thanks in advance.



1. You MUST remove 1.2.1 and re-install the previous firmware.
2. check this thread for builds: http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=5413.125


----------



## cayenne (May 23, 2013)

rpt said:


> Has anyone used the latest ML release (alpha 3 or nightly build) with the 1.2.1 firmware? Also how do I get the nightly build? Do I need to build it?
> 
> Thanks in advance.



I don't have it up in front of me, but I've been following in the forums....

1. THey are currently only working on the older firmware, I think it was 1.1.3? The threads are like 50 deep, but in those they have links to get the older firmware so you can 'downgrade' to the version that works with current builds.

2. There are no 'guides' with everything you need to know about running the nightlies so you can play with the RAW video. YOu basically have to read through the long forum threads and take notes. ON some of those threads I saw links to outside sites where people have tried to put it all together into one guide, but if you're not familiar with a bit of coding, or more intricate computing methods, you might just want to wait till they have a more stable candidate.

That being said, the info is on a couple of ML forum threads.....I"m currently just watching the threads from the sidelines for now, but I may jump in at some point and try nightlies....

HTH,

cayenne


----------



## Drizzt321 (May 23, 2013)

cayenne said:


> rpt said:
> 
> 
> > Has anyone used the latest ML release (alpha 3 or nightly build) with the 1.2.1 firmware? Also how do I get the nightly build? Do I need to build it?
> ...



Yea, I'd recommend waiting until there's at least a pre-built alpha/beta that's officially released. A lot easier to install and use. Also it'll be a lot more stable and less experimental. But, if you do want to participate, please do so and help them out with any bug reports or suggestions!


----------



## rpt (May 23, 2013)

*LetTheRightLensIn*, *cayenne*, *Drizzt321*, thanks. Yes that has been what I have been thinking too. Unfortunately I "want" the f8 focus and the faster AF for flash so I don't want to downgrade to 1.1.3...

I guess I will sit on the sidelines for an alpha on 1.2.1 and look at the game being played and drool...


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 23, 2013)

Drizzt321 said:


> cayenne said:
> 
> 
> > rpt said:
> ...



The latest build are working remarkably well now though.
The only real bug is recording a file while card space runs out and I expect tht will be fixed in one day maybe two.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 23, 2013)

rpt said:


> *LetTheRightLensIn*, *cayenne*, *Drizzt321*, thanks. Yes that has been what I have been thinking too. Unfortunately I "want" the f8 focus and the faster AF for flash so I don't want to downgrade to 1.1.3...
> 
> I guess I will sit on the sidelines for an alpha on 1.2.1 and look at the game being played and drool...



Ah too bad. I don't use speedlight flash (only simple fill or macro ring) and the one combo I horrible badly wanted to work 70-300L + 1.4x TC doesn't work with 1.2.1.


----------



## rpt (May 23, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Drizzt321 said:
> 
> 
> > cayenne said:
> ...


See! More drool! 

It is my only body - can't take a chance to brick it. Besides the damn thing cost me full price when I bought it...


----------



## LOALTD (May 23, 2013)

Drizzt321 said:


> LOALTD said:
> 
> 
> > They have fixed the Mac GUI version of raw2dng, no more 2GB recording limit! That was very fast and very un-Canon!
> ...



Exactly! A rag-tag band of part-time, just-for-fun programmers can fix their software in a couple of days...meanwhile Canon announces a firmware update and then takes over 6 months to actually roll it out...


----------



## rpt (May 23, 2013)

LOALTD said:


> Drizzt321 said:
> 
> 
> > LOALTD said:
> ...


ML folks "code because they feel". That is a powerful place to be in. Structure imposes *. I am certain Canon has great scientist, engineers, architects, programmers etc? If not, can you imagine that the ML folks would be able to get stuff working in this timeframe?


----------



## Drizzt321 (May 23, 2013)

LOALTD said:


> Drizzt321 said:
> 
> 
> > LOALTD said:
> ...



Well, they have some advantages. If things break and your camera no longer works, they aren't legally liable. Granted if it happens to too many people they'll just stop using it. But Canon needs to make sure things are as bullet proof as possible, otherwise they face potential massive liabilities. Also, ML runs on top/alongside the Canon firmware, they don't have to do everything top to bottom like the firmware does.

That said...I definitely agree Canon should move faster with some of their firmware updates.


----------



## Axilrod (May 23, 2013)

cayenne said:


> 2. There are no 'guides' with everything you need to know about running the nightlies so you can play with the RAW video. YOu basically have to read through the long forum threads and take notes. ON some of those threads I saw links to outside sites where people have tried to put it all together into one guide, but if you're not familiar with a bit of coding, or more intricate computing methods, you might just want to wait till they have a more stable candidate.



What about this: http://www.cinema5d.com/news/?p=17898 and the one that EOSHD did?


----------



## LOALTD (May 24, 2013)

Here's some footage I edited together from last weekend in Central Oregon:

https://vimeo.com/66866250

All but the last three shots are with the Magic Lantern firmware....it's a bit tedious in post but WORTH IT!


----------



## dirtcastle (May 24, 2013)

LOALTD said:


> Here's some footage I edited together from last weekend in Central Oregon:
> 
> https://vimeo.com/66866250
> 
> All but the last three shots are with the Magic Lantern firmware....it's a bit tedious in post but WORTH IT!



Great video! Your intro reminded me of some of the other amazing bucolic footage I've seen from other ML RAW early adopters. 

I was able to get RAW working on my 5D3. Tomorrow I'll shoot some footage and string it together. But alas, I don't think it will include misty mountains and green pastures. ;-) Lol... It will probably be more like bumper-to-bumper traffic, construction work, and people yelling at each other. Ah... city life.


----------



## j1jenkins (May 24, 2013)

LOALTD said:


> Here's some footage I edited together from last weekend in Central Oregon:
> 
> https://vimeo.com/66866250
> 
> All but the last three shots are with the Magic Lantern firmware....it's a bit tedious in post but WORTH IT!



Awesome video! The climbing portion was quite enjoyable, even if some of it wasn't in RAW. I wasn't paying close attention and I will go back and watch again, but did you notice a significant difference between the ML video footage and the non-ML footage?


----------



## rpt (May 24, 2013)

dirtcastle said:


> LOALTD said:
> 
> 
> > Here's some footage I edited together from last weekend in Central Oregon:
> ...


So you guys went back to 1.1.3 or never upgraded to 1.2.1? I shall be watching this channel for your videos and comments


----------



## LOALTD (May 24, 2013)

j1jenkins said:


> LOALTD said:
> 
> 
> > Here's some footage I edited together from last weekend in Central Oregon:
> ...



Thanks! Yeah, I ran out of card space on my 64GB 1000X so those last 3 shots had to be done in the boring 'ol Canon video. 

There is a HUGE difference. It doesn't look like it that much in those video because those last three shots are just a lot more interesting and better-composed (and the lens has IS which buffers out the camera shake nicely)...I really really wish I had shot them in RAW...but then I wouldn't have had the audio which I like...so, win-some, lose-some I guess!

Going rock climbing in Idaho this weekend, I hope to make another short! Hopefully with better shots and MORE TRIPOD work. (seriously, I'm so lazy about using a tripod and video looks so, so much better with one)


----------



## LOALTD (May 24, 2013)

rpt said:


> dirtcastle said:
> 
> 
> > LOALTD said:
> ...



I never upgraded because I heard it breaks Magic Lantern. I had never used Magic Lantern prior to the RAW video thing, I'm enjoying all the other, many features as well!

I've heard it's pretty easy to downgrade back to 1.1.3 though!


----------



## rpt (May 24, 2013)

LOALTD said:


> rpt said:
> 
> 
> > dirtcastle said:
> ...


Yes, I know. However, my f8 focus will go away *and* my flash focus will be even lazier than me (or should have I said "lazier than I").

I'll wait on the sidelines for now - I have the 1.1.3 saved and so I could just make the jump...

Or else I shall watch the videos you people put up and drool...

Whatever...

Have fun!


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 24, 2013)

Drizzt321 said:


> LOALTD said:
> 
> 
> > Drizzt321 said:
> ...



They also have some pretty huge disadvantages though. Zero documentation to work off of (other than for the basic ARM core and a few standard bits)!


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 24, 2013)

LOALTD said:


> Here's some footage I edited together from last weekend in Central Oregon:
> 
> https://vimeo.com/66866250
> 
> All but the last three shots are with the Magic Lantern firmware....it's a bit tedious in post but WORTH IT!



nice!


----------



## LOALTD (May 24, 2013)

rpt said:


> LOALTD said:
> 
> 
> > rpt said:
> ...



Ahh, I see, I don't have a lens setups fancy enough that I need f/8 focus.

I have no doubt this will *eventually* work with 1.2.1 though, the rate at which these guys are fixing bugs is pretty impressive. Most of my complaints about the raw2dng OSX GUI software have been fixed within days!


----------



## rpt (May 25, 2013)

LOALTD said:


> rpt said:
> 
> 
> > LOALTD said:
> ...


Actually I do not have fancy glass. If I did, I would not need the f8 focus. I have the 100-400 which is a f5.6 at the long end and when I add the 1.4x, it becomes a f8 560mm. If I had the fancy 500mm or 600mm f4 like some folks do, I would probably not upgrade... So I'll wait... And look forward to videos put up by you folks


----------



## bchernicoff (May 25, 2013)

Okay, so I have been playing with this today after receiving my 32gb Lexar 1000x card. It's really amazing. The amount of color and detail is phenomenal. I don't think it's been posted here, but After Effects can work with the DNG files directly. So workflow is:
1)copy M00000*.RAW to computer
2)raw2dng M00000*.RAW
3)In AfterEffects File->Import->File
4)Choose the first DNG file only (this should cause After Effects to import as Footage)
5)Adobe Camera Raw opens and shows you the first frame. Tweak as needed...it will apply to all frames automatically.
5)Right-click the imported footage in the Project window and choose Interpret Footage->Main
6)Change the frame rate to 23.976(or whatever you shot at)
7)Create a composition with the size and frame rate as what you shot
8)Drag footage onto composition.
9)Render as whatever you like (I've been using H.264, Main profile 5.1 with 31Mbps average and 52Mbps Max)
10)...
11)Profit!

I will add though, working with the DNGs in Lightroom is still really useful though. I find it much easier to tweak and do cool stuff. I also created a PS Action to batch process images in Silver Efex Pro 2...that takes a LONG time, but was really cool.


----------



## dirtcastle (May 25, 2013)

bchernicoff said:


> Okay, so I have been playing with this today after receiving my 32gb Lexar 1000x card. It's really amazing. The amount of color and detail is phenomenal. I don't think it's been posted here, but After Effects can work with the DNG files directly. So workflow is:
> 1)copy M00000*.RAW to computer
> 2)raw2dng M00000*.RAW
> 3)In AfterEffects File->Import->File
> ...



Thanks for all the details! This is great. We have so many options now (even if they do take a bit more time). I'm definitely excited for Silver Efex. And I also prefer Lightroom, so that will probably be my workflow too.

Unfortunately, I've been having to debug CF card issues. I'm still working on how to get 1920x1080 consistently. I can get resolutions below that, but I'm not doing all this work just to settle for a compromise! ;-)

Fortunately, there's a lot of helpful discussion going on over at the ML forums. I feel like the primary issue with the RAW hack is CF card performance. I can see why Canon wouldn't bother with this: even the top CF cards barely cut it. There are only a few cards up to the task. I thought I had a super badass card (Lexar 1000x), but I'm still having to finesse it to get 1920x1080.


----------



## bchernicoff (May 25, 2013)

dirtcastle said:


> Unfortunately, I've been having to debug CF card issues. I'm still working on how to get 1920x1080 consistently. I can get resolutions below that, but I'm not doing all this work just to settle for a compromise! ;-)
> 
> Fortunately, there's a lot of helpful discussion going on over at the ML forums. I feel like the primary issue with the RAW hack is CF card performance. I can see why Canon wouldn't bother with this: even the top CF cards barely cut it. There are only a few cards up to the task. I thought I had a super badass card (Lexar 1000x), but I'm still having to finesse it to get 1920x1080.



Yeah, now I've run into the same problem. After recording 8-10 clips at 1920x1080 on this card it's now stopping after 33 frames every time. I have a couple of thoughts on this. I know that with solid-state hard drives the fuller they become, the slower become due to the load leveling strategies that get used and the reluctance to rewrite flassh cells until all of them have seen some use. Another thought is battery power. ML started giving me a yellow battery indicator at the same time this started. I wonder if power management comes into play and some of the hardware gets underclocked.

I'll troubleshoot tomorrow, but if you have any breakthroughs please let me know.


----------



## dirtcastle (May 25, 2013)

Good stuff! I appreciate the camaraderie! I've been weed-wacking this sh*t for days, so it's nice to have someone else in the same boat. I think we're having the same buffer / dropping / skipping frames problems.

From what I can glean on the ML forums, the following CF cards appear to be the best, (that said, there are differences between the 32/64/128 sizes). Most people seem to be finding 32/64GB cards as the best performers.


Toshiba 1066x
Lexar 1000x
Hoodman Steel 1000X
Transcend 1000x

My hunch about our problems is that it's probably not the card (mine is a Lexar 1000x 32GB). I've done the benchmarks with mine (92+MB/s), I've seen others get good results with the same card (and I've even had it work on occasion, though not repeatably). Even when I go to much lower resolutions, I'm still having problems. I am guessing that I can get it to work with this card. And when I get some new/different cards, I can see if that makes a difference. But it would still be nice to use cards I already own 

To be honest, I'm just troubleshooting in the dark right now. But here are some of the variables I'm learning about and testing.

1. *Build.* I've been using May 22, but I might try May 19 (that's the one used in the http://www.cinema5d.com/news/?p=17898 tutorial).

2. *Reformatting/Resetting/Reinstalling.* Sometimes just wiping/resetting stuff solves problems of staleness or hidden user errors. I'm including Canon firmware, ML builds, and SD/CF cards in my wipes/resets. This is probably the most painful part of debugging, but it's like an insurance policy against stupid sh*t.

3. *Resolution.* I've been starting with 1920x1080, but I should probably work my way up, if only for the purpose of seeing where the threshold is. Hopefully I can use changes in the minimum resolution threshold to know if some of these variables are making a difference.

4. *Canon Settings.* I'm not sure whether changing the resolution/fps in the Canon native firmware makes a difference, for example between All-I and IPB. I'm just guessing that the lower the res/fps, the more likely it will work with a card.

5. *HACK3D.* I have no idea what this is. All I know is that some people say it helps and it turns Live View off. I'm skeptical, but little things might make a difference.

6. *Warming Up.* Some people have found that it takes a bit of shooting action on the camera before it will hit optimum card performance. In the words of sergiocamara93: "...if you record a couple GBs, I go all the way up to 4GB, in 1920x960 and them you switch to 1080 they are just fine after that. I've recorded several 16GB files without a problem." This sounds more like voodoo (or a corollary solution), but even if it's not a direct solution, it might indicate where the deeper problem is.

7. *Global Draw.* I see it in the menu, but I have no idea what it does. Some people say turning it off makes a difference; others say it doesn't. I lump this together with HACK3D in voodoo solutions.

8. *Buffer settings.* I don't know anything about card buffering. I looked to see if there were any options or settings for it, but I couldn't find any. There is an image buffer item in the Debug menu, but it's not editable. One of the most core forum topics on this is entitled "Card benchmark - what's the optimal write buffer size?" http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=5471.0 Strangely, I couldn't find any direct references to buffer size, only to speed and stability. So I'll assume buffer is implied by other indicators and not directly adjustable, beyond using a different card (or changing resolution/fps or other demands on the card).

9. *Battery power.* As you mentioned, it's worth looking into. Does the power vary as the battery drains?

10. *What else could it be??* I'm sure I will have 10 more theories by tomorrow. ;-)

And of course, having listed all these individual reasons, it is probably several of them, in conjunction, that will make the difference.

BTW, does anyone know how to how to go back and forth between the Canon menus and Magic Lantern menus? When I'm in the Canon menus, I click on the trash can, but nothing happens. I'm assuming it's not possible, which would make sense from the "bootup" nature of ML.


----------



## rpt (May 25, 2013)

*bchernicoff*, *dirtcastle*, have you tried low level format of the card after downloading? I thought there was a thread either on CR or ML forums about this... If that works maybe you need to add that to your workflow...


----------



## dirtcastle (May 25, 2013)

rpt said:


> *bchernicoff*, *dirtcastle*, have you tried low level format of the card after downloading? I thought there was a thread either on CR or ML forums about this... If that works maybe you need to add that to your workflow...



I was wondering about that.

Fortunately, I finally got 1920x1080 working a few minutes ago. I started all the way from scratch and used the same instructions from Cinema5D.com (except this time I actually followed them : ). http://www.cinema5d.com/news/?p=17898

Here are some of the highlights...

0. I loaded a fresh battery.

1. I reformatted all the cards and reset/cleared the Canon 1.3.1 firmware settings.

2. I used the May 19 build (linked in the tutorial) instead of the May 22 build I was using before.

3. I recorded one clip with the default resolution (1360x580). It worked.

4. When I up'd the resolution to 1920x1080, the required write speed (at the bottom of the raw video screen in the movie menu) was over 100MB/s, which is faster than my card. I noticed the fps was set to 29.9fps.

5. I went into the Canon menus and set the movie record size to 1920x1080 23.9fps All-I.

6. I turned off/on the camera and restarted ML and the raw_rec module (same as always). When I went to the movie dimensions it said it required 82.9MB/s, which is below my confirmed benchmark of around 92MB/s.

Long story, short?... I learned a bunch of interesting stuff about ML, but in the end it was starting from scratch and following directions that worked. I deviated a bit the first time because I got it to work and I didn't realize how bug-prone it is. 

Now that I have a formula that worked once... I have something to fall back on (because it will probably be broken again by tomorrow afternoon : ).


----------



## Drizzt321 (May 25, 2013)

A comment on the write speed problem, it might be that the CF card has to have good garbage collection, because if you want to write to a NAND block that already has data, you first have to clear it, then write to it. Some of the cheaper ones might not implement that well, and it might be that the better CF card controllers can detect when a card is reformatted (rather than delete files) and mark those blocks to be cleared out in advance of need like the TRIM command that modern SATA SSDs support.

Also, I bet the reason the 32GB/64GB cards have the best performance is that they have fully populated NAND die control channels (NAND controllers like to read/write dies in parallel). They may also be using SLC memory in some cases for speed and/or longevity, while the 128GB cards might be using MLC in order to get that high which tend to be slightly slower.

I'm looking forward to what XQD can do, since it's based off of PCI-Express. It'd be pretty cool if someone were to come up with an adapter that is basically a cable (modification to camera required) that has a XQD on one side, and an external SATA/PCIe high capacity, high speed SSD. Imagine capturing the full sensor in RAW and writing it out at 24/30 fps? *drool* Heck, I wonder if with those write speeds you could do faster than 30fps...


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 25, 2013)

bchernicoff said:


> Okay, so I have been playing with this today after receiving my 32gb Lexar 1000x card. It's really amazing. The amount of color and detail is phenomenal. I don't think it's been posted here, but After Effects can work with the DNG files directly. So workflow is:
> 1)copy M00000*.RAW to computer
> 2)raw2dng M00000*.RAW
> 3)In AfterEffects File->Import->File
> ...



One problem I find using AE only even when you don't need to do anything in PS is that you get stuck the file being put out in sRGB format and yet most video monitors/hdtvs/etc. use gamma 2.2 which is NOT what sRGB format uses so you get a tone curve shift which slightly increases apparent contrast/saturation/darkes deep and mid tones so then all your careful ACR edits in AE don't look quite right in Premiere Pro or when you play the files back with most software unless you calibrate your screen to sRGB TRC instead of gamma 2.2.

I guess you might be able to set the output profile under color management in AE to not use Working Space but to an .icc profile that uses sRGB/REC709 primaries mixed with gamma 2.2 though. I haven't come upon such a profile though. I think I will try to make one myself. That would solve the AE-only workflow color management issues.

(With PS workflow as I said in my other message here you just stick in a convert to Custom RGB REC709 primaries gamma 2.2 profile step as the last step in your batch action before saving/closing so you don't have to have on hand an .icc file that has the proper settings.)


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 25, 2013)

bchernicoff said:


> Okay, so I have been playing with this today after receiving my 32gb Lexar 1000x card. It's really amazing. The amount of color and detail is phenomenal. I don't think it's been posted here, but After Effects can work with the DNG files directly. So workflow is:
> 1)copy M00000*.RAW to computer
> 2)raw2dng M00000*.RAW
> 3)In AfterEffects File->Import->File
> ...



You can also set AE to default to 23.976 (and 16bits) if that is how you shot most of your footage (very likely since 1920x1080x30p tends to choke out after a few seconds even with 32GB Lexar 1000x, I can only get 23.976 rates sustained). And then you can simply change step 3 to "Import-Multiple Files" and then you pick the first DNG and edit in ACR to set the template and then it pops open the file browser again and this time you hit "Import Folder" (make sure that the DNG are numerically orderded and have nothing more than a simple letter at the end of the numbers otherwise, for some reason, AE tends to get confused and not think you have a sequence and then you have to mess around forcing it to realize what is going on) and then skip straight to step 9!

I've been exporting to AVI lossless 16bit and also trying CinemarkAVI 4:4:4 HD optimized/filmscan1/2 to preserve everything best for use in Premiere Pro so I don't lose enough more on final compression out of PP and if I do end up compositing or editing colors more in PP. For files that are not Earth shattering, I think I might just keep the CInemark 4:4:4 for archival purposes to save space and delete the original RAWs (for really good stuff I feel like I'd still want to hang onto the RAWs for now and delete the intermediate footage when I feel I probably won't use it again for a while).

I'm thinking of making a deep color video, since some of my flower shots are to intense for sRGB gamut. I might make the footage in ProPhotoRGB if I can get full color management working in MPC+MadVR or I might just render them to the profile of my monitor set to native gamut (although they would've be shareable with others for the most part in this case). It would be pretty cool. Deep color video is not something the average person on the street has been able to really mess with before. But RAW video allows it. At least from Canon DSLR.


----------



## dirtcastle (May 25, 2013)

Drizzt321 said:


> A comment on the write speed problem, it might be that the CF card has to have good garbage collection, because if you want to write to a NAND block that already has data, you first have to clear it, then write to it. Some of the cheaper ones might not implement that well, and it might be that the better CF card controllers can detect when a card is reformatted (rather than delete files) and mark those blocks to be cleared out in advance of need like the TRIM command that modern SATA SSDs support.



I will test this out. Based on my experience and what you're suggesting, I think the best route will be to fill a card in sequence and then reformat after it fills up. Hell, I won't even preview clips. After I get sustained speeds, I can test and figure out what compromises the card speed.


----------



## Drizzt321 (May 25, 2013)

dirtcastle said:


> Drizzt321 said:
> 
> 
> > A comment on the write speed problem, it might be that the CF card has to have good garbage collection, because if you want to write to a NAND block that already has data, you first have to clear it, then write to it. Some of the cheaper ones might not implement that well, and it might be that the better CF card controllers can detect when a card is reformatted (rather than delete files) and mark those blocks to be cleared out in advance of need like the TRIM command that modern SATA SSDs support.
> ...



I'm just extrapolating based off of modern SSDs. Ah, looks like CF 6.0 introduced UDMA7, as well as TRIM command just like SSDs have. So I imagine that's what is being used during a delete/quick-format to tell the controller that it no longer needs to keep the NAND blocks permanently, and can clear them out at will. This is part of what the controller garbage collection does, and usually operates in the background. So it might be you need to leave it sitting for a short bit in the camera/reader after deleting/formatting the card to give it power and let it do it's background cleanup to keep maximum performance.

The test you're describing is part of what Ananadtech.com does during it's SSD tests, as well they now check the consistency of latency which can be important to avoid buffer overruns in a case like this, where if it has a brief spike in latency that might reduce overall throughput just enough that you start dropping a few frames.


----------



## dirtcastle (May 25, 2013)

I just got a Hoodman 1000x 64GB and I'm testing it out. The first benchmark test clocked around 90Mb/s. The three after that have been over 93MB/s. That puts this card roughly in the ballpark of my Lexar 1000x 32GB (based on benchmarking). Now I'll see how it does with actual shooting.

UPDATE: Shooting 1920x1080 RAW is working great with both Hoodman and Lexar cards. I'll post footage as soon as I figure out how to shoot something decent. Video n00b.


----------



## bchernicoff (May 26, 2013)

It seems like there must be something wrong with my card now. It was brand new Lexar 1000x 32gb. I recorded about 10 1920x1080 raw clips on it with no problem...usually about 3 at a time after which I would delete the files but not reformat or anything. Then it stopped working. Now it will write 116.1mb before the buffer fills. This is regardless of what resolution I try. ML shows a write speed of 6.6mb/s, so something has crippled the card. Just for the heck of it, I tried one of my older Lexar 400x 16gb cards and ML is able to write to them at 26mb/s no problem, so it's not the camera.

I've tried reformating, aligning partition to 4096, completely overwriting the card. Still, no change from 6.6mb/s. Does this sound familiar to anyone? I'm thinking that it's 3 days old at this point and I should just return it.


----------



## dirtcastle (May 26, 2013)

bchernicoff said:


> It seems like there must be something wrong with my card now. It was brand new Lexar 1000x 32gb. I recorded about 10 1920x1080 raw clips on it with no problem...usually about 3 at a time after which I would delete the files but not reformat or anything. Then it stopped working. Now it will write 116.1mb before the buffer fills. This is regardless of what resolution I try. ML shows a write speed of 6.6mb/s, so something has crippled the card. Just for the heck of it, I tried one of my older Lexar 400x 16gb cards and ML is able to write to them at 26mb/s no problem, so it's not the camera.
> 
> I've tried reformating, aligning partition to 4096, completely overwriting the card. Still, no change from 6.6mb/s. Does this sound familiar to anyone? I'm thinking that it's 3 days old at this point and I should just return it.



The other isolation test (in addition to trying a different card) would be to try that Lexar card with a different camera. But that's probably academic at this point. Bottom line: if it doesn't work... it doesn't work. And if you can solve the problem by getting a different card... save yourself the headache.

I've purchased several cards because it's clear that the size options are a function of the card's performance. I'm returning a KomputerBay 128GB card. I'll find out how the Transcend 128GB works when I get it next week. If the Transcend 128GB doesn't work out, I'll be trying Toshiba 64GB and maybe Transcend 64GB (if I feel like pressing my luck). Considering how much we pay for these things, the ability to return it is part of the cost.


----------



## AAPhotog (May 26, 2013)

Heres a test. a stupid one but nevertheless a quick recorded clip.

Shot on a 16gb Sandisk 600x CF

https://vimeo.com/66705345


----------



## AAPhotog (May 26, 2013)

dirtcastle said:


> bchernicoff said:
> 
> 
> > It seems like there must be something wrong with my card now. It was brand new Lexar 1000x 32gb. I recorded about 10 1920x1080 raw clips on it with no problem...usually about 3 at a time after which I would delete the files but not reformat or anything. Then it stopped working. Now it will write 116.1mb before the buffer fills. This is regardless of what resolution I try. ML shows a write speed of 6.6mb/s, so something has crippled the card. Just for the heck of it, I tried one of my older Lexar 400x 16gb cards and ML is able to write to them at 26mb/s no problem, so it's not the camera.
> ...



Many of the 128GB cards are much slower than their 64gb counter parts. Why not save yourself some money and go with the 64gb Komputerbay card that are PROVEN to work with the RAW at 1080p.
I've only seen 1 or 2 cases of them not working and it was because of a dead card, not speed


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 26, 2013)

dirtcastle said:


> bchernicoff said:
> 
> 
> > It seems like there must be something wrong with my card now. It was brand new Lexar 1000x 32gb. I recorded about 10 1920x1080 raw clips on it with no problem...usually about 3 at a time after which I would delete the files but not reformat or anything. Then it stopped working. Now it will write 116.1mb before the buffer fills. This is regardless of what resolution I try. ML shows a write speed of 6.6mb/s, so something has crippled the card. Just for the heck of it, I tried one of my older Lexar 400x 16gb cards and ML is able to write to them at 26mb/s no problem, so it's not the camera.
> ...



I'd try sticking to 64GB (or 32GB) since all the almost all of the 128GB seem to run a touch slower (and some such as the Komputer Bay vastly slower).

Also I'd avoid KomputerBay at any size since I'm reading so many reports about cards failing after two weeks and talk that they use Lexar parts that got rejected.


----------



## dirtcastle (May 26, 2013)

That's what I'm seeing too, that the 32GB and 64GB are the fastest. Personally, I will be avoiding KomputerBay until the dust settles. I bought a KomputerBay 128GB and it clocked around 72MB/s. I don't see any risk in ordering a KomputerBay 64GB, but be ready to return it. I've got a Transcend 128GB on order (from weeks ago, before I knew they were unreliable), but I'll be ready to ship it back same day I get it.

The known solid candidates are Toshiba, Hoodman, Lexar, and Transcend. I've got a Lexar 32GB and a Hoodman 64GB and both are solid.


----------



## rpt (May 26, 2013)

One of the conversations on the ML forum they mentioned that the 128GB UDMA 7 cards were slower than the 64 GB UDMA 7 cards and they ended up dropping frames. I think they were talking about Lexar. So they were shooting on the 64GB cards...


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 26, 2013)

dirtcastle said:


> That's what I'm seeing too, that the 32GB and 64GB are the fastest. Personally, I will be avoiding KomputerBay until the dust settles. I bought a KomputerBay 128GB and it clocked around 72MB/s. I don't see any risk in ordering a KomputerBay 64GB, but be ready to return it. I've got a Transcend 128GB on order (from weeks ago, before I knew they were unreliable), but I'll be ready to ship it back same day I get it.
> 
> The other known solid candidates are Toshiba, Hoodman, Lexar, and Transcend. I've got a Lexar 32GB and a Hoodman 64GB and they are both solid.



I have three 1000x 32GB Lexar that run fine. And a Hoodman 64GB that was supposed to arrive today but got held up.

The Toshiba don't seem to have arrived for direct sale in the U.S. yet, supposedly they are the fastest of all and perhaps might be able to do 1920x1080p30 (the Lexar max out at 1920x1080p24).


----------



## JasonATL (May 28, 2013)

I finally pried the 5D Mark III out of my wife's hands long enough to play around with raw video.

I threw together a quick resolution chart comparison. There is a link on this Video's description to a similar test shot with my Blackmagic Cinema Camera, for anyone interested.

5D Mark III Resolution: Canon Firmware vs. Magic Lantern Raw on Vimeo


----------



## Axilrod (May 28, 2013)

JasonATL said:


> I finally pried the 5D Mark III out of my wife's hands long enough to play around with raw video.
> 
> I threw together a quick resolution chart comparison. There is a link on this Video's description to a similar test shot with my Blackmagic Cinema Camera, for anyone interested.
> 
> 5D Mark III Resolution: Canon Firmware vs. Magic Lantern Raw on Vimeo



Nice Jason, I didn't even need to shoot charts to be able to tell the difference is night and day, but the most exciting moment was when I pulled down the highlights to reveal a perfectly blue sky, man raw is awesome. But man I saw the resolution tests on the BMCC and it looks like that thing has pretty bad moire! But some of the color coming out of that thing is astoundingly beautiful, not sure if you've seen "Meet Me At Big Sur" but I was super impressed with it. Can't wait for the Production Cam in July!


----------



## JasonATL (May 28, 2013)

Axilrod said:


> Nice Jason, I didn't even need to shoot charts to be able to tell the difference is night and day, but the most exciting moment was when I pulled down the highlights to reveal a perfectly blue sky, man raw is awesome. But man I saw the resolution tests on the BMCC and it looks like that thing has pretty bad moire! But some of the color coming out of that thing is astoundingly beautiful, not sure if you've seen "Meet Me At Big Sur" but I was super impressed with it. Can't wait for the Production Cam in July!



Axilrod - Thanks. I agree - it was clear that the raw was a significant step up compared to the Canon firmware compressed output. The dynamic range is a beautiful thing. Once you shoot raw, you won't want to go back. Having said that, I'm very happy with the Film Log compressed footage out of the BMCC. The BMCC seemed to me to show moire in a lot that I saw. The resolution chart reflects that, too.

As you suggest, the proof is in the real life shooting, not just the charts. However, the resolution charts are the only way that I know of to hold the conditions equal to see a bit more clearly as to what is going on and, perhaps, how to address certain issues. The BMCC tests, for example, led me to use a color blur or NR on the chroma channel only as a regular part of my post workflow. This helps to make the BMCC footage quite silky - and make the most of both its color and resolution. I do hope someone makes a OLPF for it, though.

For the 5D raw, the moire/aliasing just isn't there in the first place. There is a bit of something weird going on at the highest frequencies, as seen at the bottom of the vertical lines at 900-1000 lines. My guess is that it the frequency hitting the bayer pattern just right. The problem is that it shows up at 100%, too. But, I haven't seen it much in the real world footage, so I'm not going to sweat it. The 5D resolution isn't quite as good as the BMCC appears to be. But, it is great and has me rethinking my pre-order of the BM Pocket camera.

If experience is any guide, you'll be waiting longer than July. It will be a painful wait. But, once you get it, you won't remember that pain at all!I look forward to seeing what you shoot with it.


----------



## LOALTD (May 28, 2013)

For those complaining about the Komputerbay memory cards: DO YOUR RESEARCH. It clearly states on the product info that the 128GB cards have slower write times than the 64GB cards. Don’t just blindly buy any card that says 1000X, that rating comes from the READ speed, not the WRITE speed. (as it has since I’ve been using CF cards on the original 5D)

I have a 64GB Komputerbay card, I was originally a skeptic but, it works just fine. I’ve already shot over 256GB of RAW video with zero issues. The 64GB card is the one to get right now. If you need more space just get a couple. If you need to do single clips longer than 64GB in size…you would probably be better served by the crappy on-board video.

Also, these cards seem to use the same chips as the Sandisk ones…so enjoy paying for brand names.

I’m editing together another video right now from a rock climbing trip in Idaho, will post here when I’m done! Here’s the one I made at Smith Rock a weekend ago:

https://vimeo.com/66866250


----------



## dirtcastle (May 28, 2013)

LOALTD said:


> For those complaining about the Komputerbay memory cards: DO YOUR RESEARCH. It clearly states on the product info that the 128GB cards have slower write times than the 64GB cards. Don’t just blindly buy any card that says 1000X, that rating comes from the READ speed, not the WRITE speed. (as it has since I’ve been using CF cards on the original 5D)
> 
> I have a 64GB Komputerbay card, I was originally a skeptic but, it works just fine. I’ve already shot over 256GB of RAW video with zero issues. The 64GB card is the one to get right now. If you need more space just get a couple. If you need to do single clips longer than 64GB in size…you would probably be better served by the crappy on-board video.
> 
> Also, these cards seem to use the same chips as the Sandisk ones…so enjoy paying for brand names.



The place where I ordered my KomputerBay 128GB advertised a "minimum 90MB/s write speed", which was not accurate and I am returning it today. No big deal. On a side note, James Miller shot part of his "Genesis" video using this card (shooting 1920x720).

I ordered a Transcend 1000x 128GB about 10 days ago. It just arrived. The fastest write time I could get was around 83MB/s. It's not useless, but it won't get 1920x1080. I'm returning it today. No big deal.

Fortunately, I have a Lexar 1000x 32GB and a Hoodman 1000x 64GB, which both write in the low 90s. Next up for me is a KomputerBay 1000x 64GB (probably sold out most places by now). And then I'll be on the prowl for a Toshiba.


----------



## JasonATL (May 28, 2013)

Anyone have any recommendations for super fast SD cards for my 600D/T3i? I can't seem to get more than 20 MB/s writes with a Sandisk Extreme or Lexar 600x 32GB. Obviously, those rates don't get me very much raw out of the 600D/T3i.


----------



## LOALTD (May 28, 2013)

dirtcastle said:


> LOALTD said:
> 
> 
> > For those complaining about the Komputerbay memory cards: DO YOUR RESEARCH. It clearly states on the product info that the 128GB cards have slower write times than the 64GB cards. Don’t just blindly buy any card that says 1000X, that rating comes from the READ speed, not the WRITE speed. (as it has since I’ve been using CF cards on the original 5D)
> ...



Wow, that sucks! What site was it? Amazon lists the write speeds, thankfully, or I would've suffered the same fate! I almost pulled the trigger on the 128GB until I saw that.

I'm hoping fast cards come down in price soon, I have an 8-day climbing trip to Canada in two months and I'd like to be able to shoot more than 7 minutes of RAW video! lately I've been just lugging my laptop along and transferring to it as my one fast card fills up.

I keep shooting 1920x720 on accident, I wish the ML firmware would default to 1920x1080 instead of 1920x720...oh well, beggars can't be choosers!

There are definitely fast, bigger cards (Transcend) but I'm trying to save up for a new wide-angel prime so I'll hold out for now! (I'd feel like a chump paying over $300 for a freakin' memory card!)


----------



## cayenne (May 28, 2013)

LOALTD said:


> dirtcastle said:
> 
> 
> > LOALTD said:
> ...



I thought you could get a bit less than 15 min on a 64GB card....?

C


----------



## LOALTD (May 28, 2013)

cayenne said:


> LOALTD said:
> 
> 
> > dirtcastle said:
> ...



I just did the math and I guess it's closer to 12 minutes(?), I guess I was just shooting from the hip. It's so involved to get video out of this that by the time I have editable video, I'm not longer concerned with how much I get out of it! I also usually shoot stills at the same time. I'm a stills photographer, I'm not at at all a videographer, I'm just someone that's curious about new things to tinker with, so my estimates are definitely off!


----------



## dirtcastle (May 29, 2013)

LOALTD said:


> Wow, that sucks! What site was it? Amazon lists the write speeds, thankfully, or I would've suffered the same fate! I almost pulled the trigger on the 128GB until I saw that.



It was on ebay.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=140878263839&ssPageName=ADME:L:OC:US:3160

The key is always to buy from someone that allows returns, even if you've opened and used it. B&H and Amazon would be my first choice. But lots of ebay sellers (some of which are big companies) have good return policies.

I'm cool with having to buy small, high-priced cards. For me, the time involved in the post-processing workflow is where I'm looking for alternatives/improvements. In time, there will surely be a one-shot tool that will convert RAW to a single edit-ready file. It will be a great day when that comes out. 

I'm also coming from the stills arena. But this RAW video is amazing. I'm hooked. Game over. I even sold my fanciest stills lens to make room for more video gear.


----------



## LOALTD (May 30, 2013)

Here's my latest short/test with this firmware, I continue to be amazed:

https://vimeo.com/67288607

This was shot over a Memorial Day rock climbing trip to Idaho.


----------



## JasonATL (May 30, 2013)

LOALTD said:


> Here's my latest short/test with this firmware, I continue to be amazed:
> 
> https://vimeo.com/67288607
> 
> This was shot over a Memorial Day rock climbing trip to Idaho.



Very nice! The picture quality is amazing. Resolution, dynamic range,... everything!


----------



## Niki (May 30, 2013)

is this working on the 5d mark ll?

thanks


----------



## dirtcastle (May 30, 2013)

LOALTD said:


> Here's my latest short/test with this firmware, I continue to be amazed:
> 
> https://vimeo.com/67288607
> 
> This was shot over a Memorial Day rock climbing trip to Idaho.



You've got some nice crispy footage in there! 

I'm curious how you got the timelapse. What's the best way around the 4GB limit? I'm using an older build, has that been fixed? I've also had trouble using raw2dng.app to convert files over 4GB.

Did you drag each clip, one at a time, into raw2dng? Or do you have a batch process? 

Any time-saving tricks you've found would be great to hear about.


----------



## tombu (May 30, 2013)

LOALTD said:


> Here's my latest short/test with this firmware, I continue to be amazed:
> 
> https://vimeo.com/67288607
> 
> This was shot over a Memorial Day rock climbing trip to Idaho.


Image quality is just soo damn good! Shot at 2:49 just show how sharp it can be.


----------



## LOALTD (May 30, 2013)

dirtcastle said:


> LOALTD said:
> 
> 
> > Here's my latest short/test with this firmware, I continue to be amazed:
> ...



Thanks dirtcastle! I forced myself to use a tripod more this time, for MAXIMUM crisp.

I think my workflow is earlier in this thread but, it's probably not the best way to do it...just how I do it coming from a stills background because it's WHAT I UNDERSTAND.

I'm still running an older build of Magic Lantern, I'm limited to 4GB clips, I'm pretty sure that has been fixed but I haven't got around to updating. Also, I'm not very good at video and the longer my takes are the longer they seem to suck! So the artificial limitation is kind of beneficial at the moment.

Timelapse: nothing fancy about this, didn't even use the ML firmware. THis is just a bunch of 22MP still shots overnight using the over-priced Canon intervolometer.

The newest raw2dng has tons of fixes, you can pretty much throw anything at it. It is MUCH IMPROVED. I actually *have* updated this, this was usually the most headache-prone part of my workflow. Now I just drag an entire folder in there and it cranks them all out while I go drink a beer/coffee!


----------



## AAPhotog (May 30, 2013)

Newer builds can shoot more than 4gb clips now.
for cards formatted in camera(file size limit of 4gb for those cards), it will automatically split the clip at 4gb
for cards formatted with EXT(probably completely wrong about the format name), it can record a single clip as big as your card

the newest builds of raw2dng can extract both.


----------



## Drizzt321 (May 30, 2013)

AAPhotog said:


> Newer builds can shoot more than 4gb clips now.
> for cards formatted in camera(file size limit of 4gb for those cards), it will automatically split the clip at 4gb
> for cards formatted with EXT(probably completely wrong about the format name), it can record a single clip as big as your card
> 
> the newest builds of raw2dng can extract both.



Are you referring to exFAT? I didn't realize the 5d3 supported exFAT.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 30, 2013)

Drizzt321 said:


> AAPhotog said:
> 
> 
> > Newer builds can shoot more than 4gb clips now.
> ...



The 5D3 does (although it won't format to that in cam). You need to format the cards on your computer to exFAT and then, with the later versions of ML, you can record over 4GB.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 30, 2013)

LOALTD said:


> dirtcastle said:
> 
> 
> > LOALTD said:
> ...



So far:

BAD:
Sandisk Extreme Pro 90MB/s UDMA6 32GB are no good.
Komputerbay 1000x 128GB UDMA7 150MB/s are no good.
Basically forget anything rated less than 1000x or without UDMA7 and even at UDMA7 and 1000x, the 128GB cards are more likely to be suspect as are less than ultra-premium brands it seems.

GOOD:
Lexar 1000x 32GB work
Hoodman Steel 1000x 64GB work


----------



## LOALTD (May 30, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> LOALTD said:
> 
> 
> > dirtcastle said:
> ...



Komputerbay 64GB 1000X's are working great as well! They are what the guy at EOSHD has been has been shooting with and I've shot almost 300GB of footage with mine so far with zero dropped frames or issues! The Lexars are Hoodmans are soooo overpriced, I probably would've never started shooting RAW video if those were the only game in town 

The cards I usually shoot with (before I got into raw video) are the Transcend 400X's...they are awesome cards...I wish their 128GB 1000X cards were cheaper, they look awesome (rated at 120GB/s WRITE speed! Even if they can't hit that number it still should be more than enough for 1080p @ 24fps RAW)


----------



## LOALTD (May 30, 2013)

JasonATL said:


> LOALTD said:
> 
> 
> > Here's my latest short/test with this firmware, I continue to be amazed:
> ...



Thanks! It's exactly the same as stills IQ which...compared to all the trashy video codecs...is OUTSTANDING by comparison. I don't even waste time shooting comparison footage anymore, if you can't see the difference you need to visit your optometrist!

My HDD backups are hurting though :-/


----------



## chauncey (May 31, 2013)

Does anyone know if the ML's ISO improvement in recording is carried through to the same degree of improvement in RAW still images?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 31, 2013)

chauncey said:


> Does anyone know if the ML's ISO improvement in recording is carried through to the same degree of improvement in RAW still images?



Not at all. It is not magic. All does is get around the step where something nasty gets done to the video and lets you get RAW for video while before you could only get RAW for stills. It can't make the sensor any better than it is and for stills Canon already let you access RAW and they were already getting the best possible from RAW.


----------



## LOALTD (May 31, 2013)

chauncey said:


> Does anyone know if the ML's ISO improvement in recording is carried through to the same degree of improvement in RAW still images?



Yes it is, the image quality is exactly the same as still images. 

Pretty much, think of it as a "real time timelpase". It's just shooting 2MP raw, still images at a rate of 24 fps.

You'll have to edit them a bit more than a still though...for whatever reason the white balance they default to is very heavy in the magenta department.

Oooh, looks like a misread your question. Stills quality is un-touched when running the ML firmware.


----------



## eyeland (Jun 1, 2013)

bchernicoff said:


> ...working with the DNGs in Lightroom is still really useful though. I find it much easier to tweak and do cool stuff....


I also like using Lightroom better, but some people have reported that using Lightroom with 2012 calibration can cause flicker as it appears to apply some tweaks on an individual image basis.
@LetTheRightLensIn
Please keep us updated with your findings/thoughts on the color management/workflow! Thanks


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 1, 2013)

eyeland said:


> bchernicoff said:
> 
> 
> > ...working with the DNGs in Lightroom is still really useful though. I find it much easier to tweak and do cool stuff....
> ...



Yeah I am noticing that for certain clips it (ACR 2012 whether through LR or PS apparently since you mention LR and I use PS) does introduce flicker. For now I pretend it is a flickering film projector .


----------



## Drizzt321 (Jun 1, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> eyeland said:
> 
> 
> > bchernicoff said:
> ...



Not having use the 5d3 raw or anything, but couldn't you go into Library module in Lightroom and make the individual frames fairly small (I'm guessing they're displayed as an entire set of individual raw images) and just scroll through them quickly to see if there are any that have significantly different exposure to find those flickers?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 1, 2013)

Drizzt321 said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > eyeland said:
> ...



Tricky when like 300 out of a 1000 appear to. I think some of it was actually there in real life though I think some bushes were blowing around and rapidly changing the lighting in the scene. I think 24fps makes it seem more strobe like that in real life and ACR probably did accentuate it a bit though too.


----------



## dirtcastle (Jun 1, 2013)

That flickering (aka color/luma shifting) is probably the one caused by automatic adjustments in Lightroom 2012. The following is a post about it on the Magic Lantern forum.

http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=5710.0

It happens when changes in the image (such as a person walking across the screen) triggers automatic Lightroom adjustments.

The good news is that you can selectively revert batches of frames back to "Process 2010" (which does not automatically adjust it) in the Settings > Process menu. The bad news is that you lose several years of LR feature advancements. But obviously, it's still better than reverting back to H.264. 

For sequences with lots of motion and histogram changes, use Process 2010. For relatively calm and stable shots, use Process 2012. Or you can just use Process 2012 until you see a flicker/shift, and then revert.

More early-adopter penalties. :'(


----------



## Plaid Zebra Films (Jun 1, 2013)

Here is a test video I shot last weekend in Big Sur (May 22nd Nightly build). The post-production was done through Lightroom. 

https://vimeo.com/67422760


----------



## LOALTD (Jun 12, 2013)

Here's a short I threw together with some RAW video on a recent alpine climbing trip:

https://vimeo.com/68106828


----------



## cayenne (Jun 13, 2013)

I've not had a chance to read again through the ML forums to catch up.

What's the latest progress on this? There was so much info about the breakthrough...but not much word on how progress was to refining this for a more general release to the public.

Anyone?


Thanx,

C


----------



## LOALTD (Jun 13, 2013)

Features are still being worked on/added in the nightly builds, but I haven’t updated to any of them. The builds are still pre-alpha for the time being.


----------



## risc32 (Jun 13, 2013)

LOALTD said:


> Here's a short I threw together with some RAW video on a recent alpine climbing trip:
> 
> https://vimeo.com/68106828



is there some sort of funniness going on in this video or am i just nuts?vthe corners keep moving. it almost looks like distortion correction is being switched on and off during the video. either way it still looks 100x better than thing i can put together, and the scenery is spectacular. thanks for posting it.


----------



## LOALTD (Jun 13, 2013)

risc32 said:


> LOALTD said:
> 
> 
> > Here's a short I threw together with some RAW video on a recent alpine climbing trip:
> ...



You aren't crazy! This footage was extremely shaky, and I digitally "fixed" it. I honestly don't like the way it looks, but I had one cut with it un-"fixed"...and it looked even worse/more distracting. 

I wasn't able to rent image-stabilized primes and my team would not let me setup a tripod while climbing...so this is the best I could do unfortunately!

I'm still struggling with how to take video while alpine climbing that doesn't look like it was shot by someone with parkinson's. 

Rock climbing is much easier to use a tripod on, I'm much more happy with this:
https://vimeo.com/66866250

Regardless, I'm having a blast playing with this firmware, even if I'm an amateur, at best!


----------



## dirtcastle (Jun 13, 2013)

cayenne said:


> What's the latest progress on this? There was so much info about the breakthrough...but not much word on how progress was to refining this for a more general release to the public.



I think the in-camera stuff is pretty solid now (varying a bit by model). But the post-processing workflow is still in flux.

There are a number post-processing sub-projects going on right now, but as far as I can tell... nothing has risen to the top yet. If everyone were on the same OS, using the same applications, and wanted the same editing format, I think we'd have a solution by now. But it's just the opposite. That said, people are definitely chugging along.

Check out the ML post-processing forum. There's at least 8-9 projects, each with their own different process or software.

http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?board=14.0

I will be taking some of these workflows for a spin over the next week. 

If anyone else has tried a converter other than raw2dng, it would be great to get some details.


----------



## eyeland (Jun 13, 2013)

I am still holding my breath, waiting for a breakthrough in terms of in-camera conversion to 10 or 12 bit.
The hope is that one of the developers stumble on an undocumented feature in the DIGIC or that a canon engineer decides to show some love


----------



## Niki (Jun 13, 2013)

BY THE END OF SUMMER WE SHOULD KNOW A LOT MORE...


----------



## cayenne (Jun 13, 2013)

dirtcastle said:


> cayenne said:
> 
> 
> > What's the latest progress on this? There was so much info about the breakthrough...but not much word on how progress was to refining this for a more general release to the public.
> ...



Thanks for the link!! I'll dive into it this afternoon.

I'd like to see them have a conversion tool, maybe to the DNG format that Davinci Resolve works with..so you could pipe the Canon RAW video into Resolve and do you color correctiion, and the out of that into FCPX or Premier as you please for editing....


----------



## LOALTD (Jun 13, 2013)

eyeland said:


> I am still holding my breath, waiting for a breakthrough in terms of in-camera conversion to 10 or 12 bit.
> The hope is that one of the developers stumble on an undocumented feature in the DIGIC or that a canon engineer decides to show some love



Don't hold it too long, you might die!


----------



## dirtcastle (Jun 15, 2013)

I've tried out a few different post-processing conversion workflows. Here are some brief comments.

*raw2dng* (WIN/OSX)
- PRO: Reliable. Clean output. Note: used by other converters (e.g., RAWanizer).
- CON: Limited to outputting DNG stills, which must then be converted before importing to an NLE.

*RAWmagic* (OSX)
- PRO: when it works, it converts a RAW file directly to Resolve-ready CinemaDNG
- CON: still very beta, with lots of bugs (including noise, fringe, aberration, and more)

*RAWanizer* (Win)
- PRO: creates DNGS, TIFFs, and a proxy tiffs and a proxy video. It can also output Prores 4444.
- CON: slow, but to be expected considering how much it does.

*EyeFrame* (Win)
- PRO: Convert Magic Lantern RAW to dng, tiff, Prores, DNxHD, MPEG2 I Frame HD and MJPEG.
- CON: Runs within another program, Lightworks (Win).

I haven't used EyeFrame yet (because it requires Lightworks). Because RAWanizer works sufficiently, I'm reluctant to try EyeFrame until I hear a rousing endorsement.

If anyone has experience with other tools, please share about it.


----------



## AAPhotog (Jun 15, 2013)

Download and install GingerHDR
That will allow you to import the RAW files straight out of the camera into Premiere Pro without having to convert to any DNG/TIF formats


----------



## dirtcastle (Jun 16, 2013)

AAPhotog said:


> Download and install GingerHDR
> That will allow you to import the RAW files straight out of the camera into Premiere Pro without having to convert to any DNG/TIF formats



Thanks for the heads-up! 

GingerHDR is perfect for going straight into the NLE. It works as a plugin with both Premiere and After Effects. At $150, it's definitely on the costly side. At first, I ignored it because I figured there HAD to be a free alternative, right? Well, not yet. Up to this point, I think it is still the only software that will bring files directly into Pr/Ae without any compression.

GingerHDR has a 30-day trial. But I'm guessing that any projects I use it on will get disabled if I don't purchase a license. That is giving me a bit of pause, because I am confident there will be free alternatives within a matter of weeks/months. The question now is whether Prores 4444 (using RAWanizer) is good enough to tide me over until a free "native" solution emerges.

Does anyone have any thoughts on whether RAW will be that much better than Prores for my shamelessly amateur videos? Is it worth that extra $150 to get native RAW capabilities a few months before something free comes out?


----------



## AAPhotog (Jun 16, 2013)

dirtcastle said:


> AAPhotog said:
> 
> 
> > Download and install GingerHDR
> ...



I downloaded the trial, I'm thinking that maybe the plug in will get disabled, but maybe the ability to import the footage wont. Guess I'll have to wait to find out???


----------



## crazyrunner33 (Jun 16, 2013)

I tried GingerHDR, it's nice being able to work with RAW immediately in Premiere, but I prefer using ACR.


----------

