4b212089d29955f00bd53c1fa020babd2d3823c2
3
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 dtourolle
|
4b6c110816 |
Count the sensor's own numbers, so a cull can see headroom the render hides
FR-CULL-3's remaining two bullets. What existed was a *display* histogram tagged FR-DSP-7: it binds AdjustPass's Rgba8Unorm output, recovers an 8-bit code value, and counts clipping as `r == 255`. Its own documentation says a clipped bin means "a highlight that is actually gone rather than one the transform might still recover", which is the opposite of what a culling decision needs. FR-CULL-3 asks for the histogram of the sensor data, on the explicit grounds that a rendered image "systematically lies about what is recoverable in the raw", and a readout that measures the render cannot answer that however it is presented. So this is a second instrument beside the first rather than a setting on it. Both are true; they are true about different things; the panel offers both behind a chip row and the words travel with the numbers, because a raw saturation figure drawn under a heading saying Highlights would be mislabelled exactly where the difference matters. **What is reduced over, and what it cost to decide.** ARCH §5.5 specified the pre-demosaic CFA samples. This reduces over the demosaiced scene-linear texture instead, and §5.5 is amended to record the choice rather than let the specification and the code disagree in silence. The texture is camera-native — unbalanced, unmatrixed, uncurved — and normalised by the sensor's own black and white levels, so 1.0 is saturation by construction and the distribution below it is the headroom question with no calibration to carry. Retaining the CFA samples would mean keeping the packed u32 buffer Demosaicer::run currently drops: 48 MB at 24 MP, 120 MB at 60 MP, resident per open photograph whether or not anyone looks at the histogram, on a platform §6.2 exists because memory is scarce on. Three things it therefore cannot say, written into the module docs and into §5.5 rather than left to be discovered: it counts pixels not photosites, so a saturated site drags its interpolated neighbours up and per-channel clipping is smeared by about a demosaic kernel; it cannot see above white, because demosaic.wgsl clamps each photosite at 1.0 for its own good reasons (a Canon 6D reads to 16383 against a declared 15070) so "at saturation" and "a stop past it" share a bin; and it is measured after the CFA pattern is gone, so it can name which colour clipped in the reconstructed image but not which photosite went first. The axis is stops below saturation, 16 bins per stop over 256 bins — the same bin count the display reduction uses, so the fold into drawable columns is shared and a divergence between the two plots would have to be deliberate. A linear axis spends half its width on the top stop, which is why nobody has ever drawn a useful linear raw histogram. The fourth series is the brightest channel rather than luma: these values are unbalanced, so any weighted sum of them is a number about nothing, and the brightest channel is the one that saturates first and so the one the headroom question is actually about. It is a property of the file and not of the render, which has two consequences. It is computed once per photograph and cached — nothing downstream of the demosaic can move a count in it — so a cull does not pay the display histogram's per-frame cost three thousand times. And it describes the whole frame rather than the visible region, deliberately opposite to DevelopSession::histogram: a crop changes what is on screen and changes nothing about what the sensor recorded. Tags are on the reduction, the type, its constructor and the presentation arithmetic, each of which has a test that fails if the behaviour goes. The Slint panel and the push from lib.rs keep their reasoning as prose: nothing asserts them, and a tag would claim coverage the assertions are not making. |
||
 dtourolleandClaude Opus 5
|
8d5dc423ea |
Say that all three of FR-CULL-3's bullets are unbuilt, not one
The first draft got this half right and half wrong. It correctly said the existing histogram and clipping indicators are not FR-CULL-3's, but it described them as adjacent — as though the work left were mostly focus peaking and a relocation. They are not adjacent. The histogram reads AdjustPass's 8-bit output and counts clipping as r == 255, so it describes the frame the display is about to show, after the entire develop chain. FR-CULL-3 asks for the histogram of the sensor data, and gives its reason in the requirement itself: a rendered image "systematically lies about what is recoverable in the raw". A readout taken from the render cannot answer that question however it is presented, which means two of the three bullets need a new measurement rather than a new placement. Found by the agent building focus peaking, who had to go looking at the counters to find out. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
dtourolleandClaude Opus 5
|
88ef7148d6 |
Write down what is not built, so the gap reads as a decision
The traceability matrix reports one number and cannot say what it means. An untagged requirement is either one nobody built or one somebody built and did not label, and both look identical in the summary table. Eight of the second kind were tagged in the previous commit. This is the first kind, written out with the reasoning, so that the distance between the register and the binary is something a reader can see rather than reconstruct from a percentage. Eleven clusters, each verified against the tree rather than inherited from a survey. Several turned out to be more interesting than "not done": Plugins are 21 untagged requirements — nearly a third of the shortfall — and §7 already lists the Plugin API as out of scope for v1 while §3.10 spends 280 lines specifying it. The two that *are* built, FR-PLG-2 and FR-PLG-2d, are the declarative operation format, which is a plugin system that resolves at build time. The fix here is an edit to requirements.md, not code, and D16 has to be answered before any format is called stable. FR-DSP-2 is not merely unbuilt; it is under challenge. frame_budget.rs and TD-4 independently argue that tiling costs more than it saves on the interactive path, so the open question is whether the requirement should survive, not when it will be met — and the spike that would settle it, S6, has not run. NFR-A11Y-1's hard half is done and its easy half is not. LocalizedKey already keeps display strings out of core/ and labels::resolve is a single resolution point; what that point does is a hardcoded English match, so a translation needs a recompile, which is the one thing the requirement forbids. The §4.1 performance targets are unverified rather than unmet. §8 requires a per-commit benchmark suite whose regressions fail the build; there is no benches/ directory, no criterion, and no benchmark step in any of the three CI workflows. The one guard that does live in CI skips itself without a GPU adapter and asserts its CPU half only in release, while CI tests in dev. Nothing says the targets are missed. It says nobody would find out. And three requirements are reported as covered while not being met: R1 and NFR-OPS-1 are tagged only by string literals inside the traceability tool's own tests, which it scans along with everything else, and FR-CAT-13's single tag sits on keyword storage while no XMP is parsed or written anywhere. CONTRIBUTING already warns that a tag proves a tag exists; these are the specific ones. Focus peaking, burst grouping, Flatpak packaging and the Android platform integration are being built in parallel and are marked in progress rather than listed as absent, so those lines can be struck as they land. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> |