I noticed there is a new (2013-Oct-4) cr2hdr.zip with refreshed cr2hdr.exe and dcraw.exe
I'm wondering if the changes make any different to the image quality of the resulting .dng's. If so, would it be worth using the new cr2hdr.exe to reprocess older .cr2's that used DUAL_ISO?
FWIW: My speculation is that if newer versions of cr2hdr improve image quality of DUAL_ISO images, then the original .cr2 is now the "master", and the corresponding .dng isn't really the equivalent of a "matching master". Or not?
Would it be feasible/appropriate to somehow note or highlight that a new version of cr2hdr.exe improves image quality? Perhaps with some kind of naming convention? Or something the equivalent of PV2010 changing to PV2012?
According to the changelog, the latest IQ updates were in late August:
https://bitbucket.org/hudson/magic-lantern/commits/all?search=cr2hdr
Latest updates were mostly about shots that could not be converted at all (e.g. little overlap between the two ISOs, dark shots, outliers and stuff like that).
Quick check: take an image that had some issues, and check whether it's better now.
offtopic: I'm thinking to setup a web page with some relevant test shots, and how they were rendered by various versions. I already have a collection of around 50 tricky shots (e.g. resolution charts, blown highlights, subjects prone to aliasing and other stuff like that).
+1 for the web page
Quote from: a1ex on October 05, 2013, 07:58:09 PM
According to the changelog, the latest IQ updates were in late August:
https://bitbucket.org/hudson/magic-lantern/commits/all?search=cr2hdr
I'm fuzzy on what the comments for the latest/greatest cr2hdr.exe from Oct 11, 2013 mean, but they do seem to indicate that this version could result in .dng's with better IQ compared to using previous versions of cr2hdr.exe.
Or not?
Look here: http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=7139.msg82140#msg82140
If you have anything that has artifacts like the before/after shots from that post, it's probably worth giving it a try.