News at Magic Lantern at DVinfo.net

Go Back   DV Info Net > Canon EOS / MXF / AVCHD / HDV / DV Camera Systems > Canon EOS Full Frame for HD

Canon EOS Full Frame for HD
All about using the Canon 1D X, 6D, 5D Mk. IV / Mk. III / Mk. II D-SLR for 4K and HD video recording.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old November 28th, 2010, 09:25 PM   #1
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Elk Grove CA
Posts: 6,838
News at Magic Lantern

Trammel Hudson has been at it again.

He just updated and posted a Beta version of Magic Lantern, that runs with Canon Firmware 2.08.

More exciting is a post of an Alpha version of Magic Lantern that actually is attempting to control the bitrate- raising and lowering. I have have shot a few minutes of footage using fixed bitrates that are posted as being from 42 mbps to 68 mbps.

I am trying to devise some tests to determine what kind of quality difference there is.

Here is Wiki site where Trammel Hudson discusses his findings:

Bit rate - Magic Lantern Firmware Wiki
__________________
Chris J. Barcellos
Chris Barcellos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 29th, 2010, 06:14 PM   #2
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: NSW Australia
Posts: 149
Wow this is very cool. It's always great to see how this project progresses. Looking forward to any analysis of the the higher bit rates.
Ben Denham is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 29th, 2010, 10:43 PM   #3
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 291
Thats awesome!

I'm about to get the 5D and was worried because I knew ML wouldnt be compatible with the 2.08 version.

If anyone else has installed to their 2.08 version yet please give us updates!

Thanks
Danny Winn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 30th, 2010, 01:40 AM   #4
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Elk Grove CA
Posts: 6,838
I have run the new 2.08 version without having any issues. It seems to run very clean.

The alpha version with the bit rate change runs the same way, except for the adjustable bit rate. But jury is still out on benefits of bit rate manipulation.
__________________
Chris J. Barcellos
Chris Barcellos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 30th, 2010, 11:41 PM   #5
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: NSW Australia
Posts: 149
I'd be interested if anyone could chime in with a ideas about how higher bit rates might (theoretically at least) translate into noticable differences in image quality? My experience with this suggests that higher rates would possibly give greater flexibility in colour correction and post processing (i.e. you would be able to push and pull the image a bit further before it starts to fall apart) but are there other benifits that we might expect to see with the higher bit rates?
Ben Denham is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 1st, 2010, 01:50 PM   #6
Trustee
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,063
I'm curious about this as well. I mean, you'd think it would be better, but who knows? I also wonder exactly which bits of info get that extra data - is it the color scheme as you suggest, or resolution, or something else?
John Vincent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 1st, 2010, 07:06 PM   #7
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 291
Me and a buddy of mine are trying to find out if the quality of sound going into the 5d using Magic Lantern and a "JuicedLink" unit is just as good as using a Zoom H4n. Does anybody have an opinion on this?
Danny Winn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 2nd, 2010, 01:25 AM   #8
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Norwegian lost in California
Posts: 881
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danny Winn View Post
Me and a buddy of mine are trying to find out if the quality of sound going into the 5d using Magic Lantern and a "JuicedLink" unit is just as good as using a Zoom H4n. Does anybody have an opinion on this?
Well, not really an opinion but more like a fact: the H4n has 24-bit/96kHz ;^)

-- peer
__________________
www.NoPEER.com
Peer Landa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 2nd, 2010, 04:06 AM   #9
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Norwich, Norfolk, UK
Posts: 3,445
Presumably the recording time at 62 Mbps is limited to about 8 minutes.
Nigel Barker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 2nd, 2010, 05:40 AM   #10
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 174
All I really care about on the 5DmkII are 60p and full HD out in record for monitoring. Guessing 60p is out of the question but what about the full HD? Hasnt that been in the wings for ages now?
Paul Cook is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 2nd, 2010, 05:59 PM   #11
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Camas, WA, USA
Posts: 5,513
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peer Landa View Post
Well, not really an opinion but more like a fact: the H4n has 24-bit/96kHz ;^)

-- peer
The 24/96 thing is more of a marketing advantage than a technical advantage. I record everything at 44.1 kHz (music) or 48 kHz (film), depending on the use. The exception is when you are recording for sound design and you expect to slow the source down (like slowing a lion's roar down to a rumble.) Those inaudible high-frequencies become audible when slowed down.

24-bits is great, but in the case of the H4n, the preamps only have about 14-bits worth of dynamic range at best, so the extra eight bits are only recording noise.

Don't get me wrong. 24-bits is an awesome - but it's only worthwhile if you have more than 16-bits worth of signal at the A/D converter. Of course, all your processing should be at 24-bits or better. And the final process should be to dither back down to 16-bits for your final output.

96 kHz is more questionable - unless you are delivering at 96 kHz. Downsampling from 96Khz to 48kHz adds (very subtle) artifacts. Some high-end producers avoid downsampling in software altogether. They output through a (very expensive) 96kHz D/A and re-sample with a (very expensive) 48kHz A/D to get the best results.

The bottom line is that the H4n preamp doesn't merit 24/96 recording.
__________________
Jon Fairhurst
Jon Fairhurst is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 2nd, 2010, 06:08 PM   #12
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Norwegian lost in California
Posts: 881
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Fairhurst View Post
The bottom line is that the H4n preamp doesn't merit 24/96 recording.
I'm sure you are right. My disclaimer (or excuse ;^) is that I've never used or even seen a H4n -- the dual sys I use is a Sony PCM D1 and a D50 (which I'm quite happy with, I may add).

-- peer
__________________
www.NoPEER.com
Peer Landa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 2nd, 2010, 07:00 PM   #13
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 542
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danny Winn View Post
Me and a buddy of mine are trying to find out if the quality of sound going into the 5d using Magic Lantern and a "JuicedLink" unit is just as good as using a Zoom H4n. Does anybody have an opinion on this?
Actually, they both kind of svck, lol.

At least from a true audiophile perspective, but with the right setups they can be usable for sure.

And just because something has 24-bit doesn't mean jack, there's so many units out there with 24-bit that don't even come close to doing anything but give you a bigger file.
__________________
BayTaper.com | One man's multimedia journey through the San Francisco live jazz and creative music scene.
Bill Binder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 4th, 2010, 01:09 PM   #14
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 115
I can't get it to crash even at QS -16 with a lot of motion. It's recording with no issues whatsoever. The real issue is that i can't seem to spot any major difference in image quality / compression from the original firmware.

I'm using a Sansdisk Extreme UDMA 60Mb/s 8GB.
Martin Guitar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 4th, 2010, 09:31 PM   #15
Trustee
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Byron Bay, Australia
Posts: 1,142
Martin, I'm not surprised by your findings (or lack thereof).

The Canon DSLR's already have an abnormally high h.264 bitrate to compensate for the poor encoder, and I'm sure Canon didn't just throw around a random number for the bitrate - they most likely found it to be the best performance/file size comprimise and further increasing the bitrate will do very little visually.

It's an entirely different case to the GH1, for example, which was hampered by a lower bitrate as well as poor implementation of the AVCHD codec.
John Wiley is offline   Reply
Reply

DV Info Net refers all where-to-buy and where-to-rent questions exclusively to these trusted full line dealers and rental houses...

Professional Video
(800) 833-4801
Portland, OR

B&H Photo Video
(866) 521-7381
New York, NY

Z.G.C.
(973) 335-4460
Mountain Lakes, NJ

Abel Cine Tech
(888) 700-4416
N.Y. NY & L.A. CA

Precision Camera
(800) 677-1023
Austin, TX

DV Info Net also encourages you to support local businesses and buy from an authorized dealer in your neighborhood.
  You are here: DV Info Net > Canon EOS / MXF / AVCHD / HDV / DV Camera Systems > Canon EOS Full Frame for HD

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 



Google
 

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:31 PM.


DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2017 The Digital Video Information Network