[Bug 144155] New: wrong(?) histogram y-axis when blown-out over/underexposure

[Arnd Baecker]

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
         
http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=144155         




------- Additional Comments From arnd.baecker web de  2007-06-13 17:46 -------
Created an attachment (id=20849)
 --> (http://bugs.kde.org/attachment.cgi?id=20849&action=view)
example images and their histograms

I did a more thorough check of the patch, and find quite
a few cases, where it does not work optimally:
(A) too much is cut-off
(B) not enough is cut-off to the right
(C) too much is cut-off
(D) too much is cut-off

Maybe one should only use the largest 10% and lowest 10%
to detect blown out high-lights and shadows and
regard everything else as normal contents?

Unless there are any values which are being clipped, I would
suggest to always leave 2-3% of the height just blank,
so that it is clear, when something is clipped.

If you revise the patch, I am perfectly happy to test it again
(maybe we can still sneak it into the release candidate for 0.9.2 ;-)
_______________________________________________
Digikam-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-devel

[Arnd Baecker]

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
         
http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=144155         




------- Additional Comments From arnd.baecker web de  2007-07-06 08:43 -------
Hi Luis,

did you have time to see whether it is possible to improve
the histograms for the examples I attached?

I think your patch is an important improvement, which maybe
can be improved even further! I am very eager if this could be
be finalized in time for integration into 0.9.3.

Many thanks,

Arnd
_______________________________________________
Digikam-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-devel

[Arnd Baecker]

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
         
http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=144155         




------- Additional Comments From arnd.baecker web de  2007-11-05 09:57 -------
Hi Luis,

any update on your patch (I'd really like if this could integrated in 0.9.3)?

Best, Arnd
_______________________________________________
Digikam-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-devel

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
         
http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=144155         




------- Additional Comments From lparrab gmx net  2007-11-06 23:51 -------
Hello arnd

well.. the patch was  more or less working already.
the histogram is not 100% perfect for all images, but the results are IMVHO
much better than the current implementation.

I havn't looked at it since then, and to be honest, I don't think I will find
the time to do it anytime soon. so unless someone picks it up and finishes it
(or merges it in its current state) it won't be in 0.9.3

I will probably give it another try if there are no volunteers, but like I
said, it won't be anytime soon, sorry.

cheers.
luis




On Monday 05 November 2007 09:57:52 Arnd Baecker wrote:
[bugs.kde.org quoted mail]
_______________________________________________
Digikam-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-devel

[Arnd Baecker]

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
         
http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=144155         




------- Additional Comments From arnd.baecker web de  2007-11-07 07:49 -------
Hi Luis,

thanks a lot for the feedback!
The problem I see at the moment with the patch is that there
are cases where it does not work well enough in my opinion
(see the examples under #17).
It is clearly an improvement, but to me it is
not obvious wether the patch can be easily improved to
always get it right, or not.
In my opinion it does not make sense to check in
some code for which it is not clear whether this
is the final solution, or if everything has to be ripped out
again later to make space for the real solution (tm) ;-).

Currently I am pretty busy with a long list of other issues,
so if you manage to have a look for an easy solution (e.g is some parameter tuning?), that's fine, otherwise this one will have to wait for a while.

Don't get me wrong: this is  a perfect example of an important contribution
to digikam to solve an issue, nicely illustrated with example images,
and a patch which improves things. So sooner (hopefully;-) or later
this will get into svn.
(And: please keep your patches coming - contributions are very welcome!)

Thanks a lot,

Arnd
_______________________________________________
Digikam-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-devel

[Gilles Caulier-4]

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
         
http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=144155         




------- Additional Comments From caulier.gilles gmail com  2007-11-07 07:58 -------
I second Arnd here.

This file is a good example of contribution to an open source project...

Gilles
_______________________________________________
Digikam-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-devel