EOSHD

Hope at some point we can have un-crippled firmware for the 1D(X) series of cameras. Magic Lantern developers are acting like scared cats because allegedly someone at Canon said 'No'[1] and no one questioned it. In theory developing third-party software for devices is legal if the 'finished product' does not contain material copyrighted by the original vendor. [1]: https://www.eoshd.com/news/1d-x-has-traces-of-1d-c-firmware-but-magic-…

Given that this looks to be a Canon 5Ds I would have been more surprised if the card didn't survive. This is what the body of the camera looks like underneath the skin: https://www.eoshd.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/canon-5ds.jpg From the animated GIF it looks like the fire wasn't very hot, and most of the damage was just the plastic lens hood melting over the front element.

It's early days for H.265, but it's very promising, both in terms of file size and image quality. For encoding 4K video it seems to be an absolute necessity. This article has a paragraph about H.265 from the standpoint of a professional photographer: http://www.eoshd.com/2014/11/samsung-nx1-review-glory-technology/.

With all due respect, this event was literally over a decade ago so yes I apologize that I got some numbers/info wrong, but the light derision at the end is unnecessary. I distinctly remember the firmware update they did making it so you couldn’t boot magic lantern on the 5d3 which caused a problem for us on a shoot where we had the raw pipeline ready to go. I thought it was broader. Clearly my memory is mistaken, I was just using an example that I (apparently incorrectly) recalled. https://www.eoshd.com/news/canon-blocking-magic-lantern-latest-5d-mark… I was and still am a big fan of the project. I have a t3i still in service because of it. But it is disappointing to receive the tail end of that comment from your account you apparently made just because I gave a quick, flawed example to make a larger point that in no way reflected on your efforts or magic lantern. It was to illustrate how quickly things can go south if a company determines to make it so. Which it sounds like is currently the case with Canon. Appreciate the clarification nonetheless and have a nice weekend. I know it wasn’t the rudest thing online but for some reason your tone there just kind of got to me. Apologies if it seems like an overreaction. I was a long time admirer of your work so that’s probably why

> I don't know of any 24-32-bit per channel sensors, and that's what you'd need. Dynamic range doesn't require bit depth. You can have an 8 bit sensor with 20 stops of dynamic range. You'll lose color/luminance resolution of course but as long as 255 is capturing a light that's 2^20 times stronger than 0 that's 20 stops of dynamic range. But more than that theoretical point there are already sensors pushing well beyond what humans can do in terms of dynamic range. Apparently humans have a respectable 10 stops and sensors are already in the 15 to 20 stop range and pushing beyond it: https://www.eoshd.com/2014/11/new-sony-sensor-21-stops-dynamic-range-5… To map it into 16bit values you can just use a curve to distribute the bit depth unevenly across the dynamic range. Older DSLRs did that to get perfectly usable images with just 10 bits per channel.