PowerShot SX220 HS - Porting Thread - page 18 - General Discussion and Assistance - CHDK Forum
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 22 23 ... 57   Go Down

PowerShot SX220 HS - Porting Thread

  • 563 Replies
  • 230235 Views
*

Offline funnel

  • ****
  • 349
Re: PowerShot SX220 HS - Porting Thread
« Reply #170 on: 20 / June / 2011, 06:58:15 »
Advertisements
Quote
Quote
1) The autoiso override doesn't work in program mode, but it does in auto. Is this normal?
If you set the ISO to AUTOISO should work.
1) it usually works but not always.

I tried several times and the AUTOISO always worked perfectly. What camera version do you have?
Logged
*

Offline Blablaat

  • **
  • 53
Re: PowerShot SX220 HS - Porting Thread
« Reply #171 on: 20 / June / 2011, 08:10:55 »
The 1.00. This morning I tried autoiso with a SD card without pictures and it worked like a charm. I don't know why it stopped working last time.
Logged
*

Offline funnel

  • ****
  • 349
Re: PowerShot SX220 HS - Porting Thread
« Reply #172 on: 21 / June / 2011, 18:46:42 »
I don't know how to solve this problem with quality override to superfine. I tried to lower the allocated exmem memory and didn't make any difference. I watched the quality propcase and it gets set but doesn't work.

Here's some memory data I get but I don't see anything wrong here

Code: [Select]
> !return chdku.execwait('return get_meminfo()')
=true,{
 start_address=127185040,   //0x794B090
 chdk_start=126904288, //0x79067E0
 free_size=86984, // 0x153C8
 chdk_size=280752, // 0x448B0
 allocated_size=623368, // 0x98308
 total_size=243536, // 0x3B750
 name="exmem",
 end_address=127428576, //0x79867E0
 chdk_malloc=true,
 free_block_max_size=85528, // 0x14E18
 allocated_peak=704536, // 0xAC018
 free_block_count=8,
Code: [Select]
=================================================
 Name                 [Address]    , [Size]      
-------------------------------------------------
 EXMEM_RAMDISK        [0x479067C0] , [0x006F9840]
 EXMEM_COM            [0x478067C0] , [0x00100000]
 EXMEM_FORMATTER      [0x00000000] , [0x00000000]
 EXMEM_SHADING        [0x00000000] , [0x00000000]
 EXMEM_FAMODE         [0x00000000] , [0x00000000]
 EXMEM_FIRMUP         [0x00000000] , [0x00000000]
 EXMEM_FIRMUP_VRAM    [0x00000000] , [0x00000000]
 EXMEM_FIRMUP_INFLATE [0x00000000] , [0x00000000]
 EXMEM_DVLPWORK       [0x00000000] , [0x00000000]
 EXMEM_EVF            [0x00000000] , [0x00000000]
 EXMEM_SCRIPT         [0x00000000] , [0x00000000]
 EXMEM_GPS            [0x00000000] , [0x00000000]
 EXMEM_FILESTORE      [0x4338D500] , [0x044792C0]
 EXMEM_MOVIE_REC      [0x00000000] , [0x00000000]
 EXMEM_MOVIE_PLY      [0x00000000] , [0x00000000]
 EXMEM_WIDE           [0x00000000] , [0x00000000]
 EXMEM_NARROW         [0x00000000] , [0x00000000]
 EXMEM_SUPER_NARROW   [0x00000000] , [0x00000000]
 EXMEM_CRAW_REC       [0x00000000] , [0x00000000]
 EXMEM_PCEVF          [0x00000000] , [0x00000000]
=================================================
Code: [Select]
#PLATFORMID=0x322C
PLATFORMID=12844

PLATFORMOS=dryos

MEMBASEADDR=0x1900
RESTARTSTART=0x50000

ifdef OPT_CHDK_IN_EXMEM
MEMISOSTART=0x79067E0  # MAXRAMADDR+1 - EXMEM_HEAP_SKIP - EXMEM_BUFFER_SIZE - 32(0x20) (exmem allocates 64 bytes extra, 32 before and 32 after block allocated)
else #265kb=79467E0, 512kb=79067E0, 640kb=78E67E0
MEMISOSTART=0x186AE4   # original non-exmem value
endif

ROMBASEADDR=0xFF000000

MAXRAMADDR=0x7FFFFFF
EXMEM_BUFFER_SIZE=0x80000  # 40000=256KB, 80000=512KB, A0000=640kb, C0000=768KB, 100000=1MB
EXMEM_HEAP_SKIP=0x679800

PLFLAGS=-DMEMBASEADDR=$(MEMBASEADDR) -DMEMISOSTART=$(MEMISOSTART) -DMEMISOSIZE=$(MEMISOSIZE)
PLFLAGS+=-DRESTARTSTART=$(RESTARTSTART)

NEED_ENCODED_DISKBOOT=6
KEYSYS=d4c

Logged
*

Offline Mato34

  • *
  • 15
Re: PowerShot SX220 HS - Porting Thread
« Reply #173 on: 21 / June / 2011, 19:36:26 »
Regarding quality override and the lack of superfine since time ago, I think it's due to the fact that actual megapixel race implied some cost.

I mean, we have better resolution with the 12 MP of the SX220 than with the 5 MP of the A610, OK. Anyway those 5 MP were "plenty of quality" in front these 12 MP, more plenty of noise reduction, some lens blur, and noise itself.

So lowering the compression may turn in bigger files, but once you reach the level of noise, noise reduction, and lens blur, you don't get more quality.

Only my 2 cents.

Saludos!
Logged
*

Offline Blablaat

  • **
  • 53
Re: PowerShot SX220 HS - Porting Thread
« Reply #174 on: 22 / June / 2011, 07:57:01 »
Quote from: Mato34 on 21 / June / 2011, 19:36:26
Regarding quality override and the lack of superfine since time ago, I think it's due to the fact that actual megapixel race implied some cost.

I mean, we have better resolution with the 12 MP of the SX220 than with the 5 MP of the A610, OK. Anyway those 5 MP were "plenty of quality" in front these 12 MP, more plenty of noise reduction, some lens blur, and noise itself.

So lowering the compression may turn in bigger files, but once you reach the level of noise, noise reduction, and lens blur, you don't get more quality.

Only my 2 cents.

Saludos!

So you think there's no advantage of a "super fine"  mode? That it wouldn't improve the quality of the photos?
Logged
*

Offline philmoz

  • *****
  • 3450
    • Photos
Re: PowerShot SX220 HS - Porting Thread
« Reply #175 on: 22 / June / 2011, 08:09:25 »
Quote from: Blablaat on 22 / June / 2011, 07:57:01
So you think there's no advantage of a "super fine"  mode? That it wouldn't improve the quality of the photos?

In my testing Canon's fine mode is indistinguishable from superfine under normal viewing conditions.
CHDK allows you to process a single RAW image multiple times in the camera with different settings.
I used this feature to compare fine and super-fine versions of the same image on the SX30 - you can see the results here - http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1010&message=37238416

Phil.
Logged
CHDK ports:
  sx30is (1.00c, 1.00h, 1.00l, 1.00n & 1.00p)
  g12 (1.00c, 1.00e, 1.00f & 1.00g)
  sx130is (1.01d & 1.01f)
  ixus310hs (1.00a & 1.01a)
  sx40hs (1.00d, 1.00g & 1.00i)
  g1x (1.00e, 1.00f & 1.00g)
  g5x (1.00c, 1.01a, 1.01b)
  g7x2 (1.01a, 1.01b, 1.10b)
*

Offline funnel

  • ****
  • 349
Re: PowerShot SX220 HS - Porting Thread
« Reply #176 on: 22 / June / 2011, 11:13:20 »
Here's the new version that fixes the non standard CHDK start button issue. Now you have to hold on/off button to go directly into record mode.

Binary beta6 http://www.zshare.net/download/91745601f06b97bd/


There's one issue that is still present. When shooting in normal continuous mode in raw DNG mode sometimes hangs when saving between the shoots. It never hangs in continuousAF though.
Logged
*

Offline Blablaat

  • **
  • 53
Re: PowerShot SX220 HS - Porting Thread
« Reply #177 on: 22 / June / 2011, 11:55:02 »
Quote from: funnel on 22 / June / 2011, 11:13:20
Here's the new version that fixes the non standard CHDK start button issue. Now you have to hold on/off button to go directly into record mode.

Binary beta6 http://www.zshare.net/download/91745601f06b97bd/


There's one issue that is still present. When shooting in normal continuous mode in raw DNG mode sometimes hangs when saving between the shoots. It never hangs in continuousAF though.

Thx Funnel! I will test it this evening.
Logged
*

Offline Mato34

  • *
  • 15
Re: PowerShot SX220 HS - Porting Thread
« Reply #178 on: 22 / June / 2011, 12:01:47 »
Quote from: Blablaat on 22 / June / 2011, 07:57:01
So you think there's no advantage of a "super fine"  mode? That it wouldn't improve the quality of the photos?

Quote from: philmoz on 22 / June / 2011, 08:09:25
In my testing Canon's fine mode is indistinguishable from superfine under normal viewing conditions.
CHDK allows you to process a single RAW image multiple times in the camera with different settings.
I used this feature to compare fine and super-fine versions of the same image on the SX30 - you can see the results here - http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1010&message=37238416

Phil.


Well, Phil gave us the solution :) (thanks Phil)

I don't know if we will see any difference because I don't know the ratio compression/quality of the Fine mode, but I meant that probably it would be justified the lack of SuperFine setting from Canon these last years.

Several years ago, with 5-6 MP at base ISO we had low noise, that allowed smooth gradation and no noise reduction that smudges fine detail like grass or hair; also the lens were capable of resolving the sensor's resolution, and no distortion was corrected in-camera by soft.

Now we have 12 or more MP, and at base ISO we have noise (evident noise I'd say...). Some kind of noise reduction is a must, and this kills smooth gradation and smudges fine detail like grass or hair; also the lens perhaps can't resolve the sensor's resolution as before, and in fact with actual wide angle in pocket size geometrical distortion has to be corrected in camera (stretching the RAW image).

At the end we don't have the same level of "per pixel" quality, and so we don't need a setting that preserves quality as before. And I think Phil's test is a good one to proof this.


So I don't think that SuperFine override would be as important as other things are. But also I don't want to desencourage funnel in working at this (thanks again) :)

Saludos!
Logged
*

Offline funnel

  • ****
  • 349
Re: PowerShot SX220 HS - Porting Thread
« Reply #179 on: 22 / June / 2011, 12:29:53 »
That made me think and I made a simple experiment. I took a picture, corrected the lens distortion and cropped the final image. It comes out it's actually just an 8MP (3330x2340) image. That's just for the widest angle (5mm).
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 22 23 ... 57   Go Up
« previous next »
 

Related Topics


SimplePortal © 2008-2014, SimplePortal