Sorry, no MSVC 2015 on hands, just tried with MSVC 2013:
call "C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft Visual Studio 12.0\VC\vcvarsall.bat" x64
nmake -f Makefile.msvc
After that:
mem-image -4 -6 filename.cr2
filename.cr2.ppm (16 bit, linear) was produced, looks OK
what if a manual WB is chosen and a -magenta is entered (i don't think most of calibrated in CC)? will this give a similar result?
for example, Sony will allow such a compensation. i have already, through my raw processing, set this as my standard, as i shot at one temperature with -magenta, and then adjust the proper temperature during raw processing.
At a first glance, presuming the filter blocks only the green channel, this means that the red and the blue channels should be exposed one stop better. However, the blue and red channels are sensitive to a pretty wide range of spectrum. That's why the actual per channel exposures were changed less than that, as it is obvious when looking at the white balance coefficients.
And if data is scaled to 8 bit somewhere, your result looks correct.
coloir.maximum is in RAW data domain, so for 14-bit camera it is about 16000.
imgdata.image[], after processing, is in 0..64k range.
your luminocity calculation, in first assumption, is in same range as imdata.image, so 64k.
So your jpeg generation code will show upper two stops of image as 'overflow'
Hmm, It seems to me that processed data are not being scaled to the 0-65535 range. In fact the data that are not saturated fall into the range 0 - colour.maximum, only saturated values are larger than color.maximum.
Is there a way I can upload an image to the forum? I have generated a greyscale jpeg from the data vector in my code above using
color.maximum is 'maximum data value permitted by data format'.
In some cases, real maximum is smaller.
There is color.data_maximum field, but it is filled /based on real data/ on raw2image (or dcraw_process) stage, so not available just after unpack().
In your example you compare raw data maximum (so, data range of raw data) with processed values.
This is not correct, because output data are scaled to use full data range (16 bit).
Thank-you Alex
I have just loaded up an image and I see the WB_Coeffs array. Elements 1, 3, 4, 10, 11 and 14 are filled, which presumably correspond to the 6 options of my EOS 40D (daylight, cloudy, shade, tungsten, fluorescent, flash). That's everything I needed.
With LibRaw 0.18 (currently in Beta1, Beta2 to be published soon),
in-camera WB multipliers are extracted into
imgdata.color.WB_Coeffs[256][4];
and
imgdata.colr.WBCT_Coeffs[64][5];
This extraction is made for all RAWs with embedded color presets, not only Canons.
1st array (WB_Coeffs) is indexed with EXIF Colorsource, so to get, for example, D65 preset, you need to inspect WB_Coeffs[21] for non-zero values.
2nd array (WBCT_Coeffs) is filled from 0 to 63:
WBCT_Coeffs[i][0] is color temperature (from camera settings)
and
WBCT_Coeffs[i][1..4] are WB coeffs.
There is no automated procedure to copy these values into processing, so one needs to examine array data (or, simply, fill WB drop-down with these values), than copy needed WB Coeffs into
imgdata.params.user_mul[] to use on dcraw_process() stage.
So, processing sequence is
LibRaw::open_file();
LibRaw::unpack();
... examine WB_Coeffs/WBCT_Coeffs
.. copy needed into user_mul
LibRaw::dcraw_process();
(and, sure, you may call dcraw_process() multiple times without unpack() of same file)
2nd:
WB Coeffs to CCT and back is not very complex (look into Adobe DNG SDK sources for sample code), but results of this procedure depends on color profile and camera calibration data used.
So, calculated CCT/Tint will, most likely, not compatible with other programs (or, even, with in-camera WB setting by CCT).
switch (imgdata.sizes.flip)
{
case 3://0011
case 180:
metaData.flip = Meta_data::Flip_180;
break;
case 5://0101
case 270:
metaData.flip = Meta_data::Flip_90CCW;
break;
case 6://0110
case 90:
metaData.flip = Meta_data::Flip_90CW;
break;
From first lines of raw2image_start (called by _ex):
if (O.user_flip >= 0)
S.flip = O.user_flip;
switch ((S.flip+3600) % 360)
{
case 270: S.flip = 5; break;
case 180: S.flip = 3; break;
case 90: S.flip = 6; break;
}
So:
flip/user_filp are bit-field. But if someone has specified user_flip in degrees it will work OK.
Specifically for CIFF (CRW) format camera sets rotation angle, not Orientation tag. This value is preserved after open_datastream (looks like we need to fix it for all cases in 0.18?)
For most camera which I have used the flip field means "bit-field" before actually processing (unpack()/raw2image_start()). But for EOS 10D this flag means the rotation angle. So, I would prefer not to start processing but get meaning of this field: is it bit-field or angle. Is it possible to know if it was corrected before?
imgdata.image (and rawdata.*) and imgdata.sizes are always in 'sensor dimensions', so it is alwasy unrotated and rotation/mirroring is read/set via flip/user_flip.
Rotation/mirroring is performed on output phase:
dcraw_ppm_tiff_writer()
or
dcraw_make_mem_image()
I've got 3 more images from the photographer. They were all reported as being corrupted and after the patch you sent, libraw works with all of them. Thanks!
Thanks for your email too. That would be useful for the future because some photographers do not want to post their images publicly.
Sorry, no MSVC 2015 on hands, just tried with MSVC 2013:
call "C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft Visual Studio 12.0\VC\vcvarsall.bat" x64
nmake -f Makefile.msvc
After that:
mem-image -4 -6 filename.cr2
filename.cr2.ppm (16 bit, linear) was produced, looks OK
Sure! Thanks
http://www.libraw.org/docs should be updated then to remove the LibRaw license.
Thanks!
WB settings does not change raw data, so you may use any in-camera setting.
what if a manual WB is chosen and a -magenta is entered (i don't think most of calibrated in CC)? will this give a similar result?
for example, Sony will allow such a compensation. i have already, through my raw processing, set this as my standard, as i shot at one temperature with -magenta, and then adjust the proper temperature during raw processing.
At a first glance, presuming the filter blocks only the green channel, this means that the red and the blue channels should be exposed one stop better. However, the blue and red channels are sensitive to a pretty wide range of spectrum. That's why the actual per channel exposures were changed less than that, as it is obvious when looking at the white balance coefficients.
And if data is scaled to 8 bit somewhere, your result looks correct.
coloir.maximum is in RAW data domain, so for 14-bit camera it is about 16000.
imgdata.image[], after processing, is in 0..64k range.
your luminocity calculation, in first assumption, is in same range as imdata.image, so 64k.
So your jpeg generation code will show upper two stops of image as 'overflow'
Not so. It looks like you've divided data by 256 (than recover it back?). This step is missing
In your code:
data should be in 16bit (64k) range.
Next step:
Data is upscaled to 24 bit?
The data array is set in my first example. It is just an approximation of the luminosity of each pixel. (2*red+3*green_blue)/6.
This link should show you the output of the above as jpeg files. You can see the integer overflow in the overexposed clouds https://1drv.ms/f/s!AgLCmsxNxVV_jelOf_MIR7MeGcsXvQ
imgdata.image is indeed scaled in LibRaw::scale_colors() call
For your test: what contained in data array?
Hmm, It seems to me that processed data are not being scaled to the 0-65535 range. In fact the data that are not saturated fall into the range 0 - colour.maximum, only saturated values are larger than color.maximum.
Is there a way I can upload an image to the forum? I have generated a greyscale jpeg from the data vector in my code above using
The ouput shows the buffer overrun from conversion to unsigned char very clearly.
Phil
color.maximum is 'maximum data value permitted by data format'.
In some cases, real maximum is smaller.
There is color.data_maximum field, but it is filled /based on real data/ on raw2image (or dcraw_process) stage, so not available just after unpack().
In your example you compare raw data maximum (so, data range of raw data) with processed values.
This is not correct, because output data are scaled to use full data range (16 bit).
Thank-you Alex
I have just loaded up an image and I see the WB_Coeffs array. Elements 1, 3, 4, 10, 11 and 14 are filled, which presumably correspond to the 6 options of my EOS 40D (daylight, cloudy, shade, tungsten, fluorescent, flash). That's everything I needed.
Thanks for the excellent info.
Phil
1st:
With LibRaw 0.18 (currently in Beta1, Beta2 to be published soon),
in-camera WB multipliers are extracted into
imgdata.color.WB_Coeffs[256][4];
and
imgdata.colr.WBCT_Coeffs[64][5];
This extraction is made for all RAWs with embedded color presets, not only Canons.
1st array (WB_Coeffs) is indexed with EXIF Colorsource, so to get, for example, D65 preset, you need to inspect WB_Coeffs[21] for non-zero values.
2nd array (WBCT_Coeffs) is filled from 0 to 63:
WBCT_Coeffs[i][0] is color temperature (from camera settings)
and
WBCT_Coeffs[i][1..4] are WB coeffs.
There is no automated procedure to copy these values into processing, so one needs to examine array data (or, simply, fill WB drop-down with these values), than copy needed WB Coeffs into
imgdata.params.user_mul[] to use on dcraw_process() stage.
So, processing sequence is
LibRaw::open_file();
LibRaw::unpack();
... examine WB_Coeffs/WBCT_Coeffs
.. copy needed into user_mul
LibRaw::dcraw_process();
(and, sure, you may call dcraw_process() multiple times without unpack() of same file)
2nd:
WB Coeffs to CCT and back is not very complex (look into Adobe DNG SDK sources for sample code), but results of this procedure depends on color profile and camera calibration data used.
So, calculated CCT/Tint will, most likely, not compatible with other programs (or, even, with in-camera WB setting by CCT).
And in reverse direction in LibRaw master: https://github.com/LibRaw/LibRaw/commit/f9a69610748abe1a07362696129123eb...
:)
Now I have my fix looks like:
switch (imgdata.sizes.flip)
{
case 3://0011
case 180:
metaData.flip = Meta_data::Flip_180;
break;
case 5://0101
case 270:
metaData.flip = Meta_data::Flip_90CCW;
break;
case 6://0110
case 90:
metaData.flip = Meta_data::Flip_90CW;
break;
From first lines of raw2image_start (called by _ex):
if (O.user_flip >= 0) S.flip = O.user_flip; switch ((S.flip+3600) % 360) { case 270: S.flip = 5; break; case 180: S.flip = 3; break; case 90: S.flip = 6; break; }So:
flip/user_filp are bit-field. But if someone has specified user_flip in degrees it will work OK.
Specifically for CIFF (CRW) format camera sets rotation angle, not Orientation tag. This value is preserved after open_datastream (looks like we need to fix it for all cases in 0.18?)
For most camera which I have used the flip field means "bit-field" before actually processing (unpack()/raw2image_start()). But for EOS 10D this flag means the rotation angle. So, I would prefer not to start processing but get meaning of this field: is it bit-field or angle. Is it possible to know if it was corrected before?
Also, flip is 'bit-field', it converted from degree rotation to bits in raw2image_start() if not corrected before
imgdata.image (and rawdata.*) and imgdata.sizes are always in 'sensor dimensions', so it is alwasy unrotated and rotation/mirroring is read/set via flip/user_flip.
Rotation/mirroring is performed on output phase:
dcraw_ppm_tiff_writer()
or
dcraw_make_mem_image()
I just used
dcraw_emu -T sample.DNG
to get sample.DNG.tiff
and tiff is OK.
Have not tried python bindings, i'm not a python programmer (even at small fraction)
I used 0.17 and 0.18-beta, both provide the same (wrong) output.
When you run your test, did you also use the Python interface?
I've got 3 more images from the photographer. They were all reported as being corrupted and after the patch you sent, libraw works with all of them. Thanks!
Thanks for your email too. That would be useful for the future because some photographers do not want to post their images publicly.
Current LibRaw (0.18-beta1) works fine with this image.
What version do you use?
Thanks!
To be included in beta-2
Pages