Menu

Show posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Show posts Menu

Messages - chris88

#1
Scripting Corner / Re: Lua Scripting (lua.mo)
October 29, 2021, 11:58:16 PM
Just for the records how I as an Canon 6D V1.1.6 owner was able to enable the "Junkie Menu" and fixed the dual-iso error message:

Enable Junkie Menu
I added the following code line at the very end of the file /magic-lantern/platform/6D.116/features.h
#define FEATURE_JUNKIE_MENU



Fix the dual-iso error "ISOless PH err(3)"
I modified the following code lines in /magic-lantern/modules/dual_iso/dual_iso.c

Original:
FRAME_CMOS_ISO_START = 0x40452196; // CMOS register 0003 - for LiveView, ISO 100 (check in movie mode, not photo!)
...
PHOTO_CMOS_ISO_START = 0x40450E08; // CMOS register 0003 - for photo mode, ISO 100

Fixed:
FRAME_CMOS_ISO_START = 0x404e6196; // CMOS register 0003 - for LiveView, ISO 100 (check in movie mode, not photo!)
...
PHOTO_CMOS_ISO_START = 0x404e4e08; // CMOS register 0003 - for photo mode, ISO 100


Both things I found out by digging in the source code of different branches and searching through various forum threads. As always, everything you are doing, you are doing on your own risk. Don't blame me!
#2
Scripting Corner / Re: Lua Scripting (lua.mo)
October 29, 2021, 12:12:12 AM
Just wanna let you know (because there is the request to "report back" on the experimental page) the issues I discovered on my Canon 6D with the latest LUA Fix build (2020-12-28 18:15)

- Junkie Mode can not be activated by pressing "MENU" button
- DualIso LUA Module is not running. I constantly get "ISOless PH err(3)"
- In image review settings, the Quick erase via SET+Erase only works when there is a "Action type" defined in "play mode actions". If "Action type" is set to OFF but Quick Erase is still set, the quick erase does not work

Best regards,
Chris
#3
Can anyone involved in development please make a statement why the nightly builds are no longer updated since 2018? This is pretty sad  :'(. Thanks
#4
Hmm, that's really too bad.
But hey, thanks a lot for looking into it. Thought we might have a chance - but I didn't know that the MPU will disrupt my plan.

Chris
#5
Hello everyone,
I had an idea this morning which is about "exposure offset correction".

Introduction:
For my taste the Canon 6D which I own often produces slightly underexposed images. So I often adjust my exposure to +1/3EV by standard. As I do so nearly every time, I am not using my light meter in the viewfinder like intended. Instead of setting it to "zero" to get the right exposure I need to set it to +1/3 EV every time. This is not the worst thing ever, but it feels slightly irritating doing so. Therefore the best thing which I could think of is to be able to offset adjust the exposure measurement to my taste.
Now, since some weeks I have bought a third party focusing screen and noticed that the pictures are looking even darker with the new focusing screen. In the Canon menu I can adjust my cameras exposure perception by  the customer function C.Fn III where I can choose between three presets for the following Canon focusing screens: Eg-AII, Eg-D, Eg-S. But none of those three presets seem to really fit to my third party focusing screen. So again, the best thing which I could think of is to be able to offset adjust the exposure measurement to my taste.

The Idea:
Can't we use the same way as the customer function for focusing screen selection uses to set exposure offset corrections to set our own "exposure offset"?
So, is it possible to identify which registers are modified by the customer function for focusing screen selection and then write down our own values in there?
This way we might be able to tune our cameras to an exposure perception which also fits our own, very individual taste.

What do you think?
Would this be possible?
And if yes, who is willing to help developing such a functionality?

Many thanks is advance and best regards,
Chris
#6
Thanks Danne for your suggestion. Unfortunately I do not have a MA. But maybe this will be useful one day...

#7
Perfect. Thank you so much for your help. I think hereby all my questions are answered. Maybe there is a possibility to link to the newest version, because searching for DualIso will lead you to the thread where the old version is linked.

So, thanks again.
Dankeschön Walter :-)
#8
Oh, thank you for this information,
I only found the thread mentioned, but did not know that there is a newer version of the plugin available. With the supplied cr2hdr (in the bin directory) [Version 1779727 from 2015-09-30] all is working well. But I do not know if it is now 20bit or not, because there is no option anymore to choose from.

By the way: I also cannot compress the DNG file. Is this normal that I can not choose this from the options? (grayed out)
#9
Sure,
I used the version of cr2hdr from here:

http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=11056.0

So the setup was:
Lightroom Dual ISO Converter 2.1
Lightroom Dual ISO Converter (cr2hdr) plugin (v3.0 BETA3).
Adobe Lightroom CC Version 2015.7

In the plugin I have chosen (via the export dialog):
1) For the first picture "cr2hdr (classic)"
2) For the second picture "cr2hdr-20bit (Experimental)"

The original footage can be found here:
http://www.file-upload.net/download-12038109/IMG_5983.CR2.html

I had a lot of pictures, but as the other conversions were all OK, I saw the banding issue with the 20bit version in this picture. So I thought this report might be helpful in development.
#10
Good evening,
I did not read 115 pages, but today I played with the Dual-ISO feature and got an interesting banding issue when using the new 20bit conversion.

Here the result with the classic cr2hdr:


Here the result when converting with the cr2hdr-20bit :



My question now is: Why do I get such a bad result with the 20bit converter?

Best regards,
Chris
#11
Camera-specific Development / BUG?
May 17, 2016, 09:54:37 PM
Hmm,
I'm missing the "Highlight Tone Priority" setting within the ISO submenu of the latest nightly of ML.

Bug or feature?
#12
Hi a1ex,
thank you for your answer. I hope that there will be someone who has the skills to try this. I would do it myself, but unfortunately I don't have any clue of C, not any clue of Linux, no clue of compiling. Also I do not have a second camera, so I have no possibility to use LED blinks for debugging. The last point is the biggest show stopper for me, because I can not afford to disable my camera. And as I am totally inexperienced, I am sure this would happen. So I hope there will be someone who is able to support with this. But as I have seen that the same question was raised by ptygmit in 2014 ( http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=3904.msg109369#msg109369 ) I do not have much confidence that there will be a solution in the next time.

Chris
#13
I would suggest to make the GPS Power Safe feature more customizable and therefore usable.

Introduction:
There are several modes:

Mode 1: Normal Operation
Mode 2: Auto Power Off (timer)
Mode 3: Power Off (by physical pówer switch)

And between the modes there are several possible transitions.

Transition Mode 1 -> Mode 2 is timer based
Transition Mode 2 -> Mode 3 is done by the power switch
Transition Mode 1 -> Mode 3 is also done by the power switch

And also important, the "reactivation" transition from standby back to normal:
Transition Mode 2 -> Mode 1 can be done by pressing e.g. the shutter button


Current ML functionality:
Currently GPS Power Safe can be switched ON or OFF. If "on" then the GPS works like this:

Transition Mode 1 -> Mode 2 is timer based, GPS is switched OFF
Transition Mode 2 -> Mode 3 is done by the power switch, GPS is switched OFF
Transition Mode 1 -> Mode 3 is also done by the power switch, GPS is switched OFF

BUT when switching from standby back to normal:
Transition Mode 2 -> Mode 1 can be done by pressing e.g. the shutter button, GPS is turned back on but needs some time (~30-60s) to find the satellites. Until the satellites are found, no GPS data is written to the image files. This means that after waking up the camera you have to wait 30-60s to be able to shoot geotagged images - this is a no-go!


Solution:

Adding a new GPS Power Safe mode which works like this:

Transition Mode 1 -> Mode 2 is timer based, GPS still remains ON
Transition Mode 2 -> Mode 3 is done by the power switch, GPS is switched OFF
Transition Mode 1 -> Mode 3 is also done by the power switch, GPS is switched OFF

This way switching from standby back to normal will be no problem:
Transition Mode 2 -> Mode 1 can be done by pressing e.g. the shutter button, as the GPS is still active it does not need any initialization time to find the satellites. Therefore there is no delay when taking geotagged images. This is how it should work!


The Canon-Way
Switching the original Canon GPS functionality to "on" means:

Transition Mode 1 -> Mode 2 is timer based, GPS remains ON
Transition Mode 2 -> Mode 3 is done by the power switch, GPS remains ON
Transition Mode 1 -> Mode 3 is also done by the power switch, GPS remains ON

Therefore it is no solution to use the Canon way because GPS remains on during the transitions 2->3 and 1->3 and therefore depleting the battery even if the camera is switched off by the power switch.


Remark:
Normally you should switch the camer off by using the power switch. Then also the GPS functionality should be off. But during a shoot, or e.g. if you are on a city trip, you might want to use the power off timer to safe some battery power, but at the same time be able to quickly get back to active mode to take a picture. In this situation GPS should (as mentioned above) not be switched off.


Best regards,
Chris
#14
- wrong place -
#15
Just found out:
Display type: Blinking Dots works fine with the different colors. But when setting "Fine dots" or "Alpha blend" only the red color works.
#16
Bug or feature?

I can not change the color of the focus peaking. No matter what color I select, the focus peaking color remains always "red". Tested on my Canon 6D with Firmware 1.1.6 and the newest nightly of ML.
#17
Quote from: a1ex on April 25, 2016, 08:14:43 PM
I'll check for the regression in lua_fix later.

Any news on this one?
#18
OK, I think I got it now. So I will stay away from pulled ISOs and try to use full ISOs with +1/3EC instead. This sounds reasonable for me. Thank you very much for your patience  :)
#19
Ok, so to sum it up what you said:

When shooting ISO160, the canon meter in the viewfinder is showing the exposure based on ISO160, but the camera is exposing at an ISO of 200 (therefore overexposing by 1/3) and afterwards pulling the result by 1/3 to match the metering shown in the viewfinder?

So the best way would be to select only full stop ISO values and set a constant exposure compensation of +1/3. This way I can rely on the canon metering (and therefore no clipping of highlights) + I have the same quality regarding noise in darker areas as I would have when shooting at an intermediate, pulled ISO level (ISO160)? Is this a good approach for real world shootings?
#20
Ok, to sum it up, I took:

1/50s f1.8 ISO100
1/50s f1.8 ISO160
1/50s f1.8 ISO200

ISO 160 seems to be equal to ISO200
ISO 100 is much worse than ISO160 & ISO200. Beside more pattern noise (horizontal lines) I also have some purple effects in the corners.

So, as I have written in some earlier post. In this situation it does not matter if using ISO160 or ISO200. But beside of such analytical comparisons: When shooting in real world situations I will have a look at the canon meter. Then I will try to set the exposure (displayed on the canon meter in the viewfinder) for the brightest part of the image to +2 1/3 to +2 2/3 (by using spot metering). This way I will not blow out my highlights. But doing it this way I will get two different exposure recommendations (depending on the ISO I have selected), namely:

1/100s f/2.8 ISO200 and 1/80s f/2.8 ISO160

And if I am shooting those two pictures, the 1/80s f/2.8 ISO160 has definitely lower noise in the dark areas and more possibilities to pump up the brightness in post. So it seems like in real world shooting situations using ISO160 is the better choice to me because I do not have to calculate an exposure compensation when taking the shot. I can simply rely on the canon meter.
#21
Ok, just to get you right:

If I take a shot at: 1/100s f/2.8 ISO200,
should I then shoot at 1/100s f2.8 ISO160 or at 1/80s f/2.8 ISO160?

The last one (1/80s) is what my camera is telling me and what I would normally set when taking pictures regarding to the canon meter.


And regarding the LUA:
I tested it with my latest script, see:
http://magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=17110.msg165968#msg165968

When for example activating "Only 160s", then setting an ISO of 10000 and turning the wheel (relatively fast - as one would normally do) towards a lower ISO, it goes crazy and get stuck at ISO 2500 - 5000 levels. Whereby turning the wheel one click by another the script seems to work very well. Maybe this has to do with the new strict.lua script which loads every time? ...or maybe with something other. Currently I'm thinking of porting my lua script into C-code and inserting it into ML directly. But I think I would prefer the LUA path, because I can easily use it with newer ML versions without adapting and compiling it every time a new nightly comes out.
#22
Ok, I now tried several days with ISO 100 / 160 / 200 / ...
and the result was every time the same: If I crank up my exposure in post (Lightroom 6) to +4, then my ISO 100 and ISO 200 files show visible more pattern noise (horizontal lines), while ISO 160 shots also show them but only very subtle. And to be honest as more I read about all of this the more confused I get. In the end the result is what is counting. And as I can not notice any significant reduction in DR, but a visible improvement when ramping up the shadows, I will stay with the ISO160 step size. At least until ISO 1250 - 2500.

Unfortunately my LUA script seems not to work very fine after the LUA fix has been integrated. If I turn the scroll wheel too fast the ISO values jump randomly. I think that the script maybe too slow. Is there any way to run a lua script with higher priority?
#23
Ok, I made two shots:
ISO160 1/10s f2,8
ISO200 1/10s f2,8

Now in post I pushed the ISO160 by +4 and the ISO200 file by +3,66. They indeed look the same.
But what I am struggling with is the "every day situation". The Canon metering will not show me the same exposure for ISO200 as for ISO160. So I would have to apply a constant exposure correction of +1/3 to get the same finer grain as I get with ISO160. The same applies to ISO100, the metering will also be different. So I am looking for the answer: What ISO should I use when shooting like the in-camera meter tells me to shoot?
#24
Okay,
I have read through so much ISO 100 / 160 topics that I am even more confused than before. So I am kindly asking you a1ex / Audionut for an answer. I respect all that mathematical / analytical approach to this topic, and OK, ISO 160 / 200 / 250 is the same in RAW. But: By finally for me it is not important what the analysis says, it is important what comes out of Lightroom. So my setup is as follows:

Camera: Canon EOS 6D
Quality: RAW
Shooting Mode: Only Photo Mode, Only Canon ISOs
RAW Converter: Adobe Lightroom

Situation:
A scene which goes from pitch black to pitch white. I am shooting this scene with ISO 100 and ISO 160 two times. First I meter with both ISOs like the camera says that the picture has a good exposure (Canon meter shows zero). The second time I'm shooting the exactly same scene by using ETTR. Thereby I correct my exposure for the ISO160 shoot so that it has the same exposure than the ISO100 shot.
If I now look at the results in Lightroom (exposure pushed by +4) I can definitely see that the noise in the dark areas is slightly higher with ISO100. ISO160 looks more equal and like a finer grain. Even if the difference is subtle. Am I so wrong with this finding? Am I clipping more highlights with ISO160? Or generally spoken: what ISO should I use and why? It is really hard to get a point to this topic as there are so many confusing (and also to detailed) posts. I'm not an expert, I just want to shoot with as less visible noise as possible.
#25
Here the relevant menu code. Any ideas how I could make the menu the way I described it above?

skipbadiso_menu = menu.new
{
    parent = "Expo",
    name = "Bad ISO skipping",
    help = "Skips bad ISO values",
    choices = {"OFF","ON","Only 160s"},
    value = "OFF"
}

function skipbadiso_menu:select(delta)
    if     self.value == "OFF" then self.value = "ON"
    elseif self.value == "ON"  then self.value = "Only 160s"
    else   self.value = "OFF" end
    skipbadiso_update(self.value)
end

function skipbadiso_update(value)
    if value == "ON" then
        print ("ON")
    elseif value == "Only 160s" then
        print ("Only 160s")
    else
        print ("OFF")
    end
end

skipbadiso_update(skipbadiso_menu.value)