5D Mark III with Continuous RAW Video Recording
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
- Status
Barrfly said:
The A/B test to do is the RAW version vs. the HDMI out using Cinestyle, recorded to the Ninja 2 in 220Mbps ProRes HQ and graded in post with the proper LUT. Because anyone who cares about getting the most IQ out of the camera will be using that setup (or something very similar) rather than internal...of course the RAW is going to kill the miserable internal codec.
And BTW, all my testing has repeatedly shown ALL-I and IPB are 100% identical IQ on the 5D3 internal. Haven't seen anything credible to refute that...I think it's just Mbps marketing to counter the GH2 hack.
Upvote
0
RAWShooter126 said:The only reason ML doesn't release for the 1Dx is because Canon have made a very bold, public statement, that if any third party modifies any camera in the EOS 1 line at a software level then they will feel the might of Canon's entire legal teamArchangel72 said:This is all beautiful, and I'm very happy for 5DMarkIII owners, but... what about Canon 1Dx ???
Double with price, and still with no Canon or ML firmware to some major upgrade in video for our expensive camera!?
Now, 5DMarkIII will have better video capabilities, better picture in video, raw video recording... and 1Dx - NO !
Great, just great... that's why 1Dx cost more than 2 x 5DMarkIII so we could have less quality for double the price.
Wonderful... beautiful... great... :
I'm not disputing what you say about Canon and their desire to protect their intellectual property but is it not a case of, I bought the product therefore I can do whatever I like with it? Sure, if it were rented that's a different case altogether but isn't it a bit like someone buying a family car and turning it into a monster truck? The manufacturer no longer owns the vehicle therefore as long as the owner is aware the warrantly is toast then who gives a crap?
Let's say the hacked firmware gets out into the wild - how could Canon know the "end product" video comes from a hacked camera unless they had access to the raw data? If you see a video on TV or the web, can you tell what it was shot on just by the look of it?
Kinda makes you think Canon are just scare-mongering. Time will tell.
Regards.
Upvote
0
I think that it's a bit naïve to think that Canon's R&D team is not fully aware of what exactly their cameras are capable of producing. They have been doing this a long time and I'm sure there's a room full of engineers laughing amongst themselves every time one of these "hidden jewels" are revealed to the masses.
If Canon bombarded us with all of the OEM features presently available, plus all of the things that the Camera's internals/sensor is capable of doing (ML additions included), I believe we would whine more because we would expect more with every camera release.
To me, ML is the old "unlock your GeForce making it a Quadro" trick. Sure the ability is there to make the GeForce graphics card do more than it's advertised/marketed to do, but there are subtle reasons that it's not the same thing as physically having the Quadro graphics card. Just because there is no commercial EOS camera with all of the bells & whistles ML adds to the mix, doesn't mean that Canon doesn't have hardware in the Government or Aerospace sector that we don't have privy to.
Or maybe they have begun to purposefully leave a lot of these features out because the wonderful ML crew are doing what they are doing and what better test bed than us consumers using our cameras that we paid for with our money, providing massive amounts of end user data and feedback. If someone has a problem with a ML feature, the world knows and an update may come out fixing the issue. Canon knows this too but it doesn't cost them a penny to fix because they technically do not support said feature.
So, when 5 different cameras come out over the next x amount of years carrying the DiGiC 6/7/whatever processor, all with varying amounts of features, I won't be surprised in the least to see some polished ML originals in my cameras menu.
For the record, I love ML & I did hack my GeForce back in the day. Long live the hacker!
If Canon bombarded us with all of the OEM features presently available, plus all of the things that the Camera's internals/sensor is capable of doing (ML additions included), I believe we would whine more because we would expect more with every camera release.
To me, ML is the old "unlock your GeForce making it a Quadro" trick. Sure the ability is there to make the GeForce graphics card do more than it's advertised/marketed to do, but there are subtle reasons that it's not the same thing as physically having the Quadro graphics card. Just because there is no commercial EOS camera with all of the bells & whistles ML adds to the mix, doesn't mean that Canon doesn't have hardware in the Government or Aerospace sector that we don't have privy to.
Or maybe they have begun to purposefully leave a lot of these features out because the wonderful ML crew are doing what they are doing and what better test bed than us consumers using our cameras that we paid for with our money, providing massive amounts of end user data and feedback. If someone has a problem with a ML feature, the world knows and an update may come out fixing the issue. Canon knows this too but it doesn't cost them a penny to fix because they technically do not support said feature.
So, when 5 different cameras come out over the next x amount of years carrying the DiGiC 6/7/whatever processor, all with varying amounts of features, I won't be surprised in the least to see some polished ML originals in my cameras menu.
For the record, I love ML & I did hack my GeForce back in the day. Long live the hacker!
Upvote
0
peederj said:
The quality of the samples posted here looks amazing. I don't know why you are talking about softness and noise. Look at the comparisons, in both cases it's way better than recording to camera internally through normal software or through recording over HDMI to Ninja2 (in fact it is the latter internal vs Ninja 2 where the difference is very slight; ML vs not using ML is huge).
Upvote
0
cayenne said:
That would be awesome if they could get a super crisp 1920x1080 with slightly better DR over the HDMI, pu tthat into a ninja 2 and it would be quite practical. Of course to a CF card and RAW would be best, but you could have a half way there option that would be easier to use when you value that more.
Upvote
0
LetTheRightLensIn said:
You know, the more I think about this...the more I wonder if it would be possible for ML to output the 'raw' video out through the USB port.
I'm pretty sure it is only usb2, but perhaps that still would be fast enough to push out the raw data that ML is capturing from the sensor?
Just wondering and pondering....
C
Upvote
0
peederj said:
That is alot of misinfo.
1. The internal codec isn't what does much damage. Point at a static scene and record with Ninja 2 at ProRes HQ and record internally 1.2.1 and there is NOT much difference you can see at all. A little but it is all very subtle to be honest. It's vastly smaller compared to the difference between what this ML recorded stuff looks like compared to normally internally recorded video.
2. For static scenes or ones with just bits moving around in the frame all-i and IPB are pretty much the same and all-i is just a horrible waste of space, perhaps worse if anything. If you pan around or the entire scene is changing frame to frame then ipb totally falls apart and all-i holds up much better (as does say pro res on ninja 2).
Upvote
0
cayenne said:
Unfortunately USB 2.0 is bottlenecked around 40-45MB/s
I thought the same thing for a second. Too bad they didn't put a USB 3.0 port on there!
Upvote
0
RAWShooter126 said:
Completely wrong, while Canon gave ml a "hint" there was really no pressure needed. The (afaik majority of the) ml devs feel that backporting the 4k feature would be stealing from Canon since this cuts away the main feature of the 1dc, and Canon is free to set up their camera line as they want it.
As for the 1d line: "Magic Lantern is a community project aimed to enhance the low- to midrange DSLR cameras, not to save money for rich people. We only want to make our great cameras even better - and share these modifications with you."
... but of course since ml is open code other people might grab it and port it to the 1d, but the current ml team won't.
RGF said:
Focus bracketing is available in the dev/nightly builds (actually I added the original version myself to ml since I wanted it that badly)
Upvote
0
I've been poking around. Apparently the Lexar 1000x cf 64GB cards are 'on sale' now for about $299.
Hmm...I wonder if it might be a good idea to pick up one of these in anticipation of ML raw video coming online soon.
It isn't like I couldn't be using it right now for normal video/stills photography.....
Hm......
cayenne
Hmm...I wonder if it might be a good idea to pick up one of these in anticipation of ML raw video coming online soon.
It isn't like I couldn't be using it right now for normal video/stills photography.....
Hm......
cayenne
Upvote
0
LetTheRightLensIn said:
Interesting...got links for those?
Then again...thinking.
From what I understand, with this 'raw' recording, you're gonna get basically 15min per 64GB card, which would make 32GB only about 7 Min.
I could make due with 15min at a time, swapping out with 2x cards shooting at home (one in camera, one uploading to computer), but I think only 7 min at a time would cause a lot of stoppage.
I'll need to find out what those times vs space numbers are.....
C
Upvote
0
East Wind Photography said:
Hmm, right about now comes into my mind that piece of black duct tape Canon used to fix the light leakage merely one year ago! That for sure must have been a fire proof duct tape
Upvote
0
I bought mine for $278 last fall from Adorama, so $299 is not much of a sale. I'd wait for a better price.cayenne said:
Upvote
0
Marsu42 said:
Wait. Is the Trammel Hudson heavily involved with all of this the very same famed hacker of old Atari 8 bit days Tram Hudson??
Upvote
0
- Status
