Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Reason for less RAW support??

Reply
Thread Tools

Reason for less RAW support??

 
 
ASAAR
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-31-2006
On 31 Oct 2006 07:28:00 -0800, http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) wrote:

>> The overwhelming majority of digital camera users wouldn't know what
>> to do with a RAW image if you gave it to them, and if you tried to
>> explain it, they'd tell you to get lost.

>
> Well why not make all cars automatic transmission? After all, most car
> drivers would tell you that automatics are much easier to drive.


That's not a perfect analogy (few are). The ease of use part is,
but if transmissions were used to extend the analogy, if you wanted
to drive down to a local supermarket, a car with an automatic
transmission would get you there and back in ten minutes, and the
trunk (boot) would hold a dozen shopping bags. A car with a manual
transmission would get you there and back in an hour, and its trunk
would only be able to hold one or two bags. I hope this analogy,
imperfect as it may be won't have to have its RAW/JPG comparison
explained. With such choices it's not surprising that manual
transmissions and RAW aren't popular choices for most people. <g>

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
ASAAR
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-31-2006
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 13:00:24 -0500, rafe b wrote:

>> Those who want raw file formats can find cameras that provide them.
>> The idea that every camera should output some raw format is silly.

>
>
> The idea of leaving out RAW format is even sillier, since
> it's the de-facto native format of the camera.


What you say is logical and makes sense for camera owners, even
for most of those that intend to never use RAW formats. But it
doesn't make as much sense for camera manufacturers that want to
position their products into different market segments. An example:
Many years ago I bought a new car (a Valiant) but didn't want to
spend many hundreds of dollars for a "Light Package" that had a few
nice features but included many others that I didn't particularly
want. I eventually discovered that most or all of the "Light
Package"'s wiring was actually installed, and by not paying for the
package, Chrysler simply did not install bulbs in the sockets which
were covered by fabric or some other synthetic covering.
Providing no way to access RAW files is similar, in that the basic
functionality is still in the camera, but the manufacturer has a
more foolproof way of disabling the use of RAW files. Although it
may not be as simple as this, all of the code needed to use RAW
files may actually be in the camera's firmware, with only a single
predefined data byte (or bit) keeping the user from being able to
use RAW files.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
ASAAR
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-31-2006
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 08:31:57 -0700, Bill Funk wrote:

>> How did we ever get to the situation where a file format (jpeg) that
>> was designed as a file format to display images on a monitor became
>> the "standard" format for digital cameras that people may want to
>> print?

>
> Maybe because it works well enough for that application.
> Excellence comes at a price; not everyone is willing to pay the price
> when 'good enough' is good enough.


Additionally, only very small memory cards were available for
early digital cameras. High jpg compression was therefore very
desirable, even if it means lower image quality. It hasn't been
that long ago that there used to be frequent messages from people
stating their preference for using less than their camera's best
resolution and lowest JPG compression.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Scott W
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-31-2006

David J. Littleboy wrote:
> "Raphael Bustin" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > On 30 Oct 2006 17:02:38 -0800, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> >
> >>Why are the manufacturers dropping their support for RAW from all but
> >>SLR's?

> >
> > I've been wondering the same thing. The one thing
> > I really miss in my "newest" digicam is RAW. That
> > makes it rather less useful than it might otherwise be.

>
> My (jaundiced) theory is that the noise is so bad (due to the insanely small
> pixels) that the manufacturers don't want the users to see images without
> the in-camera noise reduction.

I think there is a lot of truth to that. The raw images from the F828
look much different then the out of camera JPEG images. What is more
Sony's raw converter did not let you turn off the noise reduction
filters. It was not until I could open the raw file using PS that I
saw how much was being filtered out. The worst part for me is they
seem to assume any large blue patch must be sky and so really filter
that hard, it is hard to get good photos of the ocean with the F828 in
jpeg mode since the wave get filtered out.

Scott

 
Reply With Quote
 
Scott W
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-31-2006

timeOday wrote:
> (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>
> > On a similar subject, I'm amazed by the number of serious film
> > photographers that make the move to digital and can't see any benefit
> > to shooting RAW.

>
> I wonder how much the benefit really is. Certainly some informations is
> lost in the conversion to jpeg, the question is how much visual
> difference it makes. I understand there are some cameras that will save
> each shot in both jpg and raw automatically. It would be interesting to
> take the raw shot, process it, then try to match it by processing the
> jpeg and see how well it could be made to match. Anybody seen a web
> page with such an experiment?


I have done this a number of time and often the jpeg is simply missing
the needed information that is in the raw file.

Here are a few of my test shots
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/raw_vs_jpeg

This are from both DSLRs and the Sony F828, both show much more range
when shooting in raw.

Scott

 
Reply With Quote
 
Scott W
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-31-2006
Bert Hyman wrote:
>
> Do you think the average consumer of a P&S camera who wants to print
> 4x6 glossies wants to post-process every image?

So just because the camera can shoot raw why does that force anyone to
use it at
all much less all of the time?

> Those who want raw file formats can find cameras that provide them.
>
> The idea that every camera should output some raw format is silly.
>

The question is that if raw is of value to even 5% of the uses why
leave it off?

I do think that it is a matter of control, the camera makers want to be
in total control of how the final image is produced. This is the same
reason that some camera manufacturers try to keep their raw formats
proprietary. For some of these P&S camera the only way to keep the
myth alive that they do will at high ISO settings it to filter out the
noise heavily, something that don't really want to talk about.

Scott

 
Reply With Quote
 
jpc
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-31-2006
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 16:12:33 -0500, ASAAR <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 13:00:24 -0500, rafe b wrote:
>
>>> Those who want raw file formats can find cameras that provide them.
>>> The idea that every camera should output some raw format is silly.

>>
>>
>> The idea of leaving out RAW format is even sillier, since
>> it's the de-facto native format of the camera.

>
> What you say is logical and makes sense for camera owners, even
>for most of those that intend to never use RAW formats. But it
>doesn't make as much sense for camera manufacturers that want to
>position their products into different market segments. An example:
>Many years ago I bought a new car (a Valiant) but didn't want to
>spend many hundreds of dollars for a "Light Package" that had a few
>nice features but included many others that I didn't particularly
>want. I eventually discovered that most or all of the "Light
>Package"'s wiring was actually installed, and by not paying for the
>package, Chrysler simply did not install bulbs in the sockets which
>were covered by fabric or some other synthetic covering.
>Providing no way to access RAW files is similar, in that the basic
>functionality is still in the camera, but the manufacturer has a
>more foolproof way of disabling the use of RAW files. Although it
>may not be as simple as this, all of the code needed to use RAW
>files may actually be in the camera's firmware, with only a single
>predefined data byte (or bit) keeping the user from being able to
>use RAW files.


All camera control chips have to have a RAW output. If they didn't it
would be next to impossible to engineer the camera's firmware.

To turn one RAW output in some of the early NIkon's and Olympus that
used a Sony sensor you had to get into the firmware and change the
camera name to DIAG RAW

jpc
 
Reply With Quote
 
Doug McDonald
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-31-2006

>
> A copy of Photoshop (for Windows) goes for about $600.


unless you get n academic discount

> Do you think
> the average consumer of a P&S camera who wants to print 4x6 glossies
> wants to buy that and then post-process every image?


No
>


However, at least with Canon, they manufacturer-supplied
raw to jpeg tool does have quite a bit of very useful
functionality.

Doug McDonald
 
Reply With Quote
 
jpc
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-31-2006
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 16:47:01 +0000 (UTC), "Maurice Hood"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>watch it , the olympus sp350 digital camera only has i.s.
>on movie not stills
>>


Right. And it also doesn't have the electrical pickup noise
from thei piezoelectric moters that are slamming away when
the sensor is trying to colect that ultra low noise image with
details in the shadows.

IS isn't the solution to all low light problems and when it comes to
sensor noise, the SP350 I bought recently works much better than I
expected. I've printed up and displayed some nice 11 by 14 low light
images that I pushed up 6 stops from the camera's native responsivity
-- to ISO 1600 or 3200 depending on which way you want to count your
stops.

jpc



>>


 
Reply With Quote
 
Daniel Silevitch
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-01-2006
On 31 Oct 2006 14:01:28 -0800, Scott W <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> I do think that it is a matter of control, the camera makers want to be
> in total control of how the final image is produced. This is the same
> reason that some camera manufacturers try to keep their raw formats
> proprietary. For some of these P&S camera the only way to keep the
> myth alive that they do will at high ISO settings it to filter out the
> noise heavily, something that don't really want to talk about.


It's amusing/ironic that Panasonic, the company that gets the most flak
for noise problems, is one of the few companies that _does_ make a
compact with RAW support.

-dms
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
raw at less than max pixel count?? ray Digital Photography 8 01-28-2012 01:27 AM
More Efficiency,More Benefit,Less Risk,Less Work! jiajia wu ASP .Net 0 10-01-2009 01:50 PM
More Efficiency,More Benefit,Less Risk,Less Work! lllll Ruby 0 06-08-2009 02:10 PM
More Efficiency,More Benefit,Less Risk,Less Work! 6668 Ruby 0 05-14-2009 12:33 AM
How raw is RAW format? Editor www.nutritionsoftware.org Digital Photography 4 12-22-2003 07:33 PM



Advertisments