Canon EOS M + Focal reducer = Fullframe raw for 300$?

[tupp]

I'll look into the all i-frame mode and test them with that. 

I just remembered a couple of caveats.

 

To boost the bit rate and/or use all I-frames, the audio has to be disabled -- best to do so in the Canon menu.  So, you have to sync the sound the old fashioned way -- no Pluralize or other such software.  With a fast card and with sound disabled, you should have no trouble getting a stable 2x bit rate with all I-frames.

 

Also, use a flat picture style, such as "Cinestyle" or "Flaat 11,"  but don't push things too far or you could tangle with FPN or banding in parts of the frame.  Again, try setting the sharpness to "1" instead of "0," which requires a lower sharpness boost in post, hence, avoiding noise.

[mercer]

It's a pain, and was a weakness of the software.  If you can figure out which settings correspond to the mode you're shooting in, you'll be set.  I'd try to get crop mode working first.  Just shoot very small clips of a white wall and try out difference cameras/settings in PDR until the dots disappear.  

And therein lies the problem. Almost every step along the way from shooting to getting the footage in the NLE is frustrating, but then you see the footage...

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

There is no image compression with any ML feature. MLV and raw are the same image signal just stored a bit differently in a different colour box. 

ML cannot perform any type of compression to the raw signal as that would need enormous hardware power (It would be compressed raw, like RedCode). 

I believe the MLV advantage is a quicker workflow (audio, in wrapper, MLV players) while the RAW. module just writes DNGs to the disk (after extraction). 

Anyone know which one has a higher resolution, 720p raw or 1080p H.264 on the EOS M? No sharpening to both, just which one is better on ready a text away. 

 

[maxotics]

And therein lies the problem. Almost every step along the way from shooting to getting the footage in the NLE is frustrating, but then you see the footage...

You're killing me   I almost bought another EOS-M yesterday!  Then I remembered "almost every step along the way".  However, it would be easier now because ML RAW Viewer is one piece of killer software. http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=9560.0  If only ML worked on the EOS-M 2 and/or 3, then there would be a future.  Anyway, the guy who did ML Raw Viewer might put in the code to deal with the focus pixels IF there was enough demand.  Or maybe we could find someone to port the code.  (My serious programming days are over, just too old, when I try to flip the bozo-bit it ends up flipping me!).  Between PDR and my thing, a good dev should be able to do it in a day or two.  Again, need the demand.  Mercer, you're probably all lone   Anybody else out there?

[mercer]

You're killing me   I almost bought another EOS-M yesterday!  Then I remembered "almost every step along the way".  However, it would be easier now because ML RAW Viewer is one piece of killer software. http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=9560.0  If only ML worked on the EOS-M 2 and/or 3, then there would be a future.  Anyway, the guy who did ML Raw Viewer might put in the code to deal with the focus pixels IF there was enough demand.  Or maybe we could find someone to port the code.  (My serious programming days are over, just too old, when I try to flip the bozo-bit it ends up flipping me!).  Between PDR and my thing, a good dev should be able to do it in a day or two.  Again, need the demand.  Mercer, you're probably all lone   Anybody else out there?

From researching the history of ML Raw, the workflow does seem to be getting easier, if I could just get rid of the pink dots and get the damn audio to record more than one consecutive shot before the dreaded "threads failed to start" message.

With mlv, the workflow is really quite quick, it just requires the time to sit and go through all the clips. The specs of ML Raw Viewer states you can put clips into a queue, but I have not been successful with it. I used Raw Magic yesterday instead of MLV Mystic to make my dngs and that worked fairly well... So we'll see.

Luckily I'm a glutton for punishment and will tirelessly waste hours of my life until I figure this out. 

[maxotics]

Well, if you try to program, or get someone to do it on the focus pixel remover, the problem is simple, you have a grid of 1280x720 pixels.  You want to go to a list of locations and replace them with a pixel to the right say.  So if you have a red focus pixel at 3,7, you want to get the next same-color pixel at 3,9 (3,8 would be green)  It would be really EASY IF programming languages, or the computer, weren't built around an 8-bit (byte) mindset.  So everything is in chunks of bytes, which in binary are like this 11111111 (which would be 256)  The killer is that RAW video is stored as a frame of 14-bit values, like 11111111111111 (or 16,383).  RAW video is NOT byte-based (like just about everything else in computers).  

The RAW file from ML is just consecutive 1280x720x14, or 12,902,400 bits per frame.   In computers there are all kinds of "objects" where you can read/write bytes of data.  There are NO easy objects for dealing with 14-bit chunks.  so you have to read/write 14-bits on a bit level. (sometimes they are in reverse order)  that is, you can't just load a file and say "Load 14-bit Chunks from this file into an array", you can EASILY do that with bytes, double bytes, etc.  In short, binary math ain't for the Programming For Dummies crowd

If you want to take your gluttony to a whole new level I have given you a fighting chance, I hope

[mercer]

Well, if you try to program, or get someone to do it on the focus pixel remover, the problem is simple, you have a grid of 1280x720 pixels.  You want to go to a list of locations and replace them with a pixel to the right say.  So if you have a red focus pixel at 3,7, you want to get the next same-color pixel at 3,9 (3,8 would be green)  It would be really EASY IF programming languages, or the computer, weren't built around an 8-bit (byte) mindset.  So everything is in chunks of bytes, which in binary are like this 11111111 (which would be 256)  The killer is that RAW video is stored as a frame of 14-bit values, like 11111111111111 (or 16,383).  RAW video is NOT byte-based (like just about everything else in computers).  

The RAW file from ML is just consecutive 1280x720x14, or 12,902,400 bits per frame.   In computers there are all kinds of "objects" where you can read/write bytes of data.  There are NO easy objects for dealing with 14-bit chunks.  so you have to read/write 14-bits on a bit level. (sometimes they are in reverse order)  that is, you can't just load a file and say "Load 14-bit Chunks from this file into an array", you can EASILY do that with bytes, double bytes, etc.  In short, binary math ain't for the Programming For Dummies crowd

If you want to take your gluttony to a whole new level I have given you a fighting chance, I hope

Haha, my programming expertise began and ended with a Tandy computer back in 1986. 

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

Anybody knows whether the resolution of the eos-m in 1080p H.264 is higher/lower than 720p Raw?

I found 3 eos-s ms each new for 120$ here, thinking of picking them as crash cams and for those ocassions where I want the absolute best skin tone rendition, I do a lot of make-up/fashion shooting (Canon colour science + 14bit raw colour!)

If the 720p raw is the same league as the 1080p h.264 I'd get them. 

[maxotics]

Anybody knows whether the resolution of the eos-m in 1080p H.264 is higher/lower than 720p Raw?

I found 3 eos-s ms each new for 120$ here, thinking of picking them as crash cams and for those ocassions where I want the absolute best skin tone rendition, I do a lot of make-up/fashion shooting (Canon colour science + 14bit raw colour!)

If the 720p raw is the same league as the 1080p h.264 I'd get them. 

I'm confused by the question.  The 720p is as good RAW as you'd get from a 5D3, it's just 720p, and you need to shoot crop mode to eliminate aliasing/moire.  However, it isn't as sharp as 1080p, of any kind (unless that's scaled down to 720p).  I'm not sure I'd use it in any situation where you really needed to depend on it, even as a crash-cam, because of the shutter bug.  The camera just freezes up sometimes on ML (unless they fixed it; don't think they ever did).  You can work around it, doesn't happen often, but again, an issue.  If you can get one for $120 I'd get it because they can do so much.  Probably the smallest camera you can get with mic in.   As Mercer says, the camera with the Fujian CCTV lens ($30) is magical.  The c-mount adapter is $10.  

[mercer]

Max, I just watched your daughter Alice goes back to College video and I can honestly say that it is some of the most filmic looking video I have seen. Really great stuff. 

If I can get my videos to look half as good, I'll be pleased.

I really love the 70s film aesthetic, especially the horror films like The Last House on the Left or Let's Scare Jessica to Death and I think it is a look that easily attainable with some vintage c-mounts, eos-m raw crop and a whole lotta patience... Not one of my strongest virtues, unfortunately. 

[Liam]

is there an mft to eos-m adapter? could be possible based on flange distance. so a different speedbooster could maybe be adapted to it and more suited for it? less the point of the topic maybe, with regards to price, but just curious

[tupp]

I'm not sure I'd use it in any situation where you really needed to depend on it, even as a crash-cam, because of the shutter bug.  The camera just freezes up sometimes on ML (unless they fixed it; don't think they ever did).

I think the shuttle bug problem only occurs with EF-M lenses, but they are working on it.

 

 

As Mercer says, the camera with the Fujian CCTV lens ($30) is magical.

Ahem...

 

 

 

The c-mount adapter is $10.  

The C-mount adapter and an extension tube was included with my Fujian 35 -- all for $28.

is there an mft to eos-m adapter? could be possible based on flange distance. so a different speedbooster could maybe be adapted to it and more suited for it? less the point of the topic maybe, with regards to price, but just curious

Might be possible as the flange focal distance of the EOSM vs. M4/3 is 18mm vs. 19.25mm, respectively, while the throat diameters are 47mm vs. 38mm, respectively.  So, a slightly recessed adapter is possible, especially if the M4/3 lens release lever is on back/inside face of the adapter.

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

I'm confused by the question.  The 720p is as good RAW as you'd get from a 5D3, it's just 720p, and you need to shoot crop mode to eliminate aliasing/moire.  However, it isn't as sharp as 1080p, of any kind (unless that's scaled down to 720p).  I'm not sure I'd use it in any situation where you really needed to depend on it, even as a crash-cam, because of the shutter bug.  The camera just freezes up sometimes on ML (unless they fixed it; don't think they ever did).  You can work around it, doesn't happen often, but again, an issue.  If you can get one for $120 I'd get it because they can do so much.  Probably the smallest camera you can get with mic in.   As Mercer says, the camera with the Fujian CCTV lens ($30) is magical.  The c-mount adapter is $10.  

Maybe it was confusing: How does the resolution of the 720p mode compare to the resolution of the 1080p H.264 on the same camera. 

I know the resolution of the H.264, like on all my canons is severely less than 1080p, even m 3 chip 720p camcorder out resolves them. 

It'd be cool of the 720p raw wasn't much less than the 1080p h.264 in detail. 

[BrorSvensson]

Maybe it was confusing: How does the resolution of the 720p mode compare to the resolution of the 1080p H.264 on the same camera. 

I know the resolution of the H.264, like on all my canons is severely less than 1080p, even m 3 chip 720p camcorder out resolves them. 

It'd be cool of the 720p raw wasn't much less than the 1080p h.264 in detail. 

720p raw is much more detailed than canon 1080p

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3JEHUp7WfQ

[tupp]

720p raw is much more detailed than canon 1080p

Not so sure about that.  There have been many tests between the two modes, and the results are inconsistent.  Some tests show bigger differences than others.  Here's one in which there seems to be very little difference.

 

I agree that, generally, the raw looks a little sharper than h264 when both are shot at the same resolution.  However, a lot depends on how the footage is handled.  Good results can be had with h264 by setting picture style sharpness to "1" while giving a slight sharpness boost in post.  Of course, doubling the h264 bit rate and shooting all I-frames with TL/ML additionally cleans up the look.

[maxotics]

It'd be cool of the 720p raw wasn't much less than the 1080p h.264 in detail. 

A difficult question to be sure!  It depends on what you define "detail" as.  If you define it as color depth, then the 720p has RAW RGB pixels at 14bits, which when combined into a full-color pixel (like H.264), would be over 42bit color!  What difficult for people to understand is we can can only see about 24bit color (I may be off in these, but general principle).  So why would there be different color depth between H.264 and RAW processed into a viewable gamut?  I've tried to explain it many ways on this forum, as have others, but don't seem to get anywhere.  The best way to understand it is to do the following.

COLOR DEPTH

1. Take a photo with the camera set to RAW+JPG of a scene where there is a fair amount of shadow detail and highlights (high dynamic range).  

2. Pull the RAW into Photoshop and process until you get the best image that favors the shadows.  Then do the same for the highlights.

3. Pull the JPG into Photoshop and process for both shadows and highlights.

4. Pick out the best AFTER processed photo for both details and highlights. 

The difference to me is night and day.  I only shoot JPG or H.264 if I need to shoot a lot and can't afford the time to deal with RAW.

RESOLUTION

Again, a lot of people confuse image compression like JPG with video compression like H.264.  They are similar, but also very different because video compression also compresses between frames.  However, even when I shoot all "I", or separate JPGS for all frames, they still don't seem to have the "film" grain look I get from RAW.  That is, I still don't feel I'm getting complete frames like RAW.  I agree with Mercer, all the stuff I've shot with 720 RAW is more pleasing to me than any H.264 at 1080.  However, 4K downsampled to 1080 gives it a run for the money because downsampling 4K removed de-bayering color artifacts (another long story).

If you're shooting fashion I'd try to shoot RAW because biologically we're very sensitive to skin tones.  Right now, in my photography stuff, I'm pulling my hair out and it's single RAW images!

I guess I'd conclude and say 720p is great then h.264 1080p in color detail, but less in perceived sharpness.   

 

[Nikkor]

If you're shooting fashion I'd try to shoot RAW because biologically we're very sensitive to skin tones.  Right now, in my photography stuff, I'm pulling my hair out and it's single RAW images!

Lol max, what camera are you shooting with? What you need is a phase one p25. It goes for 2000$ and it's super crazy for skin tones.

[mercer]

I have an affinity for cheap cameras... Mostly because I am poor, but with them comes a lot of headaches. Before I really understood anything about image quality and color correction and color grading I was ignorantly content with my eos-m and its factory firmware. I used vintage lenses to obtain different "looks." After spending the past 6 months reading this forum, I learned that I had a lot to learn... Still do. 

With 4k cameras coming into fashion, I decided I wanted one, but I couldn't afford a gh4 or an nx1, so I set my sights on the FZ1000 or the G7.

While I patiently waited for the G7 to hit the stores or the FZ1000 to drop a little in price, I found a great deal on the Samsung NX500... $350 for the body. I immediately snatched one up (good thing I did because it went up to 500 bucks the next day)

I'm sure some of you remember my failed tests with the camera. I was at a point where I was going to sell it, there was just something wrong with the way it handled color, but the image downsampled to 1080p was too amazing to deny. It has a... Weight to the image that was lacking in the 4K. So, Max I completely understand your 4K to 1080p conclusion. I am still not a fan of the way the camera handles color, but I am sure my skill set is, at least, partially to blame. 

Now after getting a little more experience with color, and how amazing B&W looks on the NX500, and experimenting with the 3x crop raw on the eos-m, I am confident in selling my a5100, my Q7 and my S100. I don't think I will ever shoot h.264 1080p again. When I am ready for an upgrade, I will probably buy a pocket cam or micro. 

[maxotics]

Lol max, what camera are you shooting with? What you need is a phase one p25. It goes for 2000$ and it's super crazy for skin tones.

Sold!  Where do I send the $2,000.   

[Tim Fraser]

 

If I only had $300 for one camera it would be the EOS-M.  Remains, to me, the undisputed best utility still/video/RAW camera of all time!  The next would be the Canon 50D (no pink dots and near 1080 RAW).

I have EOS-M and am interested in your comment on the 50D.

Do you have a view on what the pros and cons are of the 50D raw compared to raw on the older 7D? (other than 7D a bit more money)