Jajajaja,

I'm a "lucky" guy, guess which one is my other mine lens.... The Sigma
24-105, the one whose ID classes.

I will provide them with a CR2 for the Tamron and another one for the Sigma
so he can check that everything is oke.

Steven, thanks a lot for your help.


2016-02-27 15:45 GMT+01:00 Steven Fosdick <stevenfosd...@gmail.com>:

> Igor,
>
> Further to my last e-mail I have also found an issue logged at the exiv2
> redmin site: http://dev.exiv2.org/issues/1128
>
> The developer there also mistook the ASCII value which seems to be there
> in the maker note verbatim with exiv2 knowing about the lens and being able
> to map the ID.  I have added the patch to the issue to try to get support
> for this upstream but I don't seem to have the privilege to mark the issue
> as no longer resolved.  I hope updating it will trigger an e-mail to those
> who have previously been involved in it but I can't be sure.
>
>
> On 27 February 2016 at 14:25, Steven Fosdick <stevenfosd...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Igor,
>>
>> For comparison here is the output with the Canon 70-200 which is
>> definitely known to exiv2:
>>
>> $ exiv2 -pt 20160207_114150_7099.cr2 | grep -i lens
>> Exif.CanonCs.LensType                        Short       1  Canon EF
>> 70-200mm f/2.8L IS
>> Exif.CanonCs.Lens                            Short       3  70.0 - 200.0
>> mm
>> Exif.Canon.LensModel                         Ascii      74  EF70-200mm
>> f/2.8L IS USM
>> Exif.Photo.LensSpecification                 Rational    4  70/1 200/1
>> 0/1 0/1
>> Exif.Photo.LensModel                         Ascii      25  EF70-200mm
>> f/2.8L IS USM
>> Exif.Photo.LensSerialNumber                  Ascii      11  0000000000
>>
>> The difference is that exiv2 has mapped the Exif.CanonCs.LensType ID
>> number into a lens name.  I must admit I don't why exiv2 works that way,
>> particularly given these IDs sometimes clash, i.e. more than one lens uses
>> the same ID and then it is necessary for the library to look at other
>> pieces of data too.
>>
>> Anyway, it is necessary to get exiv2 to be able to map the lens ID to a
>> string.  If you grab the source for exiv2 you could try the attached patch.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Steve.
>>
>> On 26 February 2016 at 17:48, Igor Blanco <igor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> Not sure if this could be a bug or something related to my installation
>>> so I decided to write here before just in cae.
>>>
>>> I have a "TAMRON SP 70-200mm F/2.8 Di VC USD" with Canon mount, I use it
>>> on my Canon 6D.
>>>
>>> This lens was not part of lensfun so lens correction could not be
>>> applied to it. So I send Torsten Bronger the requested Raw samples and he
>>> was really kind to prepare the required lenscorrection profile.
>>>
>>> I suppose this correction profile will go into lensfun's next release
>>> but I attach it here so that anyone with the same lens can test and use it
>>> now by placing it in ~/.local/share/lensfun directory.
>>>
>>> If I enable lens correction module in darktable though the lens is not
>>> correctly detected, I can choose the lens by hand and it works great but it
>>> is not detected automatically. Instead a 255 appears where the lens model
>>> should appear.
>>>
>>> Torsten told me that this is probably related to Exiv2 library so before
>>> reporting to them I tried this command on my Ubuntu 14.04: exiv2 -pt
>>> 20160117_0011.CR2|grep Lens
>>>
>>> And this was the output:
>>>
>>> Exif.CanonCs.LensType                        Short       1  255
>>> Exif.CanonCs.Lens                            Short       3  70.0 - 200.0
>>> mm
>>> Exif.Canon.LensModel                         Ascii      74  TAMRON SP
>>> 70-200mm F/2.8 Di VC USD A009UUD
>>> Exif.Photo.LensSpecification                 Rational    4  70/1 200/1
>>> 0/1 0/1
>>> Exif.Photo.LensModel                         Ascii      40  TAMRON SP
>>> 70-200mm F/2.8 Di VC USD A009
>>> Exif.Photo.LensSerialNumber                  Ascii      11  0000000000
>>>
>>> So it seems to me that Exiv2 does indeed recognize the lens.
>>>
>>> I have shared a RAW in case someone can check if it also happens to
>>> them: https://www.dropbox.com/s/55jh1w7mkoc3ox2/20160117_0060.CR2?dl=0
>>>
>>> Any clue? Should I report this as a darktable bug?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> =============
>>> Igor Blanco.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance
>>> APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month
>>> Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now
>>> Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now!
>>> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=272487151&iu=/4140
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Darktable-users mailing list
>>> Darktable-users@lists.sourceforge.net
>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/darktable-users
>>>
>>>
>>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance
APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month
Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now
Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=272487151&iu=/4140
_______________________________________________
Darktable-users mailing list
Darktable-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/darktable-users

Reply via email to