Recent comments

Reply to: CRAW Canon EOS R5   1 year 1 month ago

EOS R5 is not officially supported by LibRaw 0.20, here is supported camera list: https://www.libraw.org/supported-cameras

Reply to: Canon 90D cr3 file command issue   1 year 1 month ago

OK, thank you.

Reply to: Canon 90D cr3 file command issue   1 year 1 month ago

There is no 'Document mode' in dcraw_emu

unprocessed_raw and/or 4channels sample(s) may solve your task.

Reply to: Determining 'Correctness' of white level values   1 year 1 month ago

White level (data maximum) is not as easy as it should be.

LibRaw provides (estimated) data maximum in imgdata.color.maximum. This value is
- either hardcoded (this is derived from dcraw.c)
- or last item of linearization curve
- or determined using camera bit count

For many formats/vendors/settings it is correct, for others it is overestimated (for example, Panasonic low ISO w/ full-well limited sensor, also Canon's intermediate ISOs)

Also, there is imgdata.color.linear_max[]. If filled (nonzero) this value(s) represents vendor suggested white point parsed from metadata. This value is usually way too low (there are a lot of pixels above this threshold), but it is (yes) suggested by vendor.

Also, there are vendor-specific values in parsed metadata fields (e.g. canon.NormalWhiteLevel/canon.SpecularWhiteLevel)

Reply to: Detect use of lossy compression in RAF   1 year 1 month ago

There is no direct/accurate way in LibRaw 0.20

If you're ready to subclass LibRaw to own class to access protected fields (libraw_internal_data.unpacker_data) , use this method:

position to libraw_internal_data.unpacker_data.data_offset and read header (16 bytes), data version in 3rd byte of header (header[2]), it is 1 for lossless compression (supported) and 0 for unsupported lossy.

Reply to: libraw 0.20.0 returns incorrect D65 multipliers and rgb_cam for ERBG file   1 year 1 month ago

Alex,
Apologies for jumping the gun and reporting the issue in 0.20.0 as a bug. I just saw that my tests had failed and assumed a regression. But I agree that 0.20.0 behaviour is better.

I will upgrade to 0.20.2 for the updated raw-identify behaviour.

Regards,
Dinesh

Reply to: libraw 0.20.0 returns incorrect D65 multipliers and rgb_cam for ERBG file   1 year 1 month ago

BTW, I strongly suggest to update to 0.20.2. raw-identify in 0.20.0 may display rgb_cam incorrect.

Reply to: libraw 0.20.0 returns incorrect D65 multipliers and rgb_cam for ERBG file   1 year 1 month ago

I also think the new version is better.

That is why I do not understand why it was called incorrect.

Reply to: libraw 0.20.0 returns incorrect D65 multipliers and rgb_cam for ERBG file   1 year 1 month ago

Alex,
This file has four distinct sensors. However, when the multiplier for E is marked as 0, this would indicate that the E component is being discarded. Same with the rgb_cam having 0's for the E component.

I noticed that the cam_xyz is the same as the F828 entry in the adobe_coeff table is the same. This indicates there is a change in how the rgb_cam and hence the Daylight multipliers are derived in the code.

That being said, the 0.19.5 version has a very strong yellow cast on the image but the image definitely looks better in 0.20.0. Please find attached screenshots in the same drive location as above. I assume the 0.20.0 is the expected behaviour.

Regards,
Dinesh

Reply to: libraw 0.20.0 returns incorrect D65 multipliers and rgb_cam for ERBG file   1 year 1 month ago

Your message subject: libraw 0.20.0 returns incorrect D65 multipliers and rgb_cam for ERBG file

Could you please clarify why you call 0.20.x data 'incorrect'?

What values do you think are correct and why?

Reply to: libraw 0.20.0 returns incorrect D65 multipliers and rgb_cam for ERBG file   1 year 1 month ago

The file can be found below:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1Bm-rfEpa6Ql-CtJFXJehtP51L9sjES9i...

Also, the filter pattern reported appears to be different (REGB vs ERBG) but I guess this is expected because the visible dimensions are different too.

Dinesh

Thanks,
Dinesh

Reply to: Decompression file size(LabRaw_emu.exe)   1 year 1 month ago

Сould you please reformulate your question?

I cannot understand what exactly confuses you.

Reply to: Differences in libraw behaviour between 0.19.5 and 0.20   1 year 1 month ago

Removing the WB_Coeff printing results in the rest of the raw-identify code working.

Dinesh

Reply to: Differences in libraw behaviour between 0.19.5 and 0.20   1 year 1 month ago

Alex,
Thanks for this. Once I applied this fix, the rgb_cam appears to be populated as you expected. The value is different than 0.19.5 but that appears to be expected based on the DNG fixes you made.

There does appear to be a bug with raw-identify though. When I dumped out information about this file, no information gets printed past "MakerNotes WB data". The executable appears to exit. Even the line "fprintf(outfile, "\nXYZ->CamRGB matrix:\n");" is not executed. The last few lines displayed are:

Filter pattern: RGGBRGGBRGGBRGGB
Highlight linearity limits: 3827 3827 3827 3827
Makernotes WB data: coeffs EVs
As shot 495 256 324 256 0.95 0.00 0.34 0.00

Happens even with NEF files. Appears to be an issue with printing out WB_Coeffs. I am on Windows.

Reply to: Differences in libraw behaviour between 0.19.5 and 0.20   1 year 1 month ago

Followup: yes, there is a bug here introduced by compiler warning elimination on Jul 02
Here is the fix: https://github.com/LibRaw/LibRaw/commit/349935f416b83069aefb286a5d8ff0f5...

The difference: in our code we always set use_camera_matrix to either 0 or 2 (do not use/forced), default value (it depends) is not used.

Reply to: Differences in libraw behaviour between 0.19.5 and 0.20   1 year 1 month ago

cmatrix is extracted

Could you please verify that the code snippet (memcpy from cmatrix to rgb_cam) is executed (or not)?

Reply to: Differences in libraw behaviour between 0.19.5 and 0.20   1 year 1 month ago

Alex,
I am not really seeing this behaviour on Windows. I am attaching three screenshots from VS debugger.

color struct after unpack()

+		cam_mul	0x000000fbf3763464 {2.08979583, 1.00000000, 1.78397214, 0.00000000}	float[4]
+		pre_mul	0x000000fbf3763474 {2.35568857, 1.00068939, 1.55817533, 0.00000000}	float[4]
+		cmatrix	0x000000fbf3763484 {0x000000fbf3763484 {1.60388803, -0.595357001, -0.00853104331, 0.00000000}, 0x000000fbf3763494 {...}, ...}	float[3][4]
+		ccm	0x000000fbf37634b4 {0x000000fbf37634b4 {0.00000000, 0.00000000, 0.00000000, 0.00000000}, 0x000000fbf37634c4 {...}, ...}	float[3][4]
-		rgb_cam	0x000000fbf37634e4 {0x000000fbf37634e4 {1.00000000, 0.00000000, 0.00000000, 0.00000000}, 0x000000fbf37634f4 {...}, ...}	float[3][4]
+		[0]	0x000000fbf37634e4 {1.00000000, 0.00000000, 0.00000000, 0.00000000}	float[4]
+		[1]	0x000000fbf37634f4 {0.00000000, 1.00000000, 0.00000000, 0.00000000}	float[4]
+		[2]	0x000000fbf3763504 {0.00000000, 0.00000000, 1.00000000, 0.00000000}	float[4]
-		cam_xyz	0x000000fbf3763514 {0x000000fbf3763514 {0.00000000, 0.00000000, 0.00000000}, 0x000000fbf3763520 {0.00000000, ...}, ...}	float[4][3]
+		[0]	0x000000fbf3763514 {0.00000000, 0.00000000, 0.00000000}	float[3]
+		[1]	0x000000fbf3763520 {0.00000000, 0.00000000, 0.00000000}	float[3]
+		[2]	0x000000fbf376352c {0.00000000, 0.00000000, 0.00000000}	float[3]
+		[3]	0x000000fbf3763538 {0.00000000, 0.00000000, 0.00000000}	float[3]

params struct before dcraw_process

+		gamm	0x000000fbf373f288 {0.41666666666666669, 12.920000000000000, 0.0000000000000000, 0.0000000000000000, ...}	double[6]
+		user_mul	0x000000fbf373f2b8 {0.00000000, 0.00000000, 0.00000000, 0.00000000}	float[4]
		shot_select	0	unsigned int
		bright	1.00000000	float
		threshold	0.00000000	float
		half_size	0	int
		four_color_rgb	0	int
		highlight	0	int
		use_auto_wb	0	int
		use_camera_wb	1	int
		use_camera_matrix	1	int
		output_color	1	int
+		output_profile	0x0000000000000000 <NULL>	char *
+		camera_profile	0x0000000000000000 <NULL>	char *

color struct after dcraw_process()

+		cam_mul	0x000000fbf3763464 {2.08979583, 1.00000000, 1.78397214, 0.00000000}	float[4]
+		pre_mul	0x000000fbf3763474 {2.08979583, 1.00000000, 1.78397214, 1.00000000}	float[4]
+		cmatrix	0x000000fbf3763484 {0x000000fbf3763484 {1.60388803, -0.595357001, -0.00853104331, 0.00000000}, 0x000000fbf3763494 {...}, ...}	float[3][4]
-		ccm	0x000000fbf37634b4 {0x000000fbf37634b4 {0.00000000, 0.00000000, 0.00000000, 0.00000000}, 0x000000fbf37634c4 {...}, ...}	float[3][4]
+		[0]	0x000000fbf37634b4 {0.00000000, 0.00000000, 0.00000000, 0.00000000}	float[4]
+		[1]	0x000000fbf37634c4 {0.00000000, 0.00000000, 0.00000000, 0.00000000}	float[4]
+		[2]	0x000000fbf37634d4 {0.00000000, 0.00000000, 0.00000000, 0.00000000}	float[4]
-		rgb_cam	0x000000fbf37634e4 {0x000000fbf37634e4 {1.00000000, 0.00000000, 0.00000000, 0.00000000}, 0x000000fbf37634f4 {...}, ...}	float[3][4]
+		[0]	0x000000fbf37634e4 {1.00000000, 0.00000000, 0.00000000, 0.00000000}	float[4]
+		[1]	0x000000fbf37634f4 {0.00000000, 1.00000000, 0.00000000, 0.00000000}	float[4]
+		[2]	0x000000fbf3763504 {0.00000000, 0.00000000, 1.00000000, 0.00000000}	float[4]
-		cam_xyz	0x000000fbf3763514 {0x000000fbf3763514 {0.00000000, 0.00000000, 0.00000000}, 0x000000fbf3763520 {0.00000000, ...}, ...}	float[4][3]
+		[0]	0x000000fbf3763514 {0.00000000, 0.00000000, 0.00000000}	float[3]
+		[1]	0x000000fbf3763520 {0.00000000, 0.00000000, 0.00000000}	float[3]
+		[2]	0x000000fbf376352c {0.00000000, 0.00000000, 0.00000000}	float[3]
+		[3]	0x000000fbf3763538 {0.00000000, 0.00000000, 0.00000000}	float[3]

My workflow is:
open_file()
unpack()
// Set params
dcraw_process()
dcraw_make_mem_image()

Is this something to do with how the library is compiled?

Regards,
Dinesh

Reply to: Differences in libraw behaviour between 0.19.5 and 0.20   1 year 1 month ago

This code is (indeed) executed and rgb_cam becomes:

-		rgb_cam	0x00000128c200b044 {0x00000128c200b044 {1.60388803, -0.595357001, -0.00853104331, 0.00000000}, 0x00000128c200b054 {...}, ...}	float[3][4]
+		[0]	0x00000128c200b044 {1.60388803, -0.595357001, -0.00853104331, 0.00000000}	float[4]
+		[1]	0x00000128c200b054 {-0.145714581, 1.32941270, -0.183698103, 0.00000000}	float[4]
+		[2]	0x00000128c200b064 {0.0402970426, -0.722867191, 1.68257010, 0.00000000}	float[4]
Reply to: Differences in libraw behaviour between 0.19.5 and 0.20   1 year 1 month ago

It is not identity if params are set correctly, this code piece propagates cmatrix to rgb_cam:

  if ((use_camera_matrix & (((use_camera_wb || dng_version)?0:1) | 0x2)) &&
      cmatrix[0][0] > 0.125)
  {
    memcpy(rgb_cam, cmatrix, sizeof cmatrix);
...
Reply to: Differences in libraw behaviour between 0.19.5 and 0.20   1 year 1 month ago

Alex,
Thanks for sharing those. The colors in the 0.20 version do appear muted compared to 0.19 in my opinion. The output_params settings I am using the camera white balance and not d65. The use_camera_matrix setting is the same as before.

I am getting very similar results to libraw when I attempt to generate an sRGB image using my custom pipeline and the metadata that libraw has returned.

I wanted to confirm that the new behaviour is expected and getting rgb_cam as an identity matrix is valid because it does not seem intuitive to me.

Regards
Dinesh

Reply to: Differences in libraw behaviour between 0.19.5 and 0.20   1 year 1 month ago

I do not see that processing result is dull

Here is the file processed with LibRaw 0.19.5 (dcraw_emu -w -T): https://www.dropbox.com/s/efh2f1rkukunuif/screenshot%202020-10-13%2016.2...

Here is LibRaw 0.20 processing (with daylight WB): https://www.dropbox.com/s/6x7l71j1e9f90s1/screenshot%202020-10-13%2016.2...

Please note that 'camera matrix' is used for DNG files if use_camera_matrix is either default (1) or greater.

Reply to: Differences in libraw behaviour between 0.19.5 and 0.20   1 year 1 month ago

Alex,
So is the old DNG processing behaviour a bug which has been fixed in the new code? Because the colours in the rendered sRGB image with 0.20 appear duller than 0.19.5.

But, I am surprised why the rgb_cam is being returned as an identity matrix. There was a bunch of changes made to DNG Frame Selection. I want to ensure that I do not have to add any additional code to ensure the correct frame and the properties corresponding to it are selected.

Is there a way to fallback on 0.19.5 behaviour? I see there is ifdef'ed code to fallback to use auto_ptr vs unique_ptr. Is there similar for old DNG processing?

Regards,
Dinesh

Reply to: libraw errors with DNG files processed by Adobe LightRoom   1 year 1 month ago

I will give this a shot and get back if I have any trouble.

Dinesh

Reply to: Differences in libraw behaviour between 0.19.5 and 0.20   1 year 1 month ago

1) Many smartphone-produced DNG files has 'unusual' order of color data, the 1st one is daylight matrix, the 2nd one is for incandescent.
The old code (LibRaw 0.19/dcraw.c) always uses the last colordata (ColorMatrix) seen in the file. This works fine for Adobe-DNG-SDK-produced files (daylight colormatrix is the last one), but not with files where ColorMatrix1/ColorMatrix2 order is reversed.
Also, if several different sub-images are present in the DNG file with separate (own) colordata, the old code (again) uses the last one ColorMatrix specified

In the LibRaw 0.20 correct color matrix selection is implemented in both cases.

2) Visible size (or margins size) has changed in 0.20 for many cameras:
- for some cameras, vendor specified size is used instead of hardcoded one
- for all Bayer cameras margins are rounded to multiple of 2
- for all X-Trans cameras margins are rounded to multiple of 6

The last two changes is because of ambiguity in previous version: since LibRaw 0.20 bayer(/X-Trans) pattern is the same for both possible coordinate systems (entire area/visible area)

Pages