Tested it, It's great! Many thanks!
I didnt run into any problems with it.
I decided to stick with 0.003 % for the time being.
The number of pixels shown as overexposed varied slightly (sometimes none at all) despite it exposing for a fixed proportion of overexposed pixels. But these variations were small, so they didnt cause me any problems in practice. I guess they could have been caused by limitations of the internal histogram accurracy mentioned above, or maybe the overexposure display uses a different definition of "clipped" then the exposure algorithm does. ("use camera limearity limit" for clipping definition was unchecked).
Tested it, It's great! Many
Tested it, It's great! Many thanks!
I didnt run into any problems with it.
I decided to stick with 0.003 % for the time being.
The number of pixels shown as overexposed varied slightly (sometimes none at all) despite it exposing for a fixed proportion of overexposed pixels. But these variations were small, so they didnt cause me any problems in practice. I guess they could have been caused by limitations of the internal histogram accurracy mentioned above, or maybe the overexposure display uses a different definition of "clipped" then the exposure algorithm does. ("use camera limearity limit" for clipping definition was unchecked).