Ext. AEB>Bulb min and max script values: When scrolling < or > should values match normal 400d values?

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Please, describe the enhancement of feature requested below:

This feature request / enhancement is based on testing the most recent nightly 
build svn-0572 as of this writing.

Currently "Bulb" min and max values in the 400plus Settings menu for the "Ext. 
AEB" script range from 1/4000 to 16' and follow the pattern below:

1/4000, 1/2000, 1/1000, 1/500, 1/250, 1/250, 1/125, 1/60, 1/30, 1/15, 1/8, 1/4, 
1/2, 1", 2", 4", 8", 15", 30", 1', 2', 4', 8', 16'

When the 400D is in M (Manual) or Tv (Time value) mode and the main dial is 
moved left to right the range is 1/4000 to 30" and BULB (and "" refers to 
minutes).  Each choice in the range differs based upon what C.Fn 6 "(Exposure 
level increments)" is set to in the camera.  The choices for C.Fn 6 are "0:1/3 
stop" or "1:1/2 stop".

The values available to scroll through in M or Tv when C.Fn 6 is set to either 
"0" or "1" do not match what is available when scrolling < or > through the 
"Bulb" min and max values pattern (shown above).

Should they be the same? Or should they stay is they are now?  Does anybody 
really care about this?  If they were to change to better match what the normal 
400D values are, then should they also follow the pattern based on what C.Fn 6 
is set to as well?

I hope this makes sense.  Your thoughts?

Original issue reported on code.google.com by mike.guf...@gmail.com on 3 Jun 2011 at 2:36

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Gheez, if this is the best I can do for a feature request / enhancement then 
the current 400plus hack must be pretty steenkin' excellent already!

Original comment by mike.guf...@gmail.com on 3 Jun 2011 at 2:39

[GoogleCodeExporter]

My two cents:

When taking one single photograph, selecting the right exposure is critical; in 
this situation, having a granularity of 1/2 or 1/3 EV makes perfect sense to me 
(I have my camera configured for 1/3 EV, as 1/2 EV looks "too big" for me, but 
this is a personal preference).

But when you are going to do multiple exposures (with the intention of 
combining them later), I feel that having a precision of 1 EV is perfectly 
adequate; after all, none of the exposures is supposed to be correct, that is 
we are using HDR. And if you feel that the limits of your series do not match 
your needs, you can always add another exposure. I prefer not to have too many 
values there, to be able to change quickly from one value to another.

However, all this is just my point of view... Adding more intermediate values 
is quite easy; if there is a real need for them, I will do it. But we will also 
need to decide about the separation between shots (it is fixed at 1EV now, 
should it be configurable, too?), and what happens when the max value does not 
match the min value plus a multiple of the separation (like min=1/100, 
max=1/1500, sep=1EV).

Original comment by eduardo....@gmail.com on 3 Jun 2011 at 11:56

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Thanks for your thoughts on this. I hope others will chime in also.

My .02 = your .02 as far as Extended Bracketing features as they exist now for 
the purpose of HDR.  We have more than enough capability now in 400plus to do 
what we need for great HDR.

I was not even thinking HDR when I wrote this request but rather the idea of 
using the Intervalometer script along with the Extended Bracketing script to 
have the opportunity to take as many exposures as you want at whatever exposure 
length you want from the exposure values that are normally offered from your 
camera the way it was currently configured.  

Similar to what was posted on the forums by "repeater" at:
http://chdk.setepontos.com/index.php?topic=3290.msg67723#msg67723

In his scenario it could(?) be valuable to be able to offer whatever the camera 
normally offers for exposure times based on the C.Fn 6 settings, along with the 
values chosen for the 400plus script settings.

But... is what we have now not adequate and valuable enough for most people?  
This I don't know and thus I posted this feature request to get some feedback 
from you guys and others.  Maybe a better choice would have been to make this a 
forum post.  Keep in mind also that I am testing the builds regularly in 
probably way more detail than most with the goal of trying to help perfect this 
very nice piece of software.

Yes, more code validation would be required to ensure that script settings are 
valid (min, max, EV selected, etc.).  If the 400plus settings script values 
available to choose from were driven based on what the camera C.Fn 6 is 
configured to (yes, more code again...) then maybe it would be a little bit 
simpler?  Hmmm, do I see another shortcut here for quick access to C.Fn 6 
"Exposure level increments"?

Let's keep this going, we can always close it out as "Won't Fix" or "Postpone" 
if not enough interest or too difficult to take on at the moment.  I still like 
the idea, but I'm not writing the code :), just using it.

Original comment by mike.guf...@gmail.com on 3 Jun 2011 at 3:54

[GoogleCodeExporter]

But... that EAEB with max = min is just a dirty trick to use the intervalometer 
for long exposures (> 30s); for short exposures, users can just use the 
intervalometer and fire the camera normally, using whatever parameters they may 
need (and that includes any shutter speed available).

I already had plans to add long exposures out of EAEB, and these will not have 
the limitation of 1EV step; I am thinking now that we must allow users to fire 
those long exposures from the intervalometer. Probably this will cover all 
cases, but I am willing to be proven wrong.

PS: Your comments constitute an invaluable contribution to this project; 
please, keep them coming!

Original comment by eduardo....@gmail.com on 3 Jun 2011 at 8:12

[GoogleCodeExporter]

This issue was closed by revision r1140.

Original comment by eduardo....@gmail.com on 19 Mar 2012 at 9:50

• Changed state: Fixed