Quote from: philmoz on 06 / September / 2015, 16:53:24That should happen automatically - I just tried a quick test and PC CC (2015.0.1) correctly removed the bad pixels from the DNG file.Can you upload your DNG to a file share site (e.g. dropbox, google drive, etc) and post the link here.Phil.Unfortunately I deleted the image from my kitchen but here is another image from yesterday. Lots of green pixels and even some blue ones in the orange koi carp The file is DNG 1.3https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/66272586/CRW_6315.DNGVery interesting to see if it works for you. I also have PS 2015.0.1
That should happen automatically - I just tried a quick test and PC CC (2015.0.1) correctly removed the bad pixels from the DNG file.Can you upload your DNG to a file share site (e.g. dropbox, google drive, etc) and post the link here.Phil.
It looks like you have default crop (DNG Crop Size in the CHDK menu) set to "Full". This means that the large black areas on the top/left will be included, as well as somewhat darker borders that contain image data. I'd generally suggest using "active" or "jpeg" except for debugging, but again wouldn't expect this to affect badpixel handling.
This seems to be a bug in the new version of CC (also affects Lightroom which uses the same RAW engine).Lightroom 5.7.1 fixes the bad pixels correctly in your image.Not sure why the images from my camera (IXUS310) are corrected in CC 2015; but yours aren't.Phil.
But the important question is: Is there any reason of saving as DNG 1.3 instead of DNG 1.1? I read somewhere that saving as DNG 1.3 is faster but are there any other advantages?
For cameras with lots of bad pixels it makes a difference; but yours doesn't have that many so doing it in camera (1.1) is ok.Phil.
Quote from: philmoz on 07 / September / 2015, 08:02:17For cameras with lots of bad pixels it makes a difference; but yours doesn't have that many so doing it in camera (1.1) is ok.Phil.When I created a badpixel.bin file it said that the camera has around 28 800 bad pixels. I sounded like an awful lot but maybe it is not that bad?
No, that's not a lot. My Ixus 310 has 180,000 or so.Phil.
But the important question is: Is there any reason of saving as DNG 1.3 instead of DNG 1.1? I read somewhere that saving as DNG 1.3 is faster but are there any other advantages?Future compatibility maybe?
As Phil alluded too, the badpixel list can take a lot of memory. You can check "miscellaneous"-> "show memory info" to see how much RAM is available to CHDK. 28k bad pixels shouldn't be a problem on most cameras, but if the port has a very low amount of RAM available already, it could be.
Is this enough free RAM for keeping track of 28 800 bad pixels?
Quote from: hummersallad on 07 / September / 2015, 14:46:51Is this enough free RAM for keeping track of 28 800 bad pixels?That's way on the low side for almost anything you'd want to do with CHDK.
Started by eliavecellio Feature Requests
Started by Tamir General Help and Assistance on using CHDK stable releases
Started by Herra Tohtori RAW Shooting and Processing
Started by John Stilton Hotwire! Hardware Mods, Accessories and Insights
Started by outbirding General Help and Assistance on using CHDK stable releases
