PowerShot SX230 HS - Porting Thread - page 69 - General Discussion and Assistance - CHDK Forum supplierdeeply

PowerShot SX230 HS - Porting Thread

  • 700 Replies
  • 213852 Views
*

Offline c_joerg

  • *****
  • 1005
Re: PowerShot SX230 HS - Porting Thread
« Reply #680 on: 15 / December / 2018, 13:35:34 »
Advertisements
No idea if this is a known problem...
I have started on a 64 GB SD card with exFAT rawopint (firmware update method). The script crashes immediately. ROMLOG is attached. The same card with FAT32 does not have the problem. With my other cameras, the problem did not happens.
M100 100a, M3 101a, 2*G1x (101a,100e), S110 (103a), SX50 (100c), SX230 (101a), S45,
Flickr https://www.flickr.com/photos/136329431@N06/albums
YouTube https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCrTH0tHy9OYTVDzWIvXEMlw/videos?shelf_id=0&view=0&sort=dd

*

Offline reyalp

  • ******
  • 12869
Re: PowerShot SX230 HS - Porting Thread
« Reply #681 on: 15 / December / 2018, 16:10:51 »
No idea if this is a known problem...
I have started on a 64 GB SD card with exFAT rawopint (firmware update method). The script crashes immediately. ROMLOG is attached. The same card with FAT32 does not have the problem. With my other cameras, the problem did not happens.
This is a memory allocation error, AllocateUncacheableMemory failed in a filesystem related call.

IIRC, this camera has low free RAM, and it's not surprising exFAT would take a bit more.

If you can post the results from chdkptp
Code: [Select]
=return get_meminfo('system'),get_meminfo('combined')
with exFAT and FAT32 cards that might be informative.
Don't forget what the H stands for.

*

Offline c_joerg

  • *****
  • 1005
Re: PowerShot SX230 HS - Porting Thread
« Reply #682 on: 16 / December / 2018, 03:38:22 »
If you can post the results from chdkptp
Code: [Select]
=return get_meminfo('system'),get_meminfo('combined')
with exFAT and FAT32 cards that might be informative.

Yesterday I started a longer run, which I would not like to cancel now.
Let's see how long the camera holds out ;)
As soon as the run is over, I'll try it out.
M100 100a, M3 101a, 2*G1x (101a,100e), S110 (103a), SX50 (100c), SX230 (101a), S45,
Flickr https://www.flickr.com/photos/136329431@N06/albums
YouTube https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCrTH0tHy9OYTVDzWIvXEMlw/videos?shelf_id=0&view=0&sort=dd

*

Offline reyalp

  • ******
  • 12869
Re: PowerShot SX230 HS - Porting Thread
« Reply #683 on: 16 / December / 2018, 20:16:34 »
Yesterday I started a longer run, which I would not like to cancel now.
No rush. There's probably not much we can do if it's due to low RAM, but would useful to confirm if exFAT does indeed use more.
Don't forget what the H stands for.


*

Offline c_joerg

  • *****
  • 1005
Re: PowerShot SX230 HS - Porting Thread
« Reply #684 on: 30 / December / 2018, 09:49:31 »
Yesterday I started a longer run, which I would not like to cancel now.
Let's see how long the camera holds out ;)
The Script runs now since more then two weeks in 4 minute interval without crashes. :)

If you can post the results from chdkptp
Code: [Select]
=return get_meminfo('system'),get_meminfo('combined')
with exFAT and FAT32 cards that might be informative.


Code: [Select]
FAT32, Autostart, play
3:return:table:{start_address=1615880,chdk_start=3989504,free_size=450416,chdk_size=164512,allocated_size=1545832,free_block_count=15,allocated_count=932,name="system",end_address=3612128,chdk_malloc=true,free_block_max_size=449752,allocated_peak=1614456,total_size=1996248,}
3:return:table:{chdk_start=3989504,free_size=451060,chdk_size=164512,allocated_size=1579660,free_block_count=20,name="combined",allocated_count=1645,chdk_malloc=true,free_block_max_size=449752,allocated_peak=1649064,total_size=2036536,}

FAT32, Autostart, record
5:return:table:{start_address=1615880,chdk_start=3989504,free_size=447008,chdk_size=164512,allocated_size=1549240,free_block_count=15,allocated_count=957,name="system",end_address=3612128,chdk_malloc=true,free_block_max_size=445624,allocated_peak=1614456,total_size=1996248,}
5:return:table:{chdk_start=3989504,free_size=447652,chdk_size=164512,allocated_size=1583068,free_block_count=20,name="combined",allocated_count=1670,chdk_malloc=true,free_block_max_size=445624,allocated_peak=1649064,total_size=2036536,}

FAT32, Firmware Update Boot, play
3:return:table:{start_address=1615880,chdk_start=3989504,free_size=449904,chdk_size=164512,allocated_size=1546344,free_block_count=14,allocated_count=937,name="system",end_address=3612128,chdk_malloc=true,free_block_max_size=449104,allocated_peak=1614960,total_size=1996248,}
3:return:table:{chdk_start=3989504,free_size=450548,chdk_size=164512,allocated_size=1580172,free_block_count=19,name="combined",allocated_count=1650,chdk_malloc=true,free_block_max_size=449104,allocated_peak=1649568,total_size=2036536,}

FAT32, Firmware Update Boot, record
5:return:table:{start_address=1615880,chdk_start=3989504,free_size=447048,chdk_size=164512,allocated_size=1549200,free_block_count=15,allocated_count=957,name="system",end_address=3612128,chdk_malloc=true,free_block_max_size=446064,allocated_peak=1614960,total_size=1996248,}
5:return:table:{chdk_start=3989504,free_size=447692,chdk_size=164512,allocated_size=1583028,free_block_count=20,name="combined",allocated_count=1670,chdk_malloc=true,free_block_max_size=446064,allocated_peak=1649568,total_size=2036536,}

exFAT, Firmware Update Boot, play
2:return:table:{start_address=1615880,chdk_start=3989504,free_size=449904,chdk_size=164512,allocated_size=1546344,free_block_count=13,allocated_count=937,name="system",end_address=3612128,chdk_malloc=true,free_block_max_size=449128,allocated_peak=1614800,total_size=1996248,}
2:return:table:{chdk_start=3989504,free_size=450548,chdk_size=164512,allocated_size=1580172,free_block_count=18,name="combined",allocated_count=1650,chdk_malloc=true,free_block_max_size=449128,allocated_peak=1649408,total_size=2036536,}

exFAT, Firmware Update Boot, record
4:return:table:{start_address=1615880,chdk_start=3989504,free_size=446856,chdk_size=164512,allocated_size=1549392,free_block_count=18,allocated_count=959,name="system",end_address=3612128,chdk_malloc=true,free_block_max_size=446168,allocated_peak=1614800,total_size=1996248,}
4:return:table:{chdk_start=3989504,free_size=445880,chdk_size=164512,allocated_size=1584984,free_block_count=18,name="combined",allocated_count=1670,chdk_malloc=true,free_block_max_size=445480,allocated_peak=1649408,total_size=2036536,}
Looks like that the free_size is smaller with exFAT...
M100 100a, M3 101a, 2*G1x (101a,100e), S110 (103a), SX50 (100c), SX230 (101a), S45,
Flickr https://www.flickr.com/photos/136329431@N06/albums
YouTube https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCrTH0tHy9OYTVDzWIvXEMlw/videos?shelf_id=0&view=0&sort=dd

*

Offline reyalp

  • ******
  • 12869
Re: PowerShot SX230 HS - Porting Thread
« Reply #685 on: 30 / December / 2018, 16:22:03 »
Looks like that the free_size is smaller with exFAT...
Honestly, it's so close, it seems unlikely to explain it. Looking at system heap:

FAT32, Firmware Update Boot, record
free_size=447048,
free_block_max_size=446064,
free_block_count=13,
allocated_count=937,

exFAT, Firmware Update Boot, record
free_size=446856,
free_block_max_size=446168,
free_block_count=18,
allocated_count=959,

It's only ~200 bytes less.

400+ KB free isn't that low, considering the Lua module is loaded for the chdkptp call.
I suppose it's possible that file operations significantly more memory or something.

The crash on exFAT happens before the first shot is taken?
Don't forget what the H stands for.

*

Offline c_joerg

  • *****
  • 1005
Re: PowerShot SX230 HS - Porting Thread
« Reply #686 on: 31 / December / 2018, 04:24:27 »
The crash on exFAT happens before the first shot is taken?

Thanks for the help, but I do not have the problem anymore. It must be related to the formatting of the SD.

The card had the original exFAT. I am not sure if I have ever formatted the card in a camera. After I had the problem with the SX230, I formatted it on FAT32. Then everything was OK. Now I have formatted it again in the camera with low level on exFAT. I do not have the problem anymore.

And as I said, I have the card for a long time and it has never happened with other cameras.
The card is a Samsung EVO+ 64GB
M100 100a, M3 101a, 2*G1x (101a,100e), S110 (103a), SX50 (100c), SX230 (101a), S45,
Flickr https://www.flickr.com/photos/136329431@N06/albums
YouTube https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCrTH0tHy9OYTVDzWIvXEMlw/videos?shelf_id=0&view=0&sort=dd

*

Offline SX720

  • *
  • 33
Re: PowerShot SX230 HS - Porting Thread
« Reply #687 on: 12 / September / 2020, 15:22:00 »
I had an ongoing issue with all my DNGs where there would be a white border on the right side of all my images. It happened when using both dcraw and RawTherapee. It turns out that the active area is wrong. Use this command to fix your existing DNGs:

Code: [Select]
exiftool -ActiveArea="16 92 3059 4164" CRW_xxxx.DNG

I used 3059 instead of 3060 because that extra row on the bottom caused artifacts on the converted image because some pixels are brighter. Removing it resolves the issue.


*

Offline philmoz

  • *****
  • 3225
    • Photos
Re: PowerShot SX230 HS - Porting Thread
« Reply #688 on: 12 / September / 2020, 18:11:37 »
I had an ongoing issue with all my DNGs where there would be a white border on the right side of all my images. It happened when using both dcraw and RawTherapee. It turns out that the active area is wrong. Use this command to fix your existing DNGs:

Code: [Select]
exiftool -ActiveArea="16 92 3059 4164" CRW_xxxx.DNG

I used 3059 instead of 3060 because that extra row on the bottom caused artifacts on the converted image because some pixels are brighter. Removing it resolves the issue.


According to the source the sensor is 3060 rows so, if the active area extends all the way to the bottom of the sensor then 3060 would be the correct value.


Perhaps there is a masked area along the bottom that has not been properly excluded.
Can you upload a sample DNG file and share the link here?



Note: the values should be even to avoid demosaicing issues.


Phil.

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 SX720

  • *
  • 33
Re: PowerShot SX230 HS - Porting Thread
« Reply #689 on: 12 / September / 2020, 20:33:47 »
There is already a raw sample available for the SX230 here:

https://raw.pixls.us/getfile.php/1683/nice/Canon%20-%20Canon%20PowerShot%20SX230%20HS%20-%2012bit%20CHDK%20ver.%201.4.1%20(4:3).DNG

The sample on the above link has the same problem with the last row that I described.

Also the SX220 HS has almost the same active area that I suggested (3060 instead of 3059 being the only difference):
https://raw.pixls.us/getfile.php/3296/nice/Canon%20-%20Canon%20PowerShot%20SX220%20HS%20-%2012bit%20CHDK%20ver.%201.4.1%20(4:3).DNG


You can see this here:
SX230 HS:
https://raw.pixls.us/getfile.php/1683/exif/CRW_5894.DNG.exif.txt
Code: [Select]
Exif.SubImage1.ActiveArea                     24 96 3060 4168

SX220 HS:
https://raw.pixls.us/getfile.php/3296/exif/CRW_7733.DNG.exif.txt
Code: [Select]
Exif.SubImage1.ActiveArea                     16 92 3060 4164

The SX220 sample has the white border on the right (if you change the active area), the SX230 sample does not for some reason. Also in the SX220 sample you can see the blue pixels just like I'm getting on the last row (on lower right hand corner of the image).

The only difference between the SX220 and the SX230 is that the SX230 has a GPS.
« Last Edit: 12 / September / 2020, 20:38:57 by SX720 »

 

Related Topics