Darktable for unsupported camera models?

Started 7 months ago | Questions
CAcreeks
CAcreeks Forum Pro • Posts: 15,355
Darktable for unsupported camera models?

Is there a way to use Darktable for unsupported camera models, such as the X-Pro3 or X-T200? I want to participated in a Raw challenge for the X-Pro3, and the DPreview sample gallery for the released X-T200 just appeared.

What happens is that Darktable hangs saying "loading image" but never gets there.

With RawTherapee it was possible to link a new camera model to a similar old one. For the X-T200, the X-A5 is close enough.

ANSWER:
This question has not been answered yet.
Howard Moftich Veteran Member • Posts: 9,842
Re: Darktable for unsupported camera models?
2

if Darktable supports DNG format, you could use the free Adobe converter or the inexpensive Iridient X-Transformer.

-- hide signature --

Online civility: Before you press 'Post', ask yourself if you'd say that to someone face to face.

sluggy_warrior Senior Member • Posts: 2,357
Re: Darktable for unsupported camera models?
1

CAcreeks wrote:

Is there a way to use Darktable for unsupported camera models, such as the X-Pro3 or X-T200? I want to participated in a Raw challenge for the X-Pro3, and the DPreview sample gallery for the released X-T200 just appeared.

What happens is that Darktable hangs saying "loading image" but never gets there.

With RawTherapee it was possible to link a new camera model to a similar old one. For the X-T200, the X-A5 is close enough.

if you're comfortable enough with compiling from source (instruction on front page of github repo), it's relatively easy, just need to edit two files:

  • src/external/rawspeed/data/cameras.xml
  • src/external/adobe_coeff.c (for color matrix)

I've tried by copying the existing X-T100 data, renamed to X-T200, then recompiled. Most things work fine. That could be a temporary solution while waiting for the camera to be officially supported (any users with own samples can submit them as a new github issue/ticket to speed up support).

Here's the output from darktable of this RAW sample:
https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/1616277038/fujifilm-x-t200-pre-production-sample-gallery/2553021583

(just noticed the date was 2/13/2020, no wonder we have an outbreak of COVID-19 😞)

.

or ISO 4000 (no noise profile yet, just generic poissonian)

https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/1616277038/fujifilm-x-t200-pre-production-sample-gallery/1400990675

CAcreeks
OP CAcreeks Forum Pro • Posts: 15,355
Re: Darktable for unsupported camera models?

sluggy_warrior wrote:

if you're comfortable enough with compiling from source (instruction on front page of github repo), it's relatively easy, just need to edit two files:

  • src/external/rawspeed/data/cameras.xml
  • src/external/adobe_coeff.c (for color matrix)

I've tried by copying the existing X-T100 data, renamed to X-T200, then recompiled. Most things work fine.

Thanks a lot! I will do this.

The page telling photographers how to add support for a new camera model is a bit out of date, but when I buy the X-T200, I'll work on it, if somebody hasn't already.

https://www.darktable.org/2012/10/whats-involved-with-adding-support-for-new-cameras/

According to their camera support database, the X-A2 and X-T10 are the only Bayer-sensor models with WB presets; the X-A5 and X-T10 are the only ones with noise profiles. So I'm surprised your repurposed X-T100 conversions worked so well.

sluggy_warrior Senior Member • Posts: 2,357
Re: Darktable for unsupported camera models?

CAcreeks wrote:

Thanks a lot! I will do this.

The page telling photographers how to add support for a new camera model is a bit out of date, but when I buy the X-T200, I'll work on it, if somebody hasn't already.

https://www.darktable.org/2012/10/whats-involved-with-adding-support-for-new-cameras/

I think currently RAW samples should be uploaded to raw.pixls.us, then can be used by different projects.

X-T100 sample is there but not X-T200:
https://raw.pixls.us/?#repo

There are a few open tickets on camera support, X100V included:
https://github.com/darktable-org/darktable/labels/scope%3A%20camera%20support

According to their camera support database, the X-A2 and X-T10 are the only Bayer-sensor models with WB presets; the X-A5 and X-T10 are the only ones with noise profiles. So I'm surprised your repurposed X-T100 conversions worked so well.

ha ha, I haven't followed the cameras closely so I'm not sure which one is the closest and best supported. I guessed X-T100 is the closest to X-T200 in name 😁

CAcreeks
OP CAcreeks Forum Pro • Posts: 15,355
Re: Darktable for unsupported camera models?

sluggy_warrior wrote:

I think currently RAW samples should be uploaded to raw.pixls.us, then can be used by different projects.

That is a sensible arrangement, because it leverages other open software projects. After I do it, I will volunteer to revise the out-of-date procedure online.

According to their camera support database, the X-A2 and X-T10 are the only Bayer-sensor models with WB presets; the X-A5 and X-T10 are the only ones with noise profiles. So I'm surprised your repurposed X-T100 conversions worked so well.

ha ha, I haven't followed the cameras closely so I'm not sure which one is the closest and best supported. I guessed X-T100 is the closest to X-T200 in name 😁

The X-T10 has fewer megapixels (16?) so would not make a good paradigm. X-T100 and X-A5 are close, but X-A7 would be closer if available. What's puzzling is that the X-T100 lacks white balance preset and noise profile, yet your trick worked well.

Thanks again!

sluggy_warrior Senior Member • Posts: 2,357
Re: Darktable for unsupported camera models?

CAcreeks wrote:

The X-T10 has fewer megapixels (16?) so would not make a good paradigm. X-T100 and X-A5 are close, but X-A7 would be closer if available. What's puzzling is that the X-T100 lacks white balance preset and noise profile, yet your trick worked well.

Yeah, there's no WB preset, but I mostly use what the camera captured, or spot balance anyway.

There's also no noise profile like you said, so I didn't apply denoise on the first pic, or I'd loose details badly. The second pic used generic profile, but I was surprised at how well it did, too.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads