tupp

I can't tell you how happy I am that Bror posted about ML Raw on the eos-m because I have recently started using it but I figured nobody would be interested in discussing something so out dated. 
The reason I started using it was because I recently learned I could use my vintage c-mount lenses with it in crop mode. Which is great. I was getting ready to sell them off when I realized it.
Anyway, I am getting some mixed results, and I am wondering if it is due to my workflow? I am recording in .mlv and then using mlmystic to ingest and convert the clips to's .dng. I click on the chroma smoothing option, at 2x2 to remove the pink dots then open those files in mlrawviewer where I fix the wb and convert to prores444. Is the chroma smoothing softening the image, or is that how the pink dot remover program works? I also stopped recording sound because it seemed to cause the dreaded threads failed to start issue. Now I read that it is okay to have in camera sharpening up a notch when shooting raw, but if the camera doesn't acknowledge the picture profile, then how do you use in camera sharpening?
Now I have seen other people's footage online, Max  and a kid named Ryan Moorman, and they both were getting amazing, sharp results with raw, and I am just not sure what I am doing wrong?
Are the c-mounts the problem... Can they not resolve properly for the raw footage.
I also am only using the 64gb Transcend card that writes at 60MB, could that be the issue?
 
Bror, I saw that focal reducer and was wondering the same thing. With just the 3x crop on, the camera is insanely better than the original canon specs, so I was wondering what the image would look like with the Nikon focal reducer shot in 3x crop... Would it bring it back to apsc sized without the aliasing?
Here's a jpeg grab from a raw clip I took last week using a 12.5 to 75mm Cosmicar c-mount zoom. I really love the look and the colors.

The chroma smoothing defeats the purpose of shooting RAW.  Here's why.  When you shoot RAW, you are getting a 14bit value for every 1280x720 pixel.  Each of those pixels is either red, green or blue.  When you "smooth" the red, green or blue pixels you're essentially truncating the 14bit values down to who knows what.  The pink dots are removed at the expense of color depth.   Since you don't know which pixel is a focus pixel, you have to degrade them all.   The strategy behind the pink dot remover and the software I wrote, is to figure out the exact locations of every focus pixel.   this can be down because they have a pattern that radiates out from the center of the sensor.  Anyway, if the pixel is a red one, you go out and get the red value at the closes red pixel and use that value.  It works very well and is very similar to the whole de-bayering process where you fill in missing color information.  Unfortunately, which pixels are focus pixels changes with the crop mode you use.  In crop mode they are closer together.  when is full-sensor mode, so to speak, they are more spread out.  If you have a Mac, find a copy of the Java pink dot remover and use that.  You can use it on PC too.  But if you have a PC, and shoot in crop mode, my software is very fast.  
 

Yes, like TheRenaissanceMan says, you can do 1280 native focal length, but get moire.  However, if you have shallow depth of field and are not shooting anything with hard edges you'll get that rich color look.  The biggest problem are the focus pixels.  You need to remove them or they create "pink dots".  I wrote software for windows that does it well (but only in crop mode)  https://bitbucket.org/maxotics/focuspixelfixer/downloads  For other resolutions, you want the PinkDotRemover.  The best combo, IMHO, is a 10-20mm type lens, then shoot crop mode, which will make it 40 to 80.  Also, you'll need a 95MBS read/write card (even though it will max out at 40mbs).   Here's a cool video I did using the EOS-M to show you what your sensor really sees in Bayer mode: https://vimeo.com/79857693  And here's one that show the basic quality, it's VERY filmmlike to me.  Here's one with the kit-lens https://vimeo.com/76181035  And this one with a Sigma 10-20.  Finally, here's a good one in H.264 with the EOS-M.  I LOVED that camera.  https://vimeo.com/75122636  I now have a BMPCC.  But I LEARNED so much using the 50D (another great ML camera) and the EOS-M.

It can do 720p or so from the whole sensor, but it produces pretty bad moire. You could also go the Tragic Lantern route and just get a jacked up bit rate for h.264. 
If you're a stills guy, pair it with the 22mm and you've got the best, cheapest 35mm compact on the market.

So yesterday i stumbled apoun this product on ebay ( http://www.ebay.com/itm/new-Nikon-F-G-focal-reducer-speed-booster-adapter-to-Canon-EOS-M-EOSM-M2-M3-/361376870358?hash=item5423bd6fd6:g:u84AAOSwHnFV4muu ), its a Eos m to nikon g focal reducer. I knew that the Eos M have some magic lantern raw capabilities and after further research i found out that it can shoot at a resolution of 720 x 1280. 
A eos M can commonly be found for about 150$ (http://www.ebay.com/itm/Canon-EOS-M-Body-Gehause-black-schwarz-TOP-wie-neu-OVP-/151853015439?hash=item235b25218f:g:vYQAAOSw~bFWI-fz).
If anyone has tried a common combo i would be interested in knowing more.

In addition to the items you already mentioned (sound, power distro, etc.), take wide angle photos/videos from each corner of any shooting room.
 
Scout/plan staging areas for equipment, hair/makeup, craft services, wardrobe, actor privacy/dressing rooms, etc.
 
Take light meter readings, and bring a compass determine which direction windows/doors/openings face.
 
Gauge the cooperativeness of the property owner/caretaker.
 
If you plan on sending light through a window, note the height of the window from ground level outside.

just to add, keep up contact with your second choice. in case the first one falls through. having a backup for each location has saved our butts quite a few times. most memorably, we were supposed to shoot on coastal bluffs in Malibu. the day before our shoot, they caught on fire. my producer was able to shift everything to the back up location in long beach and we didn't miss a beat.

In addition to the items you already mentioned (sound, power distro, etc.), take wide angle photos/videos from each corner of any shooting room.
 
Scout/plan staging areas for equipment, hair/makeup, craft services, wardrobe, actor privacy/dressing rooms, etc.
 
Take light meter readings, and bring a compass determine which direction windows/doors/openings face.
 
Gauge the cooperativeness of the property owner/caretaker.
 
If you plan on sending light through a window, note the height of the window from ground level outside.

In addition to the items you already mentioned (sound, power distro, etc.), take wide angle photos/videos from each corner of any shooting room.
 
Scout/plan staging areas for equipment, hair/makeup, craft services, wardrobe, actor privacy/dressing rooms, etc.
 
Take light meter readings, and bring a compass determine which direction windows/doors/openings face.
 
Gauge the cooperativeness of the property owner/caretaker.
 
If you plan on sending light through a window, note the height of the window from ground level outside.

While I am solidly in the greater DR and bit depth camp (I'd rather shoot with an Alexa or a Sony F35 than a Red Epic or Canon's 8K), it is important to play the "devil's advocate" at this juncture in the thread and remind all that color depth actually consists of part bit depth and part resolution.  So, the higher the resolution, the greater the color depth.
 
In fact, you could have a system with a bit depth of "1" and, with enough resolution (and ignoring banding in capture), have the same degree of color depth as a 12-bit, 444 system.
 
The formula for color depth in digital, RGB imaging systems is:
Color Depth = (Bit Depth x Resolution)3

C) they don't see the difference (I don't believe for a second that you could on a youtube stream since no one else can).
D) they don't care (forum nerds like us are a minority).
E) There is no 4k content, 720p is still king or not yet implemented. 
F) TVs are expensive and there is nothing wrong with their current set.
G) There is more to life than TV resolution. For the absolute majority of the population, resolution is probably at the very bottom of the priority list. 
This. 
In an interview I heard recently with the head of tech at our largest network he was very clear.
"We don't talk about 4K at all. The difference would be so small compared to the investment. We focus on bitrate and color depth. Because that's going to look much sharper and clearer."

Certainly, the scope of the convergence of form factor and hybrid concepts will synergistically target future-proof users and compellingly empower technically sound bandwidth to optimize superior functionalized systems and streamline value-added catalysts for heightened verticals.

Certainly, the scope of the convergence of form factor and hybrid concepts will synergistically target future-proof users and compellingly empower technically sound bandwidth to optimize superior functionalized systems and streamline value-added catalysts for heightened verticals.

Im more excited for the Sony video camera with the sony A7s sensor. Fullframe 4k  > super 35 8k

8 bit jpeg off the highest dynamic range dslr sensor available, thus why they look good.
And I did say give us "better dynamic range" not only higher color sampling and more bit depth.
I'd take a high dynamic range 1080p image over a poor DR 4k one anyday. but to each his own.

yeah well if they could get into a dynamic range and color depth war that would be great thanks.
can't wait to get my compressed 8k 4:2:0 8 bit image. so exciting.

Pixel wars are back... It's pretty sad. Who will use 8K?? Don't say Hollywood, they can barely keep with 4K with all the CGI!

Maybe I should get back into selling diffusion filters . . . 'cause I don't know one actor/actress who wants to see their pores reproduced in 8K detail.

Be careful using Lenovo machines -- they put s#!t in their firmware.  No "and" needed.
 

I have never been impressed with Apple hardware (nor software), and I am all for hackintosh projects.
 
However, exercise caution when using Lenovo products -- the company has a history of installing spyware in the firmware and OS of their machines.

Nope... unfortunately, the world doesn't work that "simply."
 
Sometimes the best things succeed, but a lot of the time they don't (especially in this current age of mediocrity).  That's why Oracle is so prevalent in spite of mass dissatisfaction with its products... that's why lobbyists influence laws and government projects (in the USA)... that's why we have to listen to Miley Cyrus, Justin Bieber and Kanye West, instead of artists as talented as the Beatles or Burt Bacharach.
 
 
Nevertheless, Chrome is free and it has more users than its proprietary counterparts.  Since you mentioned a web browser, how about Firefox?  Off the top of my head, there's also Android, Thunderbird, Wordpress, Audacity, VLC, Handbrake and Blender, etc.  Of course, there is a bunch of open source software that dominates network and web installations, such as Apache, MySQL, SSL, Drupal  and PHP, etc., not to mention most of the prominent programming languages.
 
 
No need to apologize.  Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

A Linux beta of Resolve 12 is available as a free download.

Hi Chaps.
I decided to take my FORBES70 camera out to play last weekend.  I'm happy with the results but wanted to ask for some honest critique.
I'd love to hear opinions on the image quality - resolution, perceived dynamic range / highlight/shadow rolloff, colour, and general 'look' of the images.  
Please bear in mind that the current maximum res is full hd, but in terms of full hd res, how is the image looking?  
 
I'd also love to hear some views on the large format aesthetic the camera exhibits.  Maybe in comparison with the recent trailers for Hateful Eight and The Revenant.  Is the added expense over say a full frame camera and fast lenses justifiable?  is the current resolution cap of full hd a real issue?  
curious for your thoughts! - ps.  larger file available for download (and detailed info about the system) on the vimeo page

Not really.
 
Yes.  This is the typical FUD scenario -- early adopter of Red Hat, then got disinterested.  I've never used Red Hat.
 
 
That's fine.  I would rather have open source and free software.
 
 
Disagree wholeheartedly.  With open source and free software, I can do almost anything that can be done with proprietary software.  Furthermore, open source software often can do more than proprietary software, as a lot of the innovation occurs in open-source code.
 
I would rather use software from a coder who is enthusiastic than from one who is merely drawing a paycheck.