Many thanks - probably better to use "Sony ILCE-7M2 / A7 II" no point in replicating the Sony word!

A thought just occurred to me - by the time you have completed the unpack() operation, does the LibRaw code know if the camera is/isn't supported. If it does know that, it would be simple to add a new function:

bool LibRaw::isSupported()

method that a client application can call after calling unpack() ...

Thanks again
David

То be included in next snapshot.

I've answered to your E-mail message about GFX100 on Fri, 6 Sep 2019.

Hello, are there any news about Fuji GFX100?
(I guess, my letters got to a spam, so I'm duplicating my questions here).

Followup: the issue solved in current public snapshot via #if __cplusplus >= 201103L || (defined(_CPPLIB_VER) && _CPPLIB_VER >= 520) and/or LIBRAW_USE_AUTOPTR define

If you are willing to build it yourself, the edits are trivial to make it use std::unique_ptr instead.. Just replace the two std::auto_ptr instances in the libraw_datastream.h with std::unique_ptr (along with the export)

Then go into the CPP file and make sure that

a) every construction of the filebuf that formerly looked like this:

 std::auto_ptr<std::filebuf> buf(new std::filebuf());

Now looks like this:

auto buf = std::make_unique<std::filebuf>();

Also, wrap each assignment of what used to be an auto-ptr with std::move. So, for example, this line:

f = saved_f;

changes to this:

f = std::move(saved_f);

it seems this issue 100 had been closed. Do you have any progress on new rawspeed lib?

Problem solved.

I think it was due to my C++/CLR project. When tested from Visual Studio in release, unpack time was 11s.
When tested outside of Visual Studio, time was 2.6s.
Then I tested to use the libraw.dll instead of embedding the code in my project directly and unpack time was 1.1 sec, same timing than the postprocessing_benchmark project.

I still don't know why the dll is faster than compiling the code in my project, but that's fine :)

Thank again for confirming that I had a problem!

hi,

no need to shout at me, I was documenting my progress here for others to hopefully help. Maybe I should have kept it to myself.

> blacks are NOT subtracted by unpack().

... may I humbly refer you to your documentation, which clearly states:

Structure libraw_colordata_t: Color Information
...
unsigned black;
Black level. Depending on the camera, it may be zero (this means that black has been subtracted at the unpacking stage or by the camera itself)
...

I do not wish to use the 4-component-distribution version of the data for several reasons (one, not the least, being performance, my current very crude reverse-engineered version is slightly faster than the original and that is without optimization and converting large loops to CUDA). That is why I was asking questions in order to better understand what happens under the hood.
In the end I want to use libraw for reading/unpacking RAW data and do all post-processing after that step myself, to better integrate it into pipelines. Recreating the reading part would be possible since my usecases only cover about 10 different camera models/brands and I have limitless access to all of them, but libraw (dcraw) is doing a great job there, so why reinvent the wheel ...

Thanks for the advice you gave (pointing me back to ninedegrees)! If we were able to communicate better I would volunteer for reworking the documentation, obviously, that would not be wise. Therefor: Thank you for the work you invest in maintaining libraw!

Mact

So ... by not using cam_mul[] for scaling, but instead pre_mul[] and reproducing dcraw's one-step scaling-and-white-balancing I am getting a stable result.
Interestingly, this is not the (exact) same hue that dcraw (and libraw) is creating with gamma 1/1, no-auto-bright and output "raw" (unaltered camera color) *or* output "sRGB": dcraw/libraw's output is slightly (not much, really) more on the blue side, ever so slightly less saturated. Not sure why that is. Maybe because I am doing most calculations on double-precision, not integer? Since the difference is really small, I am fine with it.

I do have to normalize the image for dark/maximum (the black value and the maximum value from imgdata.rawdata.color) in order for dcraw's scaling to work correctly. I could not find the function in dcraw that is equivalent to this normalization step, but leaving it out gives too dark results, so it must be correct (I assume that scale_colors actually looks for high/low points in the image, there are some parts of the code that are still opaque to me).
This also means that my assumption above seems to be correct: Normalization is pre-demosaic, not post-demosaic.

My steps now are:
- load file
- unpack
- call "subtract_black()" (just in case black has not been subtracted by "unpack")
- normalize to embedded dark/white values (or "minimum/maximum", dcraw's mixture of terms is not helping ...)
- scale/white-balance based on pre_mul[]
- demosaic
- apply color profile (using the pre-calculated cam-rgb-to-xyz-to-output-rgb)
- apply rotation

BTW: I found lclevy’s discussion on scaling quite helpful (the site is linked from the ninedegreesbelow website).There's a caveat about that website, though (and that MAY have misled me, I cannot remember): The code quoted there about dark-subtraction uses cblack[], NOT the "global" black value. That is due to the code having populated cblack[] with "complete" black values before. This might add to why my scaling was off.

Mact

Yes, that phrasing is better - you could copy&paste that into documentation, the simple addition of "correction TO BASE black" makes it clearer!

Mact

Hi, Alex,

thanks!

The docs only say "can be zero" about the "black" value (which, in my case, is !=0), but not about cblack (which IS 0 for me). I think the docs could be improved by mentioning the same about the cblack values, would have helped me :-)
The 0 is in cblack even after "unpack()".

I don't see a problem here, it's really just minimizing headache for users ...

Update on my progress will come, I'm now trying to better understand the code with help of the ninedegrees article.

Mact

Just an interim update:

libraw reports cblack values as all 0 for me after unpack()/subtract_black(). Yet, the actual data (RAW image at imgdata.rawdata.raw_image) has minimum 509 and maximum 6069 before and after subtract_black().

To me it looks like subtract_black() either does not use "imgdata.rawdata.raw_image" (since its data has not been changed) or I need to add another step between unpack() and subtract_black() to actually get the black data populated. I will give reading the code another go.

To be continued.

Mact