SX410 IS porting thread

blackhole

937
A590IS 101b

Re: SX410 IS porting thread

« Reply #70 on: 13 / May / 2017, 13:12:07 »

Advertisements

Quote from: srsa_4c on 13 / May / 2017, 12:57:19

Quote from: blackhole on 13 / May / 2017, 12:18:11
Combined with the flash,the ISO values outside Canon's range causes camera crash in all modes.
Can you upload a romlog that was recorded after one of these crashes? Just so we know what kind of problem this is.

Here it is.

ROMLOG.LOG (3.74 kB - downloaded 16 times.)

Logged

http://astrofoto.pondi.hr

srsa_4c

4451

Re: SX410 IS porting thread

« Reply #71 on: 13 / May / 2017, 14:15:23 »

Quote from: blackhole on 13 / May / 2017, 13:12:07

Here it is.

Thanks.
ASSERT!! CdsGain.c Line 138
Comparison fails for two APEX96 values (very likely Sv96).
It would be very easy to hack this around by replacing the DebugAssert handler with a custom version that filters for this specific event (simply returning, carefully preserving the R4 register, would be enough). But we don't currently do hacks like that in any official ports.
I have no idea what this check is good for (it's clearly sensor gain related), and I don't know if skipping it could cause any damage.

Do those low ISOs (which are barely effective as I see) really have noticeable effect on noise or amp glow?

Logged

blackhole

937
A590IS 101b

Re: SX410 IS porting thread

« Reply #72 on: 13 / May / 2017, 15:28:13 »

Quote

Do those low ISOs (which are barely effective as I see) really have noticeable effect on noise or amp glow?

The average user will not notice any significant difference.Amp glow or noise can easily be removed using a dark frames in postprocessing.
What I've been talk, only is related to the discussion of the lowest ISO value, which can be registered.
The advantages are not worth the posibility of numerous camera crashes.

Logged

http://astrofoto.pondi.hr

reyalp

14079

Re: SX410 IS porting thread

« Reply #73 on: 13 / May / 2017, 15:50:11 »

Quote from: blackhole on 13 / May / 2017, 15:28:13

Quote
Do those low ISOs (which are barely effective as I see) really have noticeable effect on noise or amp glow?
The average user will not notice any significant difference.Amp glow or noise can easily be removed using a dark frames in postprocessing.

If it really reduces amp glow, figuring out the underlying cause could be useful. Not having the glow there in the first place is probably going to be better than subtracting it away.

I'd be interested to see DNGs to compare if you can upload them somewhere.

Quote

What I've been talk, only is related to the discussion of the lowest ISO value, which can be registered.
The advantages are not worth the posibility of numerous camera crashes.

My general feeling is that CHDK should let users do anything that is useful, even if there's a risk of crashes, but of course "useful" is a bit subjective.

Logged

Don't forget what the H stands for.

blackhole

937
A590IS 101b

Re: SX410 IS porting thread

« Reply #74 on: 13 / May / 2017, 16:10:33 »

I'll post a link a little later,the battery is on the charger.

Logged

http://astrofoto.pondi.hr

blackhole

937
A590IS 101b

Re: SX410 IS porting thread

« Reply #75 on: 13 / May / 2017, 17:41:36 »

Quote

I'd be interested to see DNGs to compare if you can upload them somewhere.

Here you go.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2NRqqO9AOURbkR4T0JXbTZKdkk

Logged

http://astrofoto.pondi.hr

reyalp

14079

Re: SX410 IS porting thread

« Reply #76 on: 13 / May / 2017, 22:19:46 »

Quote from: blackhole on 13 / May / 2017, 17:41:36

Quote
I'd be interested to see DNGs to compare if you can upload them somewhere.
Here you go.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2NRqqO9AOURbkR4T0JXbTZKdkk

Thanks. To me, the difference between 50 and 80 seems very marginal, and 100 is only slightly more. I wouldn't feel bad about limiting the ISO to 100 to avoid crashes.

To compare, I processed each image in raw therapee with neutral settings, +3ev exposure compensation.

Using 768 square crops form the upper left, where amp glow is the strongest. Top is ISO 50, middle is ISO 80, bottom is the ISO 50 image subtracted from ISO 80 using gimp layer "subtract" mode
https://app.box.com/s/liof6p46drxf88rou2ar7pooy9mvq977

As above, but with ISO 100 instead of ISO 80
https://app.box.com/s/nxmrn46nu6selm0xrw72ojix7sly5kiv

Logged

Don't forget what the H stands for.

blackhole

937
A590IS 101b

Re: SX410 IS porting thread

« Reply #77 on: 20 / May / 2017, 13:50:08 »

Quote

Thanks. To me, the difference between 50 and 80 seems very marginal, and 100 is only slightly more. I wouldn't feel bad about limiting the ISO to 100 to avoid crashes.

OK, here's a patch.
I'm sorry for the delay but I could not do it before.

sx410is_ISO_to_Canon_range.patch (0.55 kB - downloaded 18 times.)

Logged

http://astrofoto.pondi.hr

reyalp

14079

Re: SX410 IS porting thread

« Reply #78 on: 20 / May / 2017, 19:18:01 »

Quote from: blackhole on 20 / May / 2017, 13:50:08

OK, here's a patch.

Thanks. Added in trunk 4812.

Quote

I'm sorry for the delay but I could not do it before.

No worries, not at all urgent.

Logged

Don't forget what the H stands for.

Sdack

195

Re: SX410 IS porting thread

« Reply #79 on: 02 / October / 2017, 02:58:53 »

Hi folks,

I'm a newby looking to purchase the most recent affordable camera model with a working port. There's a couple of cheap SX410IS models on Gumtree at the moment and it seems to be one of the flashier models, so I'm trying to figure out if it will work for me.

It's been a long time since the last post in this thread and I see the build is still on the unstable releases page.

Did a showstopping issue arise, or did people just get busy, or perhaps moving the release to the stable branch was overlooked?

Cheers

Nigel

Logged