Messages

From my searching it appears that v1.1.4 has yet to be released by Canon, I have been unable to located that version of the firmware anywhere to download

Very interesting. I've asked about firmware 1.1.4 on the DPReview sub-forum that is specifically for 1D, 5d, 6d full-frame models.

It also might be worthwhile to check directly with Canon tech support.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53223933

• Just finished phone ordering the Pro-100 at $298 (Sunday morning)
• price on web is $398 ... $298 price is by phone only
• Printer + included A3+ 13x19" paper results in $300 rebate (via AmEx reward card)
• 866.614.7544 ... http://www.bhphotovideo.com/FrameWork/Rebates_Promos/0331314_CANON_PRO-100.pdf
• $400 rebate if purchase qualifying camera on same receipt
• For me ...  Canon PowerShoot S110 advanced point-n-shoot 1/1.7" sensor for $250 (semi-obsolete ... replaced by very similar S120)
• so that makes me golden for the $400 rebate
• before rebate ... $548
• after $400 rebate ... $148
• Obviously, the cost for oem ink will eat your wallet alive if you do much printing, unless you refill ink cartridges
• FWIW: IIRC, CanonRumors had recent article that Canon would be replacing/updating/refreshing the Pro-1, Pro-10, and Pro-100 line ...

I enjoy just sort of watching this thread utterly without comprehension. Like a cat watching TV.

I'm in a similar state of non-comprehension. Over my head. But fascinating.

But ... is the following something of a "bottom line" and "rubber meets the road" ?

• If this ADTG tweaking works, ML equipped cameras would have the capability of using a "for real" lower ISO such as ISO 65 that would have lower noise and greater dynamic range than the "native" ISO 100 without ML.
• The increase in DR could be on the order of 0.25 to 0.50 EV?
• I'm not clear is this works with Dual-ISO
• I'm unclear if other ISO's are potentially improved, like something between 100 & 200?
• It wouldn't be like the existing ISO 50 that is kind of the equivalent of a neutral density filter, with reduced DR and no real improvement in IQ.
• Or am I confused and "unclear on the concept"
• My other less-than-informed impression is that there would be a conservative ADTG default value that would improve DR, and a in-camera tool that would allow tweaking of an individual camera to optimize DR (sort of like Auto-Dot-Tune)
• I'm fuzzy on whether ISO 100 improves, or remains the same?

Are there more tests needed? Anything I can help with?
5d3 running the nighters

Are there useful tests that would be helpful from a 6d owned by a risk-adverse non-dev?

I notice there is a module that seems related to ADTG, but I am ignorant about what it does. Much of this thread is over my head.

You have attempted to increase the knowledge (of the reader), from the basic understanding I set forth, to that of a university professor.

Several months ago, DPReview added a forum for "Photographic Science and Technology", which tends to be rather esoteric.
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/1061

Would that kind of forum be something to consider for ML?

[413]

Feature request: it'd be nice to have cr2hdr.exe output / log / printf / debug something that would facilitate identifying base/recovery ISO's

Disregard ... I looked closer, and noticed that the effective actual ISO was in (parenthesis) next to the ISO difference value, such as:
ISO difference  : 2.05 EV (413)
ISO difference  : 3.04 EV (823)
ISO difference  : 4.03 EV (1631)

I was wondering if it would be feasible to implement a work-around MFA (micro focus adjustment) for Rebels and XXd series cameras like the 60d that don't have MFA.

• Many lenses communicate with the body to report distance to subject. I've noticed a rather coarse value in the EXIF and LCD.
• How much resolution is there in the chip register for this value? Coarse (cm?) or fine (mm?) or very fine (less than mm?)
• If the chip register value was very fine, perhaps the distance from 10x magnified LiveView (MLV) could be compared to the value reported by the AF point?
• Example: Carefully focused MLV reports 2500.00 mm for 50mm lens, and AF also reports a value very close to 2500.00 mm. This would indicate the AF was accurate, and MFA=0 for this combination of body + lens.
• However, suppose there was some threshold of difference that indicated front-focus or back focus?
• ML might be able to calculate the equivalent "fudge factor" MFA, and tweak the AF accordingly.
• Or not?

Would it be possible to select the sharpest shot out of a continuous burst?

I've been trying out a Nikon S1 that has two flavors of "best shot selection", and it seems to have significant potential. I suppose some or many point-n-shoots have implemented this capability.

BTW: This camera system with 1" sensor doesn't seem to have caught on at all ... there were "fire sales" late last year. Sam's Club has the two lens kit for $250 online. Tempting?

Thanks Alex for the pointer to silent pictures! I will play with it

+1
My bad ... I get annoyed with myself for not making the time to investigate capabilities of ML that could be like "being a kid in a candy store".

I was thinking about attempting dual ISO HDR. I haven't bothered to figure out how many stops I'm gaining with 100/1600. But that would certainly reduce shutter actuations.

I'll be interested in your evaluation.

For me, I think of Dual-ISO as a way to avoid many of the HDR's I would have made in high contrast situations. I'm trying to use HDR less and less, especially with panos, where there is plenty of resolution. I've been very pleased and impressed with Dual-ISO, although I doubt I've gained experience to be confident I'm using "best practices".

As far as combining HDR + Dual-ISO, my speculation is that might not be all that productive. As long as you have decided to do HDR bracketing, I would think the use of HDR might save you one shutter activation. My norm for HDR tends to be 3 images at 2 stop bracketing.

Perhaps, the use of combining HDR + Dual-ISO might reduce this to 2 images. You've still got the extra workflow for HDR. YMMV.

With my 6d and 5d2, I rarely, if ever, get a successful Dot-Tune AFMA.

There is almost always a warning:
"Double-check the Focus Target"

Seems fine now ... I'm not longer getting that warning. Thanks.

Could someone please give some assessment on how reliable dot_tune is? It seems to work for me, well, for the one lens that needs afma at all (my 100L), but rumor on CR is that it's not reliable and you're better of with manual adjustment with a metering stick...

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=19032.msg358813#msg358813

I'm usually waving the flag for Magic Lantern over there, but in this case I've got too little experience with the module to say anything other than guesswork...

I've got similar concerns. In a recent DPR thread:
Autofocus correct or not?
I also 'waved the flag' for ML's Auto-DotTune
and got a reply that was skeptical

Years ago, I used an older LensAlign gadget borrowed from a photography club, which I found to be a hassle. The DPR post above mentioned:
Reikan FoCal Pro
I believe that Datacolor makes a version also.

Has anyone with a manual device such as those mentioned above compared the results to Auto-Dot-Tune?

This is awesome news!

+1

I prefer the 6D over the 5D mk3 because of better noise performance

And Much Lower Price.

BTW: In late 2013, there were deals on the 6d at about $1400, if you checked on CanonRumors . Prices seemed to have gone up since then.

+1, I could use this data to fine-tune the ETTR + Dual ISO algorithm.

Different people have different "use cases". My speculation is that ML users are several sigmas outside the norm.

The more examples with detailed analysis, the better.

For example, I really struggled with photos of a play with spotlights on a darkened stage back in December,
http://berean.zenfolio.com/dual_iso/h5db3b7b#h5db3b7b
http://berean.zenfolio.com/dual_iso/h5db3b7b#hcaf32f3

so I attempted to rig up a "synthetic equivalent" to experiment with:
http://berean.zenfolio.com/dual_iso/h5db3b7b#h1890b735
http://berean.zenfolio.com/dual_iso/h5db3b7b#h161de120

It's got a Datacolor SpyderCube in a flashlight's spot, and a D.I.Y. spydercube out of the spotlight, and in the shade from the tripod legs:

And another high-contrast synthetic test, with a stainless spoon for spectral highlights, styrofoam cups for whites/highlights, plus WhiBal card for light gray, black, and white.
http://berean.zenfolio.com/dual_iso/h101028e1#h101028e1

Full moon, urban with significant light pollution:
http://berean.zenfolio.com/dual_iso/h27797ded#h27797ded

My thinking is that a "tutorial bundle" might include:

• a link to a .zip of the original .cr2's and .dng's (which could be a large .zip)
• the .dng's could have ACR/LR snapshots  at different stages (as-shot; auto-exp; samplers used to do by-the-numbers DR on Blacks, Shadows, Mid-Gray, Highlights, Whites; pre-cr2hdr?; post-cr2hdr?; etc.)
• ...
• In addition to ISO 100 and ISO 1600 without Dual-ISO mentioned in previous post, perhaps also have ISO 100 at base shutter speed, and a shutter speed 16x longer. This would sort of simulate bracketed HDR to compare to what Dual-ISO can accomplish.
• Similar for 100/800
• IIRC, the NeatImage plug-in for NR (noise reduction) has the capability of objectively measuring noise in an image. I've barely used the NeatImage plug-in since PV2010 in CS5/ACR6 provided much improved NR.

Will try to update the early examples (also showing them side-by-side with the first version) when I get home.

+1
That might clear up some confusion (and frustration) by non-devs like me attempting to wade through 1700+ posts.

OT: the idea of including the Dual-ISO tag in EXIF was a nice one; now you can search for Dual ISO shots on Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=%22Dual-ISO%22&m=tags

I've been able to guestimate the "base" and "recovery" ISO from the value of :
ISO difference: #.##
that shows up in the output of cr2hdr.exe (or the .log files from the .vbs multiprocess script)

100/800 ~= 3 +/- 0.2
100/1600 ~= 4 +/- 0.2
100/3200 ~= 5 +/- 0.2

Or not?

Feature request: it'd be nice to have cr2hdr.exe output / log / printf / debug something that would facilitate identifying base/recovery ISO's

[why]

I'm in the process of creating quite a significant topic about ML features, including dual_iso

Very, very much looking forward to it. Thanks.

Here's a tutorial-like approach that I think would be very informative, although quite a bit of work:

• Attach an image at the "Base ISO" (usually 100?) with Dual-ISO disabled
• Attach an image at the "Recovery ISO" with Dual-ISO disabled (usually 800 to 1600?)
• Maybe? an image shot at "Green / Full Auto" camera settings that may convey the challenges presented by the scene
• List the ML settings related to Dual-ISO you used, and why
• Why you decided this scene was a "good candidate" for Dual-ISO (and/or A-ETTR?)
• Attach an image with Dual-ISO enabled, with minimal or no post-processing
• Describe the Adobe ACR / Lightroom settings you used, and why (or software other than Adobe?)
• Attach an image of the post processed image. This makes it "start to finish" for the entire "tool chain"
• Some hints as to what to look for in the final image to see the difference(s), and what may be too subtle to be obvious.

There are a number of examples in the 1700+ post development thread on Dual-ISO. However, imo that massive thread isn't oriented to being a tutorial.

• http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=7139.0
• Dual-ISO has evolved quite a bit since the OP on July, 2013, so usage has changed more or less significantly. Early examples may be obsolete?
• Here's an interesting before/after example: http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=10111.msg96377#msg96377

[--compress argument to cr2hdr.exe]

I've been using the .vbs approach (thanks engardeknave), but also tweaked the .bat approach with the --compress argument to cr2hdr.exe, and also tweaked/simplified the workflow:

Code Select Expand

S:
cd \_WorkInProgress\Temp
for %%n in (0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9) do start /belownormal for %%c in (YYMM*_?????%%n_*.cr2) do cr2hdr --compress %%c
pause

• Put all the .cr2's in the .\Temp sub-directory
• Don't worry about separating by which .cr'2 are Dual-ISO and which aren't (change to OP)
• Run the above .bat file to have 10 processes going in BelowNormal priority, so foreground window stays responsive
• Move the compressed .dng's to the preferred sub-directory. These were shot with Dual-ISO enabled.
• Set DngConverter.exe to "Skip source image if destination image already exists"
• Run DngConverter.exe on all the .cr2's in .\Temp with the preferred destination. This will convert and compress the .cr2's that were not shot with Dual-ISO enabled.
• FWIW: I archive the .cr2's until the hard drive starts getting full, then delete the older ones.
• As noted in OP, I use a file naming convention of YYMMDD_######_Description. (change to OP ... no longer have _DI_ "hint")

Been messing around with Dual_iso raws for the past week, this totally changes my shooting style! THANK YOU!!!

I've been using Dual-ISO for some months, and have been impressed also. And I'm also THANKFUL!!! to the devs.

I'd appreciate getting some details on changes you (and others) have made to your shooting style due to Dual-ISO. You may have "use cases" I'm unaware of, or my use of Dual-ISO may be less than "best practice".

• Mostly I use Dual-ISO as an alternative to bracketed HDR
• Especially for moving subjects, where bracketing isn't appropriate.
• Or when I don't have a tripod.
• BTW: this thread has very useful info to combine ML's Dual-ISO and Auto-ETTR:
   AETTR + DUAL ISO: The Ultimate Automated Perfect Image Exposure-Beginners'Guide

Thanks. Looks good.

Several minor revisions to consider:
dualisocr2dir="Dual ISO CR2s"
regularcr2dir="Regular CR2s"
dngoutputdir="Dual ISO DNG"

* Consider having dashes or underscores or CamelCase, instead of spaces in filenames
* Consider having plural DNG for consistency with plural CR2s

Here's what I use, with verbose hints to myself on what to do with them next:
dualisocr2dir="Dual-ISO_CR2s_ToArchive"
regularcr2dir="Regular_CR2s_ToProcessWithDngConverter"
dngcoutputdir="Dual-ISO_CR2s_2_Compressed_DNGs_Done"

* Consider having the variable for inputfolder up at the top with the variable for cr2hdrpath. I'd think the preferred default would be:
inputfolder=cr2hdrpath

Also, would it be possible to have an option for the script to proceed to process the "Regular CR2s" that were not Dual-ISO with DngConverter? Could that be the default?

FWIW: With my 2600k that has 4 cores and multi-threading, use of
maxprocs=7
instead of 8 procs
still pretty much pegs the Windows TaskManager cpu monitor, and makes the computer unresponsive.

I've been launching a Cmd window, setting its priority to BelowNormal, and then launching the .vbs script from that. That keeps the foreground window responsive instead of very sluggish.  Am I doing something wrong?

I have 6d 1.1.3 (October) Tragic Lantern, but in ETTR settings I dont find Shadow SNR and Midtones SNR... Anybody knows why???

The latest TL for the 6d has time-stamp of Jan 18,  2014.

I just installed the Jan 18 version. Seems fine. However, there doesn't seem to be any way to determine just what version is active.

http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=10111.0

Thanks ... impressive, but complicated stuff. Looks promising.

http://magiclantern.wikia.com/wiki/ADTG

Thanks again. I neglected to look there ... my bad.

At first glance Dual-ISO looks softer but there is a focus difference between the shots.  This can be seen by examining the "MA" letters near the top left.

I am also impressed by the image of the outdoor porch light. However, the left tube seems to be missing some of the yellow crud at the bottom. Or is that accounted for by the focus difference? The right side yellow crud seems mostly intact.

And would there be a difference between
* ATDG trick + Dual-ISO and
* "just" Dual-ISO?
That would seem to be a fourth combination.

Or do I have a flawed understanding of what is going on?

[if there's a hidden catch]

That's why I'm very excited that now there's every possibility that ML might conjure up 1/2ev of dynamic range out of thin air ... makes you really, really wonder if there's a hidden catch and why Canon doesn't include this, maybe they don't want to confuse users with too much iso wizardry?

This is great stuff ... 0.3 to 0.5 DR improvement is nothing to sneeze at. This thread reminds me of the classic book from the early 80's, "Soul of a New Machine", except on Internet time at 3x to 10x to 100x faster pace.

Much of this thread is over my head, but I do have a concern that parameters are being optimally tweaked to specific cameras ... A1ex's 5d3 and AudioNut's 6d. Especially with analog, what works on AudioNut's 6d might be sub-optimal compared to the default on my 6d.

Or will the end result at release be tunable to a specific camera, like Auto-Dot-Tune? It might be like AudioNut using Auto-Dot-Tune with his 6d+50mm f1.8 and indicating the appropriate value was -7. Well, yes, on his camera, but unlikely to be optimal on my camera. And maybe even worse than the default of zero.

Or does that not apply?

FWIW: I think in an earlier post on this thread, someone mentioned that an incorrect value for some ATDG register (don't recall the specific) might mess up A-ETTR. Am I the only one concerned about such an issue?

disregard

[new ADTG trick]

if you use Dual ISO with the new ADTG trick, and it might also squeeze a tiny bit of more highlight detail from plain dual ISO shots too

I did a search on "ADTG" and found some threads that were way over my non-dev head. I tried searching for "ADTG trick" and didn't come across anything that explained what the trick was. I infer it has something to do with Dual-ISO, and perhaps some parameter in cr2hdr.exe.

Is this something that if you have to ask what it stands for, you have no business trying it? Or re-read the .pdf?