Today, reading specs for this camera I've found something interesting under the "File type" section (page #3):
Image Size RAW: (RAW) 5184x3456, (M-RAW) 3888x2592, (S-RAW) 2592x1728
Somewhere on the net I've also found that this feature probably were removed from firmware... Do you think it is possible to bring that feature back through ML?
Yep... but 50/50 whether the raws will be readable by most software or purple. Supposedly hung/crashed on some cameras, I only tired on 600D with no ill effects (besides them sucking).
Maybe someone wants to make an interpreter for the hobbled raws first? Otherwise not so useful.
>>>Maybe someone wants to make an interpreter for the hobbled raws first?
I wish I could say that I can do this, but... I'm only familiar with Python and have no clue on how interpretation of raw data works... Still, if it's something that even noob like me can learn, then I'll be glad to help.
The main question is: Where is the beef? Just using mRAW/sRAW because it's there? Where are the benefits?
Smaller size? I'm not enthusiastic about that.
Ciao, Walter
Take a look:
Mraw
http://www.qfpost.com/file/d?g=a9E4bTAyx (http://www.qfpost.com/file/d?g=a9E4bTAyx)
Sraw:
http://www.qfpost.com/file/d?g=jvmc1eIyd (http://www.qfpost.com/file/d?g=jvmc1eIyd)
They can open with ufraw... mraw has the sizing problem.
Walter Schulz, why not? Maybe even just for fun. I agree -- saving ~10 MB/photo may be not that helpful, but sometimes file size may be of an issue. E.g., for my kit lens full RAW is overabundant, the lens simply doesn't produce that level of detail.
1%, thank you for samples. BTW, there's not only sizing problem in M-RAW (if you meant resolution of 7776x1296): both RAWs have previews in L-sized JPEGs, so there's less benefit from using lower-size RAWs.
P.S. I've looked at these raws in FastStone Image Viewer.
P.P.S. I wonder whether disabling storage of preview will speed things up, which may be more useful for people: in burst mode one possibly could take more pictures than otherwise (since there's no additional processing of JPEGs).
Quote from: cihub on March 12, 2013, 02:16:48 PMfor my kit lens full RAW is overabundant, the lens simply doesn't produce that level of detail.
Sounds like an argument but fails. If your lens is defect it won't be fixed by ML. Get a good sample and your "problem" is solved.
Ciao, Walter
>>>Sounds like an argument but fails.
I know, but if there was such a feature, why not try to bring it back?
In any case, I'll continue to read about CR2. BTW, I've read somewhere that Canon cameras that have one (5D) or two numbers (60D) in their name, had been able to save M- and S-RAW since 2007, so maybe comparing images from those cameras to 600D/650D could lit some light.
It probably works on all of them... just results in the actual pics will vary.
I've bricked my 5D2 with this (took me 2 hours to revive it), seen corrupted bitmaps on 550D, so... be warned.
Risk to reward isn't good here especially with the added hassle of unsupported raws.
I liked the flexibility of raw data! Actually I shot 95% of the time in raw
I upgraded from a rebel xt to a rebel t4i
Data storage was not a problem till I reach t4i
Very often I end up with more than 20 gb of information with the t4i before I convert those files to jpg, and that without mention that those huge raw files clog up my computer :(
If s-raw or m-raw were enabled that would save me from upgrading to a 60d or a possible 70d
Greedy Canon's people -.-
I will keep checking from time to time magic lantern forums about mraw or sraw topics looking for this feature to be enabled
ml for 650d released or not ?