GPL Firmware For Canon 5D Mk II Adds Features For Filmmakers 117
tramm writes "I've released an extension for the Canon 5D Mark II DSLR's video mode to enable functions that are useful for independent film makers. While the camera produces a great movie out of the box, the audio is a severely limited. My code adds features that should have been in the software, like on-screen stereo audio meters, live audio monitoring, reduced audio noise and crop marks for different formats. An introductory video shows the new features in use and an audio evaluation compares it to the stock firmware with very good results. It's similar to the incredibly flexible CHDK software for Canon's point-and-shoot cameras, but targeted at the film makers using the 5D. The Magic Lantern firmware is GPLed and new features will be written to make the camera even more useful on set. There is a wiki for documentation and development."
Now, if companies made products like they should.. (Score:2, Interesting)
Sounds complicated and admittedly, I know very little about this, but congrats anyway.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not a video camera, so why? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Not a video camera, so why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why not? Plus - it's 'better' than HD (Score:5, Informative)
Why not?
It's possible, they can do it, so why not do it? I, for one, welcome custom camera firmwares. The more the merrier - I know I had a reply on Slashdot before where I asked if there was a programmable camera; lo and behold, there is.. and there's some very fun projects coming out of it. Why let the camera maker dictate what you can do with the camera, when you know that it is physically capable of so much more? E.g. why limit exposure times to 2 seconds, when there's no physical reason you couldn't keep the shutter open for an hour? )
As for HD.. an HD camera, 1080i/p, is 1920x1080.
The 5D Mark 2 is 5616x3744. That's larger than 4K cinema. Let me put it differently.. that's larger than practically every single movie you see on 'the big screen' today (which are often finished at 2K, or post-effected at 2K and upressed to 3K).
Sure, a consumer might not exactly -need- 4K. I'm not so sure they need HD - non-'HD' youtube resolution seems to be just fine for most people. But, again, it's possible.. so why not?
RED, at one point, decided that movies could he shot all-digital and made their behemoths based around fairly expensive sensors... now Canon, Nikon, Kodak, SONY, etc. are realizing that their sensors are getting fast enough to do movies as well.. and they're taking full advantage of it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> The 5D Mark 2 is 5616x3744.
Maybe for stills, but the video output is 'only' 1080 lines - and it seems to achieve this by skipping 2 out of every 3 lines of sensor data leading to aliasing problems. But there are ways around this and it's certainly becoming an extremely popular camera for amateur (and some pro) filmmaking.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
No, not binning. Binning wouldn't look as bad as it does. It must be skipping entire lines to look as bad as it does. If you analyze a zone plate image through the camera, you can see this quite clearly.
The only way this aliasing can be reduced is to mis-focus the camera, or put aggressive filtering on the lens (or replace the existing OLPF with one designed for the video mode).
Videos and stills (Score:4, Informative)
You can also make some videos with stills.
See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2fNQppJqXw&feature=PlayList&p=F3C868A21F33E198&index=0 [youtube.com]
(do get the HD videos, they're MUCH better)
I recall the slashdot story saying that many of us can't see the Milky Way at night, but that's not true - we can see it on Youtube.
And we can even see beautiful sunrises from our basements ;).
FWIW those camera sensors and lenses are better then my eyes in terms of quality of picture.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It might record 1080p (1920x1080) but the measured horizontal resolution is much more like 1400 or so... So not even full 1080p. If you actually try to shoot something with high detail so you can actually see that resolution, the result is ugly because of the line skipping, you get false colors appearing, and it sort of twitters and jumps as the detail falls into the rows that got skipped.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I, for one, welcome custom camera firmwares
I would too. I'm a photographer and a pro embedded software writer, but I have no idea how to write (or, better, 'correct') a firmware for a camera. I have written out long lists of suggestions to the makers of my cameras [gdargaud.net], obviously to no avail. Some things would be trivial one liners in the firmware code. But how do you get started ? Can you decompile a firmware update ? Probably not. Can you get the source code of a Nikon/Canon/Ricoh/etc firmware ? Probably not.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A RED has superior resolution, vastly less aliasing, more choice of frame rates etc. etc. Overall, a better picture.
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
Superior resolution (slightly), freely adjustable frame rate; sure. Aliasing can be controlled with filters. RED One is an amazing camera. But do compare the price: for less than 10k you get 5D mk II and a very respectable set of high quality primes, maybe a good zoom too. You need to spend around 80k to get same with RED setup.
But no matter what, mk2 performs much better in low light. It might not be an issue if you have professional lighting and can control the scene, but for most people it's a big b
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Horizontally, the Canon measures less than half the measured resolution of a RED One. That's not slightly different, that's vastly different. I'd love to see how you can control the aliasing produced by the line skipping with external filters. Even if you could put a filter on blurry enough to do so, you'd now be into sub-HD territory with the resolution.
As for performing better in low light, you can't even brighten up the shadows on something you've shot because it all just looks like macroblocks! The code
Re: (Score:2)
A RED has superior resolution, vastly less aliasing, more choice of frame rates etc. etc. Overall, a better picture.
the RED ONE (body only) costs $17,500
the 5D (body only) costs $2,999
because of the great difference in price, I would expect the RED to give much better results than the 5D, but I only see a very slight difference in image quality, despite the huge difference in price.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I read a BBC blog that the present HD video equipment they have can only do single-plane focused images, and that good depth of field is difficult because of sensor noise and sensitivity. So to have a good set of lenses and a highly sensitive low-noise frame (and good sound recording) at the price of a 5DmkII would be a tremendous asset.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a sound guy, so my main complaints are that it doesn't have balanced wiring for the au
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you can drop 50 grand on a multicamera Genlock setup, drift will always be potential issue with multicamera shoots. In my experience even the cheapest usable cameras may only drif
Re: (Score:2)
With regard to striping: This has actually come up in an experiment, and mpeg-compressed audio simply doesn't capture SMPTE timecode. It smears out the data words and you just end up with a tonal mush. Also, you can't insert edit on these cameras, so you can't pre-stripe or do record-run; you can only do free run.
So, even if you can get the recording to work, you'll need about 5 seconds of leader before a slate at the head of the take for the synchronizer in the online bay to rechase, which is a finicky p
Re: (Score:2)
Why not just use a balancing transformer at the input just like the mic has inside to create its balanced outs anyway.
Further balancing really only helps on very long cable runs, and for using 48V phantom, which can be done by injecting at the above mentioned transformer.
An XLR is a relatively heavy large connector with a few disadvantages when used including damage to the device it is attached to due to its weight.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The current trend is very much to do high-quality photography and video with the same camera body. I expect that in the range we're dealing with (mid-range), we'll soon see a complete convergence with the sale of HD-video only cameras disappearing entirely. It makes sense if you think about it too. The quality of lenses available for SLR cameras is very good and readily available. So while today the 5D has video as an afterthought, the future cameras will be natively built for good, high-quality, HD vid
Re: (Score:2)
Why would anyone use this camera to make an independent film?
the sensor size of 5D is the same as a piece of 35mm film, meaning you get much lower noise in low light. Most importantly, you get a film-like depth of field in your shots. This 'film-like' depth of field is a big deal for low budget filmmakers. Also, using SLR lenses gives the film maker far more flexibility and control of their shots, and a SLR lens will give you significantly better results. less barrel distortion, less chromatic aberration, and sharper pictures.
The Canon 5D mark II is a game changer
DSLR video... (Score:4, Interesting)
Wow, sounds like you've added some great functionality. Interesting read.
I have a T1i- the little brother to the 5d Mark II. Any thought on firmware for this model?
Aside from not being full frame, it also only does 1080P video @ 20FPS... I understand that it *can* do 30 but Canon crippled it as to not encroach on the 5D market. Has anyone seen any "updated" firmware to crank the frames for the T1i? :)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Aside from not being full frame, it also only does 1080P video @ 20FPS... I understand that it *can* do 30 but Canon crippled it as to not encroach on the 5D market. Has anyone seen any "updated" firmware to crank the frames for the T1i? :)
I wouldn't be surprised to see CHDK come out with an un-crippled 1080P video mode for the T1I/500D. There's unfortunately a hardware-based dealbreaker for that system, though: no external mic input at all. Ugh. Making it pretty much useless for anything beyond home videos, as the on-camera mic is mono, noisy, and low-quality.
Panasonic GH1 & Consumer Video (Score:3, Informative)
This GPL'd firmware sounds cool and the 5D2 is a cool camera. However, people who are interested in getting one solely for video should also look at the Panasonic GH1: it has stepless aperture control (with the right lens) and is in general made for video, unlike the 5D2 which has half-afterthought video.
The reason I mention the GH1 is that it's really the first digital system camera that's 1) Made for video 2) Costs below 1500-2000 euros. It would be nice if the firmware hack people could do it for some other brands than Canon too though...
The models won't matter soon though: all of this points to high quality video soon being available from lots of companies for anyone with 1000 euros to spend. Essentially, anyone with a decent income can soon only blame themselves for their video footage sucking.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Except that the sensor size in the GH1 is much smaller than that in the 5D, so if you want to use a smaller DOF, you are going to have more problems on the GH1 than on a 5D with something like a Canon 85mm f/1.2. That same lens on the GH1 is going to be much less useful.
Re: (Score:1)
I won't deny that the 5D2 has a significantly larger potential depth of field range. However, I do doubt that that thin depth of field is all that usable. Your example, the 85mm 1:1.2 will have VERY thin depth of field wide open - basically,
Re: (Score:2)
True, but a counter argument is that if you want larger DOF, the sensor size advantage of the 5D will be offset by the need for a smaller aperture which puts pressure on either the sensitivity or shutter speed.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the 5D2 is a groundbreaking camera in the area of incredibly shallow DOF video. Otherwise, it sucks. Up until now, videographers haven't been hamstrung lacking the ability to shoot 35mm frame sizes with a 85 f/1.2. It's just an excuse to trumpet a Canon product.
Re: (Score:2)
Putting a Letus Ultimate 35mm adapter on your video camera gives you the same DOF capabilities.
That's really a non-issue. (Score:1)
The greater depth of field of the GH1 is by no means a disadvantage. The idea that a camera like the GH1 is somehow crippled because it's DOF is wider is just an internets camera measurebator myth. The lenses needed for a sensor of the size of the GH1's are large enough to produce perfectly fine background blur, and you'll get more of your subject in focus thanks to the greater DOF. The larger sensor cameras shallower depth of field is in nearly every case a disadvantage, though one that they make up for
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, it's not the same price point, but the 5D2 just beats the crap out of the GH1 for anything that should look professional.
Take a look at Reverie (TFV), and tell me if it would have been possible with GH1's sensor size.
Does the Panasonic GH1 support software freedom? (Score:2)
Will the Panasonic GH1 run free software firmware like the Canon 5D Mark II apparently can? If not, I don't see the advantage. The story says that these hackers added features Canon didn't; that's added value to me. That makes me want to consider a Canon 5D Mark II for a camera purchase. Thanks to their work, I am not dependent on Canon in the way I am dependent on a proprietor for other hardware which lacks free software firmware. Even if these hackers stop developing that firmware anyone willing to l
Related story (Score:5, Interesting)
This wasn't automatically picked up by slashdot's "related story" thingy:
http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/05/06/2032216 [slashdot.org]
Most active forum - cinema5d.com (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Most active forum - cinema5d.com (Score:5, Funny)
I once a whole 5D-II forum with a lot of activity.
I'll never do that again.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It shames me to say it but yes, the whole thing.
No love for the 10d-50d series? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not quite sure of the point of chkdk. I have an S5 (next model up from you). It makes the start-up ridiculously long, and it comes up in preview mode. I tried it for RAW on my last holiday, but found it used ridiculous amounts of space (not surprising) and increased my post-trip processing time immensely. I only used two of the RAWs. These cameras have such noisy sensors that it's to much work dealing with it afterwards and the in-camera processing is generally good enough. If you want better, get
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't say it was. Read the parent. The camera he mentioned has a better sensor, but in all other ways is a predecessor of the S5.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You might want re-read the parent post. It contains the following: "I have the CHDK firmware for my S3IS which is awesome;"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Canon CHDK awesome (Score:1)
Not only does Canon let the consumer play around with the firmware they encourage it, as far as CHDK goes there are tons of parameters if its not working the way you want it to its your fault. I have taken shots of lightning where the motion detection script responds in 110ms. To take advantage of RAW (CRW file format) you have to be a borderline pro photographer and know how to convert them to DNG, preserving the 10 bit color, and then I use RawTherapee and possibly GIMP.
complete Canon EOS 5D Mark II coverage (Score:1)
Ok, honest question here... (Score:1)
Can anyone explain to me what exactly is the fascination with QuickTime MOV format?
Kodak's cameras record video in MOV. Apparently Canon's cameras also record video in MOV.
It's a PITA because Apple is so stingy about licensing the codecs for its QuickTime formats (no, I don't want to buy QuickTime Pro). It makes it a major inconvenience if I want to actually edit the clips. So, why do I have to put up with this?
Sorry if this seems like a rant. If there's some reason why MOV seems to be favoured, I'm honestl
Re: (Score:1)
My Canon S3 records in AVI format, but my old Olympus camera recorded in .MOV.
I always figured that Apple has a relatively cheap and easy-to-implement authoring code API or something that makes it easy for the bean counters to approve of.
Some cameras have basic editing functionality built into the firmware, but yeah it sucks that it's not in a more open format.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
MOV is actually a fairly good format. It may not be open but NOTHING in the higher-end video editing spectrum is.
Why? It's just a container. What's inside is what's significant (as Anonymous Coward pointed out below), so how is MOV better than any other container format?
I'd often have people who'd recorded it on their digital cameras email me there videos and these were more often than not in .MOV format.
Thus illustrating my question. Why do so many cameras record in MOV?!
Me thinks you should stop putting videos of your brilliant nights out on Youtube
Actually, YouTube had no problem transcoding the videos my camera recorded, but if I wanted to edit them first, I'd have had to buy a video editing package that would have been serious overkill for my purposes.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
MOV format is not that much of a problem. after all, it is very similar to MP4 container. What's important is the codec used for the video and in case of 5D Mark II it is H.264 (aka MPEG-4 AVC). There's no problem processing this in most video editing software.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
MOV is just a container format. It's really all h.264. Demuxing the stream is easy and very fast and there are free tools to do that. VLC plays/converts it out of the box. VirtualDub can load it with a plugin.
There's absolutely no reason to use QuickTime Pro.
Re: (Score:2)
VLC plays/converts it out of the box.
I had no end of trouble trying to get VLC to convert my Kodak's MOV videos. Trying to convert into MPEG 1, mp1v/mpga just gives a ffmpeg error.
I seem to remember finding a 2-step conversion that actually worked (I was able to successfully convert them into some absurdly large format, can't remember which one, then convert that into MPEG), but I can't remember it any more and if I had to convert one of them today I'm sure I'd have no end of trouble figuring out how to do it again.
Re: (Score:2)
FWIW, the MOV videos were in mp4v/ulaw, not h.264.
Re: (Score:1)
I tried to play it on a Windows machine (I don't own a Mac) and I only got a "-2048" error that "QuickTime doesn't understand the file format". I tried installing every codec package I know of and used different players (Windows Media Player, Media Player Classic, VLC...). I did the whole thing on different PCs without success.
On some forums I read that there are problems with playing HD QuickTime under Windows. Does anyone kn
Open Source? (Score:2)
This is a great camera - just needs a nudge or two (Score:1)
I own the 5D Mark II and I love it, especially since Canon recently released the firmware to enable ISO, Aperature and Shutter Speed control in video mode. I work on indie film and professional video and I can tell you that even though this isn't a "video" camera, the full-frame sensor and the Canon line of lenses, especially the high-end primes, are a wonderful combination. Such shallow depth of field, such great color reproduction, and great low light sensitivity.
Most prosumer / consumer HD cameras can't
Shameless Self-Promotion (Score:1, Troll)
But given that its GPL code I will mute my criticism that this post is put up by the author, and not a more neutral review site.
Re:My my my me me me .... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:My my my me me me .... (Score:5, Informative)
Yup it's cool, but...
if you are a indie film maker, why are you using a DSLR instead of a HD video camera that will shoot better video for less money?
I'd rather have XLR mic in and record real audio than use a DSLR as a video camera.
Re:My my my me me me .... (Score:5, Informative)
Because there are no HD video cameras that shoot better video for less money? Indeed, to even be on par you'd need to spend quite a bit more.
Until you get close to the 6 figure range you won't get a sensor as large as the one in the 5D. Even if you forego sensor size and just want decent optics to resolve the kind of detail HD video is capable of showing you'll more than double the price of the 5D and attendant L lenses.
You are right that the audio is lacking, and while this firmware allows some control, it can't address the cause directly.
Re:My my my me me me .... (Score:5, Informative)
Well, the red beats this thing handily and it can be had for under twenty grand.
The thing is that when you do video you don't get the full sensor. These cameras->video tricks do a sort of reverse interleaving. The chips themselves don't run more than 10fps. So the camera uses line 1 for frame 1, line 2 for frame 2, line 3 for frame 3, line 1 for frame 4, and so on. The practical upshot is that the 5k sensor gets knocked down to a thousand lines of resolution rather quickly. But then, because you're literally moving boundaries each frame, these weird aliasing artifacts appear. The quickest way to see them on the 5D is to take the camera and pan it right/left quickly, you'll see the image going all wavy. Some of the effect is the rolling shutter but it exposes the how the software is actually making the image.
So, you can't move the camera unless you're very very careful. You might as well shoot slates and sync audio in post as deal with the onboard stuff. The camera can't record longer than five minute takes because of a provision under Japanese export law that would make it officially a video camera. None of these problems are insurmountable but they're certainly there.
That being said, I have a friend who's planning on shooting a feature this fall on one of these things. I think he's crazy, but it's the crazy people who change the world. :P
Re:My my my me me me .... (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, that was my 'more than double the price' option. And my 100k option beats a Red, handily.
People keep mentioning Red cameras but I doubt they've ever used one. As a former owner of an early Red 1 I can tell you it was nice, but only when it worked, which wasn't nearly often enough. If they (ever) launch their new models the same way you won't be hearing much from them any more. Or, if established players like Canon and Nikon seriously target their market, same deal.
Re: (Score:2)
Look at the images here: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=175113 [dvxuser.com] and tell me the 5D2 looks better. The 5D2 images are ugly.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. If you'd like a body alone. Not sure how much film-making you'll do with that...
You want a lens? Maybe even two? Most RED lenses are in the 5-10,000 range. How about some power? A viewfinder? Storage? You'll be looking at over thirty grand, up to forty without breaking a sweat.
DSLR Video - Why? (Score:1)
The DOF control with a large sensor is simply amazing. To get similar quality of video with such DOF control you need a 50000$ cam
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
There is a XLR adapter for the EOS 5D Mark II. It's made by Beachtek [planet5d.com].
Yes indeed. And it http://www.adorama.com/VDBDXA5D.html [slashdot.org]">costs about $375, which ain't cheap but combined with the Canon 5D it's still under $3,000, or with the Pentax K7 under $1,700.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Three words: Depth. Of. Field. Without these [letusdirect.com]...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yup it's cool, but...
if you are a indie film maker, why are you using a DSLR instead of a HD video camera that will shoot better video for less money?
I don't think there is any "HD video camera that will shoot better video for less money". Do you know of any that costs $2,500 and has a sensor even close to as big and good-in-low-light as the Canon 5D Mark II? Or as many affordable lens choices?
I recently particpated in the 48 Hour Film Project [48hourfilm.com] in Washington, DC. A few of the submitted films were shot on the Canon 5D Mark II DSLR. The image quality was phenomenal, blowing away MiniDV and as good as some of the groups that had $10k+ of pro equipment.
Pe
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There are only 2 advantages to using XLR mic inputs.
1. XLR mics usually have a balanced output, helping with noise cancellation on long cable runs,
and giving twice the effective signal voltage of an unbalanced mic. This really is only an advantage with long runs of cable.
2. Condenser XLR mics can be powered from 48V phantom power which is possible due to haveing 2 signal conductors. Otherwise the mic must be run off a battery giving much less output.
I have at times had to use balanced XLR mics with
an unba
Re: (Score:2)
There are only 2 advantages to using XLR mic inputs.
1. XLR mics usually have a balanced output, helping with noise cancellation on long cable runs,
and giving twice the effective signal voltage of an unbalanced mic. This really is only an advantage with long runs of cable.
I've heard this issue before. How long is a "long run"?
2. Condenser XLR mics can be powered from 48V phantom power which is possible due to haveing 2 signal conductors. Otherwise the mic must be run off a battery giving much less output.
This one I hadn't heard. I've just read the wikipedia article on phantom power for condenser microphones. It doesn't seem like a great deal of current is required (10 mA max). Can this issue be alleviated by using lower-voltage DC power from batteries?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeh, not a lot of power is required for phantom mics, but a the higher the voltage the higher the
output level. This has an obvious signal to noise benefit.
Having used such mikes powered by 1.5v batteries which they have provision for in the abscence of phantom,I was very surprised by the improvement when phantom powered.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you should reconsider terminology; the 5D mk II isn't just a DSLR. It's a DSLR that shoots amazing video.
Have you seen this? http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&articleID=2326 [canon.com]
And recall that as you view that movie, it's running at 1/4 resolution.
Saying, "I'd rather have XLR mic in and record real audio than use a DSLR as a video camera" is just being ill-informed about the capabilities of the 5D mk II. I'd rather use an adapter and record real video with the 5D mk II. My b
Re: (Score:2)
Even an indie film maker would most likely use a separately synced/recorded audio track... I wouldn't bother with the camera's audio input.
Re: (Score:2)
If I was an indie film maker I'd rent the gear ; ). Why? If you buy all the equipment you need (lights, cameras, mics etc etc etc) you'll have a mortgage and you aren't going to ever pay for it before it's fully depreciated (aka obsolete) unless you have a smash hit on your hands, and most importantly, you can simply rent the best gear there is for less than the down payment on gear that's half as good and walk out of the project with no monthly payment.
Why settle? I know 2 indy film makers and they both re