once again - for the 12th time:  

This forum is dedicated to Autopano Pro / Giga bug reports and features discussion.
Please read the posting rules before starting a topic!
no avatar
mediavets
Moderator
 
Posts: 14160
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 2:12 pm
Location: Isleham, Cambridgeshire, UK.

Re: once again - for the 12th time:

by mediavets » Thu Oct 24, 2013 5:54 pm

klausesser wrote:Maybe the PW importer doesn´t like D800 files straight from the camera? =D :cool:

Didn´t we have something familiar some time before? I mean there were issues with D800 files, wrong?

best to all - and many thanks for caring!!

Klaus


We were not offered file straight from the camera to test. Those you offered had minimal EXIF data, not even focal length.

I thought you had the problem with those sample files that we did not have problems with?

no avatar
klausesser
Member
 
Posts: 7858
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:18 am
Location: Duesseldorf, Germany

Re: once again - for the 12th time:

by klausesser » Thu Oct 24, 2013 6:29 pm

mediavets wrote:
klausesser wrote:Maybe the PW importer doesn´t like D800 files straight from the camera? =D :cool:

Didn´t we have something familiar some time before? I mean there were issues with D800 files, wrong?

best to all - and many thanks for caring!!

Klaus


We were not offered file straight from the camera to test. Those you offered had minimal EXIF data, not even focal length.

I thought you had the problem with those sample files that we did not have problems with?



???

They´re the very same files, Andrew.

None of them have usual EXIFs - the lenses i use don´t provide any EXIfs.
I can type the focal length and max. aperture into the D800 - but that´s just a kind of reminder what has bee used.
These values have no influence on the EXIFs at all.

Again: i used the very same files i postet for downloading.

best, Klaus

no avatar
mediavets
Moderator
 
Posts: 14160
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 2:12 pm
Location: Isleham, Cambridgeshire, UK.

Re: once again - for the 12th time:

by mediavets » Thu Oct 24, 2013 7:17 pm

klausesser wrote:
mediavets wrote:
klausesser wrote:Maybe the PW importer doesn´t like D800 files straight from the camera? =D :cool:

Didn´t we have something familiar some time before? I mean there were issues with D800 files, wrong?

best to all - and many thanks for caring!!

Klaus


We were not offered file straight from the camera to test. Those you offered had minimal EXIF data, not even focal length.

I thought you had the problem with those sample files that we did not have problems with?



???

They´re the very same files, Andrew.

None of them have usual EXIFs - the lenses i use don´t provide any EXIfs.
I can type the focal length and max. aperture into the D800 - but that´s just a kind of reminder what has bee used.
These values have no influence on the EXIFs at all.

Again: i used the very same files i postet for downloading.

best, Klaus


But were they files straight from the camera .... I don't they were?

no avatar
klausesser
Member
 
Posts: 7858
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:18 am
Location: Duesseldorf, Germany

Re: once again - for the 12th time:

by klausesser » Thu Oct 24, 2013 7:24 pm

mediavets wrote:But were they files straight from the camera .... I don't they were?



Yes - these were unprocessed . . saved on the desktop of course . . . :cool:

best, Klaus

no avatar
mediavets
Moderator
 
Posts: 14160
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 2:12 pm
Location: Isleham, Cambridgeshire, UK.

Re: once again - for the 12th time:

by mediavets » Thu Oct 24, 2013 7:27 pm

klausesser wrote:
mediavets wrote:But were they files straight from the camera .... I don't think they were?



Yes - these were unprocessed . . saved on the desktop of course . . . :cool:

best, Klaus


Saved from what? They don't seem to have standard Nikon filenames, they started with an underscore.

no avatar
klausesser
Member
 
Posts: 7858
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:18 am
Location: Duesseldorf, Germany

Re: once again - for the 12th time:

by klausesser » Thu Oct 24, 2013 8:38 pm

mediavets wrote:
klausesser wrote:
mediavets wrote:But were they files straight from the camera .... I don't think they were?



Yes - these were unprocessed . . saved on the desktop of course . . . :cool:

best, Klaus


Saved from what? They don't seem to have standard Nikon filenames, they started with an underscore.



Saved from the CF card via a Firewire800 card-reader using "Digital Images"

Bildschirmfoto 2013-10-24 um 21.33.45.png
Bildschirmfoto 2013-10-24 um 21.33.45.png (75.09 KiB) Viewed 1040 times
- straight from the card - sorry: that´s exactly the way D800 files look like . . =D

best, Klaus

no avatar
mediavets
Moderator
 
Posts: 14160
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 2:12 pm
Location: Isleham, Cambridgeshire, UK.

Re: once again - for the 12th time:

by mediavets » Thu Oct 24, 2013 8:43 pm

klausesser wrote:
Bildschirmfoto 2013-10-24 um 21.33.45.png
- straight from the card - sorry: that´s exactly the way D800 files look like . . =D

best, Klaus


They are NEF we got JPEGS, so must have been processed with something?

no avatar
klausesser
Member
 
Posts: 7858
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:18 am
Location: Duesseldorf, Germany

Re: once again - for the 12th time:

by klausesser » Thu Oct 24, 2013 8:47 pm

mediavets wrote:
klausesser wrote:
Bildschirmfoto 2013-10-24 um 21.33.45.png
- straight from the card - sorry: that´s exactly the way D800 files look like . . =D

best, Klaus


They are NEF we got JPEGS, so must have been processed with something?



The ones i sent i shot as JPGs of course.

best, Klaus

no avatar
lumelix
Member
 
Posts: 528
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 5:51 pm
Location: Switzerland

Re: once again - for the 12th time:

by lumelix » Thu Oct 24, 2013 11:05 pm

Hi Klaus
There is something not clear. If I'm looking into my Nikon-D800 images there is a lot of EXIF information stored, in NEFs and also in JPGs.
Even when I use a manual old lens and set it's aperture and focal length this is written into the EXIF datas.
The files You have uploaded have nothing in EXIF, so if this are the original files there must going something wrong while importing or converting.
I use Nikon's ViewNX/Transfer for importing Nikon-files. Perhaps your SW "Digital Images" kills all the EXIF information?
Attachments
D800E_EXIF.jpg
D800E_EXIF.jpg (46.32 KiB) Viewed 1029 times
Regards
Martin

no avatar
klausesser
Member
 
Posts: 7858
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:18 am
Location: Duesseldorf, Germany

Re: once again - for the 12th time:

by klausesser » Fri Oct 25, 2013 12:36 am

lumelix wrote:Hi Klaus
There is something not clear. If I'm looking into my Nikon-D800 images there is a lot of EXIF information stored, in NEFs and also in JPGs.
Even when I use a manual old lens and set it's aperture and focal length this is written into the EXIF datas.
The files You have uploaded have nothing in EXIF, so if this are the original files there must going something wrong while importing or converting.
I use Nikon's ViewNX/Transfer for importing Nikon-files. Perhaps your SW "Digital Images" kills all the EXIF information?


I use this app - it´s part of the OS - only for transferring the files from the card to the desktop.
I do it this way for years - since i bought my first 20D in 2004.

The lens is identified as 20mm - the aperture of THIS lens isn´t in the EXIFs because i unmounted the AI-ring twenty years ago so
it´s not coupled, but works fine.

But this has no influence on this issue.

I used the SAME IMAGES in PTGui and everything worked fine (i stated it several times here).
I imported the images into Photoshop: no problem. Into CaptureOne: no problem.

I always set my cameras to record as few EXIFs as possible. That´s because i use some rather exotic programs for ColorKeying (Greenscreen/Bluescreen),
Nuke, AfterEffects, Trapcode, Smoke and others.
Some video-applications don´t like EXIfs from photo-cameras.

I don´t think it´s the app which i use for copying the files from the card to the desktop. It doesn´t change anything in the image-files.

best, Klaus

P.S.: when i open the files in Lightroom or CaptureOne i see almost the same kind of EXIFs as you posted as screenshot.

no avatar
lumelix
Member
 
Posts: 528
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 5:51 pm
Location: Switzerland

Re: once again - for the 12th time:

by lumelix » Fri Oct 25, 2013 8:09 am

Hi Klaus
Below You see the missing EXIFs in your posted files.
If this are originals, I'm not shure if this have no issue.
If not we have done an other test if APG works only with the XML-infos. It does ;)
Attachments
noexifinklausfiles.jpg
noexifinklausfiles.jpg (155.31 KiB) Viewed 1021 times
Regards
Martin

no avatar
klausesser
Member
 
Posts: 7858
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:18 am
Location: Duesseldorf, Germany

Re: once again - for the 12th time:

by klausesser » Fri Oct 25, 2013 10:14 am

lumelix wrote:Hi Klaus
Below You see the missing EXIFs in your posted files.
If this are originals, I'm not shure if this have no issue.
If not we have done an other test if APG works only with the XML-infos. It does ;)



Hi Martin!

I attached screenshots of the EXIFs from CaptureOne, Lightroom5 and Photoshop CS6:

C1:

C1.png
C1.png (157.85 KiB) Viewed 1014 times


LR5:

LR5.png
LR5.png (76.63 KiB) Viewed 1014 times

no avatar
klausesser
Member
 
Posts: 7858
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:18 am
Location: Duesseldorf, Germany

Re: once again - for the 12th time:

by klausesser » Fri Oct 25, 2013 10:17 am

PS.png
PS.png (83.04 KiB) Viewed 1013 times

PS_A.png
PS_A.png (308.14 KiB) Viewed 1013 times

PS_B.png
PS_B.png (293.67 KiB) Viewed 1013 times


best, Klaus

no avatar
lumelix
Member
 
Posts: 528
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 5:51 pm
Location: Switzerland

Re: once again - for the 12th time:

by lumelix » Fri Oct 25, 2013 10:21 am

Hi Klaus
This looks good and as usual.
So we loose the EXIFs somewhere while uploading/downloading them in the ZIP.
Regards
Martin

no avatar
klausesser
Member
 
Posts: 7858
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:18 am
Location: Duesseldorf, Germany

Re: once again - for the 12th time:

by klausesser » Fri Oct 25, 2013 10:30 am

lumelix wrote:Hi Klaus
This looks good and as usual.
So we loose the EXIFs somewhere while uploading/downloading them in the ZIP.



Hi Martin!

Really? Loosing EXIFs by zipping? Good to know!

Thanks for looking!

best, Klaus

User avatar
Lionel Laissus
Kolor Team
 
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2005 4:32 pm

Re: once again - for the 12th time:

by Lionel Laissus » Fri Oct 25, 2013 12:57 pm

Klaus,
Open issue (0002726)
We just found the bug about fisheye lens type on your source pictures (before LR).
Lens ID database was buggy...

no avatar
klausesser
Member
 
Posts: 7858
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:18 am
Location: Duesseldorf, Germany

Re: once again - for the 12th time:

by klausesser » Fri Oct 25, 2013 1:15 pm

Lionel Laissus wrote:Klaus,
Open issue (0002726)
We just found the bug about fisheye lens type on your source pictures (before LR).
Lens ID database was buggy...



Hi Lionel!

Thanks heaven we could clear this :cool:

best to you, Klaus

no avatar
vklaffehn
Member
 
Posts: 135
Joined: Thu May 14, 2009 1:10 pm
Location: Braunschweig, Germany

Re: once again - for the 12th time:

by vklaffehn » Wed Nov 20, 2013 10:01 pm

Hi!
Just want to say that some programs put META data not in the image files but in xmp files instead, so maybe those xmp files where not included in you ZIP file?
That could explain the differences ...

MfG
Volker

no avatar
klausesser
Member
 
Posts: 7858
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:18 am
Location: Duesseldorf, Germany

Re: once again - for the 12th time:

by klausesser » Thu Nov 21, 2013 1:13 am

vklaffehn wrote:Hi!
Just want to say that some programs put META data not in the image files but in xmp files instead, so maybe those xmp files where not included in you ZIP file?
That could explain the differences ...

MfG
Volker



Hey Volker!

Thanks! That´s interesting! I will evaluate it.

best, Klaus

Previous

Return to Autopano bug & discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest