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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
draw_emu w/o switches (-w -a) and/or Libraw API w/o use_camera_wb/use_auto_wb processes images with daylight WB
Line 16405 in ./configure provided with 0.20.2 (downloaded from this site) is empty.
Around this line are libjasper checks.
Also, there are no 'ZLIB,zlib' strings in provided configure script.
Have you re-generated ./configure (using, for example, autoreconf)?
AFAIK, Exiftool has large internal LensID => Lens name databases and uses Makernotes data for lookup.
thanks a lot!! I will be checking it ;)
Next LibRaw public snapshot (or 0.21 release, whatever comes first) will support EOS R5 camera.
ok, but we use libraw in https://bitbucket.org/agriggio/art/wiki/Home that's why I am asking so ART can develop CRAW files ;)
RawDigger works with Wine.
Hello,
Seems it's supported since last release, I could not try since I work in linux heheh
Changelog
RawDigger 1.4.2 (2020-09-24)
Camera support:
Canon EOS R5, R6
Please check if RawDigger https://www.rawdigger.com/download supports the files. If it doesn't, please e-mail us - info@libraw.org
Can I help somehow? providing samples or similar? let me know thanks
EOS R5 is not officially supported by LibRaw 0.20, here is supported camera list: https://www.libraw.org/supported-cameras
OK, thank you.
There is no 'Document mode' in dcraw_emu
unprocessed_raw and/or 4channels sample(s) may solve your task.
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)
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.
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
BTW, I strongly suggest to update to 0.20.2. raw-identify in 0.20.0 may display rgb_cam incorrect.
I also think the new version is better.
That is why I do not understand why it was called incorrect.
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
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?
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
Сould you please reformulate your question?
I cannot understand what exactly confuses you.
Removing the WB_Coeff printing results in the rest of the raw-identify code working.
Dinesh
raw-identify is already fixed by this patch: https://github.com/LibRaw/LibRaw/commit/1274768a3353ca408e60314133201cb9...
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.
Pages