The only change implemented in CHDK DNG between 1.1 and 1.3 was that 1.3 no longer applies bad pixel correction in the camera. This means it does not need a badpixel.bin file.
This change was made because many people were having trouble creating badpixel.bin files using CHDK on their cameras. The reason for that is unknown but it might be due to small sensor reading variations from picture to picture that the code to create a bad pixel file did not like.
Does this mean that it would not be too hard to put the code back into CHDK to apply badpixel.bin to 1.3 DNGs?
Using 1.3 should also be slightly faster as the camera no longer needs to process the badpixel.bin file for every shot.
Yes, but quite tolerable - with "show raw processing time" on 1.1 showed 28xx, 26xx and 13xx; 1.3 showed 13xx, 16xx, 16xx
DNG 1.2 was not implemented because nobody volunteered to do it. Probably because there was not a good reason to do it. As mentioned above, DNG 1.3 was only implemented to solve a CHDK problem on some camera, not for an photographic reason.
Another reason to use 1.3 is that the badpixel.bin can take a substantial amount of memory. On some cameras, this is enough to cause problems.
It's also worth pointing that except for the handling of bad pixels, all RAW / DNG produced by CHDK have exactly the same image data.
So... from the above 2 quotes does that mean that there is no difference between CHDK created 1.1. and 1.3 DNGs? More specifically: Is CHDK adding opcodes and parameters to the 1.3 DNGs?
Here's my basic issue - I have always used CHDK for bracketing and DNGs. Picasa, IrfanView, and Photomatix would seamlessly handle the 1.1 DNGs. If CHDK-created 1.3 DNGs include opcodes and parameters that I may want to take advantage of at some point in the future I will have to make a big adjustment in my PP workflow. I will have to run the 1.3 DNGs through an Adobe product first to take care of badpixels, then into Photomatix for HDRs.
Do CHDK-created 1.3 DNGs have the additional opcodes, functions and parameters that could prove valuable now or in the future? Or is the difference between the 1.1 and 1.3 DNGs just in minor header and data structure changes (and thus no reason to add extra steps and storage to PP)?
