Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos Video and Sound Editing 
Thread started 12 May 2013 (Sunday) 15:19
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Magic Lantern... CONTINUOUS raw recording @ 24fps on 5D3

 
pwm2
"Sorry for being a noob"
Avatar
8,626 posts
Likes: 3
Joined May 2007
Location: Sweden
     
May 15, 2013 03:33 |  #31

romanv wrote in post #15933601 (external link)
So because Canon wants to make a profit, they dont care what customers think?
I thought their customers were the ones spending money to make them a profit.

They do. But that doesn't mean they care what you think.

Regarding cell phones, I wasnt so much talking about hardware so much as their push to add as much functionality to a given cell phone's hardware as possible.

They don't - unless you talk about the top-of-the-line models. For the smaller models, you specifically lose functionality. So no accelerometers. No GPS. Less camera resolution. Less memory (often puny, which can be seen in all the complaints from users who are angry that specific programs can't be run on external memory). Removal of support for external memory card.

When you have the lower-tier phones, they are designed to sell in millions. So the hardware is a pretty exact fit. When you build the phone in 10 million, you don't mount a sensor if you don't want to sell the phone with that sensor. So you, as customer, don't get to know if the chipset inside the phone would have supported a GPS or not.

But an important thing here is that phones are commodity products. There aren't any big investment to switch from one brand to another. So customers may rotate around between the different brands (with exception of iPhone and to some part Blackberry where people tends to be polarized - like or hate).

When selling commodity products, the competitors have to fight almost to death to figure out if a color stripe or an extra sensor or a specific program may be the difference to trick some % extra customers to go for their brand instead of a competitors brand.

It is quite similar for the P&S cameras, but it isn't so for DSLR. It's a much more long-term commitment because of lenses etc. Adding a GPS to a DSLR isn't something that makes a large number of customers to switch brand. It is more a thing that can get customers to switch between two different models from the same manufacturer.

Look around - lots of people comment about the dynamic range of Nikon cameras with newer Sony sensors. Or how Canon have better live view. But not too many customers jump to Nikon for the sensor or to Canon for the better live view. The lock-in from lenses etc are much too big.

So Canon would do wrong if they would pretend they were a mobile phone company, and try to just adapt the strategies that the mobile phone manufacturers are using.

But why can't you be more creative in your posts. Why not tell what specific functionality you miss or would want to work differently, instead of using so creative words as "crappy" which really doesn't mean anything. No manufacturer listens to any customer who is only able to use the word "crappy".

I own a cheap ****ty Samsung cell phone.

I can connect to the internet with it, and download bazillions of different user made applications, some of which will ring the absolute neck out of the phone's hardware.

And your point is? That cameras should be like phones, with Android and download of a large number of programs? I'm not convinced a smartphone come DSLR would really be a good tool for a professional photographer, even if it would be nice to be able to run a DoF calculator on the display, or have the camera have a great sequence timer internally.

In time, it is likely that we will get app functionality in cameras, but that isn't one of the primary goals with them.

Apps, on the other hand, is one of the primary goals with a "smart phone" - that is what separates it from a dumb phone and what makes the manufacturer able to charge several times more. Your Samsung phone may be cheap. But it is still many times more expensive than the dumb phones available. All because it is designed for a completely different customer group.

The question here is how large customer group there would be for an Android DSLR. We know the customer group for smart phones is many, many, many millions.

None of which discriminates against having a cheaper phone, unless the hardware cant keep up. If I want to run some of the more intensive programs etc, then I buy better hardware.

Sure - but what doesn't this analogy have to do with a DSLR? A smart phone is a computer that just happens to be able to make phone calls (just about - you often have to make do with 24-48 hours battery time). A DSLR isn't a computer that just happens to be able to take photos. And it isn't expected to be a computer that just happens to be able to take photos.

You see the difference? A smart phone doesn't even have "phone" as primary function. An old Nokia N95 or Ericsson t68 manages phone calls so very much better than todays smartphones.

Even better, the phone manufacturer doesnt have to do anything. Apart from making the phone Android compatible. The users profit by selling apps, the manufacture profits by selling hardware.

Look closer - the big brands do a huge amount. Samsung don't sell their phones by just bringing an Android phone to the market, leaving it to everyone else to populate it with software.

On the other hand? How many times have you run out of battery in your phone because one of all the lousy programs? The freedom to install random programs isn't always good. What do you think the support costs are, from all angry customers who fails to separate issues with their phone from issues with ****ty programs they have installed?

My phone can become a GPS unit, navigation system, lap timer, blah blah. Pretty much only limited to the imagination of some users.

But you still fail to show how this would be a valid example when comparing to a DSLR. Does it sell more cameras if the camera can be a lap timer? Does the camera become easier to use? Can it be sold cheaper? Will more people stop buying smartphones and instead carry a stupid phone + a "smart camera"?

If Canon were to make a cell phone right now, it could probably call people, but then you'd have to buy the $200 text pad if you want to send text messages. Oh, you want to download an app? Sorry mate, this is a phone not a laptop geez.

Well, you are always free to dream up random scenarios. If we find them likely is another matter. Why? Because Canon seem to sell products that are fitting their market segments for just about all market segments Canon have products in. So it is likely to believe that if Canon did sell phones, they would sell phones that would be comparable to the competitors phones.

I've no doubt that DSLRs could benefit from Android type of functionality - as ML has demonstrated... But without any wilful assistance from the manufacturer.

And I have no doubt that there would be huge issues with a camera with Android. So the question is how the benefits would balance against the problems. And the main question: Would it give a significant boost in camera sales?

Canon decides that I shouldnt have an intervalometer, the most basic software routine in the universe, on a $1000+ camera.
When even a cell phone can do that, if you download an app. DSLRs arent sold in a vacuum, they are competing against other electronic goods, and also what people expect from electronics is changing on account of Android / Iphone type devices / tablets etc.

Yes, I would like that intervalometer in the camera. But that is about the only real stupidity when it comes to software functionality Canon doesn't supply us with.

No - DSLR aren't competing against other electronic goods like that. Especially since the owner of a DSLR is most probably already an owner of a smartphone meaning there weren't any competition between them.

Next thing - separate what people "expect" and what people are willing to pay for. Especially if their "expectations" are likely to make their new camera harder to use.

My cell phone can stitch photos together automatically - my DSLR cant.

Just about no one every postprocess photos from their cellphone. Guess it's the same with a DSLR? Switch to P&S cameras and you see lots of them that can stitch - they are sold in a market segment where the customer aren't expected to post-process so it is reasonable to supply ready-to-use panoramas directly out of the camera. Look at the DSLR from the same manufacturers and you notice that they normally don't stitch.

My Cell phone can download an app to have an intervalometer - my DSLR cant.
And so on and so on.

Intervallometer as app is a bad example, since it should be a feature that should be in the camera directly from factory. So it isn't a good sales argument for Android support.

Some people are bound to ask, if it's a top end product then why does it lack features which even a non camera (cell phone) is capable of?

Yes - I have regularly complained to Canon why their cameras can't make phone calls. After all - even a low-end cellular phone can do it... :cool:

The point and shoot market has suffered terribly on account of this.

The point and shoot market is very special because the customers for low end P&S are the same customers who also have a phone with similar functionality.

The only single thing that makes it meaningful for low-end P&S to exist, is that they are allowed to be thicker than phones. So they can have zoom and a slightly larger lens + sensor. The the difference is tiny.

Similarly for MP3 players. They are smaller and gives better battery time. But it doesn't much matter that they are smaller when people are already carrying their phone. So it is a niche product with a greatly diminishing customer base.

But neither of the above is even closely relevant to DSLR.

For better P&S, I think only Nokia have tried to compete.

Non of the above which you've said addresses why Canon or any other manufacturer, cant incorporate even a simple Intervalometer function into a digital camera.
This function isnt even available on the top of the line models, as best I know, so it's not as though they're protecting that portion of the market.

Don't live too much on that single missing intervalometer. Most people on POTN probably think it's bad it is missing. But it really isn't enough of an argument for claiming Canon ships crap or doesn't listen to their customers. And it doesn't motivate why Canon should stop differentiate between different models with different price levels.

Same goes for zebras, why doesnt even their top of the line camera have basic zebra functionality for blown highlights etc? Easiest thing in the universe to incorporate into a camera, yet none do. So the argument about protecting upper segments doesnt make sense. Neither does operating as though it's only Canons other products that they need to compete against.

Remember that video is secondary - they have a separate product line for video.

Video is to a large part a "checkmark" to get some sales - while video at the same time is a thing many photographers do not want in the camera. Especially as our stills lose quality from compromises made with the low-pass filter.

As you say, if a line of cameras share the same Digic processor or whatever, there's no reason to add a compatible software feature to all products on a line.
Having something like an intervalometer could be the tipping point between someone choosing Nikon or Canon, for the expense of getting someone to spend 1/2 a day writing a software routine.

The DiGIC have nothing with operation of the camera to do. It is the image processing chip.
Having the same DiGIC in multiple camera models doesn't mean the models should all make full use of the chip - what would then differentiate the models?

When I was first looking to buy a DSLR, I wrote a list of all the things I wanted it to do, then went looking for what options fitted that. Which was pretty much none, because none could do a time lapse without spending $$$ on a box that plugs into the side. Which seemed rather baffling.
So no one got my money.
Until I found out about ML, then bought a 600D.

Well, why not use your phone as intervalometer? There are solutions that uses the audio out of a phone to control a camera. After all, you like your phone with all the nice apps. Then you can select which one to get out of many.

Either way, Canon's internal politics has absolutely zero to do with me enjoying taking pictures, and I have zero interest in learning about what fuels their laughable innovations compared to what a few guys hacking around in the firmware can acheive.

Canons internal politics should not have anything with you enjoying taking pictures.
And it is Canons "laughable innovations" that ML can make use of - without Canons "laugable innovations" you would not have any ML.

I just want a camera that has a bunch of different useful features, and a 600D + ML has kept me more than happy. I'm more interested in their ongoing developments, than anything Canon's done in the last while.

If enough wants the same as you, you might get such a camera. But most probably not too many are ready for an Android camera.


5DMk2 + BG-E6 | 40D + BG-E2N | 350D + BG-E3 + RC-1 | Elan 7E | Minolta Dimage 7U | (Gear thread)
10-22 | 16-35/2.8 L II | 20-35 | 24-105 L IS | 28-135 IS | 40/2.8 | 50/1.8 II | 70-200/2.8 L IS | 100/2.8 L IS | 100-400 L IS | Sigma 18-200DC
Speedlite 420EZ | Speedlite 580EX | EF 1.4x II | EF 2x II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
pwm2
"Sorry for being a noob"
Avatar
8,626 posts
Likes: 3
Joined May 2007
Location: Sweden
     
May 15, 2013 03:46 |  #32

John Sims wrote in post #15933644 (external link)
What was that about RAW recording? ;-)a

He wants the camera to run Android, so the raw video stream can be sent directly to a post-processing application that color-adjust etc on the fly and then uploads to youtube (using the internal WIFI or 3G/4G phone), and at same time Twitters about the new video.


5DMk2 + BG-E6 | 40D + BG-E2N | 350D + BG-E3 + RC-1 | Elan 7E | Minolta Dimage 7U | (Gear thread)
10-22 | 16-35/2.8 L II | 20-35 | 24-105 L IS | 28-135 IS | 40/2.8 | 50/1.8 II | 70-200/2.8 L IS | 100/2.8 L IS | 100-400 L IS | Sigma 18-200DC
Speedlite 420EZ | Speedlite 580EX | EF 1.4x II | EF 2x II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
romanv
Member
223 posts
Likes: 93
Joined Jul 2012
     
May 15, 2013 04:57 |  #33

Haha.

As I've said, the logic of not having featueres to protect the upper portion of the heirachy doesnt make sense when none of the top models have the features either.

If you cant see the sense in having more features then what are currently available, that's fine.

The main features that I personally use from Magic Lantern are:

1. Zebras
2. Intervalometer / ramping
3. Reduce liveview FPS (When out in the dark and wanting to fine tune focus, set to 10fps with 359 degree shutter speed on high ISO, and I can see what I'm doing when I otherwise wouldnt be able to)
4. Overlay / cross hairs (Great for getting the horizon dead on centre, with a fish eye lense)

Now I'll admit #3 is fairly obscure, but Zebras and intervalometer especially are rediculously basic software routines, that would benefit everyone from beginner to pro.
Why not add them to the whole line, and have a one up over the competition?
As you say, there's a common gripe that these arent included with the cameras and it costs virtually NOTHING to implement, yet nothing is done about it by anyone.
I'm surprised none of the 'underdogs' have done so either though to be honest.

Besides, a bunch of software features doesnt mean I'm completely impervious to the merits of upgrading camera body, and nor should it if the improved camera is worthwhile.

I'd still like something that can use the faster cards, full frame would be nice, etc.
and these things are what differentiate models. I'm completely comfortable with the fact that I've got to pay a premium for physical improvements which have increased manufacturing costs.

The point of this thread is that some guys tinkering in their spare time after work come up with a solution that increases video quality tenfold, using only reverse engineered firmware updates and lateral thinking.
Imagine if there were similarly thinking guys working with open access to the original firmware across the whole range of Canon (or other) cameras, top to bottom. Without the internal politics that stifles true innovation.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
pwm2
"Sorry for being a noob"
Avatar
8,626 posts
Likes: 3
Joined May 2007
Location: Sweden
     
May 15, 2013 06:10 |  #34

Underdogs never implement features that they aren't ordered to implement.

They are limited to describing the functionality and cost of implementing - then it is product management that decides.

Developers just does not own the product. They aren't allowed to add functionality unless ordered to.

Guess why some products have hidden features that might be activated by long sequences of menu presses? Frustrated developers adds hidden easter eggs since they aren't allowed to add real functionality that they think would make a product better.

But this has nothing to do with Canon. It is common for most larger companies where you have a strict hierarchy. You have the same for mobile phones too.

It was a huge surprise to Canon that lots of movie makers would start using the 5D2 for real productions. Just that they do not want 5D2 or 5D3 to be too good - they want to sell their video-optimized hardware. They probably think zebra patterns has too great value, resulting in cannibalizing on their video sales.

You have to realize that when talking video, Canon doesn't just look after the individual models in their normal DSLR range. They also have their special video-adapted bodies and then they have the full range of dedicated video cameras.

The problem then is that they sell the real video equipment at many times higher prices than the DSLR models - so one single video camera being replaced by a 5D3 represents a big loss in sales. So maybe the film gets recorded with 2 real video cameras and 2 5D3 instead of 3 or 4 full-price video cameras. That might represent a reduced sales value comparable to 10 5D3. Maybe more.

So in this case, Canon sits on multiple chairs. If they only sold DSLR, then they could add all the functionality that they know about to improve video performance. And you would then see lots and lots and lots of improvements. But with Canon competing with themselves, it is counter-productive for them to make a 5D3 too good at video recording. In the end, it's the bottom line that decides their route. Or at least the managements perceived implications of selecting a certain route.

For intervalometers, I think the value of having all bodies support it is way higher than the loss from reduced number of timers sold. Because a very large percentage of the customers would now and then want to make a time laps or maybe collect multiple long-exposure photos of the sky.

When it comes to zebra stripes, I'm not sure how many of Canons customer that Canon really want to actually make real use of the video functionality.

No one gets open access to the original firmware - it is just too important to the manufacturer, since it includes lots of functionality that the manufacturer have invested lots of money in. And where they want the competitors to also have to invest lots of money to match.

Face recognition, smile detection etc didn't get into the cameras for free - it did take lots of coding and testing.

Remember that a business deal needs to be good for both seller and buyer. And in the case of open access to the source, you are debating an issue that might have lots of advantages for the customer. But does not represent a good solution for the code owner.


5DMk2 + BG-E6 | 40D + BG-E2N | 350D + BG-E3 + RC-1 | Elan 7E | Minolta Dimage 7U | (Gear thread)
10-22 | 16-35/2.8 L II | 20-35 | 24-105 L IS | 28-135 IS | 40/2.8 | 50/1.8 II | 70-200/2.8 L IS | 100/2.8 L IS | 100-400 L IS | Sigma 18-200DC
Speedlite 420EZ | Speedlite 580EX | EF 1.4x II | EF 2x II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AAphotog
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
828 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Apr 2012
     
May 15, 2013 09:30 |  #35
bannedPermanent ban

Um. This was a post about something great that the devs at Magic Lantern accomplished.
Where did the foolish bickering about business models and investors and **** come in at???


5d3, 50mm 1.4, 70-200mm F4 L, 17-40mm F4 L
But hey, they say it's not the gear right:rolleyes:

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
pwm2
"Sorry for being a noob"
Avatar
8,626 posts
Likes: 3
Joined May 2007
Location: Sweden
     
May 15, 2013 09:34 |  #36

By people being angry that Canon doesn't release the source code so everyone can have a chance to rewrite the camera software. Basically thinking it is wrong that the ML functionality have required reverse engineering.


5DMk2 + BG-E6 | 40D + BG-E2N | 350D + BG-E3 + RC-1 | Elan 7E | Minolta Dimage 7U | (Gear thread)
10-22 | 16-35/2.8 L II | 20-35 | 24-105 L IS | 28-135 IS | 40/2.8 | 50/1.8 II | 70-200/2.8 L IS | 100/2.8 L IS | 100-400 L IS | Sigma 18-200DC
Speedlite 420EZ | Speedlite 580EX | EF 1.4x II | EF 2x II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CyberDyneSystems
Admin (type T-2000)
Avatar
50,088 posts
Gallery: 161 photos
Likes: 6804
Joined Apr 2003
Location: Rhode Island USA
     
May 15, 2013 11:35 |  #37

Scatterbrained wrote in post #15932676 (external link)
Who says the info has to be processed? As I understand it they are just dumping the raw data into the cards.

Exactly, er, "RAW" !

It's not of use to me, but clearly this is like the Holy Grail to any perfectionist Video artist on a budget.


GEAR LIST
CDS' HOT LINKS
Jake Hegnauer Photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CyberDyneSystems
Admin (type T-2000)
Avatar
50,088 posts
Gallery: 161 photos
Likes: 6804
Joined Apr 2003
Location: Rhode Island USA
     
May 15, 2013 11:37 |  #38

Are romanv and hogloff the same person?


GEAR LIST
CDS' HOT LINKS
Jake Hegnauer Photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Scatterbrained
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,420 posts
Gallery: 217 photos
Best ofs: 11
Likes: 4116
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Chula Vista, CA
     
May 15, 2013 11:39 |  #39

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #15934760 (external link)
Exactly, er, "RAW" !

It's not of use to me, but clearly this is like the Holy Grail to any perfectionist Video artist on a budget.

Outside of home movies with my 5D2 I don't do video either, but I've tried processing my home movies in Premier and it's horrible. Being able to get raw video is like, well, it's like being able to get raw stills. :D;)


VanillaImaging.com (external link)"Vacuous images for the Vapid consumer"
500px (external link)
flickr (external link)
1x (external link)
instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Landcruiser
Member
Avatar
168 posts
Joined Feb 2007
     
May 15, 2013 12:14 |  #40

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #15934760 (external link)
Exactly, er, "RAW" !

It's not of use to me, but clearly this is like the Holy Grail to any perfectionist Video artist on a budget.

RAWtoDNG.exe

Nothing to it. Not the Holy Grail so to speak, but a good upgrade to the current Canon codec. Not everyone will want or need RAW, but to have the flexability to PP with RAW footage is awesome.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ejenner
Goldmember
Avatar
3,806 posts
Gallery: 83 photos
Likes: 872
Joined Nov 2011
Location: Denver, CO
     
May 15, 2013 23:30 |  #41

Scatterbrained wrote in post #15934775 (external link)
Outside of home movies with my 5D2 I don't do video either, but I've tried processing my home movies in Premier and it's horrible. Being able to get raw video is like, well, it's like being able to get raw stills. :D;)

Yea, it's a bit of a shocker when you are used to RAW stills.


Edward Jenner
5DIV, M6, GX1 II, Sig15mm FE, 16-35 F4,TS-E 17, TS-E 24, M11-22, M18-150 ,24-105, T45 1.8VC, 70-200 f4 IS, 70-200 2.8 vII, Sig 85 1.4, 100L, 135L, 400DOII.
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/48305795@N03/ (external link)
https://www.facebook.c​om/edward.jenner.372/p​hotos (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
c2thew
Goldmember
Avatar
3,929 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Aug 2008
Location: Not enough minerals.
     
May 16, 2013 14:27 |  #42

romanv wrote in post #15933601 (external link)
So because Canon wants to make a profit, they dont care what customers think?
I thought their customers were the ones spending money to make them a profit.

Regarding cell phones, I wasnt so much talking about hardware so much as their push to add as much functionality to a given cell phone's hardware as possible.

I own a cheap ****ty Samsung cell phone.

I can connect to the internet with it, and download bazillions of different user made applications, some of which will ring the absolute neck out of the phone's hardware.

None of which discriminates against having a cheaper phone, unless the hardware cant keep up. If I want to run some of the more intensive programs etc, then I buy better hardware.

Even better, the phone manufacturer doesnt have to do anything. Apart from making the phone Android compatible. The users profit by selling apps, the manufacture profits by selling hardware.

My phone can become a GPS unit, navigation system, lap timer, blah blah. Pretty much only limited to the imagination of some users.

If Canon were to make a cell phone right now, it could probably call people, but then you'd have to buy the $200 text pad if you want to send text messages. Oh, you want to download an app? Sorry mate, this is a phone not a laptop geez.

I've no doubt that DSLRs could benefit from Android type of functionality - as ML has demonstrated... But without any wilful assistance from the manufacturer.

Canon decides that I shouldnt have an intervalometer, the most basic software routine in the universe, on a $1000+ camera.
When even a cell phone can do that, if you download an app. DSLRs arent sold in a vacuum, they are competing against other electronic goods, and also what people expect from electronics is changing on account of Android / Iphone type devices / tablets etc.

My cell phone can stitch photos together automatically - my DSLR cant.
My Cell phone can download an app to have an intervalometer - my DSLR cant.
And so on and so on.
Some people are bound to ask, if it's a top end product then why does it lack features which even a non camera (cell phone) is capable of?

The point and shoot market has suffered terribly on account of this.

Non of the above which you've said addresses why Canon or any other manufacturer, cant incorporate even a simple Intervalometer function into a digital camera.
This function isnt even available on the top of the line models, as best I know, so it's not as though they're protecting that portion of the market.

Same goes for zebras, why doesnt even their top of the line camera have basic zebra functionality for blown highlights etc? Easiest thing in the universe to incorporate into a camera, yet none do. So the argument about protecting upper segments doesnt make sense. Neither does operating as though it's only Canons other products that they need to compete against.

As you say, if a line of cameras share the same Digic processor or whatever, there's no reason to add a compatible software feature to all products on a line.
Having something like an intervalometer could be the tipping point between someone choosing Nikon or Canon, for the expense of getting someone to spend 1/2 a day writing a software routine.

When I was first looking to buy a DSLR, I wrote a list of all the things I wanted it to do, then went looking for what options fitted that. Which was pretty much none, because none could do a time lapse without spending $$$ on a box that plugs into the side. Which seemed rather baffling.
So no one got my money.
Until I found out about ML, then bought a 600D.

Either way, Canon's internal politics has absolutely zero to do with me enjoying taking pictures, and I have zero interest in learning about what fuels their laughable innovations compared to what a few guys hacking around in the firmware can acheive.

I just want a camera that has a bunch of different useful features, and a 600D + ML has kept me more than happy. I'm more interested in their ongoing developments, than anything Canon's done in the last while.


awesome writeup!


Flickr (external link) |Gear|The-Digital-Picture (external link)|The $6 mic | MAGIC LANTERN (external link) | Welding Filter
Go Support Magic Lantern 2.3!!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
0.0f
Member
179 posts
Joined Apr 2011
     
May 21, 2013 10:43 |  #43

Is it true that to take advantage of the RAW recording capability you have to revert back to the old Canon firmware?


EOS 5D MK3 - 24-70 MK2

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bclark22
Member
47 posts
Joined Apr 2011
     
May 21, 2013 19:34 |  #44

Magic Lantern is awesome, would recommend it to anyone who shoots video. That said, this is another breakthrough... I hope it comes to the 5dmkii as I'm in the market for one :)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AAphotog
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
828 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Apr 2012
     
May 21, 2013 20:10 |  #45
bannedPermanent ban

0.0f wrote in post #15953110 (external link)
Is it true that to take advantage of the RAW recording capability you have to revert back to the old Canon firmware?

Yes 1.1.3
But honestly, what does the new firmware really offer?


5d3, 50mm 1.4, 70-200mm F4 L, 17-40mm F4 L
But hey, they say it's not the gear right:rolleyes:

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

9,909 views & 0 likes for this thread
Magic Lantern... CONTINUOUS raw recording @ 24fps on 5D3
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos Video and Sound Editing 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is CoolGuy5Million
1102 guests, 286 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.