Picture Size? Exposure bug?

Follow

thomas1

• January 18, 2005 13:40

Hi,

I got the 3.6 trial yesterday which finally supports my 1Ds MK II and now have two questions:

1. I noticed that the size of a 1Ds MK II File is 4992x3220 pixel in C1.
In ACR, Bibble, DPP... its 4992x3228 a perferct 2:3 ratio. Where are these 8 pixels gone and why, I find this very annoying.

2. The exposure slider makes a notcable step if you are going from -0.4-0.45 all other steps are very subtle but at this point it makes about 4 steps at once from the brightness difference.

Thank you for an answer

0

• 

  fargo

  • January 18, 2005 14:06

  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

  • January 18, 2005 15:10

  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

  • February 27, 2005 00:40

  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

  • March 26, 2005 00:38

  Hallo,
  
  Auch ich habe das selbe Problem. Gibt es da schon ein update?
  
  Gruss, Tom

  0

  Comment actions Permalink
• 

  Ulf Liljegren

  • March 30, 2005 10:33

  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

  • June 20, 2006 20:47

  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

  • June 21, 2006 20:26

  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.