Drew Allegre

Danne (Magic Lantern superstar) and I have been working on a log DCP profile for Magic Lantern. At the moment, it's just for the 5D3. But if feedback is positive we will try to roll it out for all Magic Lantern cams.
This profile is for use with an Adobe Camera Raw to After Effects workflow (although it may have other applications). Although other workflows may be faster - Resolve, for example - many people feel that the debayering, colour reproduction and noise control offered by ACR is unparalleled.
The philosophy with this profile is to get the raw linear data into a log curve, so that blacks and whites aren't clipped and there is a relatively equal relationship between stops. Interestingly enough with this profile, and maybe it is unique in this regard, it has very accurate colour. Unlike Sony's S-Log or Panasonic's V-Log it's not necessary to correct for unusual colour reproduction. Just set a good white balance in ACR, apply a curve and colours are (almost!) bang on target.
If you've never used a DCP profile before read more about it here:
https://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=20710.msg191757;topicseen#msg191757
Here is a ZIP file with the DCP and with two kinds of curves, one clean one with a "filmic" colour cast. You get both as a LUT and as a curve file for your convenience.
DOWNLOAD:
https://bitbucket.org/hyalinejim/ml-log/downloads/
 
ACR default:

 
ML-Log

 
ML-Log + curve

 

"Are we doing the right thing?" That's the question The Uncertainty Has Settled explores, and you may ask yourself the same thing about shooting Magic Lantern for the big screen! Crazy or inspired? My friend in Berlin, Volker Schmidt was behind the camera on this film, and the decision to shoot Magic Lantern raw video on the 'vintage' 5D Mark II...
Read the full blog post

I love how in the last shot you can practically see the thought bubbles on the chickens, "is that guy running an inferno in a shoulder bag?"
Cool setup!

Run and gun means one can carry around a camera with no rigs, poles, tripods or other aids shooting handheld, for hours. The FS700R needs the 7" Shogun Inferno attached by wire to shoot 4K60P and 120P RAW. Can this combo be used for run and gun?
Well, if you think of the Shogun not as a monitor but as just an external recorder, then you can just put it in a shoulder bag. Convergent Design makes a very thin and flexible (you can tie it in knots they show) 3' SDI cable. So carry the recorder in a shoulder bag and shoot with the camera. The cable is so thin and flexible and long, it is as if it is not there (SDI cables also have more secure attachments than HDMI cables; no danger of the wire coming loose).
To test this, I went to shoot the local chickens, in slo mo 4K. Cinematic chickens. Inferno in the shoulder bag, me, the camera and Zeiss 2470 FE OSS lens.
From ProRes 422 HQ Slog2.

Wait you are "fairly sure" that a national study for the Department of Justice is "bullshit" based on what exactly?
Kilpatrick, Dean G.; Resnick, Heidi S.; Ruggiero, Kenneth J.; Conoscenti, Lauren M.; McCauley, Jenna (July 2007). "Drug-facilitated, Incapacitated, and Forcible Rape: A National Study" 
And who is "they" ?

I'm still holding on with an iPhone SE.  Wanted to be excited about this release, but honestly it's not very exciting at all.  The new camera features look okay.  Facial recognition and wireless charging offer marginal functional value at best.  Of the new models I'd probably just opt for the 8/64.

iOS11 looks pretty nice though. 

Matt Price / Sound Rolling is my top recommendation:
https://www.youtube.com/user/ThatWasSound

The reason why? He is the *only* professional sound recordist on YouTub who is putting out regular and informative content in this niche!! (every other channel in this subject niche is either a brand instead, or a retail store, or a non-specialist)

One last recommendation, and this one is ever so slightly biased.... *me*:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCniNTuAtkFiSCQNfIaw9SJw

Although I have only a tiny tiny fraction of the amount of content that Matt Price has! Plus I haven't been doing it for anywhere near as long as he has. 

Interesting article found via Daring Fireball / John Gruber (well known Apple blogger):
‘The Real Story in This Mess Is Not the Threat That Algorithms Pose to Amazon Shoppers, but the Threat That Algorithms Pose to Journalism’
Maciej Ceglowski, demolishing a “news” story [from reputable Channel 4 News in the UK] that spread around the world claiming that Amazon’s suggestions were helping people make bombs, when in fact they were helping people conduct high school chemistry experiments:
 

Where people prefer the motion cadence of one camera to another, the difference would be the sampling interval. Is it precise, right-on every frame, or does it jitter, and if so is it constant, variable, is the magnitude constant, variable, is it uniform/Gaussian random etc. It's interesting with all the tests folks have posted over the years, I don't recall seeing one on motion cadence / temporal and/or spatial jitter. Motion picture film has spatial jitter during playback in the theater, so even digitally acquired material transferred to film would have playback jitter. Via testing one could discover how much, if any jitter helps make the viewing experience more pleasing or not.
I'm personally am not a fan of large amounts of jitter, however perhaps small amounts might help create the illusion of being more organic. Or maybe the opposite is happening, cameras with little or no jitter are what people prefer when they say they like the motion cadence of a camera. A scientific test with perhaps a very accurate strobe could be used to test cameras. Another way would be to introduce jitter in a completely synthetic test with computer graphics/animation. I do know from video games running at constant- vblank-sync'd 60fps, a single frame drop is massively noticeable and used to be a criterion to fail a game in QA back when there were no online updates available. Similarly, if a game is running with constant variable jitter, a single frame drop or game slowdown can be barely noticeable.
Found research papers on temporal jitter for video: https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS508US508&q=temporal+jitter+video+quality&oq=temporal+jitter+video+quality. Quickly skimming the conclusions, I didn't see a clear idea presented beyond what I mentioned from video game experience: constant temporal jitter is better than perfect timing with occasional jitter/dropped frames.
Temporal jitter used to remove rendering artifacts:
24Hz judder can be an issue with panning, perhaps temporal jitter can provide a kind of temporal anti-aliasing, resulting in less apparent judder. This would make sense based on the 'perfect 60fps highly noticeable frame-drop video game' effect. This could be tested by adding jitter to juddering video to see if it helps hide the judder.
Another factor could be effective motion blur with a digital sensor (may not be precisely related to the camera's shutter setting). This too could be scientifically tested.

I always thought it was the Phillip Bloom woodgrain pocket dolly that gave that authentic organic look to footage.

It makes sense to me that the playback device is a pretty major factor in perceived cadence.  Once you eliminate variables: playback device, frame rate, shutter speed/angle, rolling shutter, jitter (introduced at any point in the chain), scene and lighting, codec and compression, is there some "thing" that makes one sensor or camera subjectively better than another?  It almost seems like audiophile territory trying to define the marginally perceptible, but I think many of us would agree that there is definitely something there to perceive and define.

Gimme a good motion cadence mixed with that Canon color science.

Still plugging away on my film. And still could not be happier with ML Raw and the 5D3. I went out on Saturday to to do a couple pick up shots because my first attempt was a little noisier than I wanted and I wanted to get this scene before the water gets too cold. So I took out the Canon 35mm f2... what a lens.
Anyway here is a screengrab from the shoot and a test color grade after I processed the footage. I'm still hoping to test the 3.5K builds soon, but right now... for my needs... the 1080p is more than enough.
 

And here's another one. I used that Hunter's LUT with this one. 
 

Yeah, this is pretty impressive stuff.  I'm used to Canon h264 footage, so this 3.5k raw stuff is a little difficult to comprehend.  Here's a dng still run through ACR.  

And thank you to Don Kotlos and maxotics for your explanations on the raw/log.  Makes total sense to me now.

The guy joins the forum, looking for pointers to clips that in the forums' users' opinions are cinematic-looking and he gets greeted like that by one of the moderators. Wow - I bet he'll be recommending EOSHD to his pals as a real friendly and helpful place.

I agree.  Face ID seems like a gimmick and actually a downgrade in terms of practical functionality.  Apple has been almost as frustrating as Canon the past few years.

Similar sounding problem here that was caused by a 3rd party battery 
 

I agree.  Face ID seems like a gimmick and actually a downgrade in terms of practical functionality.  Apple has been almost as frustrating as Canon the past few years.

There is definitely conservatism involved - and there has to be due to time and budget pressures - but I'd definitely argue the point about a lack of creativity to be fair.
We're dealing with live events that we have zero control over in terms of positioning and light etc let alone action but we HAVE to get something worthwhile and that means you often have to be creative just to get SOMETHING.
We're also dealing with trying to operate cheek by jowl with competing photographers - scores of them - all of whom you know WILL get a shot by hook or by crook and quite literally step on your toes to do so. So getting something different enough to stand out to a picture editor when he's receiving literally hundreds of images a minute from the same event demands a certain degree of creativity.
It also demands creativity to keep yourself interested in trying to create something fresh of Cristiano Ronaldo for example when you and everyone else has shot a gazillion frames of him over the years in his various permutations of joy, sulk and pout
I'd dispute we don't need the latest and greatest but, yes, we do only truly value them in quite a small range of specific areas like high ISO, AF and networking. Wide DR is something elsr that we do value though as we deal with a lot of uneven light in stadiums in both daylight (huge areas of dark shadow under big stands) and floodlight where the difference between the goal area and the rest of the pitch can be much bigger than expected. If you're struggling with exposure you have to go fully manual and continually ride it to stop even the best metering system making the wrong (often catastrophic) choice. As we deal in JPEGs rather than RAW we have to have it as right coming out of the camera as possible so more DR to be a bit more forgiving is important to us.
I'm not being a defender of the faith for Nikon and Canon but we do need someone to come up with a package that can better than what we've already got if we're to jump ship. 
The trouble is people like Sony and Fuji keep turning up to a gun fight with a knife. Even when they bring a gun they seem to overlook the bullets.
I have never seen any sports photographer pet their camera and declare undying love for it. On the contrary, most of the time they are being cursed so its not a fanboy thing by any stretch of the imagination that keeps us with them. 
Its just a fit for purpose thing.
And its on them to make something fitter for purpose rather than us to try and work round it.
Creatively or otherwise

I'm excited about the one that is supposed to cost £1000 as it lessens the "how f***ing much? for a f***ing phone?!"impact from the other half when I tell her I'm ordering a RED Hydrogen 

Yeah, this is pretty impressive stuff.  I'm used to Canon h264 footage, so this 3.5k raw stuff is a little difficult to comprehend.  Here's a dng still run through ACR.  

And thank you to Don Kotlos and maxotics for your explanations on the raw/log.  Makes total sense to me now.

Yeah, this is pretty impressive stuff.  I'm used to Canon h264 footage, so this 3.5k raw stuff is a little difficult to comprehend.  Here's a dng still run through ACR.  

And thank you to Don Kotlos and maxotics for your explanations on the raw/log.  Makes total sense to me now.

Almost everything we experience/measure, is either counting (linear) or some form of exponential (log).  We measure the sensor by counting (linear); that is how many photons have hit the sensel, but we generally express/measure the amount of light exponentially, like f-stops 1/1, 1/4, 1/9, 1/18, 1/32, 1/64 etc. (we put fractional stops in between).  That is, if we count 100 photons at one pixel, and 200 photons at another pixel, we generally don't come to the conclusion that the difference in light, measured through the inverse law https://petapixel.com/2016/06/02/primer-inverse-square-law-light/ is double in the second pixel. Double would actually be 400 photons!  In the real world, light behaves exponentially.  In our data world, we measure/or store number in a linear space.  Put another way, humans think in numbers for counting.  God thinks, or nature behaves, exponentially.
@cantsin can explain better than I why measuring light linearly, or I should say, using the sensor's linear readings at the low and high end generally mean you end up with a lot of useless data.  
Many of us have hashed this to death.  The core problem is you can't save 12 stops of full-color dynamic range in an 8-bit space.  It doesn't matter how those numbers are represented, LOG or otherwise.  The 8-bit space was designed for our viewing, not for our capturing.  LOG can't magically "compress" the sensor data into an 8-bit space.  It can help in telling you where you can trade off some data in one area for another, as Don mentions above, but the rub is the area you're getting a lot of noise is also the area you can least afford to lose if you're extending beyond the 6-8 stops you can capture in 8-bit!
LOG is also used in video processing to distort data into an 8-bit space.  Just to 'f' with us humans, LOG also does a better job of explaining light as we really experience it   Unfortunately, our computers, which are binary, don't work with data (like RAW sensor data) in LOG, let alone the decimal system   
As a side note, Canon RAW, being saved in 14 bits created huge problems for me (and others) in software development.  Everything in programming makes it easy to work with in bytes.  All electronics are based around that. It's easy to say, get me this byte, or two bytes.  To say/program get me this 14 bits...no fun.  Take my word for it !!!!  My guess is most cameras are based around 8-bit (1 byte chunk) storage.  The RAW ML works with is just a stream of bits, which again, you have to parse out into 14-bit chunks.  To make the data easy to work with in camera, or PC, they'd really need to make them 2-byte (16 bit) chunks.  Well, most small electronics do not use 16-bit processors.  You'll read many conspiracy theories about this stuff, but the mundane truth is our electronics aren't up to working with 12-stop (12 to 14-bit) dynamic range data.
 
 

In principle RAW should be data directly off from the A/D converter. But that is hardly the case for most manufacturers since there is always some level of processing, usually selective noise reduction and gain for each channel. I would say that RAW data right now refers to just non deBayered data + some metadata. Log space just means to calculate the log (or other log like function) of the high bitdepth pixel value before you conform it to a lower bitdepth in order to maximize the information that is captured in the lower part of intensity scale. 
So for example lets take 12 stops of light captured from the sensor and processed with an 12bit A/D converter:
 stop     1           2           3           4            5            6           7              8            9            10             11             12 
0           2           4           8          16          32          64         128         256         512        1024        2048        4096
if we were to scale that into 10 bits we would have these values:
0           1          1           2           4           8          16          32          64         128         256         512        1024
We just lost two stops of information in the shadows... So a log version of the original 14bit data, scaled to 10 bits would give:
 0      85         171         256         341         427         512         597         683         768         853         939        1024
And that results in no loss of dynamic range by spreading the values for each stop equally across the bit range. 
Of course things are a bit more complicated since the log function that is used has to take into account the sensitivity of the sensor, the color calibration and so on. For example you might want to assign more values to the midtones which most things are anyways, and less to the highlights. 

So while I'm out on a gig yesterday my wife sends me a pic of 3 boxes. Obviously I was excited! So first thing I do when I get home is get rid of the shipping bulk, right? Not at all excited about my new BMPCC, a 14mm f2.5 asph lens, and my Pebble Time watch. 
Then I did the responsible thing and finished working on a Toyota spot I'm editing, and by time that was done I was looking at 2130h. Ho boy. But y'know, I've been really excited about having a portable camera, and to hell with it, I'm going to film something! Wife and screaming kid wanted to come, so we all headed to a nearby tourist trap. 
Colour Version: 
 
 
B&W Version: 
 
 
Personally, I like the B&W better, but my wife argues for the colour version. 
Things I learned with this test:
1) It definitely keeps the info in RAW, but man do I never want to touch 1600iso ever again!
2) The 14mm isn't the best cinematic choice due to the amount of reflections it has in the lens flares. 
3) Shakycam is very real with this camera, even with using my tripod as mono- and bi-pod. 
Can't wait to shoot more projects with it, hopefully with more planning and light involved!
 
 

The thing is Magic Lantern's option for 8bit RAW at ISO 6400 makes perfect sense as the sensor isn't delivering more than 8 stops dynamic range at that ISO any way
So to cut the data rate and save some card space in low light it is a good option.