Petition for Samsung NX1 hack

[vasile]

49 minutes ago, hirsti said:

I have 2 SD cards that I have tested on, a Sandisk 280 MB/s and a Lexar 2000x 300 MB/s
On the sandisk it is reliable setting the bitrate @ 160 MB/s, if you step up to 200 it will fail after about 10 seconds.
On the Lexar it is reliable setting the bitrate @ 200 MB/s, if you step above this then it fails.

 

1. read this: http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=5827.25

2. read this too: http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=6278.0

3. format (in your PC) the SD card with larger block sizes

4. test

/done exfat test

5. If you are a Windows [the horror, the horror, I pity you] user, either go here: http://www.ext2fsd.com/ or here: http://www.paragon-drivers.com/extfs-windows/ [if you like proprietary stuff]

6. then format your SD card in ext4, without journal and with a largish block size (8192 or 16384)

7. test again

/done ext4 test

8. report back here

There, I just gave you a replacement for tonight's sleep :-), and therefore a chance to join me in missing sleep :-)

rgds

PS. I have high hopes for ext4 since it is a native Linux format whereas exfat is Microsoft and may well be implemented as a fuse filesystem which performs much much worse.

[hirsti]

17 minutes ago, ReinisK said:

Hirsti, you mean 160 and 200 megabits, right, no megabytes?

My Samsung 50MB/s card at 200Mb/s goes on for about 40 seconds to 1 minute. With dis it ended after 5 seconds once, but usually no less than 30sec. UHD 25p that is.

Sorry, I mean the options in the nx1-pba.sh file
160Mbits/sec and 200Mbits/sec

I am running with DIS off and a Manual Focus lens.

I have been testing a bit more and noticed that if I run at 200Mbits/sec after a battery removal it will be pretty consistant, however if I have been using the camera for a while then it does crash out after about 6 secs.  I have only recorded clips under 1 minute.

I have reverted both cards back to 160Mbits/sec, I have just recorded a 25 minute PAL 4096x2160@24fps with no issues.

 

[Pavel D Prichystal]

7 minutes ago, Tommix said:

SO stop writing bullshit. Why others can write bullshit and i cant? SO shut the f up. I write what i want to.

Reported.

[hirsti]

I am a little confused, I did a recording at 160Mbits/sec, it shows in the info from Medianfo as being 160 Mbps, however if I run that MP4 through the Samsung converter the resulting file shows it as being 440 Mbps, why is this anyone?  Is it because you are going from H265 to H264

General
Complete name               : F:\RAW files should be on e drive\nx1hack\160mbit\SAM_0531.MP4
Format                      : MPEG-4
Format profile              : Base Media / Version 2
Codec ID                    : mp42
File size                   : 2.25 GiB
Duration                    : 2mn 0s
Overall bit rate mode       : Variable
Overall bit rate            : 160 Mbps
Encoded date                : UTC 2016-04-06 10:41:25
Tagged date                 : UTC 2016-04-06 10:41:25

 

Video
ID                          : 2
Format                      : HEVC
Format/Info                 : High Efficiency Video Coding
Format profile              : Main@L5.1
Codec ID                    : hvc1
Codec ID/Info               : High Efficiency Video Coding
Duration                    : 2mn 0s
Bit rate                    : 160 Mbps
Width                       : 4 096 pixels
Height                      : 2 160 pixels
Display aspect ratio        : 1.896
Frame rate mode             : Constant
Frame rate                  : 24.000 fps
Color space                 : YUV
Chroma subsampling          : 4:2:0
Bit depth                   : 8 bits
Bits/(Pixel*Frame)          : 0.754
Stream size                 : 2.25 GiB (100%)
Language                    : English
Encoded date                : UTC 2016-04-06 10:41:25
Tagged date                 : UTC 2016-04-06 10:41:25
Color primaries             : BT.709
Transfer characteristics    : BT.709
Matrix coefficients         : BT.709
Color range                 : Full

 

Audio
ID                          : 1
Format                      : AAC
Format/Info                 : Advanced Audio Codec
Format profile              : LC
Codec ID                    : 40
Duration                    : 2mn 0s
Source duration             : 2mn 0s
Bit rate mode               : Variable
Channel(s)                  : 2 channels
Channel positions           : Front: L R
Sampling rate               : 48.0 KHz
Compression mode            : Lossy
Source stream size          : 2.74 MiB (0%)
Language                    : English
Encoded date                : UTC 2016-04-06 10:41:25
Tagged date                 : UTC 2016-04-06 10:41:25
mdhd_Duration               : 120885

After Conversion

General
Complete name               : F:\RAW files should be on e drive\nx1hack\160mbit\conv\SAM_0531_Pro_4096x2160.mp4
Format                      : MPEG-4
Format profile              : Base Media
Codec ID                    : isom
File size                   : 6.19 GiB
Duration                    : 2mn 0s
Overall bit rate            : 440 Mbps
Writing application         : Lavf56.9.100

 

Video
ID                          : 1
Format                      : AVC
Format/Info                 : Advanced Video Codec
Format profile              : High@L5.1
Format settings, CABAC      : Yes
Format settings, ReFrames   : 4 frames
Format settings, GOP        : M=2, N=15
Codec ID                    : avc1
Codec ID/Info               : Advanced Video Coding
Duration                    : 2mn 0s
Bit rate                    : 440 Mbps
Width                       : 4 096 pixels
Height                      : 2 160 pixels
Display aspect ratio        : 1.896
Frame rate mode             : Constant
Frame rate                  : 24.000 fps
Color space                 : YUV
Chroma subsampling          : 4:2:0
Bit depth                   : 8 bits
Scan type                   : Progressive
Bits/(Pixel*Frame)          : 2.074
Stream size                 : 6.19 GiB (100%)
Writing library             : x264 core 142 r2455 021c0dc
Encoding settings           : cabac=1 / ref=1 / deblock=1:0:0 / analyse=0x3:0x113 / me=hex / subme=2 / psy=1 / psy_rd=1.00:0.00 / mixed_ref=0 / me_range=16 / chroma_me=1 / trellis=0 / 8x8dct=1 / cqm=0 / deadzone=21,11 / fast_pskip=1 / chroma_qp_offset=0 / threads=6 / lookahead_threads=2 / sliced_threads=0 / nr=0 / decimate=1 / interlaced=0 / bluray_compat=0 / constrained_intra=0 / bframes=3 / b_pyramid=2 / b_adapt=1 / b_bias=0 / direct=1 / weightb=1 / open_gop=0 / weightp=1 / keyint=15 / keyint_min=1 / scenecut=40 / intra_refresh=0 / rc_lookahead=10 / rc=crf / mbtree=1 / crf=7.0 / qcomp=0.60 / qpmin=0 / qpmax=69 / qpstep=4 / ip_ratio=1.40 / aq=1:1.00
Language                    : English

 

Audio
ID                          : 2
Format                      : AAC
Format/Info                 : Advanced Audio Codec
Format profile              : LC
Codec ID                    : 40
Duration                    : 2mn 0s
Bit rate mode               : Constant
Bit rate                    : 192 Kbps
Channel(s)                  : 2 channels
Channel positions           : Front: L R
Sampling rate               : 48.0 KHz
Compression mode            : Lossy
Stream size                 : 2.74 MiB (0%)
Language                    : English

 

 

 

[vasile]

1 minute ago, hirsti said:

I am a little confused, I did a recording at 160Mbits/sec, it shows in the info from Medianfo as being 160 Mbps, however if I run that MP4 through the Samsung converter the resulting file shows it as being 440 Mbps, why is this anyone?  Is it because you are going from H265 to H264

General
Complete name               : F:\RAW files should be on e drive\nx1hack\160mbit\SAM_0531.MP4
Format                      : MPEG-4
Format                      : HEVC

After Conversion

General
Complete name               : F:\RAW files should be on e drive\nx1hack\160mbit\conv\SAM_0531_Pro_4096x2160.mp4
Format                      : MPEG-4
Format                      : AVC

There's your answer: HEVC is low bitratre, AVC... not so low :-)

[sandro]

Anyone tried if there any improvement on 3200 ISO and beyond with higher bitrate?

[hirsti]

2 hours ago, vasile said:

1. read this: http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=5827.25

2. read this too: http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=6278.0

3. format (in your PC) the SD card with larger block sizes

4. test

/done exfat test

5. If you are a Windows [the horror, the horror, I pity you] user, either go here: http://www.ext2fsd.com/ or here: http://www.paragon-drivers.com/extfs-windows/ [if you like proprietary stuff]

6. then format your SD card in ext4, without journal and with a largish block size (8192 or 16384)

7. test again

/done ext4 test

8. report back here

There, I just gave you a replacement for tonight's sleep :-), and therefore a chance to join me in missing sleep :-)

rgds

PS. I have high hopes for ext4 since it is a native Linux format whereas exfat is Microsoft and may well be implemented as a fuse filesystem which performs much much worse.

Hi.

If I format the card as ext4 the camera reports it cannot read the card format.

I have formatted back to exFat with an allocation unit size of 4096 which seems to be more stable for 200Mbits/sec, I haven't had any failures for clips less than 1 min but occasionally it will fail over 1 min.

[ReinisK]

Tried to test that allocation unit size and if it does anything to improve the slow card problem.

Everything was tested at UHD 25p. Adapted lens. Samsung Pro 16gb SD, 50MB\s write speed, 200mbps hack enabled. Exfat.

Tried to set it with 1024 bytes (min value) - couldn't record more than 3 seconds even without DIS.

Tested it with max value (32768 kilobytes) - could record around 10 seconds without DIS.

512 kilobytes, 4096 kilobytes, 32 kilobytes - a bit better, but still with DIS on no more than 10 seconds, without DIS around 1 minute, sometimes more, sometimes less.

So couldn't get 200mbps working. Also the camera was really slow when turning shutter or iso dials.

160mbps seems to work with and without DIS, also the camera is much more responsive, though not in the level as without the hack. Did this with 32kbytes allocation unit size.

So my conclusion is that as long as you don't set this value to extremes, it doesn't have a huge impact.

Iso 6400 at 200mbps doesn't look much different than at 80mbps.

[caseywilsondp]

vasile, thanks for your hard work! this is exciting stuff.

did some initial tests of 80 vs 180 (highest my card can write continuously) and I see little to no difference, so double checked the file and sure enough it is 180mbps. That was just a rough shadow/highlight/detail test. Later I'll sit down with some lights and a person and set up a scene to really test it out. My guess right now is that hevc is extremely efficient, so the difference between 80 and 180 are going to be negligible. 320 might be different, but I can't test that until I get a faster card. This does seem to make sense because even at 660+ mbps to an external recorder, the main improvement is only in shadow macro blocking... even with nearly 600 more mbps. It's also being written as prores, so that could even account for some of the improvement.

[Anton Zverev]

Can anybody tell us about PQ with 160mbps and 200mbps?Will this hack improve dynamic range?

[Happy Daze]

I have mentioned this previously on other forums, the H.265 codec profile used within the NX1 is limited to 160,000 kbps, it's MAIN - Level 5.1, to go higher you need to change the codec profile. To get to 10bit the NX1/NX500 needs the newer version of the codec without which it is impossible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Efficiency_Video_Coding

[sandro]

So it seems that bad quality at high ISO is not the bitrate but the NR inside the camera.

[tugela]

5 hours ago, hirsti said:

I am a little confused, I did a recording at 160Mbits/sec, it shows in the info from Medianfo as being 160 Mbps, however if I run that MP4 through the Samsung converter the resulting file shows it as being 440 Mbps, why is this anyone?  Is it because you are going from H265 to H264

If you do conversions with Samsung's utility, the bit rate for the H.264 file can vary considerably depending on what is actually in the clip.

38 minutes ago, Happy Daze said:

I have mentioned this previously on other forums, the H.265 codec profile used within the NX1 is limited to 160,000 kbps, it's MAIN - Level 5.1, to go higher you need to change the codec profile. To get to 10bit the NX1/NX500 needs the newer version of the codec without which it is impossible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Efficiency_Video_Coding

It is just a specification. There is no reason why the software can't go higher, just if it does it will generate an out of spec file.

[sandro]

Does the bit rate increase apply to 120p?

[hirsti]

6 minutes ago, sandro said:

Does the bit rate increase apply to 120p?

yes for 1080 @ 120fps but no for 1080 @ 30fps @ 0.25x (or any other speed modified)

[Pavel Mašek]

5 minutes ago, hirsti said:

yes for 1080 @ 120fps but no for 1080 @ 30fps @ 0.25x (or any other speed modified)

I can not agree - I use 160Mbits hack, it has 160mbit in 120fps mode and 40Mbits in 120fps @0.25x. So bitrate is doubled in both cases.

As it was mentioned here before - there is quite major problem that 120fps mode does not work properly. 120fps is not 120fps but around 109 and it seems to be same in x0.25 mode (it is not 29.97 - just sometimes - but 28,99 fps in average what is reported by Premiere).

60fps1080p works fine without any drop in framerate.

4K30fps - Premiere reports is has 29.97 but according Potplayer it oscilates too. But it seems to be OK during playback.

[Pavel Mašek]

I still see some macroblocking in shadows in 120fps but I think it renders details better. Buf for now I will stick to 60 fps when using hack.

I think best benefit is in prevention of macroblocking - image is stable and I think also gradient is better. But I did not make any comparsion.

Below is screenshot from graded (and one ungraded) 160Mbits, 4k30fps, Standard, 0-255 videoclip

 

 

[sandro]

Well 120p is where we should see the best improvements since the bitrate really suffers there. It's not the NR.

[Pavel Mašek]

29 minutes ago, sandro said:

Well 120p is where we should see the best improvements since the bitrate really suffers there. It's not the NR.

Here is comparison of hacked and non hacked 120 fps (200% zoom). There is quite big difference in terms of compression and details.

Problem is that hacked is just 106 fps according Premiere...

First is hacked and second normal:

 

[caseywilsondp]

Seems like the biggest benefactor of this hack is 1080p, which is great because 120 quality was not awesome before.