PowerShot SX220 HS - Porting Thread - page 37 - General Discussion and Assistance - CHDK Forum

PowerShot SX220 HS - Porting Thread

  • 563 Replies
  • 222145 Views
Re: PowerShot SX220 HS - Porting Thread
« Reply #360 on: 12 / August / 2011, 19:36:51 »
Advertisements
Another question: is there any possibility to speed up writing of RAWs? I use class10 SDHC card
but one shots takes about 5 sec.

Buy a better class 10 card, that's one solution to get faster writing speeds. I use a Sandisk 8GB Extreme (class 10) and it takes not more than 3 sec. Still not suitable for burst / continuous shooting but al lot better than 5 sec.

You can also set the JPEG 'output' on the lowest resolution / quality, that also speeds up the process a little bit.
« Last Edit: 12 / August / 2011, 19:39:28 by Blablaat »

Re: PowerShot SX220 HS - Porting Thread
« Reply #361 on: 12 / August / 2011, 19:41:39 »
Funnel, did you change anything that can and/or did affect the save raw option?

I took some pictures (in Tv) and not all raws were saved. Some of the raws that the camera did save are not labelled correct (IMG_01 = CRW_02).


(8GB SD, CHDK 0.9.9-1266, FW 100a)

This issue is fixed in the latest build(1290).

Thanks Funnel!

*

Offline Tiz

  • *
  • 29
Re: PowerShot SX220 HS - Porting Thread
« Reply #362 on: 13 / August / 2011, 00:39:23 »
I mounted the SX220 on a tripod and used 2 sec self-timer function. I made several shots with ISO 100, 400 and 3 different sharpness settings (very low, normal, very high). With respect to the very first pic, the flash was accidentally activated. I therefore deleted the first .jpg (but not the RAW which is 0649).

Now the problem: The .jpg images were numbered IMG_0651-655. (The deleted .jpg must have been 0650.) However, the RAWs were numbered CRW_0649-654. It appears that my old CRW_0649 (I still have it on my harddrive) has been deleted/overwritten because it is not on the SD card anymore. Moreover, one RAW seems to be missing. (I am quite concerned that this might happen to my precious holiday pics ...)

In addition, I made the experience that the colors of the RAWs significantly differ from the .jpg colors. In particular, this applies to low-light indoor shooting. But also the low-light outdoor RAWs visibly differ from the .jpgs. I am using Lightroom.

Thanks

Firmware 100a
CHDK-DE 1.1.0
Revision 734
Date Aug 6, 2011
I somehow got this build from mighty hoersche server.

« Last Edit: 13 / August / 2011, 01:10:17 by Tiz »

Re: PowerShot SX220 HS - Porting Thread
« Reply #363 on: 13 / August / 2011, 05:12:48 »
Another question: is there any possibility to speed up writing of RAWs? I use class10 SDHC card
but one shots takes about 5 sec. So, one can forget about serial shot or bracketing with RAWs.
I saw a CHDK option "RAW buffer cached", but I don't see any difference in working time.


Probably your card is not a true class 10, even not class 6. there is lot of fake cheap cards on the marked with label class 10 but all of them are class 4 or just 2.

With an original secure digital class 6 extreme card the raw saving procedure for me is between 2 - 3 sec, and continous shooting jgp-s with full resolution in program mode is realy quick. fist 2 shot are taken within 1 sec, it contiues with cca 0.7 sec / shots (without flash of course).

Re: PowerShot SX220 HS - Porting Thread
« Reply #364 on: 13 / August / 2011, 06:18:37 »
Try
I mounted the SX220 on a tripod and used 2 sec self-timer function. I made several shots with ISO 100, 400 and 3 different sharpness settings (very low, normal, very high). With respect to the very first pic, the flash was accidentally activated. I therefore deleted the first .jpg (but not the RAW which is 0649).

Now the problem: The .jpg images were numbered IMG_0651-655. (The deleted .jpg must have been 0650.) However, the RAWs were numbered CRW_0649-654. It appears that my old CRW_0649 (I still have it on my harddrive) has been deleted/overwritten because it is not on the SD card anymore. Moreover, one RAW seems to be missing. (I am quite concerned that this might happen to my precious holiday pics ...)

In addition, I made the experience that the colors of the RAWs significantly differ from the .jpg colors. In particular, this applies to low-light indoor shooting. But also the low-light outdoor RAWs visibly differ from the .jpgs. I am using Lightroom.

Thanks

Firmware 100a
CHDK-DE 1.1.0
Revision 734
Date Aug 6, 2011
I somehow got this build from mighty hoersche server.


to develop the raw files with a better raw develop softvare, and you can get any result what you want, colors, brightness, lens correction etc, try photoshops own raw develop or raw therapy 3, it is open source and free to use.

Re: PowerShot SX220 HS - Porting Thread
« Reply #365 on: 13 / August / 2011, 12:42:33 »
I mounted the SX220 on a tripod and used 2 sec self-timer function. I made several shots with ISO 100, 400 and 3 different sharpness settings (very low, normal, very high). With respect to the very first pic, the flash was accidentally activated. I therefore deleted the first .jpg (but not the RAW which is 0649).

Now the problem: The .jpg images were numbered IMG_0651-655. (The deleted .jpg must have been 0650.) However, the RAWs were numbered CRW_0649-654. It appears that my old CRW_0649 (I still have it on my harddrive) has been deleted/overwritten because it is not on the SD card anymore. Moreover, one RAW seems to be missing. (I am quite concerned that this might happen to my precious holiday pics ...)

Should be fixed in the latest CHDK version. Funnel fixed this bug a few days ago.

In addition, I made the experience that the colors of the RAWs significantly differ from the .jpg colors. In particular, this applies to low-light indoor shooting. But also the low-light outdoor RAWs visibly differ from the .jpgs. I am using Lightroom

It is clear that you don't know much about RAW. If you want to know more about this file format check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_image_format.

"Raw files are so named because they are not yet processed and therefore are not ready to be printed or edited with a bitmap graphics editor."
« Last Edit: 13 / August / 2011, 12:45:26 by Blablaat »

*

Offline Tiz

  • *
  • 29
Re: PowerShot SX220 HS - Porting Thread
« Reply #366 on: 13 / August / 2011, 16:50:19 »
1. LR is identical to PS. Both LR and PS are clearly superior to RAW therapy. It is very burdensome and difficult to adjust the settings (white balance, tint etc) so that the indoor RAWs look close to the .jpgs. The color of the RAWs is way off. This also applies to version 1290. Just tested.

2.
Blablabla: You are clueless. Normally, the RAW color profile makes sure that the LR developed RAWs look identical to the .jpgs. Your generic wiki info ... have you ever developed a RAW? Or made any photos at all? Oh my ...

3.
Notwithstanding the above, I do not complain about the development. By contrast, I am grateful. It just seems to me that color profile needs some further improvement.
« Last Edit: 13 / August / 2011, 16:57:07 by Tiz »

Re: PowerShot SX220 HS - Porting Thread
« Reply #367 on: 13 / August / 2011, 18:36:20 »
2.
Blablabla: You are clueless. Normally, the RAW color profile makes sure that the LR developed RAWs look identical to the .jpgs. Your generic wiki info ... have you ever developed a RAW? Or made any photos at all? Oh my ...

Tiz:

First of all you need to read my posts. I know my English is not that good but I also know it's not horrible. My nickname is Blablaat, not blablabla. There is no reason to make fun of my name. Be polite, you don't have to act childish.

Second, I think I developed more RAWs this weekend than you did in your whole life. But I understand your reaction. No hard feelings.

You've got a point when I comes to indoor photography. Especially when you don't use the flash you have to take the time to develop the RAWs. Photos that are shot outdoors are a lot easier. However, a developed indoor shot RAW is still a lot better than the original JPEG.

Undeveloped RAWs (even if you apply the color profile that was provided by the camera) don't have to be the same as the JPEG. You did not read the wiki.

BTW... Are you still using the Adobe Lens Profile I created?
« Last Edit: 13 / August / 2011, 18:47:53 by Blablaat »

*

Offline reyalp

  • ******
  • 14128
Re: PowerShot SX220 HS - Porting Thread
« Reply #368 on: 13 / August / 2011, 19:42:47 »
Blablabla: You are clueless. Normally, the RAW color profile makes sure that the LR developed RAWs look identical to the .jpgs.
In the case of CHDK raws (not DNG), how raws "look" is entirely between you and your software. CHDK raw contains no metadata at all, and so cannot have any influence over how your software chooses to render them. If you are talking about CHDK DNG, there is an embedded color matrix. If you find the current one to be unsatisfactory, you are welcome to suggest improvements or develop your own color profiles to use in your workflow.
Don't forget what the H stands for.

*

Offline Tiz

  • *
  • 29
Re: PowerShot SX220 HS - Porting Thread
« Reply #369 on: 14 / August / 2011, 02:10:17 »
@Blablaat

We reap what we sow: Your tone was a bit unfriendly/arrogant. That's why I tried to be even more unfriendly and arrogant. But I am still happy to discuss this matter in a more civilized manner.

"You've got a point when I comes to indoor photography. Especially when you don't use the flash you have to take the time to develop the RAWs. Photos that are shot outdoors are a lot easier. However, a developed indoor shot RAW is still a lot better than the original JPEG."

Yes. RAWs are always better than JPEGs. Do you think that DNG color matrix can be improved so that the RAW colors come closer to reality (like the JPEGs)? So far, I had cameras from Canon, Olympus and Sony. The LR RAWs were always very close to the JPEGs. If I correctly remember, the SX220 color matrix was developed on the basis of a test shot made by funnel? Did he have a calibrated monitor (not sure whether this is relevant)?

"BTW... Are you still using the Adobe Lens Profile I created?"

Yes, I do (although I am not sure whether I have the latest version). I any event, am grateful for this lens profile! (Frankly speaking, I did not remember that when I posted my harsh reply. I merely reacted to the words "It is clear that you don't know much ...".) As regards the lens profile, I have two comments: First, it would be great if the latest version of the CHDK port AND the lens profile could be easily found somewhere. Second, I understand that 100% distortion correction (in connection with zero vignetting) results (i) in soft edges and (ii) in a reduced angle of view. I am wondering what's the best compromise (as regards SX220 wide angle shots).  


@reyalp Yes. I was talking about the DNGs and the embedded color matrix.
« Last Edit: 14 / August / 2011, 02:12:23 by Tiz »

 

Related Topics


SimplePortal © 2008-2014, SimplePortal