Messages

Is ML for the 40D working? Are there any other alternatives? Does 400Plus work on the 40D or is only for the 400D as the documentation implies.

Thanks

As the documentation for 400plus clearly states, "It is designed specifically for the Canon 400D/XTi and will not work with other camera models".

[- should be 2016.4.4.7]

I can't seem to find it.

Neither do I... promise I was convinced I had uploaded it... It is there now, I hope it does not vanishes again.

product

• version - string, product version (2-4 integers separated by periods) - should be 2016.4.4.7

Changed to 20160404.07, is that ok?

camera

• revision - string, firmware revision (e.g. 101a) - should be 111

Fixed.

build

• creator - string, build creator (e.g. jenkins@nightly) - should be null

Fixed.

source

• channel - string, distribution type (release or trunk for CHDK, empty string for others) - should be empty string

Fixed.

encoding

• data - string, hexadecimal encoding key (lowercase, N/A if name is empty) - should be null

Fixed.

The directory structure is off. Could you put AUTOEXEC.BIN, 400PLUS and _HDKMETA under root (or at least under the same directory with a version-independent name)?

I'm trying to follow the tradition of using "product_name-product_version.zip" for the file and "product_name-product_version" for the root folder, without mixing source code and binaries (that are distributed in different files); I have simplified a bit the scheme. Could you please review the attached file? Many thanks!

I have added a license file to 400plus' repository, and prepared a test distribution file; could you please check if the attached file meets your needs? Thanks!

[@eduperez]

@eduperez Any progress?

I will be away from my main computer for a week or two, so there is not much I can do right now; will get on this as soon as I am back.

[0.9.1]

0.9.1 - 2017-06-05

• Added exFAT support
• Added CRW and CR2 support
• Added 400plus binary detection
• Added ML module binary detection
• Various bugfixes and code improvements

Thank you very much!

[No uninstaller:]

So far, the major roadblock for most users who find trouble installing 400plus seems to be the process of preparing the card (which is similar to the process of preparing a card for CHDK or ML, by the way); if we could have just a tool capable of preparing the cards, we would have won an important battle.

Thank you for your interest.

Thank you, too!

No uninstaller:
I can see why this hasn't been a priority so far. However, now that a user may get the hack running on their camera in a couple of mouse clicks (without reading any of the warnings, of course), I believe the change has to be reversible.

Enabling a camera to use 400plus is the same as enabling a camera to use ML; and as far as I know, it is also a permanent change on ML, too (see http://wiki.magiclantern.fm/faq#does_ml_do_any_persistent_changes_to_my_camera). We know how to revert that change, but it is considered a dangerous procedure.

Package structure:

• 400plus-testfir-1.bin.zip contains testfir.fir under 400plus-testfir-1\bin, which must be copied to A\, while
• 400plus-20160404-07.bin.zip (version-dependent) contains
  
  
  • AUTOEXEC.BIN under 400plus-20160404-07\bin (version-dependent), which must also be copied to A\, and
  • languages.ini under 400plus-20160404-07\bin (version-dependent), which must be copied to A\400PLUS.

I can deal with multiple downloads and even with non-root source directories (thanks to SDM), but could you at least place languages.ini under 400PLUS please?[/li][/list]

Yes, I think we can do that; we could also maintain an "auto-installer" ZIP file with the latest version, and a structure carved to the needs of your software.

Missing license.
I believe at least some portion of the code was taken from Magic Lantern, so it has to be GPLv2 or later (not recommended). However, I'm not sure about the copyright notice.

Yes, there is code grabbed from ML in 400plus (and there is code in ML grabbed from 400plus!). Code is licensed as GPL v2, but I am surprised to realize that I cannot find any mention to license of copyright in the site... will have a look at that issue later and fix it.

Difficult detection.
CHIMP uses string matching to gather detailed version data from CHDK, ML and (most of) SDM binaries. The latest 400plus AUTOEXEC.BIN contains little more than a standalone
Please consider adding metadata in future releases.

Looks reasonable, too.

Do you have any intentions to support 400plus, too? Card preparation and software installation is quite similar to ML, and the (three, at most) people who still own a 400D but have not installed 400plus will be very grateful...

The current state is just a very rough proof of concept, but it already found a bunch of null pointer, uninitialized memory and thread safety bugs

For a moment I though you where talking about bugs in Canon's code... 

Canon Announces Clog for Mark IV!

https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/explore/see-legendary/canon-log

Expect the hordes asking to be done (for free, obviously) using ML...

Hello, do you know if I can run Magic lantern on CF card and record to and SD card simultaneously? I dont want to download ML to all my separate sd cards and would rather just download it once.  I do not plan on recording raw at the moment and simply want ML for some of its other features.  Do you know how much space ML usually occupies on a CF card?

I plan on using it on a Canon 5d Mark 3.

Thank You...

ML will just occupy some MBs on the card, you do not need to worry about that; and it only has to be installed in the card that the camera boots from, not on both of them.

Perhaps a wifi-enabled SD card can meet your needs; you cannot "send" files from the camera, however: the external device has to "grab" them from the card instead.

I have been following this thread with great interest, but there is something that has been worrying me from the beginning; perhaps I have not understood the target of this study, or perhaps I have not understood how all this works.

On one side we have the focusing distance, as reported by the encoder in the lens; this distance is used to inform a field in the EXIF data, so the user knows the focusing distance. On the other hand we have some commands to move the lens back and forth, and a counter that stores the current position of the lens; these commands are used by the camera to focus the lens on a subject. And now we are trying to find a method to match the focusing distance to the lens position, so we can (for example) tell the lens to move the focus to a specific distance.

What I was wondering is whether that function does even exist at all.

When the camera focuses, it uses the info from the AF sensors to determine if the subject is focused, how far from being focused it is, and what direction must move the lens to gain focus. With this information, the camera sends some commands to the lens, the lens moves the focus, and the camera checks the focus again. In this process, the focusing distance is not needed at all; in fact, the focusing distance reported is way coarser than the focusing abilities of the lens, and some lenses does not even report any focusing distance.

My thought is that if I was Canon, I would not bother to make any connection between the focusing distance and the focusing steps, because the camera does not need it: as far as I know, there is no official method (buttons, menus, PPTP, ...) to tell the camera to focus to a specific distance, and the AF does not need it either.

If I had to implement a method to move the focus to a specific distance, I think I would employ a trial-and-error approach: check focusing distance, move lens a large step, check focusing distance again, move lens a small step, ... All the info gathered in this thread can probably be used to speed up this process (for example, with a look-up table with some values from known lenses). But I do not think we can obtain a function to determine the lens position from the desired focusing distance.

Just my two cents (or perhaps a clueless comment).

I don't believe that. ML for the 7D2 may be more difficult to achieve because of the Dual Digic, but IMHO, it would be one of the best for ML.

Being "one of the best for ML" is not a guarantee of being achievable, IMHO.

If you can read this, the IPv6-related error seems to have been solved; thanks!

I get this error message in terminal:

rm *.o; rm AUTOEXEC.arm.elf
rm: *.o: No such file or directory
rm: AUTOEXEC.arm.elf: No such file or directory
make: *** [clean] Error 1

Looks like you executed "make clean", and being the first execution, there was nothing to clean; I would just jump to the next step.

My two cents:

• The CR2 file contains a small version of the JPEG file, with all the transformations applied.
• I do not think Canon would downsample to 8bit at the beginning of the pipeline.

Ugh!? How so? I understand the dr gain of the 80d is achieved by eliminating low-iso read noise, so higher iso values are just as they used to be - but still, an overlap should get us more than 0.5ev? https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Canon/EOS-80D---Measurements

And if dual_iso on 80d isn't really something to look forward to, it means even a ml'ed Canon doesn't reach recent Sonikon at all: https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EOS-80D-versus-Nikon-D7200-versus-Canon-EOS-70D___1076_1020_895

Have a look at https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-80d-review/12 and https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-80d-review/13. In a 80D, there is little difference between raising the ISO and correcting the exposure in post processing, and dual-ISO's advantage is based precisely in that difference. With that camera, in most situations you can just take the shot at ISO 100 and then raise the shadows during post-processing.

Well this is interesting. I worked on 3D productions and that does look very much like left eye/right eye images. Don't know what to make of the third eye!
Wonder if there's a 3D option coming for the 5D4.

Well, it is a left/right eye image, only that the distance between the eyes is in the order of magnitude of the diameter of the front lens, so I would not expect much 3D effect from this; here you have a quick anaglyph conversion from the image posted above (red filter on left eye, blue filter on right eye):



The "third eye" in that example is created during the RAW conversion by merging the images from both eyes; as far as I know, it should not be relevant to 3D.

EDIT: Another interesting facts about this technology:
* Both images will be automatically aligned on the focusing distance: objects closer to the camera than the focusing plane will appear to come out of the monitor, and objects further away than the focusing pane will appear to be inside the monitor; the focusing plane will always match the surface of the monitor.
* The amount of 3D effect will depend on the aperture used to take the image: the larger the aperture, the larger the effect; in images taken using the hyperfocal technique, there will be no 3D effect at all.

"if your cam is not supported by ML you should act like there will be no ML for your cam ever" is simply not true!

If you are thinking about buying a new camera and you positively need ML, do not buy one not supported now with hopes that it will be supported in the future; it may never be supported, and you will be stuck to an unsupported camera.

If you need ML for your project, and your camera is not supported, do not wait until it gets support, or you might wait forever and lose the opportunity to create your project.

...

A wifi card helps a bit (you no longer have to move the card back and forth, but you may end up waiting for the card to connect, restarting the wifi drivers and so on, so overall it's slower that way).

I saw your code, and wondered why you did it that way... My card is configured as a wifi client, and as soon as the camera powers up, it connects to the router and gets a fixed IP address; then I can send files from any computer in my network with a simple command, no need to change between access points.

I also toyed with the idea of pulling the file from the card itself, using the card's capabilities to execute scripts on events (https://flashair-developers.com/en/documents/api/lua/guide/), but still haven't found the time to test it.

I would go as far as calling it a scam, but that is a term that has legal implications, and I do not want to be sued by those morons; thus, let's just say that the project is completely absurd, and he knows it. There is a ton of technical difficulties ahead, he has have given absolutely no hint on how he plans to address those issues, and yet he has already started a fundraising campaign (and a "flexible goal" campaign)... How is he going to fit a sensor there? How is he going to control the electronics from outside? How is he going to power all that?

Besides, what is the point of this project? How is it better than the cheapest DSLR you can buy? Who would want a camera that mixes the bad from the analog cameras with the worst from the digital cameras, and the advantages from none of them?

If there is a method to umount the device, there should be a method to mount it... 

This does not seem to be ML related at all; I think that you should check that you are exposing your pictures properly, and using Lightroom's options (noise reduction for example) adequately.
There is some help about posting images at http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=6061.0

Does this feature from Nikon ring a bell around here? DPReview - "Maximum sharpness: Nikon's automated AF Fine Tune explained"

(hint)

Somebody already tried to use a Transcend WiFi SD card and stablish some sort of communication between a camera and the external world, by means of writing and reading specific files; there are more details at https://chdk.setepontos.com/index.php?topic=3290.1790, but apparently the camera caches the content of the card, and that breaks everything.

There is also a warning at the developers site about writing to the card from the camera and a computer at the same time: https://www.flashair-developers.com/en/documents/api/uploadcgi/