HowTo? Baffled on using dual-iso with 5d2?

Started by l_d_allan, September 02, 2013, 03:30:39 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Africashot

Thanks for your feedback! I have it in dfferent flavours actually as I had autobracketing on meaning I pretty much have all the exposure ranges about 2 ev apart, this was the one I managed to get the lightest shadows without blowing out the window; will have to try with different ISO values to see if it renders better results... but it is actually the image artifacts in the details that hold me back a bit...
ML 5D2 & T3i

l_d_allan

Quote from: tron on September 04, 2013, 11:48:48 AM
EDIT: For Sep 4 a new file exists: 6bb97bcbc0f4.zip at https://bitbucket.org/a_d_/magic-lantern/downloads
It contains dual_iso module. So:

original 2.3 ML  + Sep 4 nightly build  +  6bb97bcbc0f4.zip seems to day's 5D2 latest ML

Thanks for clarifying some confusion on my part!

I guess the SOP is to look in the location you provided for a randomly named .zip file (usually with 12 letters and digits), unzip it to check for sure it has the file-of-interest, and then put on CF/SD flash card after the nightly build.

Or not?

As of Sep 10, the Sep 4 version of DUAL_ISO.mo appears to be the latest greatest.

BTW, both of the following seem to work:
http://bitbucket.org/a_d_/magic-lantern/downloads
https://bitbucket.org/a_d_/magic-lantern/downloads

I'm still unclear why the 5d2 nightly builds seems to include almost all applicable modules like ETTR.M, RAW_REC.MO, etc, but not DUAL_ISO.MO.

tron

Quote from: l_d_allan on September 10, 2013, 09:19:09 PM
I'm still unclear why the 5d2 nightly builds seems to include almost all applicable modules like ETTR.M, RAW_REC.MO, etc, but not DUAL_ISO.MO.
That is also unclear for me and is the main reason I do not bother with the nightly builds any more. I simply wait for updates in the link I mentioned to you...

a1ex


l_d_allan

Quote from: tron on September 04, 2013, 11:48:48 AM
original 2.3 ML  + Sep 4 nightly build  +  6bb97bcbc0f4.zip seems to day's 5D2 latest ML

I tried this approach with two-step firmware, with the latest Sep 12 5d2 nightly build, and then the latest Sep 10 modules ... and may have come close to bricking the camera. Drat.

Camera was locked up, with neither control wheel working. The On-Mid-Off switch stopped working, so I had to remove the battery to get it to turn off. Whew. Got messages about invalid shutdown.

Retreated to Sep 12 nightly build without randomly named [modules].zip file from different date. I'm reluctant to try out dual_iso.mo until the 5d2 nightly-build includes dual_iso.mo  (which may be soon?)

YMMV. This is too bleeding edge for me.

Audionut


tron


l_d_allan

Quote from: Audionut on September 10, 2013, 08:43:37 AM
The shadows aren't that dark.  100/400 would have been fine for this shot imo.

I'm just starting to get DUAL_ISO to work, now that the nightly build for the 5d2 includes DUAL_ISO.mo (thanks!) There does seem to be "some light at the end of the tunnel".

However, my initial impression was that DUAL_ISO provided 4 EV improved dynamic range, using 100/1600, which seemed worth the significant loss of resolution.

I'm still playing around with ACR 6.7 (PV2010) and LR 4.4 (PV2012) to try to get improved images from the .dng's generated by cr2hdr ... slow progress. Seems like PV2012 may be much preferred.

So far, I'm unclear if losing half the resolution is worth the tradeoff to gain "only" 2 EV using 100/400.  For me, "the jury is still out". YMMV.

FWIW/TMI: another issue is I'm using Samyang manual, unchipped lenses (14mm and 8mm fisheye for interior 360 degree panoramas) which leave out EXIF for f-stop and focal-length. Getting some floating-point-overflows when using ExifToolGui (now unsupported), which isn't helping.

Audionut

The amount of resolution loss is directly related to the distance between ISOs.

DR increase is directly related to the distance between ISOs.

Need more DR, increase separation between ISOs, also suffer increased resolution loss, etc.

l_d_allan

Ah, I hadn't been aware of that. My impression had been that using DUAL_ISO always meant that the resolution got cut in half.

Thanks for clearing up my ignorance ... and your patient assistance with a clueless semi-newbie.

FWIW/TMI: I think I'll retreat to my EF 17-40 uwa zoom for a while so the EXIF is complete. I consider the un-chipped, manual Samyang 14mm to have significantly better IQ, but the missing EXIF may be complicating things.

a1ex

What has exif to do with dual ISO? I'm not using anything from there except for camera model.

Put some dummy values if your software requires them.

l_d_allan

Quote from: a1ex on September 14, 2013, 07:53:40 AM
What has exif to do with dual ISO?

Probably nothing. I'm having trouble getting the Dual_Iso to work, and thought that removing a non-standard manual lens from the equation might simplify things.

QuotePut some dummy values if your software requires them.

Eventually, the images are fed into the PTGui panorama software package. It needs various EXIF values, especially focal length.

FWIW:
http://u88.n24.queensu.ca/exiftool/forum/index.php/topic,5267.msg25496.html#msg25496

a1ex

What about this?

exiftool -FocalLength=50 *.DNG


or

exiftool -FocalLength=50 -if '$FocalLength eq "0.0 mm"' *.DNG

l_d_allan

a1ex: Thanks!

I'll give the exiftool command lines you provided a try.

My only use of ExifTool before was filling in missing values for f-stop and focal-length for .DNG's taken with my Samyang 14mm (great lens imo) and Samyang 8mm fisheye (very good lens).

TMI?
I always used ExifToolGui and never tackled the learning curve of ExifTool itself. I am concerned now that ExifToolGui is unsupported, it might have problems now that ExifTool has gone from ver. 8.x to 9.x. Bummer, but I suppose "it was good while it lasted".

BTW: There is newer version of ExifTool.exe, as you may know. Does that make any difference (probably not would be my guess)? Phil Harvey does crank out updates very often ... and I guess that is a good thing.

jose_ugs

Something i might have been the only one to get stuck with, when trying dual-iso on the 5d2, but here's the solution...

I was trying to get dual-iso to work, but couldn't get a "full-green" dot for Dual ISO in ML / Expo menu. It was a semi-green dot.
Now, since i shoot SRAW2, i thought that might be it, since i've tried everything else. And that was it: you'll get it to work if you use SRAW1 or the bigger brother, RAW.

I know it makes sense to all of you who shoot in the largest RAW, but that's where i was stuck.

a1ex

Did you notice that ML menu tells you to use plain RAW?

Don't use any kind of SRAW/MRAW, you won't be able to postprocess it. It should not recognize SRAW1 either (if it does, that's a bug, because you'll get garbage).

jose_ugs

hey @a1ex, i did and i was wondering what it "means" as i was already using RAW, but not that pure RAW :)
And yeah, it's probably a bug, because i could see the "full-green" dot for SRAW1(5D2, don't know if it's the same on 5DM3)

PS. No, it's not a bug! It'll not work with SRAW1 (double-checked)

a1ex