Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

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

Reply
Thread Tools

Reason for less RAW support??

 
 
Paul Rubin
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-03-2006
"Paul Saunders" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
> I agree, there's not much need for RAW format in a cheap point and shoot. I
> think what's being talked about here is RAW support being dropped from the
> high-end "prosumer" point and shoots. Canon always used to offer this in
> their G and S series, but now they've dropped it. I think this is a bad
> decision.


They've shrunk down the pixel size so much that RAW doesn't really
give you more dynamic range than JPEG on those sensors any more.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Paul Saunders
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-03-2006
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) 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?


Because most people prefer quantity to quality, just as they prefer a
bargain to a superior product. Why do you think VHS became the standard
instead of Betamax?

Most people just don't seem to appreciate quality. Either they can't see the
difference or they just don't care. Same with MP3, most people seem to think
that 128 is good enough.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Paul Saunders
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-03-2006
Paul Rubin wrote:

> They've shrunk down the pixel size so much that RAW doesn't really
> give you more dynamic range than JPEG on those sensors any more.


Really? I used to get good results with RAW mode on my first digital camera,
a Canon G3. Now that RAW processing software has improved so much, I can get
much better results if I reprocess those early shots. Yet another good
reason for shooting RAW. Your shots can get better in the future!

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk


 
Reply With Quote
 
David J. Littleboy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-03-2006

"Paul Rubin" <http://(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> "Paul Saunders" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>> I agree, there's not much need for RAW format in a cheap point and shoot.
>> I
>> think what's being talked about here is RAW support being dropped from
>> the
>> high-end "prosumer" point and shoots. Canon always used to offer this in
>> their G and S series, but now they've dropped it. I think this is a bad
>> decision.

>
> They've shrunk down the pixel size so much that RAW doesn't really
> give you more dynamic range than JPEG on those sensors any more.


Actually, one could argue that smaller pixels increase the need for RAW. If
you get the color balance wrong with a small pixel camera, you've aggravated
the already problematic noise something fierce in channels that you didn't
have to change after all.

With a dSLR, in most cases the post-whitebalance JPEG will be pretty clean,
so you don't mind even fairly serious color balance adjustments.

David J. Littleboy
(E-Mail Removed)
Tokyo, Japan


 
Reply With Quote
 
Chris Hills
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-03-2006
In message <(E-Mail Removed). com>,
(E-Mail Removed) writes
>My fantastic Canon S 50 has finally given up the ghost after about 3
>years of much use and abuse. Looking at the specs for the current
>model, S 80 I notice that it doesn't do RAW format. A bit more digging
>and I find that if I want to stay with RAW I'll have to go to a SLR
>digital camera.
>
>2 questions:
>
>Are there any compacts (non SLR's) that do RAW?
>
>Why are the manufacturers dropping their support for RAW from all but
>SLR's?


I have a Fuji S7000 that has RAW mode though it is not exactly a
"compact"!

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ (E-Mail Removed) www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/



 
Reply With Quote
 
John Bean
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-03-2006
On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 06:14:55 -0000, "Paul Saunders"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>timeOday wrote:
>
>> Good info. Have you found any advantage for shots which are correctly
>> exposed in the first place?

>
>Regularly. It's not really a question of exposure, it's a question of
>dynamic range.


And the gamma curve. The camera applies the curve it has
been programmed with to produce the final JPG, and with most
cameras the amount of curve correction is limited to a crude
low-normal-high contrast setting. The raw data can be
corrected using a curve defined by the user to make best use
of the data available, particularly in a scene with a large
dynamic range.

>My technique is to expose for the highlights (i.e. to fine tune the exposure
>so that the highlights are on the far right of the histogram, but without
>clipping), then brighten the shadows later in processing (if they need to be
>brightened - I don't brighten them just for the sake of it).


Absolutely. This is exactly what I do.

--
John Bean
 
Reply With Quote
 
John Turco
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-04-2006
(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>
> My fantastic Canon S 50 has finally given up the ghost after about 3
> years of much use and abuse. Looking at the specs for the current
> model, S 80 I notice that it doesn't do RAW format. A bit more digging
> and I find that if I want to stay with RAW I'll have to go to a SLR
> digital camera.
>
> 2 questions:
>
> Are there any compacts (non SLR's) that do RAW?
>
> Why are the manufacturers dropping their support for RAW from all but
> SLR's?
>
> Mark



Hello, Mark:

Kodak's "P" series of ultra-zoom digicams (such as my P850) support RAW
output, but, they're not exactly "compact."


Cordially,
John Turco <(E-Mail Removed)>
 
Reply With Quote
 
ASAAR
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-06-2006
On 1 Nov 2006 04:06:28 -0800, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:

> A little off-topic, except for Fuji owners..
> . . .
>
> I trust you have found this:
> http://www.geocities.co.jp/SiliconVa...919/s7raw.html
>
> And then, to have a chance of using it properly, this set of tutorials:
> http://www.mattspinelli.com/rawediting.html
>
> S7Raw is *very* impressive and seemingly comprehensive software, and
> looks to be well-behaved from my limited use of it (haven't had the
> s9500 for very long).
>
> > So instead of dealing with 2.5mb JPG
> > files, one captures 11mb RAF files that will be converted to 30mb
> > TIFF files.

> On the s9500, the raw-generated 16-bit Tiffs are 103Mb, so I don't know
> what you are complaining about.. (O;
>
> I only use raw for special occasions...


I just downloaded/installed S7Raw and experimented a bit with it.
Although I don't have any way to compare it with other RAW editors
it does seem to be quite useful and well written, as far as I've
gone. I'll have to take a variety of RAW and JPG shots of the same
subjects to see the magnitude of the benefits I can get from using
RAW files. I guess that even though I only played with one test
shot, tonight was *my* first special occasion using it.

Thanks for the S7Raw links.

 
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