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 - l_d_allan

#51
Quote from: Levas on July 21, 2014, 10:57:49 PM
Better follow this topic for 6d, it's more used
Maybe. I find it difficult to follow months-old threads with pages and pages of barely related posts that have drifted all over the place.
#52
Quote from: TLN on July 10, 2014, 10:17:53 AM
What is current status of 6D firmware?

A "Nightly Build" with date of July 17, 2014 is now available. Thanks.
#53
from another thread:
Quote from: a1ex on June 22, 2014, 06:10:13 PMIf nobody volunteers to fix FPS override in the next two weeks, I'll resume the nightly builds without this feature.

Not meaning to be impatient or unappreciative, but ... hmmmmm ... it's been a bit longer than two weeks since a working Nightly Build for the 6d has been available.
#54
From another thread:
Quote from: a1ex on June 13, 2014, 02:43:45 PM
Indeed, you will want to try the cr2hdr-20bit branch

My understanding is that Dual-ISO continues to be actively developed, and there have been various versions of cr2hdr.exe compiled during 2014.

However, is the version of cr2hdr.exe for Windows that was built on Dec 7, 2013 still the preferred version to use for non-developers? Or a different one?

#55
General Help Q&A / Re: New unified version?
June 25, 2014, 05:10:52 PM
Quote from: Alesio on June 25, 2014, 04:01:12 PM
que version de ML  me recomendarian para instalar en la 7D por primera vez. Me gustaria que fuera mas o menos completa.

My speculation is that you are asking what version to install on your 7d. Correct?

What firmware is on your camera?

Have you attempted to download and install the 2.3 Stable Release (from July, 2012)?

Have you attempted to download and install the latest "Nightly Build" for the 7d with firmware 2.0.3?
http://builds.magiclantern.fm/#/
The latest should work fine, as my understanding is that the 7d is actively supported by ML ... one or several of the ML devs have ownership of a 7d, which really facilitates active development.

BTW: I'm unclear if the Stable Release 2.3 will install on a camera with newer firmware than was available back in July, 2012.
#56
Quote from: a1ex on June 25, 2014, 03:29:54 PM
I'm still waiting for these tests.

Sorry, I looked at the last 20 or so posts on that long thread, but not far enough back to see your comment.
#57
Quote from: fireball on June 22, 2014, 04:16:30 PM
sorry, I've been away for the weekend. I just tried out your suggestion but shutter doesn't release as well.

I'll contact my dealer on Monday.

How old is the camera? How long have you had it? Is it still under warranty?

What happened, if anything, between when AF was working, and when it stopped working?

What happens when you put in an SD card without ML? What happens if you press the SET button while ML is booting (to disable ML)?

You might try posting your question to the DPReview forum for 1-series Canon cameras.
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/1032
#58
General Help Q&A / Re: New unified version?
June 25, 2014, 03:27:59 PM
Quote from: Audionut on June 23, 2014, 06:19:34 PM
a1ex had a good post about new stable releases, but I can't find it atm.

At the end of the day, there are more important things to be worked on, then the next unified build.  Of course, that doesn't stop someone else making an effort, here and now.

My understanding is that the devs decided some months ago to get away from "Stable Releases" and instead use the concept of "Rolling Releases". I believe the intent was for faster development, which seems to have happened. IMO, it's amazing to observe the functionality that has been implemented since SR 2.3.

BTW: My own preference would be for "freezing" development at some milestone, and creating a Stable Release 3.0, but that doesn't seem likely.

I started using ML on my 5d2 not that long after SR 2.3 was available. If I was a ML newbie now, I might be underwhelmed that the last SR was almost 2 years ago (July, 2012), and since then there have been pre-alpha rolling releases. I'd probably be reluctant to take the perceived risk of using a ML nightly build.
#59
I still concerned about the status of ML on the 6d.

There for a while, there were regular ML nightly-builds. I switched from TL to ML.

About two weeks ago, I attempted to get an updated nightly build, and noticed a series of "build failed". That is still the case. The latest build that was successful was May 21, 2014.

I'm reluctant to switch back from ML to TL. Is the 6d no longer being actively developed / supported?
#60
Quote from: jpaana on April 17, 2014, 08:48:15 AM
Interesting as Lightroom and ACR can definitely open floating point TIFFs (both 16 and 32 bits per component)...

Is this true for many or most of the LR / ACR versions, or the more recent versions like LR 5.x or ACR 8.x (which share the same "engine").

My impression is that A1ex doesn't use LR / ACR, but I could very well be mistaken on that.
#61
Modules Development / Re: DotTune AFMA (dot_tune.mo)
April 18, 2014, 05:42:39 PM
Quote from: tacticole on April 10, 2014, 11:29:47 PM
To clarify for anybody else, I went into the canon menu, accessed the AFMA settings and made sure to click 'Register' when dealing with a specific lens. I changed the value to -1, set it, then went back in and changed it to zero again, just to make sure it saved a value of some sort specifically for the lens. Ran the module and it no longer gave me the +/-100 issue. Thanks for helping ayshih.

Thanks to both of the posters with this suggestion, and clarification.

I've had problems with my Sigma 150-500mm. It adjusts fine with my older 5d2, but not the 6d. I'll see -100 to +100 all confirmed. Perhaps I didn't register the lens on the 6d? I'll retry.

Quote from: Blaster on April 08, 2014, 04:50:37 PM
Yes, but it works on "all lenses" so I can just note down the results and apply them manually for each lens, no problem.

Interesting work-around. I'll give it a try if the "pre-registration" step doesn't resolve the issue I'm experiencing. I will have to remind myself to be extra careful and not get in a hurry, especially with this approach.
#62
Modules Development / Re: DotTune AFMA (dot_tune.mo)
April 18, 2014, 05:40:04 PM
Quote from: tacticole on April 10, 2014, 09:19:56 PM
Also for the record, the chart in question is here: http://www.testcams.com/DotTune/CrossHatch_Target.png

Thanks. Looks like a nice target, except I'd think you would want some or many diagonals in both directions (slanted up and slanted down).

I made up a target from large and small fonts, then put in cross-hatches and diagonals. For a while, Auto-Dot-Tune was always reporting "Bad Target", but I think that was a minor s/w bug with a "dangling if", IIRC. I'd make up what I thought was a better target, it still kept being reject. That's been fixed.

Also, I believe A1ex wrote that the quality of the target didn't have to be all that great / precise / complicated, like you'd use for ImaTest. The main thing is to have plenty of contrast. Or not?


#63
Modules Development / Re: DotTune AFMA (dot_tune.mo)
April 18, 2014, 05:28:40 PM
Quote from: Audionut on April 18, 2014, 05:25:44 PM
With (some Sigma) fixed focal length, you can program the AFMA at 4 different focal distances.  I used the camera, setup at each focal distance, and ran dot_tune, then made note of each setting and used the dock to program the lens.  Then the camera set back to 0 AFMA value.

With (some Sigma) zoom lenses, you can also program different focal lengths, as well as focal distance at each focal length.

Interesting. Thanks for the reply. I'm curious if you noticed much difference between subject distances, and also with different focal lengths.
#64
Modules Development / Re: DotTune AFMA (dot_tune.mo)
April 18, 2014, 05:26:19 PM
Quote from: ayshih on April 10, 2014, 10:40:23 PMAlternatively, you can switch the AFMA mode to all lenses, and then the registration step isn't necessary.

I've wondered if there would be a scenario where this option makes sense. My impression is that you'd be making the assumption that the setting for one lens is better, or even optimal for other lenses.

I suppose if you only have time to AF-MA one lens, it's not completely unrealistic to "cross your fingers" and proceed with the assumption that your other lenses could use the same adjustment. Seems flawed, as I'd think you'd be better off the leave the other lenses at 0.

Suppose you did AF-MA on your most used 85mm f1.8L, and found it was very far away from the default zero, such as +18 or even +45. That would seem to suggest that the manufacturing tolerances of the body and/or lens was borderline. (and also the value of having a body with AF-MA).
#65
Modules Development / Re: DotTune AFMA (dot_tune.mo)
April 18, 2014, 05:18:28 PM
Quote from: tacticole on April 10, 2014, 09:15:41 PMISO 100, F1.8, Shutter at 1/200, using a printable focus chart about 1 meter away from the camera.

That seems to be too close. Canon recommends 50x focal length, which would be about 12' away with the 85mm ... ~ 4 meters, if I did the math correctly.

I suppose if your primary use for the 85mm is head+shoulders portraits, that might justify doing the AF-MA at that specific distance.

It appears from your later post that you got the 85mm AF-MA to work. Great! For those who are struggling to get Auto-Dot-Tune to behave, it would probably be a good thing to start at 50x distance. Once it is working, then and only then use something other than 50x.

The 85mm f1.2L would certainly be a lens that would benefit from AF-MA, with its very shallow DOF.

It would be interesting to see what the setting for it would be at 1', 3', 8', 12', 50', and infinity.

FWIW: My speculation is that the newer Sigma lenses with their "Dock" allow AF-MA at different distances. I am unclear how that would integrate with a Canon body however.
#66
Quote from: Levas on March 21, 2014, 01:05:21 PM
True, disables 3rd party batteries.

I'd noticed this with 1.1.3 and 3rd party (non-oem) batteries. I haven't installed 1.1.4 yet, and may never install it.

Overall, my 6d seems much fussier and uncooperative about batteries than my 5d2. Even the 6d charger can be a p.i.t.a. to work with, compared with the charger that came with the 5d2.
#67
I don't use RawDigger that often, but it can be Very handy at times.

I went to see if there was an update, and belatedly noticed that the developer released 1.0.x back in November, 2013, and it is no longer free. 30 day trial. 3 levels of capabilities with 3 prices.

Oh, well, it was good while it lasted (being free).

My impression is that ML devs and hard-core ML users have done a lot with RawDigger over the years.

Shucks, the beta doesn't work any more. Drat.

#68
My impression is that people do make monetary donations to the ML project. I have no idea how much this amounts to, if anything.

Would it be possible for the ML project to purchase a 6d for use by one of the core Devs? If so, they wouldn't be proceeding with "blind" development and support.

#69
http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/03/canon-eos-6d-firmware-1-1-4-available/
QuoteFirmware Version 1.1.4 incorporates the following fixes:
1.Fixes a phenomenon in which some images cannot be transferred to mobile devices running the EOS Remote app.
2.Corrects an error in the German language Feature Guide.
3.Corrects an error in the Korean language Feature Guide.

My understanding is that ML for the 6d won't work if the 6d has firmware 1.1.4 installed. Correct?

#70
Quote from: a1ex on March 16, 2014, 10:48:33 AM
Hit F5, it was a broken redirect. You should get redirected here: http://builds.magiclantern.fm/#/features
Thanks.

I did notice there were two columns for 700d. I infer one of those should be 70d? (the blank column?)
#71
Quote from: Audionut on March 15, 2014, 04:21:57 PM
http://nanomad.magiclantern.fm/jenkins/features.html

This features. html was built on Jan 21, 2014. Has there been an update since then that would indicate what works or not with the 6d?
#72
Thanks for the suggestion. I'd been barely aware of CHDK, and ignorant that it had anything to do with Canon point-and-shoots.

I've gotten it installed on my S110, and starting to get up to speed on it ... and it definitely has intervalometer capabilities, along with much more.
#73
I really miss many of ML capabilities, including Intervalometer and enhanced Bulb.
#74
Quote from: Audionut on March 06, 2014, 01:49:24 PM
I'd rather not have any more politics of the development situation discussed in threads all over the forum.
Suffice to say.

Ok. Sorry. I can modify the earlier post, or delete.

Or ... since you are a moderator, please feel free to modify or delete as you feel appropriate.
#75
Quote from: Marsu42 on December 14, 2013, 12:03:00 AMThe unfortunate situation: 6d is not supported by Alex' "Magic Lantern" anymore (he hasn't got a 6d), but is in a separate fork "Tragic Lantern" by 1% who - read up on the reasons - doesn't merge back the TL changes to ML.
I'm still unclear on the status of ML / TL on the 6d. The above quote was from several months ago.

  • There have been Nightly-Builds of ML for the 6d for a month or so.
  • I inferred from that ... 6d was supported by ML ... and that the 6d version would behave much like ML on 5d2, 600d, and others.
  • I also speculated that the TL "fork" had been merged and "unforked" .... perhaps that was "wishful thinking"?
  • And ideally, that the devs for ML and TL were working together in peace, harmony, and effectiveness.
  • However, I notice that TL builds are still showing up (latest Feb 28, 2014) ... which surprised me.
  • So ... is there still parallel development for the 6d by ML and TL devs?
  • Are there pro's and con's for ML vs TL?
  • My less than informed speculation is that the ML version may be safer and standardized, while the TL version may have some more features reflecting the interests and priorities of the TL dev(s). Or not?