PowerShot SX230 HS - Porting Thread - page 38 - General Discussion and Assistance

dlrwevans

3

Re: PowerShot SX230 HS - Porting Thread

« Reply #370 on: 23 / November / 2011, 21:20:52 »

Advertisements

[/quote]
No this is not a bug. Use the "create badpixel.bin" file menu option, just like the message says.
[/quote]

I had tried this but could not seem to get it to work. With your admonishment, I tried a second and third time. Third try was charm. I finally got it (i.e., the" create badpixel.bin) to work.

The DNG file comes out with a fisheye-type distortion that the corresponding .jpg file does not have. Anyone seen this before?

Logged

waterwingz

12140

Re: PowerShot SX230 HS - Porting Thread

« Reply #371 on: 23 / November / 2011, 21:24:24 »

Quote from: dlrwevans on 23 / November / 2011, 21:20:52

I had tried this but could not seem to get it to work. With your admonishment, I tried a second and third time. Third try was charm. I finally got it (i.e., the" create badpixel.bin) to work.

Bad pixel wants to get a couple of images with almost the same bad pixel count. Its not very precise so sometime it takes a few shots. At least you only ever have to do it once.

Quote from: dlrwevans on 23 / November / 2011, 21:20:52

The DNG file comes out with a fisheye-type distortion that the corresponding .jpg file does not have. Anyone seen this before?

Pretty much everyone who has tried to do RAW on a recent Canon P&S. Search the forum - you won't be short of things to read.

Or you could start with this :

CHDK Forum thread on RAW
CHDK Wiki Page about RAW
CHDK Wiki Page about Raw Software

« Last Edit: 23 / November / 2011, 21:32:29 by waterwingz »

Logged

Ported : A1200 SD940 G10 Powershot N G16

reyalp

14119

Re: PowerShot SX230 HS - Porting Thread

« Reply #372 on: 23 / November / 2011, 21:30:44 »

Quote from: dlrwevans on 23 / November / 2011, 21:20:52

The DNG file comes out with a fisheye-type distortion that the corresponding .jpg file does not have. Anyone seen this before?

Modern canon cameras correct for lens distortion in software. This is not corrected in the raw. You should be able to find some information on this by searching the forum, e.g. http://chdk.setepontos.com/index.php?topic=6996.msg75263#msg75263

Logged

Don't forget what the H stands for.

dlrwevans

3

Re: PowerShot SX230 HS - Porting Thread

« Reply #373 on: 23 / November / 2011, 22:57:32 »

Thanks for the prompt assistance. And for all your hard work on CHDK.

Logged

lukenash707

3

Re: PowerShot SX230 HS - Porting Thread

« Reply #374 on: 25 / November / 2011, 23:47:58 »

I recently purchased the SX230hs. I spent all day getting the ptpcam to work and have successfully acomplished that. I would now like see a live view from the camera on the PC to make focussing the camera during astrophotography easier. I have come accross a few different programs such as one by breezesystems, I also tried canon's own brand remotecapture task. None have worked so far. Does anyone have any ideas on how to do this using chdk?

Thanks

Luke

Logged

lukenash707

3

Re: PowerShot SX230 HS - Porting Thread

« Reply #375 on: 25 / November / 2011, 23:50:00 »

Also, thanks for all the work you guys put into CHDK, it's an awesome project, canon should be paying you guys a lot of money.

Logged

ArnoldBis

Is the quality override working?

« Reply #376 on: 28 / November / 2011, 22:57:03 »

I am using the latest 1.01b firmware. The JPEG files created are the same size (around 2-3 MB) regardless of the Quality Override setting -- i.e., they are the same quality, whether one selects normal, fine, or superfine. And JPEGSnoop confirms that the DCT quantization tables are the same regardless of the quality setting. Is this functionality working?

Logged

waterwingz

12140

Re: PowerShot SX230 HS - Porting Thread

« Reply #377 on: 28 / November / 2011, 23:25:15 »

Quote from: ArnoldBis on 28 / November / 2011, 22:57:03

I am using the latest 1.01b firmware. The JPEG files created are the same size (around 2-3 MB) regardless of the Quality Override setting -- i.e., they are the same quality, whether one selects normal, fine, or superfine. And JPEGSnoop confirms that the DCT quantization tables are the same regardless of the quality setting. Is this functionality working?

I think its all a question of what the camera is set to in the Canon menus in the first place.

Go into the Canon menus and set the quality setting to the lowest level ( usually called Normal instead of Fine or Super Fine) and the compression to the highest level. Take a picture. Then use CHDK to override Quality. I think you will find the image size gets a lot larger when you ask CHDK to change the quality from the base setting for the camera.

Update : never mind my previous comment. On my G10, I can set the Canon for Super Fine and use the CHDK menu to override that to Normal. The port on your SX230 might still need some work.

« Last Edit: 28 / November / 2011, 23:43:45 by waterwingz »

Logged

Ported : A1200 SD940 G10 Powershot N G16

ArnoldBis

Re: PowerShot SX230 HS - Porting Thread

« Reply #378 on: 29 / November / 2011, 09:42:56 »

Quote from: waterwingz on 28 / November / 2011, 23:25:15

Update : never mind my previous comment. On my G10, I can set the Canon for Super Fine and use the CHDK menu to override that to Normal. The port on your SX230 might still need some work.

Yes, I think that the JPEG quality/compression setting override for the SX230 port (which is working great otherwise) has been bugged for a while. See, for example:

Quote from: Luth on 02 / September / 2011, 12:57:49

Have you looked into the .jpg compression bug yet?
I've been mostly using chdk for bracketing photos and no matter which quality settings i choose, the file comes out rathers small in filesize.
For eg. same pic without chdk is around 5MB and with chdk its 2.5MB, so the quality is a bit low. Compression seems to be normal or below always.

Quote from: grahamlyth on 24 / September / 2011, 09:09:33

So far, this version works great for me, with one exception.

...

However, there is definitely something weird going on with JPEG compression. With the camera set to JPEG Compression Fine, file sizes are larger with CHDK switched off than they are with CHDK on (with all overrides disabled). Exif shows Fine compression in each case. Anecdotally (I don't have a properly controlled test to prove it) the difference in file size seems to be greater with complex scenes.

Quote from: Peter_A720 on 23 / August / 2011, 05:22:35

I can confirm the known 400 ISO limit, but it seems to me that there is another fatal Problem:

If I use CHDK, the JPG-files are all the time very small (2-3MB) with 12M-Pixel!!! So the JPG-compression-quality must be always "Normal"

I tried every quality override and Extra Photo Operations setting, the only changes are the Exif information of the JPEG images.

With JPG-compression-quality "Fine" (works only without CHDK) the JPG-file sizes are 3.5 to 5MB, so I expect with JPG-compression-quality "superfine" JPG-file sizes up to 8MB

So it definitely seems like this is an issue that people have experienced with different cameras.

Logged

ststststst

1

Re: PowerShot SX230 HS - Porting Thread

« Reply #379 on: 30 / November / 2011, 09:41:33 »

I have been looking very hard, trying every button to try to open the menu after installing CHDK. But since there is no 'print' button on SX230HS, how can you open the CHDK menu??? Thanks in advance.

Logged