12 ms·

I recently purchased an 5d mk iii and installed magic lantern on it. The 14bit raw video is AMAZING. Also, this particular camera can now record at, I think t

by mseidl 8y ago

I recently purchased an 5d mk iii and installed magic lantern on it. The 14bit raw video is AMAZING. Also, this particular camera can now record at, I think the limit is 3.5k vs 1080p from the factory. https://youtu.be/6yKbwXYmpD0 https://youtu.be/6yKbwXYmpD0

pen2l 8y ago
That video, with the pre- and post- differences is pretty remarkable. Here's my stupid question of the day: given that this color-grading of RAW streams makes _SUCH_ a massive difference... why don't companies like Conan and Sony just ship it with the product? Why do their cameras fall short of having something like Magic Lantern? In the end it gives the customer what they want... surely Sony/Canon are capable of producing something like this, so why not produce it?
- Franciscouzo 8y ago
  Most probably because it would compete with the Canon EOS product line.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - Godel_unicode 8y ago
    The full name of the 5d mark II is Canon EOS 5d mark II.
    - Franciscouzo 8y ago
      I meant the cinema EOS line...
- mjlee 8y ago
  I wonder if it has anything to do with distinguishing a video camera from a stills camera for tax purposes: https://uk.reuters.com/article/tech-eu-cameras-trade-dc/eu-to-hit-some-digital-cameras-with-import-duty-idUKL1777271820070717 https://uk.reuters.com/article/tech-eu-cameras-trade-dc/eu-t...
- knolan 8y ago
  I wonder if there are thermal issues that may affect the life of the sensor? But it’s mostly a business decision I guess.
  - zepearl 8y ago
    Maybe a mix of multiple factors including "business"? - e.g. more cost effective to use the same HW on multiple devices but limiting their capabilities through SW by segment => total cost covered by many sold med-end devices AND few high-end devices? - and/or maybe what "magic lantern" allows to do wasn't certified to work on 100% of the HW. - and/or "magic lantern" did some own SW development, which would mean "additional costs" if done by a company (and here is where open source hits one of its targets?). Meaning that maybe at a certain point Canon said "ok, we've spent all our budget for this price class of camera vs. the expected earnings, so that's it". Cheers
- dharma1 8y ago
  They do, but on their higher end video cameras (Sony FS range, Canon C200). They could easily do it on normal dSLR's but have chosen not to. However, you can get very good cinema cameras for not very much money from Blackmagic that shoot raw video. I have both their 1080p pocket and 4k pocket cinema camera, they are awesome. Magic lantern is an amazing project too, but reverse engineering the firmware is a lot of effort and never quite bug free
- anigbrowl 8y ago
  They do...on different models, and after they've had the opportunity to assess market demand. Naturally they would prefer people buy tools made for the job than cheap out with modifiers, but on the other hand they've taken a hands-off approach to Magic Lantern rather than complain about their intellectual property being infringed, so I'm OK with that. It's not just the firmware that makes the difference between a DSLR and a pro video one, but ergonomics and hardware connectivity. Videographers tend to be more demanding on technical support issues too IME.
- ipsum2 8y ago
  Price differentiation. Canon sells video cameras that shoot raw, they're 10x the price of a DSLR. (see the canon eos c700 ff, $33,000). They can charge this much, because they're competing with high end cinema cameras that are used to shoot blockbluster films, such as the Arri Alexa LF ($100,000) or Red Monstro 8k VV ($79,500). Some video camera manufacturers have started offering raw at lower price points. The Blackmagic Camera Pocket Cinema 4k shoots 4k raw 60fps for only $1,300. Sensor size micro 4/3s, which is a lot smaller than a full frame sensor that the 5dmk3 has.
  - bredren 8y ago
    Quick plug for the BlackMagic eGPU. I had not heard of Blackmagic before, because I don't do film work. But Apple partnered with them on a pair of eGPUs and I really dig the base one. It is silent, creates a useful dongle-free set of ports and obviously improves macOS graphic responsiveness when working with 4k external monitor from the 2018 MacBOok Air.
- timClicks 8y ago
  Market differentiation/segmentation. This happens in lots of software-supported technology products, the cheaper version is often the same software as the more expensive version - but with a few flags switched to off.
- imagetic 8y ago
  Canon still reserves a lot of space for their C line cameras. They have been very hesitant to let their SLR / Mirrorless market creep into that realm. The 5d revolutionized video production, but they've always crippled their photography cameras just enough to matter to professionals.
- creato 8y ago
  I'd be curious to hear from the parent of your post what the user experience is like, especially after using it for a long time. Raw video is a huge amount of data. The camera's storage and buffering system might work for short clips, but it might also be a real pain in the ass to use.
- StavrosK 8y ago
  Feature gating/price differentiation. You know what's ridiculous? Their shutter timer doesn't go above 30 seconds on any of their cameras. Magic Lantern obviously has no problem giving you a UI to adjust the timer for whatever value you want, and it's worth it just for that. Canon want you to buy the timer/wired trigger peripheral.
beagle3 8y ago
Almost all the color graded versions seem to have a sepia tone. Is that on purpose?
- soylentcola 8y ago
  As a Nikon user, I have no direct experience with Magic Lantern (always a bit bummed about that) but I was also wondering the same. I don't know if these are presets or something done in post-processing, but it almost looks like the video equivalent of filter plugins in some cases. I'm by no means an expert but color grading video is often a detailed process with a lot of room for finding your own creative "vision". Think of the split toned, green/orange aesthetic that was popular in movies for a while. Doing the color grading can have a major effect (good, bad, or just different) on the mood of a video. In these examples, I was definitely impressed with some aspects of how curves were adjusted to bring up shadows and make details more visible. But at the extreme end, it reminded me almost of the overkill seen in early HDR photography. Some tweaking can make things look more realistic and bring out detail but it is very easy to go too far and end up with something that looks like an Instagram filter. That's mainly why I was wondering if the video examples were in-cam presets when running Magic Lantern, or if it was something the videographer did in post with the extra data captured with the higher bit depth enabled.
  - cormacrelf 8y ago
    You can’t use in-camera presets if you want RAW. That was shot RAW, with the expanded bit depth that Magic Lantern affords. Then, it was loaded onto a computer and graded. I personally only use the presets to get more depth out of the space-efficient photo/video encodings by lifting blacks before they get cut off or turn out so dark you can’t get accurate colour out of them, or to do that in the digital viewfinder only before saving as RAW. The more finished-looking presets are fun for previewing but not all that useful otherwise.
- Varcht 8y ago
  The term color grading should probably put in quotes here. A few looked pretty great to me but a lot did not.
platz 8y ago
> On Canon when shooting "RAW" you get 14 bit depth (.CR2 files) is this false for the factory default?
- mseidl 8y ago
  .cr2 files are photographs and a lot of cameras can shoot raw, even those much cheaper than a 5d. The magiclantern lets you shoot raw video.
twic 8y ago
Oh my god they put a tiny electronic Wes Anderson in your camera!
Sendotsh 8y ago
I don't think that's the best example. A lot of those post-shots were extremely over-processed, blown out highlights, distorted colours, etc. This shows a pure comparison (it should link to the right time-mark). First shows some before/after full shots then does a split screen comparison in various situations: https://youtu.be/WTr2L3uCYts?t=80 https://youtu.be/WTr2L3uCYts?t=80 5D3 comparison: https://youtu.be/6Pvy-J7kNTQ?t=30 https://youtu.be/6Pvy-J7kNTQ?t=30
- bscphil 8y ago
  That first video doesn't seem like a great example either. The RAW footage has clearly been color graded, so it's not a one to one comparison. It would be better to see some of the limitations of trying to regrade the camera's default h264 output, and a true comparison of the difference in sharpening. The RAW footage has clearly been sharpened to some extent because there's quite visible ringing in a lot of those shots. It would also be nice to see it without Youtube's compression, if anyone has a better link. (Your second video seems much more in line with what I'd expect, but it's still hard to see clear differences with Youtube's compression.)
  - gridspy 8y ago
    In the GP's YT link, many people are talking about the color grading. One commenter said: "I disagree when I shoot raw and h.264 my camera has the ability to shoot both at once and spit both files out, and these are exactly how it looks no color grading fresh out the camera. "
  - jacobolus 8y ago
    There’s not much meaning to a “non-color graded” or “non-sharpened” picture. Many choices must inevitably be made along the pipeline from estimated-electron-count-per-sensor-pixel -> image on a display. Default choices are not inherently more correct (or truer to the scene or whatever) than deliberate choices. The fairest comparison is probably to find someone highly skilled at image editing and get them to try to make the best output images they can from both inputs. You’ll get to see places where the standard processing and compression actually lost data. Often the processed-in-camera version still has enough data that a more-or-less comparable output image can be produced, but if you start peeping on pixels you might notice extra noise, banding, blur, ringing, ... The problem with the comparison videos in this thread is that the person/software deciding what to do with the “raw” data has made a bunch of choices to allocate more contrast to shadow and highlight areas, etc., while the in-camera software made a different choice... and nobody tried to reconcile the two versions afterward. Comparing the amount of usable data available

by mseidl 8y ago

pen2l 8y ago

That video, with the pre- and post- differences is pretty remarkable. Here's my stupid question of the day: given that this color-grading of RAW streams makes _SUCH_ a massive difference... why don't companies like Conan and Sony just ship it with the product? Why do their cameras fall short of having something like Magic Lantern? In the end it gives the customer what they want... surely Sony/Canon are capable of producing something like this, so why not produce it?

Franciscouzo 8y ago
Most probably because it would compete with the Canon EOS product line.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- Godel_unicode 8y ago
  The full name of the 5d mark II is Canon EOS 5d mark II.
  - Franciscouzo 8y ago
    I meant the cinema EOS line...
mjlee 8y ago
I wonder if it has anything to do with distinguishing a video camera from a stills camera for tax purposes: https://uk.reuters.com/article/tech-eu-cameras-trade-dc/eu-to-hit-some-digital-cameras-with-import-duty-idUKL1777271820070717 https://uk.reuters.com/article/tech-eu-cameras-trade-dc/eu-t...
knolan 8y ago
I wonder if there are thermal issues that may affect the life of the sensor? But it’s mostly a business decision I guess.
- zepearl 8y ago
  Maybe a mix of multiple factors including "business"? - e.g. more cost effective to use the same HW on multiple devices but limiting their capabilities through SW by segment => total cost covered by many sold med-end devices AND few high-end devices? - and/or maybe what "magic lantern" allows to do wasn't certified to work on 100% of the HW. - and/or "magic lantern" did some own SW development, which would mean "additional costs" if done by a company (and here is where open source hits one of its targets?). Meaning that maybe at a certain point Canon said "ok, we've spent all our budget for this price class of camera vs. the expected earnings, so that's it". Cheers
dharma1 8y ago
They do, but on their higher end video cameras (Sony FS range, Canon C200). They could easily do it on normal dSLR's but have chosen not to. However, you can get very good cinema cameras for not very much money from Blackmagic that shoot raw video. I have both their 1080p pocket and 4k pocket cinema camera, they are awesome. Magic lantern is an amazing project too, but reverse engineering the firmware is a lot of effort and never quite bug free
anigbrowl 8y ago
They do...on different models, and after they've had the opportunity to assess market demand. Naturally they would prefer people buy tools made for the job than cheap out with modifiers, but on the other hand they've taken a hands-off approach to Magic Lantern rather than complain about their intellectual property being infringed, so I'm OK with that. It's not just the firmware that makes the difference between a DSLR and a pro video one, but ergonomics and hardware connectivity. Videographers tend to be more demanding on technical support issues too IME.
ipsum2 8y ago
Price differentiation. Canon sells video cameras that shoot raw, they're 10x the price of a DSLR. (see the canon eos c700 ff, $33,000). They can charge this much, because they're competing with high end cinema cameras that are used to shoot blockbluster films, such as the Arri Alexa LF ($100,000) or Red Monstro 8k VV ($79,500). Some video camera manufacturers have started offering raw at lower price points. The Blackmagic Camera Pocket Cinema 4k shoots 4k raw 60fps for only $1,300. Sensor size micro 4/3s, which is a lot smaller than a full frame sensor that the 5dmk3 has.
- bredren 8y ago
  Quick plug for the BlackMagic eGPU. I had not heard of Blackmagic before, because I don't do film work. But Apple partnered with them on a pair of eGPUs and I really dig the base one. It is silent, creates a useful dongle-free set of ports and obviously improves macOS graphic responsiveness when working with 4k external monitor from the 2018 MacBOok Air.
timClicks 8y ago
Market differentiation/segmentation. This happens in lots of software-supported technology products, the cheaper version is often the same software as the more expensive version - but with a few flags switched to off.
imagetic 8y ago
Canon still reserves a lot of space for their C line cameras. They have been very hesitant to let their SLR / Mirrorless market creep into that realm. The 5d revolutionized video production, but they've always crippled their photography cameras just enough to matter to professionals.
creato 8y ago
I'd be curious to hear from the parent of your post what the user experience is like, especially after using it for a long time. Raw video is a huge amount of data. The camera's storage and buffering system might work for short clips, but it might also be a real pain in the ass to use.
StavrosK 8y ago
Feature gating/price differentiation. You know what's ridiculous? Their shutter timer doesn't go above 30 seconds on any of their cameras. Magic Lantern obviously has no problem giving you a UI to adjust the timer for whatever value you want, and it's worth it just for that. Canon want you to buy the timer/wired trigger peripheral.

beagle3 8y ago

Almost all the color graded versions seem to have a sepia tone. Is that on purpose?

soylentcola 8y ago
As a Nikon user, I have no direct experience with Magic Lantern (always a bit bummed about that) but I was also wondering the same. I don't know if these are presets or something done in post-processing, but it almost looks like the video equivalent of filter plugins in some cases. I'm by no means an expert but color grading video is often a detailed process with a lot of room for finding your own creative "vision". Think of the split toned, green/orange aesthetic that was popular in movies for a while. Doing the color grading can have a major effect (good, bad, or just different) on the mood of a video. In these examples, I was definitely impressed with some aspects of how curves were adjusted to bring up shadows and make details more visible. But at the extreme end, it reminded me almost of the overkill seen in early HDR photography. Some tweaking can make things look more realistic and bring out detail but it is very easy to go too far and end up with something that looks like an Instagram filter. That's mainly why I was wondering if the video examples were in-cam presets when running Magic Lantern, or if it was something the videographer did in post with the extra data captured with the higher bit depth enabled.
- cormacrelf 8y ago
  You can’t use in-camera presets if you want RAW. That was shot RAW, with the expanded bit depth that Magic Lantern affords. Then, it was loaded onto a computer and graded. I personally only use the presets to get more depth out of the space-efficient photo/video encodings by lifting blacks before they get cut off or turn out so dark you can’t get accurate colour out of them, or to do that in the digital viewfinder only before saving as RAW. The more finished-looking presets are fun for previewing but not all that useful otherwise.
Varcht 8y ago
The term color grading should probably put in quotes here. A few looked pretty great to me but a lot did not.

platz 8y ago

> On Canon when shooting "RAW" you get 14 bit depth (.CR2 files) is this false for the factory default?

mseidl 8y ago
.cr2 files are photographs and a lot of cameras can shoot raw, even those much cheaper than a 5d. The magiclantern lets you shoot raw video.

twic 8y ago

Oh my god they put a tiny electronic Wes Anderson in your camera!

Sendotsh 8y ago

I don't think that's the best example. A lot of those post-shots were extremely over-processed, blown out highlights, distorted colours, etc. This shows a pure comparison (it should link to the right time-mark). First shows some before/after full shots then does a split screen comparison in various situations: https://youtu.be/WTr2L3uCYts?t=80 https://youtu.be/WTr2L3uCYts?t=80 5D3 comparison: https://youtu.be/6Pvy-J7kNTQ?t=30 https://youtu.be/6Pvy-J7kNTQ?t=30

bscphil 8y ago
That first video doesn't seem like a great example either. The RAW footage has clearly been color graded, so it's not a one to one comparison. It would be better to see some of the limitations of trying to regrade the camera's default h264 output, and a true comparison of the difference in sharpening. The RAW footage has clearly been sharpened to some extent because there's quite visible ringing in a lot of those shots. It would also be nice to see it without Youtube's compression, if anyone has a better link. (Your second video seems much more in line with what I'd expect, but it's still hard to see clear differences with Youtube's compression.)
- gridspy 8y ago
  In the GP's YT link, many people are talking about the color grading. One commenter said: "I disagree when I shoot raw and h.264 my camera has the ability to shoot both at once and spit both files out, and these are exactly how it looks no color grading fresh out the camera. "
- jacobolus 8y ago
  There’s not much meaning to a “non-color graded” or “non-sharpened” picture. Many choices must inevitably be made along the pipeline from estimated-electron-count-per-sensor-pixel -> image on a display. Default choices are not inherently more correct (or truer to the scene or whatever) than deliberate choices. The fairest comparison is probably to find someone highly skilled at image editing and get them to try to make the best output images they can from both inputs. You’ll get to see places where the standard processing and compression actually lost data. Often the processed-in-camera version still has enough data that a more-or-less comparable output image can be produced, but if you start peeping on pixels you might notice extra noise, banding, blur, ringing, ... The problem with the comparison videos in this thread is that the person/software deciding what to do with the “raw” data has made a bunch of choices to allocate more contrast to shadow and highlight areas, etc., while the in-camera software made a different choice... and nobody tried to reconcile the two versions afterward. Comparing the amount of usable data available