Picture Size? Exposure bug?

Comments

7 comments

  • fargo
    The finished image sizes for Digital Rebel, 10D and 1D mark2 are also different than in every other application I use. The 1D mark2 shots are 4 pixels thinner on the short dimension. As this goofs up cropping and printing setups I use I am also curious how a developed image can be of a different size.

    I hope the answer is more than that of the lady watching her son in a marching band, \"look, everyone is out of step except for my son!\".
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Ulf Liljegren
    The issue is known and we are working on getting it solved.
    It occures on a limited amount of cameras.
    Currently I can not do more the appologize for the inconviniance and assure you this issue has high priority with in R&D.
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • mikesview
    I don't know if it is related to this problem, but I have noted a strange difference between 3.5.2 and 3.6

    Comparing a full frame output from each of the same shot, 3.6 shows a few pixels less at the top of the image, and a few pixels more at the bottom than 3.5.2, which shows a bit more at the top, but also shows less at the bottom than the 3.6 image. Presumably 3.5.2 has never shown the full image either.
    It seems the images shifts downwards when moving from one image to the other. My conclusion would have to be that both 3.5.2 and 3.6 had a bug here.

    Is this realised in the issue reported in this thread?
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • tmpicture
    Hallo,

    Auch ich habe das selbe Problem. Gibt es da schon ein update?

    Gruss, Tom
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Ulf Liljegren
    Mike

    No the 3.5.2 does develop what it record.
    3.6 did get some issues when implementing a common camera core for Widnows and Mac, this will be corrected in 3.7 which soon be released as a public release candidate.

    Tom: English is the language used in this forum.
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • NN144943UL2
    I tried phaseone a few days ago and really like to use it to process RAW. However, I found I missed 8x3072 pixels. I searched here and found this thread.

    I am really surprised that after 18+ months, this bug still exists. I wonder if Phase One has a committed date to get it fixed. I cannot live with this so I would hold my purchase.
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Karl2
    Well yes, just a little bit of patience, they said it comes in the big update # 4 (four) in the second quarter 2006. Only nine more days are left for waiting.

    Paciencia!, as they say south of the border, looking from the Sonora Desert in AZ.

    I have been waiting about 15 months now, starting out with vers 3.6 on a Phase One Back P 20. The beautiful advertisements and specs tell you:
    Pixels Effective 4080x4080 (and no minus-tolerance).

    But getting here only 4076 columns instead, makes 4* 4080 = 16 320 pixels missing.

    It is only a Windows problem, not happening on the Mac, that's what I have found out so far.

    Karl
    0
    Comment actions Permalink

Please sign in to leave a comment.