# About to start with Focal



## RGF (Jun 10, 2013)

Hi

I am about to get Focal Pro (based upon the comments I have read on this forum).

Before I begin the journey, I was wondering if there are any suggestions, tips, hints, etc I should know about.

I will be AFMA 2 1Dx and 5DM3, with mostly zoom lens and few fixed (ranging from 14 to 500).

Thanks


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 10, 2013)

Stable tripod on stable surface (concrete slab is better than hardwood or carpet).

Lots of light, you want EV's above 10. Use tungsten/halogen, not fluorescent or LED.


----------



## Velo Steve (Jun 10, 2013)

I just got the software a week or so ago. Here are some observations.

[list type=decimal]
[*]Read the manual. Maybe not every page, but there is some good information.
[*]The "fully automatic" adjustment is quite tedious on the 5D III and any other camera without support for AFMA adjustments by software.
[*]TurboCal is much faster than "automatic" - I can't say whether the results are consistently as good.
[*]For the big lenses you are going to need a big indoor space, or the ability to work outdoors when lighting is consistent. I had trouble with tree shadows moving across the target before I could complete a single calibration. It might also work to have the camera outdoors and the target in a controlled indoor space with an open door or window.
[*]My results were mostly similar to calibrations I had attempted by hand. I'm taking that as a good thing - what the software says agrees approximately with my eye. Probably the software is more accurate.
[*]Speaking of accuracy (or really, consistency) I did some "semi-automatic" testing and it was surprising how much the results varied from one shot to the next under identical conditions. There was often much more difference between consecutive shots at a single AFMA value than between two shots with an AFMA setting several units higher or lower. This suggests that taking several shots and choosing the best (when you have the luxury of doing so) will make more difference than a perfect AFMA setting. Of course what I saw with one lens/camera combination may not apply elsewhere. By the way, this test was *not* done with the 70-200mm lens mentioned below.
[*]The autofocus on my trusty 70-200mm 2.8L IS lens died while using the software! I suppose it was ready to die after 7 years of use and who knows how many hours with the shutter button half pressed. Still, it was a shock. Both autofocus and manual focus are now unreliable.
[/list]

If anyone else has tips about how big to print the target for various lenses and target distances, I'd like to hear them. Also, target setup with TurboCal seemed different than with the other methods, and I'd like to understand that better.


----------



## dirtcastle (Jun 10, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Lots of light, you want EV's above 10. Use tungsten/halogen, not fluorescent or LED.



What about indirect sunlight?


----------



## RGF (Jun 10, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Stable tripod on stable surface (concrete slab is better than hardwood or carpet).
> 
> Lots of light, you want EV's above 10. Use tungsten/halogen, not fluorescent or LED.



Should iturn IS off? Sounds like that you think that no IS is a good idea.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 10, 2013)

Sunlight is fine, as long as there aren't clouds changing the light levels.

Turn IS off.


----------



## RGF (Jun 10, 2013)

Thanks NA


----------



## Dylan777 (Jun 10, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Stable tripod on stable surface (concrete slab is better than hardwood or carpet).
> 
> Lots of light, you want EV's above 10. Use tungsten/halogen, not fluorescent or LED.



+1...be careful when you change AFMA values during test, since 5D III is not fully auto. Extra firm tight on tripod head. Long USB cable - from camera to PC - will help from accidently bump.


----------



## MaxPower (Jun 10, 2013)

I bough Focal some weeks ago, to use it with my 6D.
But I don't made a print of the target image, instead I used the screen of my macbook pro retina as target,
so I had no problems with light indoor.
The Automatic Calibration worked fine with all my lenses.


----------



## MaxPower (Jun 10, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Turn IS off.



With IS on, I got an error from focal in auto mode.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 10, 2013)

RGF said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Stable tripod on stable surface (concrete slab is better than hardwood or carpet).
> ...


You should be mounted on a very sturdy tripod, so IS is not wanted or needed, it will tent to jitter the image if its on.. Just in case your IS does not recognize the tripod and shut itself down automatically, turn it off. You can sometimes get away with it being on, but why risk wasting time.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jun 11, 2013)

MaxPower said:


> I used the screen of my macbook pro retina as target, so I had no problems with light indoor.


Good tip ... thanks for sharing.


----------



## Maxaperture (Jun 11, 2013)

Morning all, I'm a CR virgin poster.

I've recently purchased and used FoCal for my 5D3 and small amount of lenses.
Incredible difference to the clarity and sharpness of my 70-200mm 2.8 IS II, just by a small MFA of Wide+2 and Tele+4.

My Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC was seriously difficult at the wide end, but only for one reason, I didn't read the distance chart. :-\
So, please allow me to offer this tip........
Use the FoCal distance chart found here https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/11469157/FoCal/Docs/FoCal%20Test%20Distance_1.0.pdf


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jun 11, 2013)

Maxaperture said:


> Morning all, I'm a CR virgin poster.


Hmmm? that sounds suspicious, you sure you virgin? coz anyone named "MAXaperture" with a "500mm" prime tool oops I mean lens, cannot be a virgin ... just kidding, welcome to CR


Maxaperture said:


> So, please allow me to offer this tip........
> Use the FoCal distance chart found here https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/11469157/FoCal/Docs/FoCal%20Test%20Distance_1.0.pdf


Thanks for sharing


----------



## Viggo (Jun 11, 2013)

Take care with the setup, and make sure your doing all things right, target, sturdy surface, do not move the cam, keep it around 10 ev, no less and not a lot more.

I used Focal for the 24-70 II yesterday and it's the first time it has been way off! It said -5 at 70mm and +5 at 24mm, but it's clearly best at "0" at all focals. I've adjusted a lot of lenses and Focal has always been right, so I'm doing a retest today. 

On a happy sidenote this copy is both sharper and more accurate AF (2012) than the 2013 copy.


----------



## Zv (Jun 11, 2013)

I found it a bit difficult to line up the target at first. Then I switched on my electronic level on my 7D and used that to get my camera lined up. This worked so well that when I switch cameras, the tripod was still lined up correctly and I found the target in no time. 

Also I recommend using a room with a lot of space and don't walk about or move while it's testing.


----------



## Zv (Jun 11, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> MaxPower said:
> 
> 
> > I used the screen of my macbook pro retina as target, so I had no problems with light indoor.
> ...



I thought you could only use the printed target? Is any type of screen OK? This would be helpful as getting over 10EV indoors even on a sunny day is tough (without turning on florescent lights - which is a no no ... so ...).


----------



## dlleno (Jun 12, 2013)

What flavor/price of focal are y'all using and why? Do u use the charts and features of pro?


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jun 12, 2013)

Zv said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > MaxPower said:
> ...


Good question ... I too would like to know if this is ok. Anyone?


----------



## J.R. (Jun 12, 2013)

I'm using a laser-printout of the target. I remember someone commenting in another thread that the printout should be taken using an inkjet printer - is this correct? If yes, why?


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jun 12, 2013)

J.R. said:


> I'm using a laser-printout of the target. I remember someone commenting in another thread that the printout should be taken using an inkjet printer - is this correct? If yes, why?


strange ... wonder what could be so critical that one has to use only inkjet


----------



## Zv (Jun 12, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > I'm using a laser-printout of the target. I remember someone commenting in another thread that the printout should be taken using an inkjet printer - is this correct? If yes, why?
> ...



Yeah I was wondering about that, it's written on the focal website too. I just ignored it and used laser as that's what the convenience store had!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 12, 2013)

FoCal states that a laser print may be too glossy/reflective, an inkjet will be more matte. I imagine an LCD panel would also be more reflective. Personally, I've not used anything but an inkjet print on matte photo paper.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jun 12, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> FoCal states that a laser print may be too glossy/reflective, an inkjet will be more matte.


That is strange ... inkjet printers use liquid colors and laser printers use powder based colors ... where I work we only have laser printers, at home I have an inkjet printer and when I see a print out from my inkjet printer it looks far more reflective than the laser printer at our office.


----------



## msatter (Jun 12, 2013)

I have used Focal for some time now and I don't think I get better results with the lenses calibrated.

Using a 250 Watt bulb in my studio flash to light the chart (inkjet on matte paper) and hope that soon the flash can be used to get even more light on the chart.

Program was very unstable and could not complete one calibration anymore. After sending logs to support which did not resolve it, in later versions, I discovered that my standard setting of writing to both cards was the cause.

I hope they discover the possibility to set MFA remote on the 5D MKIII so I don't have to touch the camera and change the MFA manually.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jun 13, 2013)

msatter said:


> I discovered that my standard setting of writing to both cards was the cause.


Could you please explain that further ... I've been considering FoCal for quite some time now and would like to understand how the writing of files to both cards can be an issue.
Thanks in advance


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 13, 2013)

msatter said:


> I hope they discover the possibility to set MFA remote on the 5D MKIII so I don't have to touch the camera and change the MFA manually.



They can't discover what Canon doesn't put in the SDK.


----------



## RGF (Jun 13, 2013)

The manual says that canon utilities may need to be loaded. Is that true under Win 7?


----------



## msatter (Jun 30, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> msatter said:
> 
> 
> > I discovered that my standard setting of writing to both cards was the cause.
> ...



I am using an Eye-Fi card in the SD slot so I have writing separate to each memory card enabled which is causing the crashes when running Focal. As soon I disable separate Focal is completing calibrations of the lens.


----------



## kaihp (Jul 2, 2013)

msatter said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > msatter said:
> ...



It seems to me that Focal is a bit fickle about non-default settings like writing to two cards, using silent mode etc.

I have noticed that my 5D3 will on many occasions forget to record the AFMA value in the EXIF, so I need to enter it manually in Focal. I still haven't figured out exactly what that triggers it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 2, 2013)

kaihp said:


> I have noticed that my 5D3 will on many occasions forget to record the AFMA value in the EXIF, so I need to enter it manually in Focal. I still haven't figured out exactly what that triggers it.



Do you use back button AF? If so, and you're not holding the AF-ON button as you press the shutter, the AFMA is not recorded in the EXIF (nor is the selected AF point).


----------



## kaihp (Jul 2, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> kaihp said:
> 
> 
> > I have noticed that my 5D3 will on many occasions forget to record the AFMA value in the EXIF, so I need to enter it manually in Focal. I still haven't figured out exactly what that triggers it.
> ...



I do use the back button AF, so my problem is probably right there. Pretty stupid firmware decision, if you ask me (OK, I know you didn't).
The guy who did that will be second in line to go up against the wall when the revolution comes, just after the guys who made the DSG engine management SW for my VW Golf 1.4 TSI (that SW is seriously FUBAR).

Thanks, neuro.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 2, 2013)

kaihp said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > kaihp said:
> ...



I sort of think it makes sense. If you're not pressing AF-ON, the camera isn't actively focusing when the shot is taken - therefore, the details of the focus lock aren't recorded. If you use the shutter half-press to AF, you're always focusing when you fully press the shutter. With shutter button-linked AF, if you focus-recompose, the selected AF point is recorded, but it's not over the subject. With back button AF, the selected AF point isn't shown at all - to me, that's better than having it not on the subject. (Even better would be if it used the gyros for the dual-axis level to compensate for the movement by adjusting for the backfocus that it causes and is evident with a fast prime - but I'm not holding my breath for that one, even though Hasselblad does it.)


----------



## ahab1372 (Jul 2, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> I sort of think it makes sense. If you're not pressing AF-ON, the camera isn't actively focusing when the shot is taken - therefore, the details of the focus lock aren't recorded. If you use the shutter half-press to AF, you're always focusing when you fully press the shutter. With shutter button-linked AF, if you focus-recompose, the selected AF point is recorded, but it's not over the subject. With back button AF, the selected AF point isn't shown at all - to me, that's better than having it not on the subject. (Even better would be if it used the gyros for the dual-axis level to compensate for the movement by adjusting for the backfocus that it causes and is evident with a fast prime - but I'm not holding my breath for that one, even though Hasselblad does it.)


I thought it still recorded AF points. I was looking at a picture yesterday where I'm sure I recomposed, and I could see the AF points in Aperture.
Maybe it is time depended in a way that it records the AF points if not too much time has passed after you let go of the AF-On button - maybe as long as the metering information is still displayed in the VF?
I will test tonight


----------



## gbchriste (Jul 2, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Do you use back button AF? If so, and you're not holding the AF-ON button as you press the shutter, the AFMA is not recorded in the EXIF (nor is the selected AF point).



Not sure that is 100% accurate. I BBF all the time and don't hold the AF button down when shooting. I have my 5D3 zoom function set up to automatically zoom to the 10x level and scroll to the AF'd region of the image. Works every time so the AF point must be recorded in their file somewhere.


----------



## gbchriste (Jul 2, 2013)

I did my first run through with FoCal last night. Lately my 70-200 2.8L has been horribly mushy when shooting at 200mm zoom length. I typically shoot portraits and when I do a full body shot at full zoom, it looks like vaseline has been smeared on the lens.

So I set up FoCal and ran the test. My first test was done at about 7 meters distance (my wife was mopping the floor so I couldn't move back any further ) and got a whopping +19 adjustment for the 200mm end. Yikes! But the test report showing the various shots at FoCal took at 0, -20, -10, +10, +20 and then the final +19 clearly showed the +0 target way out of focus and the +19 target clearly in focus.

Once the floor dried, I moved back to just shy of 10 meters so was close the recommended focal length X 50 distance. This time I got a +16 adjustment.

I didn't bother checking the short end as images I take at that end are always razor sharp.

My question is, what happens now? Does the AFMA adjustment only apply when I am fully zoomed out to 200mm or will the applied adjustment incrementally move back towards zero on a pro-rata basis as I zoom out from 200 back to 70mm? Or does it just magically flip from the adjusted value back over to zero at some point on the zoom scale?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 2, 2013)

ahab1372 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > I sort of think it makes sense. If you're not pressing AF-ON, the camera isn't actively focusing when the shot is taken - therefore, the details of the focus lock aren't recorded. If you use the shutter half-press to AF, you're always focusing when you fully press the shutter. With shutter button-linked AF, if you focus-recompose, the selected AF point is recorded, but it's not over the subject. With back button AF, the selected AF point isn't shown at all - to me, that's better than having it not on the subject. (Even better would be if it used the gyros for the dual-axis level to compensate for the movement by adjusting for the backfocus that it causes and is evident with a fast prime - but I'm not holding my breath for that one, even though Hasselblad does it.)
> ...



I do not think that means what you think it means. 

Here are a couple of examples. The first was a focus-recompose, starting from the lighthouse. I can assure you that I didn't put the AF point over open blue sky and then focus... DPP does not show a selected AF point.

The second looks pretty good, like I have the bird nicely centered in the frame and the AF array is on the bird (although not on the head where it should be. But then look at the full image before cropping. 

Sorry, but Aperture is just making that sh!t up as it goes along... :


----------



## ahab1372 (Jul 2, 2013)

gbchriste said:


> I did my first run through with FoCal last night. Lately my 70-200 2.8L has been horribly mushy when shooting at 200mm zoom length. I typically shoot portraits and when I do a full body shot at full zoom, it looks like vaseline has been smeared on the lens.
> 
> So I set up FoCal and ran the test. My first test was done at about 7 meters distance (my wife was mopping the floor so I couldn't move back any further ) and got a whopping +19 adjustment for the 200mm end. Yikes! But the test report showing the various shots at FoCal took at 0, -20, -10, +10, +20 and then the final +19 clearly showed the +0 target way out of focus and the +19 target clearly in focus.
> 
> ...


The camera will interpolate between the two. You might want to test some focal lengths in between to see if those AFMA values would fall on the interpolated line between your values for wide and tele. If they are way off, and your lens requires AFMA only at the very long end and not in between, I'd consider having the lens checked and adjusted


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 2, 2013)

gbchriste said:


> My question is, what happens now? Does the AFMA adjustment only apply when I am fully zoomed out to 200mm or will the applied adjustment incrementally move back towards zero on a pro-rata basis as I zoom out from 200 back to 70mm? Or does it just magically flip from the adjusted value back over to zero at some point on the zoom scale?



It uses a simple integer linear regression to apply AFMA values at focal lenngths between the two ends. If you set a T value but no W value, it uses 0 as the W value to calculate the regression. I tested this with my 1D X and some zoom lenses. For the plot below, each lens was set to W = -10 and T = +10.







For example, with my 24-70 II, I have 0 at the wide end and +5 at the long end. Based on the calculated regression, it 35mm, it will apply an AFMA of +1, and at 50mm it will apply +3. I actually tested the lens (with FoCal) at those focal lengths, and the recommended values were exactly that - +1 and +3, respectively. If that hadn't been the case, I'd have sent the lens back.

In your case, with an adjustment of +16 required, I'd send the lens to Canon for service.


----------



## ahab1372 (Jul 2, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> I can assure you that I didn't put the AF point over open blue sky and the focus...


Why not, I do it all the time? :



neuroanatomist said:


> The second looks pretty good, like I have the bird nicely centered in the frame and the AF array is on the bird (although not on the head where it should be. But then look at the full image before cropping.
> 
> Sorry, but Aperture is just making that sh!t up as it goes along... :


lol yes those slim AF points are cool, a special feature of the 1DX?
I never bothered to check against EXIF Data before yesterday. I wonder how the Apple engineers are guessing where the AF points are if there is no data at all.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 2, 2013)

ahab1372 said:


> lol yes those slim AF points are cool, a special feature of the 1DX?
> I never bothered to check against EXIF Data before yesterday. I wonder how the Apple engineers are guessing where the AF points are if there is no data at all.



Gotta love those crazy Apple engineers. Heck, sometimes Aperture even completely redesigns the 1D X's AF array.


----------



## J.R. (Jul 2, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> ahab1372 said:
> 
> 
> > lol yes those slim AF points are cool, a special feature of the 1DX?
> ...



;D


----------



## ahab1372 (Jul 2, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> ahab1372 said:
> 
> 
> > lol yes those slim AF points are cool, a special feature of the 1DX?
> ...


Very creative, I have never seen that. Does it happen with pictures after you process them in DXO and then import into Aperture, or with the RAW files directly imported


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 2, 2013)

ahab1372 said:


> Very creative, I have never seen that. Does it happen with pictures after you process them in DXO and then import into Aperture, or with the RAW files directly imported



Good point - it was on a DxO-processed image. Actually, that's the only one where I've seen it messed up like that - but I don't use the AF point display in Aperture, normally.


----------



## ahab1372 (Jul 2, 2013)

Here is what I found in my shots:

AFMA values are written into the EXIF data, and DPP does display them in the info window, even if AF-On was not pressed.
Selected AF points are written into the image, but DPP does not display them if they were not active. Apple Aperture does highlight the selected AF points in thin red lines. If any of them were active, they are displayed in bold red lines. My assumption was based on my previous experience with a Rebel, where only the selected point could be the active.
The garbled AF points Neuro showed us have nothing to do with Apple engineers' creativity - cropping or resizing just messes up the relationship between the unaltered positioning values for the AF point, and the actual - altered - dimensions of the image (screenshot attached)

I think I'm slightly off-topic with points 2 and 3 ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 2, 2013)

At the risk of going further off topic........



ahab1372 said:


> AFMA values are written into the EXIF data, and DPP does display them in the info window, even if AF-On was not pressed.



Did you look in DPP, or just EXIFtool? They do appear to be written into the EXIF as your screenshot shows, but DPP does not display them if no point was active. The info display in DPP simply omits the AFMA row from the info table and everything else shifts up a line (Screenshot 1 below, left one was with the AF-ON pressed, the right without). I know from experience that FoCal does not recognize the AFMA if AF-ON isn't pressed (assuming you're using Back Button AF, which is what sparked this sojourn...). 

Actually, looking at your screenshot, are you sure there was no active AF point? (Note that unless you're using back button AF where the shutter button does not initiate AF, you've got an active AF point for every shot because the shutter half-press does AF, and the shutter is always half-pressed before it's fully pressed to take the shot.) When there's an active AF point selected, looking in exiftool I see AF Micro Adj Active: Unknown (2) and a value for AF Micro Adj Value, which is what your screenshot shows. But when there's not an active AF point (AF-ON not pressed), for the same lens the EXIF shows AF Micro Adj Active: No and AF Micro Adj Value: 0 even though the lens has a non-zero AFMA value set in-camera. That explains why FoCal will not find an AFMA value for a shot where back button AF was set but the AF-ON button wasn't pressed, and it also makes sense that DPP would not display any value for AFMA, rather than the 0 which is recorded in the EXIF despite a value being specified.



ahab1372 said:


> The garbled AF points Neuro showed us have nothing to do with Apple engineers' creativity - cropping or resizing just messes up the relationship between the unaltered positioning values for the AF point, and the actual - altered - dimensions of the image (screenshot attached)



I'm still going to blame Apple for this...the second screenshot is a cropped shot viewed in DPP (you can see the full image in the highlighted thumbnail on the left), and the relationship between the subject and the displayed AF point is maintained even with cropping.

Now granted, this is a result of my having converted the RAW image outside of Aperture, then bringing it in. Cropping a RAW file in Aperture does maintain the alignment of subject and displayed AF point. But Apple's engineers could have been clever enough to know that was the case (the file dimensions are clearly not the native ones for the sensor, and those are in the EXIF, too), and in the case of doubt, not display the AF points at all, which would be preferable to displaying them in the wrong place.


----------



## ahab1372 (Jul 2, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> At the risk of going further off topic........
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, I just checked again, ExifTool says
AF Points In Focus : (none)
AF Points Selected : 30
and DPP does show an AFMA value, screenshots of DPP attached (version 3.11.31). 



neuroanatomist said:


> (Note that unless you're using back button AF where the shutter button does not initiate AF, you've got an active AF point for every shot because the shutter half-press does AF, and the shutter is always half-pressed before it's fully pressed to take the shot.)


No AF on the shutter, AF is on the AF-On button only



neuroanatomist said:


> When there's an active AF point selected, looking in exiftool I see AF Micro Adj Active: Unknown (2) and a value for AF Micro Adj Value, which is what your screenshot shows. But when there's not an active AF point (AF-ON not pressed), for the same lens the EXIF shows AF Micro Adj Active: No and AF Micro Adj Value: 0 even though the lens has a non-zero AFMA value set in-camera. That explains why FoCal will not find an AFMA value for a shot where back button AF was set but the AF-ON button wasn't pressed, and it also makes sense that DPP would not display any value for AFMA, rather than the 0 which is recorded in the EXIF despite a value being specified.


See, I have a different combination of values:
AF Points In Focus : (none)
....
AF Micro Adj Active : Unknown (2)
AF Micro Adj Value : 3

Different from what you describe, with no active AF points, the AF Micro Adj Active says Unknown (2) instead of No.
So it could be that either the 5Dm3 does it differently, or the time between releasing AF-On and pressing the shutter does matter? I'll test that tonight.



neuroanatomist said:


> ahab1372 said:
> 
> 
> > The garbled AF[...]
> ...



Yes, they baked it only half way


----------



## ahab1372 (Jul 2, 2013)

btw, to get back on-topic a bit: The fully automatic mode works fine with the 5DM3, FoCal prompts you to change AFMA settings when necessary. It is even smart enough to alert you if you accidentally set an AFMA value different from what it requested (I tried - accidentally ;D ) All that with AF on the AF-On button only


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 2, 2013)

Interesting. Looking at a burst set of shots where I had the AF-ON button pressed for the first one and released for the next couple of shots, the first one shows:

AF Points In Focus : 33
AF Points Selected : 33
....
AF Micro Adj Active : Unknown (2)
AF Micro Adj Value : 2

...and the second one shows:

AF Points In Focus : (none)
AF Points Selected : 33
....
AF Micro Adj Active : No
AF Micro Adj Value : 0


----------



## ahab1372 (Jul 2, 2013)

I just tested, all my shots show
AF Micro Adj Active : Unknown (2)
no matter if a have the AF-On button pressed, or released it 1 second before, or 5 seconds, or 30 seconds. Which makes this value pointless.

It seems that it is different for 1DX vs 5D3 (unless there is another setting that influences this - Orientation-linked AF points maybe - we had that connection before, didn't we?  ). 

So what's the take away for FoCal? When you do AFMA for the 1DX in Manual Mode, change the AF to the shutter button, or you'll have to adjust AFMA values for each test file?

Another would be "Don't expect consistency between cameras of the same manufacturer, even if they share a great deal of functionality".


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 2, 2013)

ahab1372 said:


> So what's the take away for FoCal? When you do AFMA in Manual Mode change the AF to the shutter button, or you'll have to adjust AFMA values for each test file?



I just hold down the AF-ON button as I press the shutter (it's set to the 2s timer), and the AFMA that I set is recorded in the EXIF and recognized by FoCal when I load the set of manually shot images.


----------



## kaihp (Jul 3, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> kaihp said:
> 
> 
> > I do use the back button AF, so my problem is probably right there. Pretty stupid firmware decision, if you ask me (OK, I know you didn't).
> ...



I politely disagree - I do not think it makes sense to not record the AFMA and AF points in the picture, and to me it violates the principle of least surprise to the user (WTF - no AFMA data?).

From my point of view, since the camera has applied the AFMA correction (assuming the phase-detect AF system was active; ie excluding Live-view and manual focus) then the camera should record that information no matter what mode I choose or buttons I choose to use.
Clearly the Canon engineers didn't see it this way, and as we can see here on the forum, it is causing some confusion and head-scratching.

Same goes for the AF focus points - please record the active/used AF points. As it is, if I have One Shot AF enabled, the camera will only know which AF points that were active and in-focus, at the moment I half-pressed the shutter (or used BBF). Anything can happen after there, and a recompose can easily take less than 1 second. So in this case you will have AF points recorded, but they will be wrong.
In order for the camera to be sure about what AF points were active and used, is to be in the AI Focus or Servo modes (and the shutter/BBF button is activated). Anything else will boil down to funky heuristics about when the camera should decide not to record the AF points.
I believe that I, the operator, am at any time more qualified than the camera FW to decide whether the AF/AFMA data is correct/usable, simply because the FW will have to make a number of assumptions, which may or may not be valid. As the operator, I know more about the scene.


----------



## Harry Muff (Jul 5, 2013)

Seriously considering getting this for my 5D3 using my Mac.


This might sound crazy but I noticed that they are on version 1.9 which, obviously, would mean that version 2.0 would be round the corner.


My worry is that full version upgrades usually mean paid upgrades.


Has anything been said by them?


----------



## Harry Muff (Jul 5, 2013)

On a lighter note, I'm going to try putting the target in my iPad with Retina screen. 


Worth a try?


----------



## Zv (Jul 5, 2013)

Harry Muff said:


> On a lighter note, I'm going to try putting the target in my iPad with Retina screen.
> 
> 
> Worth a try?



Let me know how that goes. I think someone mentioned earlier about using a screen to do the focal test and problems with the reflective surface. And does the moire pattern from the screen affect Focal in anyway? 

I'm still not sure about this not using laser printer business. It's quite limiting using ink jet printers and non fluorescent light (what building these days doesn't have them?) and still trying to get enough light to run it. I could go outside but then what about wind, clouds and changing light etc? 

How are you guys running it? Are you using additional LED lights or something?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 5, 2013)

I use halogen (tungsten) lighting, and an inkjet-printed target. But I haven't tried a laser printout...


----------



## Harry Muff (Jul 5, 2013)

I really can't work out if I need the Plus version either as my 5D3 won't do Fully Auto.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 5, 2013)

Harry Muff said:


> I really can't work out if I need the Plus version either as my 5D3 won't do Fully Auto.



For me, the Pro version is worth it for the other tests (AF consistency, multipoint focus, aperture sharpness, etc.).


----------



## Zv (Jul 5, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> I use halogen (tungsten) lighting, and an inkjet-printed target. But I haven't tried a laser printout...



So, is that a light pointed at the target or does the entire room need to be lit up? Could I have a moderately lit room but brightly lit target?


----------



## Old Shooter (Jul 5, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Harry Muff said:
> 
> 
> > I really can't work out if I need the Plus version either as my 5D3 won't do Fully Auto.
> ...



+1! Harry, get the Pro version... Neuro is right, just the aperture sharpness test, the ability to change ISO, the ability to set shutter activation after mirror lock-up... It's worth it...

Regarding laser printing of the target... Somewhere in all the FoCal documentation is a warning against using laser printers - the reflectivity of the fused toner can confuse the software... Also why they recommend matte paper in your inkjet as opposed to glossy...


----------



## ahab1372 (Jul 5, 2013)

Zv said:


> I'm still not sure about this not using laser printer business. It's quite limiting using ink jet printers and non fluorescent light (what building these days doesn't have them?) and still trying to get enough light to run it. I could go outside but then what about wind, clouds and changing light etc?
> 
> How are you guys running it? Are you using additional LED lights or something?


The FoCal manual says that ink jet printer is preferred because laser printer printouts _can_ be reflective, which could affect the results. It also says that if you use a laser printer, make sure to position the lights to minimize reflections (whatever that means - in an angle I assume?)
I did not have an ink jet available, and printed the target on two different laser printers at work, then chose the one that looked less reflective. For lighting, I simply bought two 250W work lights (similar to these, I chose a cheaper brand) and placed them close to the target, one to the right and one to the left. That gave me about 11EV, and I got consistent results.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 5, 2013)

Zv said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > I use halogen (tungsten) lighting, and an inkjet-printed target. But I haven't tried a laser printout...
> ...



I just light the target itself, at pretty close range (inverse square law).


----------



## Zv (Jul 5, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Gotcha! Cheers!


----------



## Harry Muff (Jul 5, 2013)

Old Shooter said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Muff said:
> ...




The thing is, like I said before and given the version they are currently on, there is going to be a paid upgrade around the corner, and I really don't want to spend that much.


All I want to do is AFMA my lenses. The readouts are not much good to me in the field as the settings are usually dictated by the circumstances.


The thing I'm really confused about is the difference between the Standard and Plus versions as I have a 5D3 which won't do fully automatic anyway.


Is the Semi Auto the one where it does everything and all I have to do is input the settings in the camera? If so, then that is all I need, the Plus would be a waste of money.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 5, 2013)

Harry Muff said:


> The thing is, like I said before and given the version they are currently on, there is going to be a paid upgrade around the corner, and I really don't want to spend that much.
> 
> All I want to do is AFMA my lenses. The readouts are not much good to me in the field as the settings are usually dictated by the circumstances.



Sorry, I don't get it. 'All you want to do' is basic AFMA, but you don't want to buy v1.9 then pay for a v2.0 upgrade. So don't upgrade. Your v1.9 will still do basic AFMA even after v2 comes out...

I find the other tests most helpful for testing new lenses/bodies.

I'm not positive, but I think you need the fully automatic calibration for it to do everything but setting the AFMA value itself, which you must do manually thanks to Canon's SDK.


----------



## Harry Muff (Jul 5, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Harry Muff said:
> 
> 
> > The thing is, like I said before and given the version they are currently on, there is going to be a paid upgrade around the corner, and I really don't want to spend that much.
> ...




Fair point, Neuro. It's just my tightness and I like to have the latest software for my money. I don't like it to be out of date soon after I've bought it.


I think I'll just spring for the Plus version. They'll probably do a discount for version 2 anyway.


----------



## ahab1372 (Jul 5, 2013)

Harry Muff said:


> The thing I'm really confused about is the difference between the Standard and Plus versions as I have a 5D3 which won't do fully automatic anyway.
> 
> 
> Is the Semi Auto the one where it does everything and all I have to do is input the settings in the camera? If so, then that is all I need, the Plus would be a waste of money.


No, that is Fully Automatic with MSC (Manual Settings Change) and is the easiest way to AFMA a 5D3
From what I read, I'd probably prefer the Manual Mode (where you shoot the target with different AFMA values and then load them into FoCal) over the Semi-auto mode. The latter doesn't seem to be easy to use


----------



## Harry Muff (Jul 5, 2013)

ahab1372 said:


> Harry Muff said:
> 
> 
> > The thing I'm really confused about is the difference between the Standard and Plus versions as I have a 5D3 which won't do fully automatic anyway.
> ...




Excellent. Thanks!


----------



## ahab1372 (Jul 6, 2013)

Harry Muff said:


> ahab1372 said:
> 
> 
> > No, that is Fully Automatic with MSC (Manual Settings Change) and is the easiest way to AFMA a 5D3
> ...


Btw there is no extra option for the "Fully Automatic with MSC". Just follow the instructions to setup target and camera, launch Focal, and choose the "Fully Automatic" option. FoCal will do the MSC automatically when it sees a 5D3 or 1DX


----------

