[WiSo]

according to their webpage the last update was 2008 -> http://www.xdp.it/cximage.htm with version 6.00 which we use.
But it could be that the format isn't supported yes.

[Fire69]

Ah, I googled and found their sourceforge-page, but apparently that's not updated anymore.
Anyhow, in version 6.00, CR2 (and most other RAW-formats) is supported with a separate class and library:

CxImage 6.00 includes a new class (CxImageRAW) and a new library (LibDCR) to read RAW images from digital cameras; common file extension are: RAW, CRW, NEF, CR2, DNG, ORF, ARW, ERF, 3FR, DCR, X3F, MEF, RAF, MRW, PEF, SR2. [...]

I tried the compiled Windows-demo they have available and it reads my CR2-files just fine.
So, the question remains, is it something in XBMC or in CXimage that is preventing XBMC from opening the CR2-files?

Just wondering, has anybody tried this in XBMC for Linux? Is it possible this is a problem with only the Windows-version?

[WiSo]

I tried the compiled Windows-demo they have available and it reads my CR2-files just fine.
So, the question remains, is it something in XBMC or in CXimage that is preventing XBMC from opening the CR2-files?

Good question, can't tell. The source is in the svn so feel free to play with it. The raw library is enabled so maybe something different is causing problems.

[Fire69]

I know absolutely nothing about coding unfortunately.

Am I allowed to open a new topic in the Linux-support forum for this?
I'm guessing there are a lot more people there who maybe know how to fix this?

[hug0]

Hi, what is the purpose of supporting RAW images?
For my understandig RAW images have to be processed in a tool like Lightroom, Bibble, you name it, before I want to see them in my media center.
Or is there a plan to add some processing functionallity?

[spiff]

what is the purpose of not supporting them?

[hug0]

As I said: For my understanding, RAW images have to be processed (white level, contrast, saturation, sharpness, histogram, ...) *before* (at least) I want to see them in a media center.

[spiff]

cximage atleast applies the white level.

in any case; some people wanted this, as obvious from the 4-5 trac tickets we just closed on the subject. move along.

[hug0]

cximage atleast applies the white level.

Interesting! didn't know that white level is saved in RAW. One benefit of taking RAW images is, that I do not have to care for the white level, becaus I do it afterwards. Maybe it is saved to preset some options in the processing tools? Ok, wrong forum for that.

in any case; some people wanted this, as obvious from the 4-5 trac tickets we just closed on the subject. move along.

Yup, see your point as "Grumpy Bastard Developer" ;-) My question was more for the 4-5 people that asked for the feature as I had the feeling they do not really understand how raw a RAW image is ;-)

Moving along...

[Fire69]

Interesting! didn't know that white level is saved in RAW. One benefit of taking RAW images is, that I do not have to care for the white level, becaus I do it afterwards. Maybe it is saved to preset some options in the processing tools? Ok, wrong forum for that.

Yup, see your point as "Grumpy Bastard Developer" ;-) My question was more for the 4-5 people that asked for the feature as I had the feeling they do not really understand how raw a RAW image is ;-)

Moving along...

As one of the people asking for this feature, I can tell you I know well enough how raw RAW-files are. Actually, it seems you don't know how "un-raw" they are, thanks to the embedded jpg-version of the photo
But even if this jpg-version was not embedded, why would they be too raw to show them in XBMC? If Lightroom can show them, why couldn't XBMC?
Sure, you miss out on all the editing you did in Lightroom, but I don't find that a big problem.

The simple reason I (and I guess the others) requested this feature is because the misses wants to watch the pictures I take from the kids on our TV. She doesn't want to go messing around with Lightroom as I do.
When you have people visiting, you just want to show them your pictures from your couch, not all cramped up behind your pc screen...


Now, on the the added support for RAW.... it's not working.
All I get is a black screen (r20464).
I'll report it in Trac.

[hug0]

As one of the people asking for this feature, I can tell you I know well enough how raw RAW-files are. Actually, it seems you don't know how "un-raw" they are, thanks to the embedded jpg-version of the photo

Didn't want to offend anybody ;-)
Which resolution has the embedded version? Anyways doesn't help for *me*, 'caus I do not want to care for the correct white balance (and saturation and contrast and and and) while shooting (which I had, if I wanted to show the embedded jpg version).

But even if this jpg-version was not embedded, why would they be too raw to show them in XBMC? If Lightroom can show them, why couldn't XBMC?
Sure, you miss out on all the editing you did in Lightroom, but I don't find that a big problem.

Lightroom shows them so you can pick one and process it. E.g. I don't think it has a "dia show" option for the RAWs.

The simple reason I (and I guess the others) requested this feature is because the misses wants to watch the pictures I take from the kids on our TV. She doesn't want to go messing around with Lightroom as I do.
When you have people visiting, you just want to show them your pictures from your couch, not all cramped up behind your pc screen...

Hm, I never want to show RAWs as they are only half the truth. If it has to be quick, I would set my cam to jpg and choose the white ballance, contrast, and all the other settings I don't have to with RAW.

As long as I shoot RAW "Taking a picture" is for me: "shoot raw, got to software and convert the picture to a final jpg that can be shown". Same for analog times: Never showed anyone the negatives only because I didn't want to wait for paper prints.

hug0

[Fire69]

Didn't want to offend anybody ;-)

You didn't, but you got close!

Which resolution has the embedded version? Anyways doesn't help for *me*, 'caus I do not want to care for the correct white balance (and saturation and contrast and and and) while shooting (which I had, if I wanted to show the embedded jpg version).

Don't know what the embedded resolution is. I think the same as the RAW, but that's just a guess. I know for sure it's high enough to at least match the resolution of an FullHD-tv
*I* care about correct white balance and stuff too, but non-photographing people are already happy when the picture is in focus.
It's for showing them my pictures that I requested this feature.

Lightroom shows them so you can pick one and process it. E.g. I don't think it has a "dia show" option for the RAWs.

You should go find your Lightroom manual (really quick!!)

Hm, I never want to show RAWs as they are only half the truth. If it has to be quick, I would set my cam to jpg and choose the white ballance, contrast, and all the other settings I don't have to with RAW.

As long as I shoot RAW "Taking a picture" is for me: "shoot raw, got to software and convert the picture to a final jpg that can be shown". Same for analog times: Never showed anyone the negatives only because I didn't want to wait for paper prints.

hug0

I don't like having every picture twice, so I only have RAWs.
That's why I like this feature. Now other people can still see the pictures without me having to export every single one.
90% of my pictures are of my kids. I won't go mad when somebody sees those pictures without the white balance being adjusted.

[hug0]

You didn't, but you got close!

sorry ;-)

Don't know what the embedded resolution is. I think the same as the RAW, but that's just a guess. I know for sure it's high enough to at least match the resolution of an FullHD-tv

http://ufraw.sourceforge.net/wiki/Canon
says for canon 20D
raw: 3522x2348 and embedded-jpg: 1536x1024
Ok, almost Fullhd, indeed!

*I* care about correct white balance and stuff too, but non-photographing people are already happy when the picture is in focus.
It's for showing them my pictures that I requested this feature.

hehe ok, *I* don't care if the misses care, but I care that they see my pics as I want them to ;-)

You should go find your Lightroom manual (really quick!!)

I'm not using Lightroom, but seems to be your point!

I don't like having every picture twice, so I only have RAWs.
That's why I like this feature. Now other people can still see the pictures without me having to export every single one.
90% of my pictures are of my kids. I won't go mad when somebody sees those pictures without the white balance being adjusted.

So what is the reason for choosing raw? At least some sharpening stuff would be good for a raw! Sounds like the perfect case for jpg?
Hm think we should stop here. PM for any further stuff? ;-)
hug0

[WiSo]

Now, on the the added support for RAW.... it's not working.
All I get is a black screen (r20464).
I'll report it in Trac.

As said in the ticket raw support was always there and does work in general. Just cr2 seems not to work.

[Nazgulled]

I don't know if this is related and if it's something that you guys can do anything about but I have a couple of DNG images that are not displaying properly on XBMC Camelot on Windows Vista.

I don't know if this has anything to do with it, but for the record, I have the Adobe DNG Codec (preview) installed on my Windows Vista system.

Now, the problem displaying DNG files in XBMC is that it doesn't display the changes (which are represented by metadata only). The image displayed from the DNG is the original (as taken from the camera) without any editing at all. I have all my DNG's metadata updated and I also have the JPG preview inside the DNG updated to the edited version and not the original version.

Any idea why the correct version is not being displayed?