Project

General

Profile

Camera Support #11171

Nikon 1 V2 WhiteLevel

Added by Péter Báthory over 3 years ago. Updated over 3 years ago.

Status:
Fixed
Priority:
Low
Assignee:
Category:
-
Target version:
Start date:
09/23/2016
Due date:
% Done:

100%

Estimated time:
Affected Version:
2.0.6

Description

bp@bathory:~/RAW teszt$ exiv2 -pt DSC_2389.dng | grep Level
Error: Directory Nikon1 with 25665 entries considered invalid; not read.
Exif.SubImage1.BlackLevelRepeatDim Short 2 1 1
Exif.SubImage1.BlackLevel Rational 1 0/256
Exif.SubImage1.WhiteLevel Short 1 3300

I think this camera supports only 12-bit compressed RAW.

DSC_2389.NEF (12.3 MB) DSC_2389.NEF Péter Báthory, 09/23/2016 05:36 PM

Associated revisions

Revision a73131c6 (diff)
Added by Roman Lebedev over 3 years ago

Nikon 1 V2: appears to actually have whitelevel of 4095.

While dng converter produces wl of 3300 for iso <200,
visual inspection of such an image shows no purple highlight
with whitelevel of 4095.

Closes #11171.

Revision 748149c8 (diff)
Added by Roman Lebedev over 3 years ago

Nikon 1 V2: appears to actually have whitelevel of 4095.

While dng converter produces wl of 3300 for iso <200,
visual inspection of such an image shows no purple highlight
with whitelevel of 4095.

Closes #11171.

(cherry picked from commit a73131c613bfcd23b92303cc1d8b618aa20d34ba)

History

#1 Updated by Roman Lebedev over 3 years ago

  • % Done changed from 0 to 50
  • Assignee set to Roman Lebedev
  • Status changed from New to In Progress

#2 Updated by Péter Báthory over 3 years ago

I've found something weird. We also have a Nikon 1 V1 camera and I just checked one of its RAW file, and found its wrong in cameras.xml too. But it was recently updated according to issue #11137! I downloaded its attached photo, and compared with my test photo: same camera, different WhiteLevel at different ISO.

camera; ISO; WhiteLevel
Nikon 1 V2; 160; 3300
Nikon 1 V1; 100; 3300
Nikon 1 V1; 400; 4095

I cannot take more test photos yet, because none of these camera' in the office. Maybe on Monday.

#3 Updated by Roman Lebedev over 3 years ago

In light of new findings, please take one raw per EVERY iso level, including EVERY sub-iso level (if any).
And pack that into tar and upload somewhere not here.

#4 Updated by Péter Báthory over 3 years ago

exiftool '-filename<ISO-${ISO}_%f.%e' * & rename 's/ISO-([0-9]{3}_)/ISO-0$1/' .
(DNG Converter magic ...)
exiv2 -pt *.dng | grep WhiteLevel

ISO-0160_DSC_2894.dng Exif.SubImage1.WhiteLevel Short 1 3300
ISO-0180_DSC_2895.dng Exif.SubImage1.WhiteLevel Short 1 3300
ISO-0200_DSC_2865.dng Exif.SubImage1.WhiteLevel Short 1 4095
ISO-0220_DSC_2896.dng Exif.SubImage1.WhiteLevel Short 1 4095
ISO-0250_DSC_2871.dng Exif.SubImage1.WhiteLevel Short 1 4095
ISO-0280_DSC_2872.dng Exif.SubImage1.WhiteLevel Short 1 4095
ISO-0360_DSC_2873.dng Exif.SubImage1.WhiteLevel Short 1 4095
ISO-0400_DSC_2866.dng Exif.SubImage1.WhiteLevel Short 1 4095
ISO-0450_DSC_2874.dng Exif.SubImage1.WhiteLevel Short 1 4095
ISO-0560_DSC_2900.dng Exif.SubImage1.WhiteLevel Short 1 4095
ISO-0640_DSC_2875.dng Exif.SubImage1.WhiteLevel Short 1 4095
ISO-0720_DSC_2876.dng Exif.SubImage1.WhiteLevel Short 1 4095
ISO-0800_DSC_2867.dng Exif.SubImage1.WhiteLevel Short 1 4095
ISO-0900_DSC_2877.dng Exif.SubImage1.WhiteLevel Short 1 4095
ISO-1100_DSC_2878.dng Exif.SubImage1.WhiteLevel Short 1 4095
ISO-1250_DSC_2880.dng Exif.SubImage1.WhiteLevel Short 1 4095
ISO-1400_DSC_2881.dng Exif.SubImage1.WhiteLevel Short 1 4095
ISO-1600_DSC_2868.dng Exif.SubImage1.WhiteLevel Short 1 4095
ISO-1800_DSC_2905.dng Exif.SubImage1.WhiteLevel Short 1 4095
ISO-2000_DSC_2883.dng Exif.SubImage1.WhiteLevel Short 1 4095
ISO-2200_DSC_2884.dng Exif.SubImage1.WhiteLevel Short 1 4095
ISO-2500_DSC_2885.dng Exif.SubImage1.WhiteLevel Short 1 4095
ISO-2800_DSC_2886.dng Exif.SubImage1.WhiteLevel Short 1 4095
ISO-3200_DSC_2869.dng Exif.SubImage1.WhiteLevel Short 1 4095
ISO-3600_DSC_2888.dng Exif.SubImage1.WhiteLevel Short 1 4095
ISO-4500_DSC_2889.dng Exif.SubImage1.WhiteLevel Short 1 4095
ISO-5000_DSC_2892.dng Exif.SubImage1.WhiteLevel Short 1 4095
ISO-5600_DSC_2891.dng Exif.SubImage1.WhiteLevel Short 1 4095
ISO-6400_DSC_2870.dng Exif.SubImage1.WhiteLevel Short 1 4095

Is this enough, or you need the original files (~400 MB)?

#5 Updated by Roman Lebedev over 3 years ago

Péter Báthory wrote:

exiftool '-filename<ISO-${ISO}_%f.%e' * & rename 's/ISO-([0-9]{3}_)/ISO-0$1/' .
(DNG Converter magic ...)
exiv2 -pt *.dng | grep WhiteLevel

ISO-0160_DSC_2894.dng Exif.SubImage1.WhiteLevel Short 1 3300
ISO-0180_DSC_2895.dng Exif.SubImage1.WhiteLevel Short 1 3300
ISO-0200_DSC_2865.dng Exif.SubImage1.WhiteLevel Short 1 4095
ISO-0220_DSC_2896.dng Exif.SubImage1.WhiteLevel Short 1 4095
ISO-0250_DSC_2871.dng Exif.SubImage1.WhiteLevel Short 1 4095
ISO-0280_DSC_2872.dng Exif.SubImage1.WhiteLevel Short 1 4095
ISO-0360_DSC_2873.dng Exif.SubImage1.WhiteLevel Short 1 4095
ISO-0400_DSC_2866.dng Exif.SubImage1.WhiteLevel Short 1 4095
ISO-0450_DSC_2874.dng Exif.SubImage1.WhiteLevel Short 1 4095
ISO-0560_DSC_2900.dng Exif.SubImage1.WhiteLevel Short 1 4095
ISO-0640_DSC_2875.dng Exif.SubImage1.WhiteLevel Short 1 4095
ISO-0720_DSC_2876.dng Exif.SubImage1.WhiteLevel Short 1 4095
ISO-0800_DSC_2867.dng Exif.SubImage1.WhiteLevel Short 1 4095
ISO-0900_DSC_2877.dng Exif.SubImage1.WhiteLevel Short 1 4095
ISO-1100_DSC_2878.dng Exif.SubImage1.WhiteLevel Short 1 4095
ISO-1250_DSC_2880.dng Exif.SubImage1.WhiteLevel Short 1 4095
ISO-1400_DSC_2881.dng Exif.SubImage1.WhiteLevel Short 1 4095
ISO-1600_DSC_2868.dng Exif.SubImage1.WhiteLevel Short 1 4095
ISO-1800_DSC_2905.dng Exif.SubImage1.WhiteLevel Short 1 4095
ISO-2000_DSC_2883.dng Exif.SubImage1.WhiteLevel Short 1 4095
ISO-2200_DSC_2884.dng Exif.SubImage1.WhiteLevel Short 1 4095
ISO-2500_DSC_2885.dng Exif.SubImage1.WhiteLevel Short 1 4095
ISO-2800_DSC_2886.dng Exif.SubImage1.WhiteLevel Short 1 4095
ISO-3200_DSC_2869.dng Exif.SubImage1.WhiteLevel Short 1 4095
ISO-3600_DSC_2888.dng Exif.SubImage1.WhiteLevel Short 1 4095
ISO-4500_DSC_2889.dng Exif.SubImage1.WhiteLevel Short 1 4095
ISO-5000_DSC_2892.dng Exif.SubImage1.WhiteLevel Short 1 4095
ISO-5600_DSC_2891.dng Exif.SubImage1.WhiteLevel Short 1 4095
ISO-6400_DSC_2870.dng Exif.SubImage1.WhiteLevel Short 1 4095

Is this enough

OK.
This is pretty sad/bad though.

, or you need the original files (~400 MB)?

#6 Updated by Roman Lebedev over 3 years ago

  • % Done changed from 50 to 100
  • Status changed from In Progress to Fixed

#7 Updated by Péter Báthory over 3 years ago

Hmm, why did you add just one WhiteLevel? Images looks more natural with:
<Sensor black="0" white="3300" iso_list="160 180"/>
<Sensor black="0" white="4095"/>

Roman Lebedev wrote:

Applied in changeset darktable|a73131c613bfcd23b92303cc1d8b618aa20d34ba.

#8 Updated by Roman Lebedev over 3 years ago

Péter Báthory wrote:

Hmm, why did you add just one WhiteLevel? Images looks more natural with:
<Sensor black="0" white="3300" iso_list="160 180"/>
<Sensor black="0" white="4095"/>

Roman Lebedev wrote:

Applied in changeset darktable|a73131c613bfcd23b92303cc1d8b618aa20d34ba.

Feel free to discuss that with another owner of that camera, on the samples provided by him (iso 160), with severe overexposure and whitelevel 4095, there is still no magenta highlights => we can only guess why dng converter says 3300, but 4095 seems like the proper value in this case.

#9 Updated by Péter Báthory over 3 years ago

I made an other test: shot two photo with same brightness at ISO160 and ISO200. Checked in DT, and found that they looks the same with WL 4095. It seems DNG Converter does it wrong.

Thanks for your help!

ps: do you need some NEF for documentation purpose?

Roman Lebedev wrote:

Péter Báthory wrote:

Hmm, why did you add just one WhiteLevel? Images looks more natural with:
<Sensor black="0" white="3300" iso_list="160 180"/>
<Sensor black="0" white="4095"/>

Roman Lebedev wrote:

Applied in changeset darktable|a73131c613bfcd23b92303cc1d8b618aa20d34ba.

Feel free to discuss that with another owner of that camera, on the samples provided by him (iso 160), with severe overexposure and whitelevel 4095, there is still no magenta highlights => we can only guess why dng converter says 3300, but 4095 seems like the proper value in this case.

#10 Updated by Roman Lebedev over 3 years ago

  • Target version set to 2.2.0

Also available in: Atom PDF

Go to top