maxotics

Cineform 422 is essentially free with the free version of GoPro Studio.  The RAW and 444 versions cost about $300.  Magic Lantern RAW begins its journey as DNGs, or DNGs to TIFFs.  For maximum quality, you can work with the TIFFs in your NLE as an image sequence.  But I'm not a Mac expert.  Maybe you can't.

Hi Leo, is it working during Magic Lantern RAW recording?  Does it help you focus better? That certainly would be interesting!  Thanks.

So yesterday I take my daughter and her friend shopping.  They're juniors as MassArt.  The friend saved money to buy a T31.  I had with me a hacked 50D, shooting RAW video.  You'd think they'd be into it.  They just rolled their eyes.  Anyway, she's saying she needs a PC for animation.  I say I have at extra one.  "You can save money." ... She says "That's what my Dad would say"  She starts going on about needing a powerful computer for this and that and I try to tell her, for tethered stills capture from an EOS camera you don't need a powerful computer.  Long story short, most kids in school, like everywhere in life, aren't interested in all the technical stuff.  The kids hacking their cameras are usually, God Bless Them, drop-outs :)  I'm sure I'm at least getting laughs from Pandetta!   So you'll have to excuse me Julian, I'm a beaten down Dad and it infects my posts and rationality ;)  

@Pandetta.  My feeling is for film-school canon RAW is the way to go because it forces you to understand and work with the technology.  You can't just turn it on (as much as I'd like that myself).  Also, besides cost, most kids will have Canon camera, so can use what you teach.  That said, most kids just want to press a button.  Can't blame them.  Finally, most kids probably prefer the sweet and salty (saturated and sharp) look of H.265 more than the bland, high dynamic range (BMCC or Canon RAW), so you may want to punt and go the camcorder route ;)  In any case, I'd try get RAW working on a Canon DSLR, see how you like it.

My apologies for the provocative topic title!  :)  First I was inspired by Andrew's GH2 shooters guide (and I don't even own a GH2), then the 50D RAW shooters guide, which motivated me to buy a 50D, then an EOS-M.  I laugh when I see Andrew writing about all these new RAW cameras which still aren't cheap and aren't, strictly speaking, DSLRs.  Has he abandoned us little people? ;)  No matter.  Will accept him with open arms when he returns!  In the meantime...   I'm going to order a Century Optics (not going to fool around with lower-price adapters) .5x wide angle adapter tomorrow.  My guess is that for $250 body, $150 20mm lens, $165 Wide angle adapter, you can get, in crop mode, 40mm 720p beautiful RAW video.  In this video I'm either using 22mm or Sigma 10-20mm with adapter.  If the Century Optics works, the EOS-M with 22mm and that adapter will be a very compact little powerhouse.     https://vimeo.com/73565879   Again, thank you Andrew for that 50D shooters Guide!  

  In general, the liveview/display on my 50D, at any rate, is jumpy and flickers between different sizes, and between color and B&W.  I once got it to play a video back, but can't remember how I did it.  I gave up on it because the quality doesn't really tell you what you got anyway.  I look at the 50D like an old-fashioned 16mm camera.  I have to wait to develop when I get home.  That said, running a RAW file through the cineform converter is very fast.  So if you have a laptop with you it wouldn't take long for you to get that daily.   @lionel, thanks for that photo!  Cool.  

I agree with Ben.  Panasonic specializes in video.  They have tweaked the hell out of their CODEC.  With the GH3 you get all i-frame compression which is as good as you'll get for in-camera video in a consumer price range.  There is nothing fast or easy about RAW.    > Form factor for video, GH3 hands down.   Ease of use and battery life > same. Canon video is afterthought.   FPS GH3   > Lens availability DSLR auto-focus stinks, stinks, stinks.  So if you have to manually focus anything it doesn't make a difference.  An adapter for any lens to M43ds is $20 (or $75 if you want a nice finish).     > usability (Focus peaking would be nice...) Video, GH3 hands down   I don't even own a GH3, I own a GF3 and a G5 and even those lowly cameras do better video than my (close your eyes Nikon people) Nikon D600.  

I have this, works well.  http://www.amazon.com/Desmond-Bracket-Cameras-Stereoscopic-Photography/dp/B004HK0RXY/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1377688151&sr=8-3&keywords=two+camera+bar+tripod   A draw-back, however, is you cannot tilt either camera up and down.  So you may want something like this   http://www.amazon.com/Vanguard-Multi-Mount-Horizontal-Mounting-Multiple/dp/B001HBIYFO/ref=pd_sim_p_6   Or get a an additional connection between camera and bar in first case.

@Brian, when the BMCC came out I wanted one.  I shoot family and friends so no real way to justify $3k (at the time)and THEN need to buy lenses.  I had bought Andrew's guide to GH2 and tried that out the ideas on a GF3.  Enjoyed it, and now use that technology (hacked Panasonics) for some stuff.  Then I bought his 50D guide and I have to admit, so far, has been very painful.  But rewarding. And I'm getting there!  You'll see. :) I laugh about the people complaining about all the storage/time RAW takes.  When I was in my 20s and 30s one had to wait 3 days for their Super-8 to come back.  And 16mm?  $100+ a small reel (stock/dev) back then.  That RAW is possible at all, for under $1,000, is nothing short of miraculous (and I use that word sparingly). That you can pay $100 for a CF card that shoots the same amount of 16mm AND is re-usable!  Okay, enough of the old fart rant ;)   Seeing that you have a young kid in your photo and no Bentley in the background I say go with the 50D or 7D if you want 1080p, or go with any other ML Canon for 720p.  Here are my stupid reasons:   1. Millions of man-hours have gone into making those cameras the best digital still cameras you can buy.  If you're buying for video, you get that for FREE 2. The only difference I can tell, between BMCC, and Canon is that BMCC converts to ProRes in the camera and allows you to capture audio.  With the Canon, if you want ProRes, you have to convert first.  No big deal. 3. The Canon even has a plus in that you can get TIFFs and now you're open to every kind of photo processing software.  Lots more creativity!   4. Audio.  If you have the time to shoot RAW you have the time to sync external audio.     I bought a 50D with 28-135mm for $500 and a 16gb 1000x card for $65.  The video was good, but I wanted to get past moire issues, so bought a Sigma 10-20mm for $300.  In crop mode I believe that's around 50mm=100mm.  If you saw a 50D with 14mm on Craigslist BUY IT!  Anyway, maybe after I master that setup I'll plunk down the $2,000 + lenses for the BMCC (which I won't be able to use for portraits, etc.).  Every day that gets less likely as I perfect my processing scripts and workflow.    Finally, I say continue being indecisive.  Or borrow a friend's Canon (everyone of my friends has them) and try a little RAW yourself. If you're not technically inclined, then you're going to have headaches with the BMCC too!   As you can see from EOSHD, the competition is heating up.  The sorriest people seem to be those who bought the BMCC at $3k+ :)

Non of them.  I have a Nikon D600.  No complaints as a still camera.  The video is no different, far as I can tell, from video from their D7000, or even D3100.  I would be concerned about matching footage from a high dynamic range camera (the BMCC) and contrasty video which is a Nikon after-thought from their camera.    Here is an idea of what you'll be up against, in matching footage.   https://vimeo.com/73096779

Question, in a video editor, is there more dynamic range / color information in the GH3 highest quality, 73MBIT i-frame, video vs G6's lower bitrate CODEC?  I can believe that the out-of-camera visual quality of video from both cameras is similar.  But I notice that with RAW video you can adjust contrast and color, whereas from-camera video has almost no latitude in contrast, without losing detail or blowing highlights out.     Can you, or do you know someone, who can test this?  I don't care about sharpness.  Dynamic range and color depth/fidelity is what I'm interested in.  Thanks!

  I await your definition of "not too distant" :)  Put me on your email list, max@maxotics.com

Andrew, I think it might help if you write your articles with two very distinct sections, photo and video.  I'm not criticizing!  I love your stuff.  Just trying to keep my brain together ;)  For example, when stealth and photos are important, who wouldn't want a 35mm f/2 on their EOS-M?  However, if they're going to shoot RAW video, and they can't tolerate moire, they're going to have to shoot in crop mode, which means they're now at 105mm.  If that's the case, it's not a slam-dunk over i-frame video from a GH3, say, with a comparable lens.  Also, call me crazy, in high dynamic range video, I'd rather shoot RAW on the EOS-M, in crop mode, at 1280x720, then most 1080p in-camera mp4.  As for the Rx1, if it doesn't have RAW, how much of a future does it really have for the,as you say, serious photo/videographer?  I've been shooting RAW intensively for a couple of weeks and yes, most of my footage is horrible, but I see the potential.  You've said it's a game-changer.  You were/are right the first time.  But the technology is truly bleeding edge at this point.  Do you really think, for someone serious about video, they're going to use an Rx1 over a hacked Canon?  Or Black Magic?  Again, for photography, you're right on.  In small form video, the Panasonic G6 and hacked EOS-M are the cameras to beat, IMHO. Sony will probably never do/allow RAW in their consumer cameras for a whole host of reasons.  For photography, we can always use more full-frame cameras.  Again, thanks for such a wonderful site! 

Yes Will, the camera gets hot enough writing 1280x720 to the card at 24 fps.   VIMEO default to 720p, so for online video, the EOS-M is a killer.  If you don't believe me look at this video by someone in NY I think,    https://vimeo.com/72938179#comment_9829955   Here is a single frame from a test I shot on my hacked EOS-M today.  Is is a JPG from the TIFF.  It is not sharpened  or color corrected or anything.  This is 1 of 24 frames I shot in one second.  Incredible stuff!    

> The image responds beautifully and you can take it much closer to what your minds-eye and imagination expects from it   In my experience, RAW video is more natural, real.  It doesn't speak to your imagination, it speaks to your memory.  This is why so many people aren't jumping into RAW.  H.264 is a very nice, sharp and colorful image.  It's like sugar.  Who doesn't love sugar?  But I feel if anyone had a video of them shot for posterity, for their grand-children, and they had the choice between high resolution H.264 and lower resolution RAW they would go for the latter.  It would look like them.  It would capture their skin tones, the lighting.  The mood.   You have to work with both kinds of footage to see that realism.  Yes, if you're shooting a party, or need to work quickly, the Panasonic G-series cameras are fantastic.  They are very, very good at what they do.  But if you want 30 seconds of the most natural looking footage you can get, only RAW will get you there.  The guy above, selling his 7D.  He might want to look at this video first (not by me):   https://vimeo.com/72631568   If that video was shot in H.264, it would have high contrast, many shadows black, and the brightness would look like it was shot in a sunnier day than it actually was.  

I've been doing photography for 40+ years, but I'm a beginner in m43 cameras.  No one has all the answers or knows everything.  I bought that GH2 guide to learn about hacking these cameras.  However, it had a whole section on lenses that I wasn't interested in, but, after having read it, really learned a lot.  I pay $20 for a movie and bag of popcorn.  You take a little here, a little there. Trying to master everything is a fool's errand.  You could take 10 master photographers with you on vacation, and though most would give the same general advice, they would certain differ on what would look good.  It's an art.  It's personal (even if just taking photos of your kids).  The G6 is the small version, essentially of the GH3.  The sony is a great camera.  However, it's not what most photographers would probably use because it doesn't have dedicated dials for manual photography.  Again, great camera.  But if you're going to get into it you want to use manual.     Like you, I use my cameras mostly for friends and family.  If it doesn't fit in my fanny pack, it usually doesn't end up going with me.  I use a Sigma DP1 (28mm) and DP2S (42mm).  They are monstrously difficult cameras to use.  However, in good light, if I can get the focus right, they take the best photos of any camera I've ever used (and I've used a lot).  I'd rather have 1 perfect photo out of 10.  The RX100 will take 9 good photos out of ten.  Just my choice.  They are very small.  I don't recommend you get a Sigma DP camera.  I just want to point out that even in small cameras, there are many choices, depending on you what you end up liking, through trial and error.   No camera does everything well.  The exploration you're on is not about cameras, it's about you.  You don't read that on these forums, but I know everyone would agree.

I've had the NEX 5N and 7.  I have a Panasonic G5 and GF3 currently.   NEX PROS o. Slightly better for photography due to sensor size. o. APS-C size sensor and very nice IQ o. Color depth probably slightly better in video, but sensors can overheat so don't plan on videoing for long.     NEX CONS o. You're really tied to their lenses and the distance from sensor to front makes using legacy glass iffy. o. Proprietary hotshoe.  A real pain o. The EVF on 7 would sometimes freeze for a second or two.    They're fantastic consumer cameras that give great IQ.    PANASONIC PROS o. Slightly better video because small sensor allow them to avoid large sensor video pitfalls. o. Video is razor-fing sharp.   o. You can put all kinds of lenses on them.  I bought a c-mount TV lens for $30 and had a blast.   If you just want a take around camera, sorry, I'd go with a SONY.   If you're serious about getting into video and photography, I feel the Panasonic community is better.  Especially for video.  APS-C sensors are nice, but really, if you're going to get into that stuff you want full-frame.    If you want shallow depth of field you can get an SLR magic prime for the Panasonic and match a full-frame shallow DOF look.   The GF3 bodies are $100 used now.  I'd get that camera and get into the MFTs thing and then give it you wife, or child, and get the GF6 or Sony.  I agree with eoslove that the RX100 is the best pocket camera.  Though it will take nice video, you'll get better video out of the G6 because Panasonic has sweated the details in videography for their cameras (keep in mind Panasonic is an expert in video).   Oh, and buy the GH2 Shooter's Guide on the EOSHD site.  I have no connection.  He has a lot of great tips about shooting video with Panasonic MFT cameras.  His lens suggestions are worth the price of the manual right way.

Day 3, I started to cool on the 50D footage stuff.  The G5 footage is so nice.  So I set up a situation, later in the video, where I purposely tried to tone down the contrast on the AVCHD footage to match the 50D footage.  I couldn't do it.  I just love that film look of the 50D, and I'm going straight to Cineform 422.  I have a lot to learn about grading.  The Magic Lantern hasn't dropped a frame yet.  Conversion is very easy.  I'm back on the Honeymoon!   https://vimeo.com/72315157

Day 2.  Checked to see if 50D syncs with sound.  It does, easily.  A small test against D600 indoors.  Am I missing something?  I underexposed D600, not on purpose, but can't get it good.  Raw footage responds really well to tweaking.  I stink as grading.  So please be kind ;)   Then took it outdoors.  Took a bunch of clips.  Had zero problems.  The exposure changes during some shots, because I didn't understand some of the ML settings. Anyway, RAWnizer quickly converted all clips to Cineform 422.     https://vimeo.com/72245643

I used the G6 with the 14mm Pancake.  Just wanted a quick comparison.  Yes, I agree, the G6 (which can be bought cheap) is really, really nice.  I write more about it at maxotics.com.  In the article I post a link to a guy who did a bunch of comparisons of MFT cameras. You might find that interesting. In fact, I've been comparing the G6 against my expensive D600 setup and can't see how I'd keep the D600 for video (great photo camera, of course).  When you say you're not a big fan of ML Raw, what do you like, suggest (short of the 5D MkIII)?

Just wanted to start a thread (sorry if it already exists) about Andrew's fantastic EOSHD 50D Raw Shooters guide.  I'm here to tell you that if you have a 50D, or the budget to buy one, I got mine to work in a couple of hours (bought it, with lens, for $500 on Craigslist).  And the workflow is surprisingly EASY!  (if you don't need the highest quality conversion).   First here's my first 50D Raw footage.  Everyone is so used to the video look they no longer realize how harsh it is.  Finally, I've shot video that have the natural film look!  I can't tell you how excited I am.   https://vimeo.com/72159787   First, I ignored all the high-end stuff Andrew covers and focused on the simplest workflow.  I got the impression from the manual that I'd have thousands of individual images.  Wrong, the output is a single name.RAW file.  Second, I figured I'd have to do multiple steps to convert that RAW file into something I could edit in Sony Vegas Studio.  Wrong.  I already have Go Pro Studio Fee.  After putting the Raw2GPCF in the right directory and configuring RAWanizer for it, I was able to convert the RAW file to Cineform 422 in maybe a minute.  It's really fast.  Lastly, I installed the Cineform codec and now the video plays in media player and I was able to edit it above in Vegas Studio.   On my own, it would have taken me a few solid days to get this thing going.  Many of the tools are buried in forums, which Andrew provides links to.     I also suspect that this workflow is easier on PC than Mac.     I was surprised at how many 50Ds were on Craigslist.  I get the impression that when Andrew wrote this manual he thought they'd fly out of the closets.  If he comes out with a second edition of his manual that focuses on the first time user (I'm a computer expert, so I understood his shorthand) I do believe he'll find himself with too many friends.   Finally, a lot of people seem unsure of RAW video.  I believe many reviewers focus on the second-most-important benefit, dynamic range.  The first benefit is skin color and tone.  We're so accustomed to the video look we don't realize how poorly the face displays in most video formats.  In the above video, it was dusk.  That IS HOW my wife looked.  There is no amount of editing, I believe, that could have converted the AVCHD video to look like it did in real life.  Again, just freakin amazing!