I'm also unable to open this file using both LibRaw (and LibRaw based software) and Adobe Camera Raw.
Аre you absolutely sure that this file is not damaged?
According to Exiftool for your 1st file:
GPS Latitude : 48 deg 7' 48.30" N
GPS Longitude : 11 deg 34' 2.32" E
According to LibRaw (variables from MSVC Debugger):
+ latitude 0x0000016e11b1f0cc {48.0000000, 7.00000000, 48.3039856} float[3]
+ longitude 0x0000016e11b1f0d8 {11.0000000, 34.0000000, 2.32399201} float[3]
I do not see any difference.
It is likely that your '(0, 48, 7)' is lattitude array dump (1st 3-item array in parsed_gps structure), it looks like offsets used (either in parsing or in interpreting the data) are wrong.
Please make sure you use libraw*.h and libraw*so (.a) from the same version (so assume same structures offset).
Another possible problem is structure padding (different assumption in calling code and in compiled LibRaw)
Hi, will ZRAW support be coming soon? Z-Cam's are getting quite popular with the indie cinie scene, so it'd be great to have those files supported by LibRaw.
Libraw team pointed out that the problem could be in the firmware so we had our customer do an upgrade of the camera firmware and the problem is now gone.
Thanks!
The colors look fine. I have posted the image in the google drive link in my earlier post (f828_srgb_0.202.png). The image is different from 0.20.0 but does not appear bad or malformed.
Please confirm if the change to rgb_cam is expected.
Alex,
I debugged my code and actually looked at the rgb_cam values in memory and they are different between 0.20.0 and 0.20.2. You can check the values I have posted in my first post.
The google drive link above has the RAW file. You can confirm this at your end.
Alex,
I understand there is no "right" answer when rendering an RGB image from CFA data. The images in 0.20.0 and 0.20.2 look quite similar (no opinion on which is better, they both look good).
I wanted to confirm that the changed value in 0.20.2 was expected and not accidental because it matched the values from an older behaviour.
I cannot understand your question. You complained 0.20.0/raw-identify displays incorrect data for some color matrices. We fixed that in 0.20.1/0.20.2. What exactly is the problem?
Ok, so reducing quality is with libraw_set_demosaic(handler, LibRaw_interpolation_quality.LINEAR); ?
I tried it and its speeding up the process already a little bit.
Unfortunate I can't access the params-scruct from SharpLibRaw, its not implemented, so I'm not able to play with params.user_qual and/or use half-size.
I'm also unable to open this file using both LibRaw (and LibRaw based software) and Adobe Camera Raw.
Аre you absolutely sure that this file is not damaged?
Thank you
Github version just updated: https://www.libraw.org/news/libraw-202101-snapshot
According to Exiftool for your 1st file:
GPS Latitude : 48 deg 7' 48.30" N
GPS Longitude : 11 deg 34' 2.32" E
According to LibRaw (variables from MSVC Debugger):
+ latitude 0x0000016e11b1f0cc {48.0000000, 7.00000000, 48.3039856} float[3]
+ longitude 0x0000016e11b1f0d8 {11.0000000, 34.0000000, 2.32399201} float[3]
I do not see any difference.
It is likely that your '(0, 48, 7)' is lattitude array dump (1st 3-item array in parsed_gps structure), it looks like offsets used (either in parsing or in interpreting the data) are wrong.
Please make sure you use libraw*.h and libraw*so (.a) from the same version (so assume same structures offset).
Another possible problem is structure padding (different assumption in calling code and in compiled LibRaw)
Parsing of LibRaw GPS data doesn't seem to match EXIF
RAW_PENTAX_K20D.PEF
http://www.rawsamples.ch/raws/pentax/k20d/RAW_PENTAX_K20D.PEF
LibRaw parsed_gps: ((0, 48, 7), (48.3039855957031, 11, 34), (2.32399201393127, 18, 14), 50, '3', 'S', #20, 'D', #0)
EXIF:
GPS Version ID : 2.2.0.0
GPS Latitude Ref : North
GPS Latitude : 48.130084°
GPS Longitude Ref : East
GPS Longitude : 11.567312°
GPS Altitude Ref : Above Sea Level
GPS Altitude : 593.3 m
GPS Time Stamp : 18:14:50
GPS Satellites : 0
GPS Map Datum : WGS-84
GPS Date Stamp : 2008:05:08
RAW_SONY_SLTA65V.ARW
http://www.rawsamples.ch/raws/sony/RAW_SONY_SLTA65V.ARW
LibRaw parsed_gps: ((0, 45, 35), (39.9160003662109, 9, 13), (40.5859985351562, 17, 54), 50, '=', #10, '4', 'C', #0)
EXIF:
GPS Version ID : 2.3.0.0
GPS Latitude Ref : North
GPS Latitude : 45.594421°
GPS Longitude Ref : East
GPS Longitude : 9.227941°
GPS Altitude Ref : Above Sea Level
GPS Altitude : 180.04 m
GPS Time Stamp : 17:54:50
GPS Status : Measurement Active
GPS Measure Mode : 3-Dimensional Measurement
GPS Dilution Of Precision : 1.5647
GPS Speed Ref : km/h
GPS Speed : 0.145
GPS Track Ref : True North
GPS Track : 209.84
GPS Map Datum : WGS-84
GPS Date Stamp : 2012:01:04
GPS Differential : No Correction
Great thanks!
I appreciate all your hard work.
Not yet.
We plan to push new LibRaw snapshot to github this week.
Are the necessary changes in the Git repo if we build from source? I skimmed the commit logs but didn't see anything obvious and we need this too.
Thanks,
LibRaw is not about video, so no specific plans for ZRAW.
Nonetheless if you could share some sample file(s) with us, we'll look at them
Hi, will ZRAW support be coming soon? Z-Cam's are getting quite popular with the indie cinie scene, so it'd be great to have those files supported by LibRaw.
Libraw team pointed out that the problem could be in the firmware so we had our customer do an upgrade of the camera firmware and the problem is now gone.
Thanks!
Thanks for looking into this issue.
No, this is not known issue.
We really need sample file(s) with this issue.
Please send some to info@libraw.org (or use some file sharing service, eg. Dropbox or WeTransfer/Free option and send link to this E-mail)
The colors look fine. I have posted the image in the google drive link in my earlier post (f828_srgb_0.202.png). The image is different from 0.20.0 but does not appear bad or malformed.
Please confirm if the change to rgb_cam is expected.
Dinesh
OK, may be, too lazy to check.
Is something wrong with F828 colors and LibRaw 0.20.2?
Alex,
I debugged my code and actually looked at the rgb_cam values in memory and they are different between 0.20.0 and 0.20.2. You can check the values I have posted in my first post.
The google drive link above has the RAW file. You can confirm this at your end.
Dinesh
The problem was in raw-identify printing code, not in data.
Alex,
I understand there is no "right" answer when rendering an RGB image from CFA data. The images in 0.20.0 and 0.20.2 look quite similar (no opinion on which is better, they both look good).
I wanted to confirm that the changed value in 0.20.2 was expected and not accidental because it matched the values from an older behaviour.
Regards,
Dinesh
I cannot understand your question. You complained 0.20.0/raw-identify displays incorrect data for some color matrices. We fixed that in 0.20.1/0.20.2. What exactly is the problem?
Alex,
I am upgrading to 0.20.2 and I noticed for this file, the rgb_cam value matches that of 0.19.5 instead of 0.20.0.
The raw-identify output on 0.20.2 has the following:
Camera2RGB matrix (mode: 1):
1.6374 -0.2528 -0.0035 -0.3811
0.0672 0.8224 -0.5306 0.6410
-0.0009 -0.3551 1.4153 -0.0593
which matches 0.19.5 (see comments above). Is this intentional?
Regards,
Dinesh
Sorry, know nothing about C# (both generally and specific wrapper you use)
Ok, so reducing quality is with libraw_set_demosaic(handler, LibRaw_interpolation_quality.LINEAR); ?
I tried it and its speeding up the process already a little bit.
Unfortunate I can't access the params-scruct from SharpLibRaw, its not implemented, so I'm not able to play with params.user_qual and/or use half-size.
Just to remember, I'm using c#
If so, you need raw to rgb interpolation that is performed by dcraw_process(). Reducing quality (or using half_mode) will speed-up things.
I need a rgb-pixmap.
And followup: what 'pixels' do you need? Original raw values, or processed RGB pixmap?
Pages