Dark frame subtraction was not disabled, it was "auto"
I had to make the things again..... sorry if I wasted you're time
The result is the following
4 sec, iso 80
> dngload crw_0087.dng
loaded crw_0087.dng
> dnglistpixels -min=512 -fmt=chdk -out=badpixeliso80.txt
7 matching pixels
> dnghist -bin=256
0-255 15999010
256-511 23
512-767 0
768-1023 2
1024-1279 3
1280-1535 2
1536-1791 0
1792-2047 0
2048-2303 0
2304-2559 0
2560-2815 0
2816-3071 0
3072-3327 0
3328-3583 0
3584-3839 0
3840-4095 0
4 sec, iso 400
> dngload crw_0088.dng
loaded crw_0088.dng
> dnglistpixels -min=512 -fmt=chdk -out=badpixeliso400.txt
16 matching pixels
> dnghist -bin=256
0-255 15973637
256-511 25387
512-767 9
768-1023 0
1024-1279 0
1280-1535 0
1536-1791 0
1792-2047 0
2048-2303 0
2304-2559 0
2560-2815 0
2816-3071 0
3072-3327 0
3328-3583 0
3584-3839 0
3840-4095 7
4 sec, iso 800
> dngload crw_0089.dng
loaded crw_0089.dng
> dnglistpixels -min=512 -fmt=chdk -out=badpixeliso800.txt
923 matching pixels
> dnghist -bin=256
0-255 15139855
256-511 858262
512-767 878
768-1023 35
1024-1279 3
1280-1535 0
1536-1791 0
1792-2047 0
2048-2303 0
2304-2559 0
2560-2815 0
2816-3071 0
3072-3327 0
3328-3583 0
3584-3839 0
3840-4095 7
The result is a little different but luclky not so much (at least for the little knowledge I had in these days)
At iso 400 the're the same 7 hot pixel (even if with higher values) plus 9 more but in the range 512-767, that could be, as you told me, the tail of the noise.
I know that for practical purpose it doesn't matter (only 9 pixel more!) but I'll ask you the same to know you opinion: I think the best choise will be to use the 80 iso badpixel, isn't it?
And just one more question so that I don't make wrong now at the end: have I enable again dark frame subtraction in camera "daily usage" ?
