Open Photography Forums

Open Photography Forums (http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/index.php)
-   Breaking News (http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=85)
-   -   To Canon, Treasure and promote this revolution! (http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9259)

Asher Kelman June 23rd, 2009 12:01 AM

To Canon, Treasure and promote this revolution!
 
This is for Canon USA and Canon Japan!

At last we have firmware using the brains of the world outside of camera makers. This new work leverages the detective work done by hardworking dedicated software detectives using generations of digicams. All this knowledge has been provided to open up the 5D to the many bright independent software engineers who now just need their computer and enough trust in their own skills to write new code in Magic Lantern's open source platform. This means a new road ahead for digital Cameras using the Canon 5D platform. This is just the start!

http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/ma...ilot-onset.jpg

Here's what Magic Lantern Has Done:

Magic Lantern is an open platform for developing enhancements to the amazing Canon 5D Mark II full frame digital SLR. This camera is a "game changer" for independent film makers:
It allows the use of a wide range of lenses (anything that can be adapted to the EF mount).
The 35mm full-frame sensor is larger than the RED ONE's sensor, Super 35 film. It is approximately the size of VistaVision. This means shallower native depth-of-field than anything on the market, except for the Phantom 65.
The dynamic range and latitude are close to the capabilities of high-end HD cameras.
The low-light performance is currently unrivaled, even by the RED ONE.
But, the software in video mode has limitations, even after the recent 1.1.0 upgrade from Canon that fixed the most glaring manual exposure "bug".
That's where Magic Lantern comes in -- it turns your 5D Mark II into a 5D Mark Free. We've written extensions and widgets that fix many of the annoyances in working with the 5D Mark II on a film or video set. Our first set of fixes are targeted at the audio limitations of the camera, but there are some video enhancements included, too:
On-screen audio meters
Disabled AGC
Manual gain control
Zebra stripes (video peaking)
Crop marks for 16:9, 2.35:1 and 4:3
Todo list for more ideas

Read more here

This move is one of the most significant in modern camera history since it sets the stage for an open platform with a camera that can take superb HD video to now have sound to match with on screen controls for Zebras too.

We should have had this a long time ago. We are underusing the capabilities of these computers because Canon just has to program firmware sufficient to compete with the Nikon and any upstarts. However, the future will belong to cameras that can be open to all of us to have the best shared software.

This is the beginning Canon, embrace it, support it and please don't screw it up!

Asher

P.S. also look at this resource here.

Nicolas Claris June 23rd, 2009 03:05 PM

Ho noooooo!

Now Romain will want one and will steal all my lenses !

Daniel Buck June 23rd, 2009 09:37 PM

in my opinion, the biggest change that needs to be taken place, is the ability to shoot 24p! I can't understand why Canon would leave that out, it seems silly to me :-) And it seems that it would actually be easier to shoot 24p that it is to shoot 30p, since there's actually less data that needs to be dealt with!

Asher Kelman June 23rd, 2009 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Buck (Post 77304)
in my opinion, the biggest change that needs to be taken place, is the ability to shoot 24p! I can't understand why Canon would leave that out, it seems silly to me :-) And it seems that it would actually be easier to shoot 24p that it is to shoot 30p, since there's actually less data that needs to be dealt with!

How difficult is it to transform from one rate to the other? I'd imagine all sorts of ways of doing this. The best way I'd think would be to go to 460 frames per second and then reduce to 24 frames and then use the other pictures to re focus everything but not use them for actual 24 frames/sec timing. However, this issue must have been solved already for sure!

Are you finding this a practical problem?

Asher

Kathy Rappaport June 23rd, 2009 11:24 PM

I finally get to where I can process a decent image and now I have to learn to be a vidiot and use Final Cut Pro and Photoshop too. Sheeh. Enough!

Asher Kelman June 24th, 2009 12:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kathy Rappaport (Post 77311)
I finally get to where I can process a decent image and now I have to learn to be a vidiot and use Final Cut Pro and Photoshop too. Sheeh. Enough!

Guess what? You might easilly get paid so well that it opens up new business. Imagine now a shoot of an infant or a boudoir shoot. You don't even have to change the camera! Lightings a different matter. Kathy, can your boxes take continuous lights too?

Asher

Nicolas Claris June 24th, 2009 06:47 AM

Hey! be carefull there…

Despite photos and videos show images, they are completely different media.
They aren't used the same way, they aren't working the same.

For example with a still, the complete story you wish to express has to be on ONE picture (except some works that are done to be shown all together).
In a film (movie) you have to shoot knowing that it will be edited later and that the story will be shown/spreaded for some mintutes with different angles and rythm.

I have for many years shot stills AND videos in the "same" time. It is possible but exhausting and by the way you won't perform each medium to its maximum of possibilities. Should I shoot this in video or still?

As for the money aspect of it, Asher, I think you get it wrong.
Clients will ask for less money as the gear is the same, hey, you don't have to buy a still camera AND a video camera, it's all in one!
Then only one person to pay and see above, quaility of both work will suffer.

So the news that Asher did bring here, is a very good news for video shooter, but IMO very bad for photographers.

BTW I'd like to know what video format is stocked on the CF card, if it is compressed aka MP4, it will just be BS for professional work…

Daniel Buck June 24th, 2009 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Asher Kelman (Post 77305)
How difficult is it to transform from one rate to the other? I'd imagine all sorts of ways of doing this. The best way I'd think would be to go to 460 frames per second and then reduce to 24 frames and then use the other pictures to re focus everything but not use them for actual 24 frames/sec timing. However, this issue must have been solved already for sure!

Are you finding this a practical problem?

Asher

hu? 460fps, I'm not quite sure what you mean. I'm pretty sure any type of conversion from 30p to 24p will give you some sort of artifacts (unless you just slow down the footage slightly, and play 30p at 24p frame rate) but then your audio won't match without stretching your audio too.

You can go from 24p to 30 (60i) by doing a 2-3 or 3-2 pulldown, which is quite standard practice, (though delivering at 24p is also quite standard) since most professional cameras (film & digital) shoot at 24p but you can't really go the other way around without problems.

Practical problem, yes. 24p is quite standard, at least in my industry (commercials and features), so 30p is pretty useless (to me) If it's not 24p, I'm not even going to be interested in it. If it's 24p, then I'll be interested, and move on with seeing what type of compression it's got going on. If the compression is to my liking, then we're in business :-D

Asher Kelman June 24th, 2009 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Buck (Post 77322)
hu? 460fps, I'm not quite sure what you mean. I'm pretty sure any type of conversion from 30p to 24p will give you some sort of artifacts (unless you just slow down the footage slightly, and play 30p at 24p frame rate) but then your audio won't match without stretching your audio too.

Hi Daniel,

In order to avoid artifacts, the math should be be with integers. Bring the frames to a higher number, a multiple of both, would allow fusing of adjacent frames to bring down the frame rate to 24 frames per second. I have no idea how the programmers do the conversions, but there should be no issue as tracking of edges has been a technique that programmers have gotten tons of experience with. However, why go through such hoops? Canon could simply allow for 24 frames/sec. They are trying not to cannibalize their own video camera sales.

The sound is another matter. It is fixed by time if the timing is accurate from the start. So pulling off the sound and laying it down again should be 100% accurate.

I am sure that good plugins to correct frame rates either are already available or will be soon.

Asher

Daniel Buck June 24th, 2009 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Asher Kelman (Post 77330)
I am sure that good plugins to correct frame rates either are already available or will be soon.

I don't do a whole lot with video (I work with frames sequences, not video files) but from what I know, there isn't really a good way to go from 30fps to 24fps with no artifacts, and no time stretching. I could be wrong though. Do you have a link to the info about going from 30 to 24?

Asher Kelman June 24th, 2009 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Buck (Post 77340)
I don't do a whole lot with video (I work with frames sequences, not video files) but from what I know, there isn't really a good way to go from 30fps to 24fps with no artifacts, and no time stretching. I could be wrong though. Do you have a link to the info about going from 30 to 24?

Hi Daniel,

I'm no expert on this. Still, here's a start: Magic Bullet!

Hope this might help! There's a little trick in the instructions to keep the sound track doing the right thing!

Asher

Daniel Buck June 24th, 2009 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Asher Kelman (Post 77343)
Hi Daniel,

I'm no expert on this. Still, here's a start: Magic Bullet!

Hope this might help! There's a little trick in the instructions to keep the sound track doing the right thing!

Asher

That's different I think, that looks like it's going from NTSC (interlaced) to 24 progressive. not 30 progressive to 24 progressive. NTSC is 60 fields per second, which works out to 30 frames per second. But each field is not progressive (a full image). The 5d shoots each frame progressive, not interlaced, at least I'm pretty sure that's how it shoots.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:12 PM.


Posting images or text grants license to OPF, yet © of such remain with its creator. Still, all assembled discussion © 2006-2017 Asher Kelman (all rights reserved) Posts with new theme or unusual image might be moved/copied to a new thread!