Talk:CHDK

Help: talk pages, talk page guidelines

Sorting it all out
I propose that any further references to this remarkable firmware add-on be referred to as "CHDK". I presume the C was chosen to denote this being for Canon cameras? From past experience I am aware of HDK meaning "Hacker's Development Kit". (yes? no?) Since HDK is a rather generic string used for many things online for all sorts of tweaks and modification systems, I think it would be best to at least always include the prefix C with HDK. Then at least it will be easier to find in search engines when trying to hunt down more information and feedback in discussion forums, keeping it apart from the 1,420,000 Google hits for HDK alone. CHDK at least narrows it down to 45,300 Google hits. A slight improvement. Adding in "Powershot" with CHDK results in an even more precise search -- results of 65 hits for chdk + powershot. Using Canon instead of Powershot in conjunction with CHDK results in 313 hits. Still much better than 1,420,000 hits.

I also would like to know what the "official" name of this great software is. Should we refer to it as "the CHDK firmware"? ->"Have you seen the latest CHDK firmware? It's fantastic"

If yes, we should check that this name is used in the whole wiki. And perhaps we should write a short explanation in the FAQ what "CHDK" means.
 * Harvester

I agree that there should be some name assigned to this that's going to stick. When describing it to others I've used "The GrAnde Hack", the "Firmware add-on", "HDK", "CHDK", "That way cool amazing new software that makes my camera into the most fantastic camera ever!" and things like that. :-)

The only reason I've been using CHDK is that GrAnde started up this whole Wiki page system and used HDK and CHDK in various sections of it, as well as his own folders where he and others store their stuff. So I'm not sure what HDK means to him/them, or even what CHDK means to him.

This is GrAnde's amazing thing, so it's only right that he should pick a unique name for it. But it sure would help if there was one!

YO! GrAnde! What do you want to officially call this thing so we can tell others about it and find it in search engines easy??



(He's probably off adding in even more way cool stuff into "it".)

Until further notice, I'll feel comfortable calling it CHDK, but if GrAnde want's something more unique and special, I'm all for that too.

Once a name is decided on, and it sticks, you're right ... go through the Wiki pages and use a global replace. I did some of that with the [alt] to  thing the other day.

What do you think of the idea to translate this wiki into other languages?
 * Harvester

Good idea!! You start on the Chinese, Swahili, Kanji, German, Italian, Portuguese, and French, and I'll try to get the English parts I've added more comprehensible. :-)

Seriously though, I was thinking that just yesterday myself. Then I realized how badly I've written my own English sections and I wondered how anyone would be able to translate them sensibly. We need to hire a good proof-reader/editor if I'm going to be involved.

if you have the time, how about one of those "Uncle Sam Wants YOU!" posters to recruit some translators at dpreview threads? :-)

It seems that I can't find anybody willing to help with a German translation, so I deleted that paragraph. I guess it's not really needed, since most people here in Ger can speak english anyway. :)
 * Harvester

RAW also increases image area!
I was experimenting with some of the RAW files made with CHDK. Hoping to find other viewers/editors that would open them. So I thought I'd try that DNG-for-PowerShot converter to see which of my programs will read the DNG files. I didn't know that utility would also automatically tag on the corresponding EXIF info from the JPG file, that's really nice. But after I converted some and started flipping through the images using IrfanView, I noticed something odd. As I flipped between the same JPG and RAW images, the JPG image would act as if I zoomed in a bit. Losing a small border around all the edges from the RAW format. Then I looked at the pixel dimensions. Canon's JPG files have been robbing me of extra pixels!

Here's what I get from my S3IS:


 * JPG: 2816 x 2112 = 5,947,392 pixels total
 * RAW: 2840 x 2128 = 6,043,520 pixels total

RAW provides 96,128 extra pixels.

That's like getting a free 1.6% increase in resolution!

This extra resolution seems to be divided equally horizontally and vertically. So I get an extra +12 left/right, and +8 top/bottom. Center of JPG is still center of RAW. It's not just empty border, there's actual image detail in all those pixels.

I wonder if this is happening in the A-series cameras too?

This settles it, I'm going to leave RAW enabled on my camera more often now. Every little pixel can matter. Especially when you have to rotate an image. The smallest rotation can make you lose a good chunk of border all the way around. Using RAW from this camera can now prevent that.

What a nice find!

This got me to wondering ... I wonder if there's a way to get the RAW file to show ALL of the CCD sensor? The CCD sensor is always much larger than the actual image area we are given. Would it be possible to get a slightly wider image out of these things? According to the manual "Effective pixels = 6.0 million". But it also states, "Total number of pixels: Approx. 6.2 million". What a nice increase that would be. That would be like going from a 36mm lens to a 35mm lens on wide-angle. Not to mention all that extra resolution to play with when zoomed. Every bit helps! (pun intended)

Nice find! I just checked my A610, and the RAW file here is also slightly larger:
 * JPG: 2592 x 1944 = 5,038,848 pixels total
 * RAW: 2608 x 1952 = 5,090,816 pixels total (= 51,968 extra pixels)
 * Harvester

From dcraw sources:

} else if (!strcmp(model,"PowerShot A610")) { if (canon_s2is) strcpy (model+10, "S2 IS"); height = 1960; width = 2616; raw_height = 1968; raw_width = 2672; top_margin = 8; left_margin = 12; } else if (!strcmp(model,"PowerShot A620")) { height = 2328; width = 3112; raw_height = 2340; raw_width = 3152; top_margin = 12; left_margin = 36; } else if (!strcmp(model,"PowerShot A630")) { height = 2472; width = 3288; raw_height = 2484; raw_width = 3344; top_margin = 6; left_margin = 12; } else if (!strcmp(model,"PowerShot A640")) { height = 2760; width = 3672; raw_height = 2772; raw_width = 3736; top_margin = 6; left_margin = 12; } else if (!strcmp(model,"PowerShot S3 IS")) { height = 2128; width = 2840; raw_height = 2136; raw_width = 2888; top_margin = 8; left_margin = 44;


 * -- GrAnd 18:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC) --

Categories
Does anybody have a link where this categories-stuff is explained? --Harvester 07:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I've got it... at least I hope so ;) --Harvester 08:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Formatting of Talk Pages
Hi guys, I think it would improve the readability of these talk pages if we would use the normal Wikipedia formatting, which means:
 * New text under old text
 * Sign the posts by typing four tildes ( ~ )
 * Make a new heading for a new topic
 * Use indentations when replying to a topic by using colons
 * -> Example Page

Here are two explanations: Help: talk pages, talk page guidelines. I didn't do this until now either (mainly because all this Wikipedia stuff is quite new to me), but I think it would be a nice idea. --Harvester 09:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)