My proposal is transfer all the content from to this page, replacing it. And after this, change the name from CHDK in Brief to CHDK for Dummies - The Very First Steps.

This is based on:

  1. CHDK in Brief and CHDK for Dummies - The Very First Steps have the same proposal. There is no meaning on keep these two pages separately.
  2. CHDK in Brief received no major update since February.
  3. Exist a good chance that the approach of CHDK for Dummies - The Very First Steps would be more efficient for Newbies - the reason of both pages.
  4. Seems that this move action has some approval by the members of the CHDK forum and until now, no opposite words. Both sites have several active members in common.

My proposal is the complete substitution of this page, already backuped. And, in a later moment, reintegrate the useful information compiled in this new format.

If I receive no good reason to stop the process, I will proceed morally supported by the reasons explained before.

Thanks for your time.

Intrnst 04:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's any need to replace CHDK in Brief -- it provides a needed overview of the project and is a good first stop for people who just heard "there's a Canon hack out there" and don't know anything more about it yet. I think you should create a new page entirely, and create a prominent link to it under the section "CHDK: How do I get started?", perhaps removing some (but not all) of the detail from the steps there. I also don't think "CHDK for Dummies" is the best title -- I'd suggest "CHDK Beginner's Guide" or "Installing CHDK"" or something similar. What do you think? — Catherine (talk) 18:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Catherine As you must be seen, when you corrected CHDK for Dummies - The Very First Steps, both pages have the same proposal and almost the same content in different kind of structures. Now, if we observe closely CHDK:#FAQ' and CHDK_in_Brief have the same FAQ approach and a lot of redundant contents. The main difference is: CHDK_in_Brief infos are becoming very obsolete. So, now, we have not only duplicate information, but triplicate contradictory infos.

The CHDK Forum, by different staff members, gave good critics to this new format and proposal - until yours, of course.

This new page was build for Dummies - a well known jargon in technical literature, as you should be aware. So the name CHDK for Dummies - The Very First Steps.

According with wiki Help pages, if I recall correctly, avoid duplicate / redundant info is one of the objectives of page replacement.

If, until now, CHDK for Dummies - The Very First Steps received good feedback from the actual users, if wikia ask me several times to be bold, if there are redundant and obsolete info... don't you think that is my duty do this move? What do you think?

Intrnst 20:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it's up to the CHDK community to decide -- they are the ones who know what newbies are looking for.  :)
I am not trying to change what the community wants; since you asked my opinion, I am offering it based on my experience with wikis and you can ignore what you do not agree with. I promise not to be offended.  ;)
I think there's a use for each of the three pages. Redundant information should be deleted so that each page focuses on its own purpose. CHDK in Brief should be a very short overview of what CHDK is, and how it works. Again, these suggestions are only my opinion, but I think "Quick answers to 7 key questions" is a good approach, but 6 should be removed and 5 removed or trimmed to bare bullet points -- detailed information should be in the FAQ. "CHDK: How do I get started?" should be trimmed to list just the step 1-5 headers, to give people an overview of the process, but should link to your guide for details. "Why would I want to use CHDK?" should be removed; already covered above. "Beyond Standard CHDK" should probably be stripped down to a link to another page too -- this overview page should only touch on important areas and direct readers elsewhere for more detail. Redundant info should be removed from the FAQ and replaced with a link to the CHDK for Dummies guide, leaving the specific frequent technical questions that don't fit into your beginner's guide.
As for the title, I understand why CHDK for Dummies appeals, and most of your audience will understand the reference -- I just don't think "chdk dummies" is something people are going to enter in a search engine when looking for a guide like this. The page title/url has a huge influence on how well the page ranks in search engines, and thus how well you reach your intended audience. I don't know if the titles I suggested above are the best possible ones -- I'm sure someone could come up with a better one. The title "CHDK for Dummies" could still be used prominently at the top of the page, too. I just feel it shouldn't be used for the title that ends up in the URL.
But of course it is up to you. You are the one who has put in a lot of hard work on this article, which is the clearest CHDK guide I've seen yet, and you will decide how to present it. I have great respect for everything you have accomplished, and no wish to make you angry or sad.  :) I am just offering my humble suggestions on how to make this wiki the best that it can be, and how to help all of your visitors find the information they need quickly.
Peace, love and understanding — Catherine (talk) 02:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Catherine, again, thanks for your time on help me in that matter. Said that, I have to agree with you at some points:

I'm totaly with you about CHDK in Brief rejuvenation - in this way the move thing is wrong. The same about the rest of obsolete and redundant info spread at CHDK wikia, but who's gonna do it? Anyway, you make your point.

Where to construct and the move page thing, as you could see at the forum, was never been an easy matter to me. I'm new at wikia and I'm kinda little lost. So, because what I read at the Wikipedia help/wizards I understood that I had to do what I wrote before (Wow, too many I's!).

I'm (<--!) not angry at all, maybe a little anxious with my lack of knowledge to accomplish this task. If I gave you that impression, I apologize!

So, your thoughts about it's up to the CHDK community to decide made all the sense of the world for me. I realize that this responsability isn't mine. So, let's go for a democratic decision! The responsability will be delivered back to the Forum.

Finaly, thanks for your kindly thoughts! As you can see, they provided me more clear directions.

Understanding, love and peace - Intrnst 06:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Q: The CRW format (extension) is not recognizable with my Adobe applications. Picassa will let you view the file but will only open it as a jpeg. Any suggestions,
JCox72.177.69.176 16:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • A: Adobe apps don't support most of the CHDK RAW images, but the DNG RAW standard is supported very well (camera raw); dependent from your camera model you can use DNG4PS-2 to convert the RAW's to the DNG format (put the CRW and the JPG file in the same folder, then you'll get DNG's with EXIF data) - or enable the DNG creation directlyin the camera, you'll find the menu item for this in the CHDK RAW menu. To enable the DNG support you have to create a special badpixel.bin file, here you'll find a litte howto: Enable DNG support guidance. Fe50 18:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I have Canon PowerShot SX600 HS and I am wondering which version of CHDK I can use ?


Yuriy 12:06, May 19, 2016 (UTC)