Messages

The reason is for a second frame to be taken immediately at this large EV difference

At least can the 5EV limit for manual mode be raised to say 7 or 9?

But this is more like a new feature request rather than a fix request and I understand if it will be denied for other more important things which we all know what these are     

Why ? It worked perfectly. I will miss it. In fact I had used it one day and the next I had loaded the latest ML and I realized afterwards that my supposedly -5 shots were taken at -2!  (At -2 moon was burned beyond recovery in contrast to -5 previous day where an additional -2 at Camera raw restored it fully).

Do you fear a possible  problem and you stop it at Av?

So is it OK? Can it be changed to +- 5EV ?

Do you have a 5D2? You can test it!  Load ML2.3 Mode Dial set to Av, Activate HDR bracketing and set 2 shots at 5EV step.

I understand you are full with tasks.  I can load ML2.3 to my 5D2 to night (when I go home) and do the same.

I will take 2 pictures and I can send them to you to check EXIF info.

Would that be enough?

That's a Canon limitation, nothing to do with ML.

At ML2.3 stable (5D2) it works fine. It was the feature I wanted (and used) most! (2nd being more than 3 shots bracketing)

@nanomad: Any chance of changing the +-2 EV to +- 5 EV setting in Av Mode in Advanced Bracketing in releases following Aug 29.Next or later ? 

@alex: Any chance adding back black/white pixel fixing without changing anything else? (especially the latest aliasing tweaks which proved superb) 

In addition, if there are interconnected issues for example if fixing something could damage something else (I am speaking generally not necessarily for this feature) maybe cr2hdr could be made to accept switches for the users to choose.

@A1ex: 

I took again the same picture DUAL_ISO 100/1600.  I used the Aug 28 10:07 PM cr2hdr.exe version.
I quite liked this time the result NO ARTIFACTS (even with default sharpening!)

DUAL ISO was not necessary for that specific image but that was what I could shoot late at night at home at 5:00 AM but this is only a test!!

Unfortunately, I noticed white and black pixels that did not exist in original CR2.

I have sent you the raw, dng and screenshot files.

It works fine regarding UniqueCameraModel 

100% sure it did.

The question is: what value is best? There was a guy who said there are differences in output caused by this tag.

I wonder: in the previous version had you just copied the camera model in this tag?

Do Adobe created DNGs have this tag or not?

Having the same value as the camera model however seems to display the same that ACR's displays for .CR2 files

100% sure it did.

YES!

To delete it: exiftool -UniqueCameraModel= foo.dng

Yes, thanks I have deleted and it displayed: Digital Negative

And ... the specific tag was added back...

The previous cr2hdr exe did not set this tag to Canikon though...

Change it to the real thing, see if it makes any difference in output.

You mean to set it to Canon Eos 5D Mark II

?? Actually it seems it has been added. So I was thinking to delete it!

But if you need another experiment I can set the value that is displayed by ACR with the original .CR2

EDIT: Done it displays the new value.

I delete it and it displayed: Digital Negative

I have saved the .dng however (no problem)

Why is this happening?

OK, change it and report.

exiftool -UniqueCameraModel="Nikanon" foo.dng

Yes it was changed in ACR 8.1 It says: Camera Raw 8.1 - Nikanon

Here's how it looks in ufraw. I don't see anything bad, a little noise is normal.

http://acoutts.com/a1ex/img0020test.png

Here, the camera name for your shot is Canon EOS 5D Mark II. Try changing it from exiftool and see if it makes a difference.

It's the "Unique Camera Model" that is added to dng that has value "Canikon". It is displayed by Adobe Camera Raw as you can see in the screenshot that corresponds to the latest cr2hdr.exe

@a1ex:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/e9yfrvk1odyen41/dual_iso_28-8-0810AM-no-sharpening.JPG
https://www.dropbox.com/s/2ss9i46tb9touf5/dual_iso_28-8-722PM-no-sharpening.JPG

The above are with sharpening set to zero. You can see from the name the version of cr2hdr that was used.

Although Sharpening cannot always be as low as that I'd like your opinion on the above (regarding artifacts)

P.S Is that Canikon instead of the real camera name necessary ? Or you are using  it temporarily to distinguish between versions of the cr2hdr?

@alex: it is not oversharpened.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/cp954uq8f3reg0r/dual_iso_28-8-0810AM.JPG

I have used Adobe's defaults. You can see them in the screenshot.

I have used the latest cr2hdr (28-8-0810AM) but all the latest look alike.

@tron: this time you are oversharpening the picture. I don't see anything bad in my jpeg.

I hadn't  changed the sharpening in any case. I had just restored WB to auto (instead of as shot) to make the image realistic (to match the wall color).

hello, I have noticed that in the specific CR2 I had sent although dark shadows do not show these repeatable patterns, I can see them in  mid tones (well actually less deep shadows). I have tested using the cr2hdr.exe from the first post and the _exp variance too.

(I must remind myself how the shadows would look with the Shadows slider close to maximum though in a normal Canon raw file though to keep things in perspective)

https://www.dropbox.com/s/7ilrw9bouph1t5u/cr2hdr_27aug_0708pm.JPG
https://www.dropbox.com/s/gvwfedjsujpx1rk/cr2hdr_28aug_1222am.JPG
https://www.dropbox.com/s/01osc2bj3ud8rka/cr2hdr_exp_28aug_0332am.JPG

I have uploaded the above screenshots (you have the .CR2) to see what I mean and for comparison...

Solved indeed Many thanks.

First lets hope that the firmware is compatible to most older cameras and not just the mkIII. Already these new cards are incompatible with a lot of branded card readers, including those which were ok for use with the 128 ones.

The tests would include benchmarks using ML in camera, then canon and ML firmware compatiblity, EOScard bootable compatibility, then continuous recording with diff resolution tests using different modes.
Then it will be compared to the other benchmarks like those from lexars.

OK, you have a lot to do. I wish you luck with this card. Please let us know.

hello, I run it against my CR2 (the one you have access to) and it crashed 

It initiated the Visual Studio debugger so I let it run and then captured the debugger screenshot that shows the offending instruction.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/2qtnuft59et5yfi/ch2hdr-27-8-crash.JPG

The last message printed was Looking for hot/cold pixels...

Alex thanks and congratulations! I will try to make some tests during the weekend.