RAW Image Files - please explain

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by PeterH, Aug 11, 2004.

  1. PeterH

    PeterH Guest

    I am correct in assuming the following about RAW image files.

    RAW image files must be converted to say a jpeg or tif in order to be
    processed in an image software package (eg Photoshop) for printing.

    Or can RAW files be processed/manipulated as RAW files and then converted to
    jpeg.

    I keep hearing about RAW convertors but I don't understand when the
    convertor is used and why.

    Is it used before you can do any processing of the image or can the RAW
    image be processed without any conversion?

    Does conversion mean saving as a jpeg or tif or bmp?

    regards

    PeterH
    PeterH, Aug 11, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. PeterH

    PeterH Guest

    The earlier post should read "Am I correct in assuming the following about
    RAW image files?"

    PeterH


    "PeterH" <reply to > wrote in message
    news:HYlSc.50153$...
    > I am correct in assuming the following about RAW image files.
    >
    PeterH, Aug 11, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. PeterH

    E. Le Phant Guest

    "Gareth Tuckwell" <ContactGT@NoSpam_hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:pgnSc.71$...
    >
    > JPG is an acronym (anyone?). It applies an algorithm to the raw bitmap


    Joint Photographic Experts Group, thus, more correctly, JPEG.
    E. Le Phant, Aug 11, 2004
    #3
  4. Raw image format is pure bitmap - no compression. I don't think RAW is an
    acronym (I might be wrong), but I think it simply means the original and
    uncompressed 'raw' image.

    JPG is an acronym (anyone?). It applies an algorithm to the raw bitmap
    image, discarding information that the human eye does not need to see in
    order to understand the image, therefore the end result is an image with
    less information, that looks almost identical to the original, but takes up
    less file space.

    You should work with (crop, colour adjust etc.) the original high quality
    bitmap (raw) image and only as a last stage (if at all) should
    you save using a compression algorithm such as JPG or GIF.

    Photoshop, Paint Shop Pro and all photo manipulation software should be able
    to work with raw images - I don't have a digital camera, only film + a
    scanner, so I don't know what the files are called when you upload them to
    your PC, but raw files should open as 'bitmaps'.

    You can try this - take a copy of a bitmap file and do some work on it -
    resize it a few times, then perhaps a crop, saving it after each operation
    (as bitmap). Take a copy of the same original file and immediately save it
    as a JPG, then repeat the resize, crop etc operations, again saving them
    each time (as JPG). Once you have done a few operations on the JPG files you
    will start to see the compression having an effect on the image quality - it
    starts to look blotchy and smudged, whereas the bitmap version should still
    be perfectly sharp and clear. This is why you should work with bitmap (raw)
    images and save them with compression only at the end.

    If you look in the help system for your photo software, or even a quick
    search online, you will be able to read about the various compressions -
    BMP, GIF, JPG, TIFF etc.



    "PeterH" <reply to > wrote in message
    news:HYlSc.50153$...
    > I am correct in assuming the following about RAW image files.
    >
    > RAW image files must be converted to say a jpeg or tif in order to be
    > processed in an image software package (eg Photoshop) for printing.
    >
    > Or can RAW files be processed/manipulated as RAW files and then converted

    to
    > jpeg.
    >
    > I keep hearing about RAW convertors but I don't understand when the
    > convertor is used and why.
    >
    > Is it used before you can do any processing of the image or can the RAW
    > image be processed without any conversion?
    >
    > Does conversion mean saving as a jpeg or tif or bmp?
    >
    > regards
    >
    > PeterH
    >
    >
    Gareth Tuckwell, Aug 11, 2004
    #4
  5. PeterH

    Justin Thyme Guest

    To understand RAW files, it is best to first look at the steps the camera
    takes in creating the image. Firstly the sensor - each sensel (sensor
    element) in the camera records either red, green or blue. The normal pattern
    has red, green and blue in the ratio of 1:2:1. When you take a picture, the
    CCD returns an analogue voltage for each of the sensels. This voltage gets
    converted to a digital value (anywhere from 8 to 16 bits resolution) which
    is associated with each sensel. This information is what goes into the raw
    file. At this stage there has been no digital manipulation at all.
    Practically all cameras will then take this raw data, and start processing
    it. The camera will look at each sensel's neighbours, and interpolate a full
    colour value for the resulting pixel in the output image. Depending on the
    camera it may at this point enhance colour to give better saturation. At
    this point the image could be downsampled to 24bit and saved as a TIFF
    image. Most cameras then convert to JPEG prior to saving on the card.
    Comments about your post are now sprinkled through....

    "PeterH" <reply to > wrote in message
    news:HYlSc.50153$...
    > I am correct in assuming the following about RAW image files.
    >
    > RAW image files must be converted to say a jpeg or tif in order to be
    > processed in an image software package (eg Photoshop) for printing.

    Yes.
    >
    > Or can RAW files be processed/manipulated as RAW files and then converted

    to
    > jpeg.

    Some manipulation could possibly be done as RAW but it wouldn't be normal.
    RAW doesn't actually contain a usable image, it just consists of a bunch of
    values representing either Red, Green or Blue depending on which colour the
    particular sensel is.
    >
    > I keep hearing about RAW convertors but I don't understand when the
    > convertor is used and why.

    As one of the first steps - to convert the image into a usable image that
    has RGB values for each pixel.
    >
    > Is it used before you can do any processing of the image or can the RAW
    > image be processed without any conversion?

    In theory some processing could be done on the RAW image, as long as the
    program doing the processing understands that particular cameras image.
    >
    > Does conversion mean saving as a jpeg or tif or bmp?

    Conversion means converting to an image with RGB values at each pixel - once
    that has been done it could be saved in any image format.
    >
    > regards
    >
    > PeterH
    >
    >
    Justin Thyme, Aug 11, 2004
    #5
  6. PeterH

    PeterH Guest

    Thanks Justin - great reply.

    Makes more sense now.

    regards

    PeterH

    PS - can you also help me with my second post to this NG re "Canon RAW with
    JPG Embedded"?


    "Justin Thyme" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > To understand RAW files, it is best to first look at the steps the camera
    > takes in creating the image. Firstly the sensor - each sensel (sensor
    > element) in the camera records either red, green or blue. The normal

    pattern
    > has red, green and blue in the ratio of 1:2:1. When you take a picture,

    the
    > CCD returns an analogue voltage for each of the sensels. This voltage gets
    > converted to a digital value (anywhere from 8 to 16 bits resolution) which
    > is associated with each sensel. This information is what goes into the raw
    > file. At this stage there has been no digital manipulation at all.
    > Practically all cameras will then take this raw data, and start processing
    > it. The camera will look at each sensel's neighbours, and interpolate a

    full
    > colour value for the resulting pixel in the output image. Depending on the
    > camera it may at this point enhance colour to give better saturation. At
    > this point the image could be downsampled to 24bit and saved as a TIFF
    > image. Most cameras then convert to JPEG prior to saving on the card.
    > Comments about your post are now sprinkled through....
    >
    > "PeterH" <reply to > wrote in message
    > news:HYlSc.50153$...
    > > I am correct in assuming the following about RAW image files.
    > >
    > > RAW image files must be converted to say a jpeg or tif in order to be
    > > processed in an image software package (eg Photoshop) for printing.

    > Yes.
    > >
    > > Or can RAW files be processed/manipulated as RAW files and then

    converted
    > to
    > > jpeg.

    > Some manipulation could possibly be done as RAW but it wouldn't be normal.
    > RAW doesn't actually contain a usable image, it just consists of a bunch

    of
    > values representing either Red, Green or Blue depending on which colour

    the
    > particular sensel is.
    > >
    > > I keep hearing about RAW convertors but I don't understand when the
    > > convertor is used and why.

    > As one of the first steps - to convert the image into a usable image that
    > has RGB values for each pixel.
    > >
    > > Is it used before you can do any processing of the image or can the RAW
    > > image be processed without any conversion?

    > In theory some processing could be done on the RAW image, as long as the
    > program doing the processing understands that particular cameras image.
    > >
    > > Does conversion mean saving as a jpeg or tif or bmp?

    > Conversion means converting to an image with RGB values at each pixel -

    once
    > that has been done it could be saved in any image format.
    > >
    > > regards
    > >
    > > PeterH
    > >
    > >

    >
    >
    PeterH, Aug 11, 2004
    #6
  7. PeterH

    Helge Olsen Guest

    "Gareth Tuckwell" <ContactGT@NoSpam_hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:pgnSc.71$...
    > Raw image format is pure bitmap - no compression. I don't think RAW is an
    > acronym (I might be wrong), but I think it simply means the original and
    > uncompressed 'raw' image.
    >

    The image may very well be (and mostly is) compressed, but with a lossless
    compression algorithm. In the camera world, RAW means unprocessed CCD output
    data. These files are mostly if not always of proprietary formats and
    require vendor specific converters. Most converters have plenty settings for
    post processing during conversioin (white balance, sharpening, saturation
    and so on).

    The main reason I use RAW is that the format has more bits per channel and
    opens for more precise color correction and better dynamic range than 8
    bits/channel. My camera has 10 bits/channel in RAW. Better cameras typically
    have 12. I convert my images to 48 bit TIFF and process those in Photoshop
    CS. At the very end I change to 24bit JPEG or TIFF depending on use.

    To me, RAW is power. To others it implies a workflow that is too complex for
    their needs/ability/interest.

    /Helge
    Helge Olsen, Aug 11, 2004
    #7
  8. "PeterH" <reply to > writes:

    > Am I correct in assuming the following about RAW image files.
    >
    > RAW image files must be converted to say a jpeg or tif in order to
    > be processed in an image software package (eg Photoshop) for
    > printing.


    This is indeed confusing. In Photoshop, there is even a file format
    called "Adobe RAW" - which has nothing whatsoever to do the RAW image
    files you probably ask about. Adobe calls the type of files you are
    interested in "camera RAW".

    "Camera RAW" - or just "RAW" is the original (i.e. un-interpolated
    and un-corrected) linear sensor data from the camera's image sensor.
    There is no «standard» for RAW, each camera/sensor have its own
    proprietary RAW format. In additon to sensor data, the RAW file
    contains metadata (i.e. in-camera settings such as white balance,
    default sharpening, etc.) RAW data can be compressed or uncompressed,
    but if compressed, they should be losslessly compressed.

    There are (with the possible exception of Foveon-cameras), no pixels
    in a RAW file. To be able to view the images, and do all the normal
    things we do in a image editor (cropping, burning, retouching, etc.),
    and for printing, the RAW data must be converted to pixels
    (i.e. de-mosaiced), and the scale of the bit depth must be converted
    from linear RAW data to something that is sharpened, colour balanced,
    gamma corrected, and on a log scale.

    All the above is what is done by a "RAW converter".

    > Or can RAW files be processed/manipulated as RAW files and then
    > converted to jpeg.


    Not "or" - it is "and".

    To convert sensel data to pixels, a lot of image processing takes
    place. By working on the RAW data, instead of the converted pixels,
    you have a lot more flexibility to change things. The more obvious
    things you may want to change are white balance and sharpening, but
    the fact that most cameras these days gives you at least 12 bit linear
    RAW data gives you about 1.5 stops more dynamic range than 8 bit log
    TIFF/JPEG - which you can make use of by fishing out detail from the
    shadow and highlights in the linear data, and save (after conversion)
    as 16 bit/channel log output.

    If you look careful at Adobe Camera Raw (ACR, the RAW converter that
    comes with Photoshop CS), you'll see that it doesn't stop there.
    ACR will even let you profile your lenses and camera sensor, and
    then be able to correct for lens defects such as CA and vignetting,
    and sensor defects such as colour faults, as part of the conversion
    process. The 4/3 system seems to have provisions for embedding
    even more lens profile metadata in the RAW file, making other type
    of corrections possible.

    > I keep hearing about RAW convertors but I don't understand when the
    > convertor is used and why.
    >
    > Is it used before you can do any processing of the image or can the
    > RAW image be processed without any conversion?


    All digital images from cameras start as RAW (i.e. as sensel data).
    Most cameras (Sigmas being the exception) have a built-in RAW
    converter that use defaults or presets to convert from sensel data to
    JPEG and/or TIFF. Some cameras let the photographer reset some of the
    settings for things like sharpening and the white balance. These
    setting change the presets of the built-in RAW converter in the
    camera - but in-camera RAW converters run pretty much on autopilot.

    TheA "RAW converters" you keep hearing about are pieces of software
    that does the same thing out-of-camera - where the result can be
    inspected visually on a computer screen and re-done if the effect
    isn't as desired - all under control of a human operator.

    > Does conversion mean saving as a jpeg or tif or bmp?


    The /end result/ of the conversion is saved in a pixel-format.

    /Doing/ a conversion involves much more than just saving.
    --
    - gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
    ========================================================================
    «To live outside the law, you must be honest.» (Bob Dylan)
    Gisle Hannemyr, Aug 11, 2004
    #8
  9. "PeterH" <reply to > writes:
    > PS - can you also help me with my second post to this NG re "Canon
    > RAW with JPG Embedded"?


    Most (all?) Canon cameras store a segment with a tiny JPEG thumbnail
    inside (embedded in) the RAW file. This thumbnail is quite small and
    highly compressed, so it doesn't add much to the file size, but it
    adds a lot of convenience. EXIF metadata, for example, is stored in
    the embedded JPEG, and if you use the camera's "review" button, it is
    the JPEG thumbnail image that's used when you review the "RAW" image
    on the LCD on he back of the camera (saves time, since the camera
    doesn't have to de-mosaic and colour correct every time you review).
    Utilities like Canon Zoombrowser also show the embedded JPEG instead
    of converting the RAW data for dispaly - again to make the program
    appear to run faster.

    Some of Canon cameras also let the user specify that a second, full
    size JPEG should be embedded in the RAW file - so that the user have
    "both" options (RAW and SF JPEG) available at all times. I don't see
    much point in doing this - it add significant to the file size and you
    can always reproduce SF JPEG on your PC if you just have the RAW data.
    --
    - gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
    ========================================================================
    «To live outside the law, you must be honest.» (Bob Dylan)
    Gisle Hannemyr, Aug 11, 2004
    #9
  10. PeterH

    Guest

    "PeterH" <reply to > wrote:

    > I keep hearing about RAW convertors but I don't understand when the
    > convertor is used and why.


    There is no way to be polite or kind about this:

    http://www.google.com/help/index.html

    Go ahead, enter the exact subject line of your posting at
    www.google.com and click "search". What do you have to lose?
    , Aug 11, 2004
    #10
  11. PeterH

    Ken F. Guest

    "Gareth Tuckwell" <ContactGT@NoSpam_hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<PgnSc.71$>...
    > Raw image format is pure bitmap - no compression. I don't think RAW is an
    > acronym (I might be wrong), but I think it simply means the original and
    > uncompressed 'raw' image.


    Not quite. A RAW file is the coded information directly as it comes
    from the sensor without any processing to create a recognizable image.
    Keep in mind that a typical sensor has a pattern of "sites," each site
    being a color sensor for single color, G, and B (red, green, blue).
    The pattern of sites (think small dots) is something like the
    following:
    R G
    G B
    which is of course repeated many times.

    So at an "R" site there is information provide by the sensor, but only
    for the color red.
    Similarly at each "B" and "G" site. This does not become useful image
    information until an algorithm is applied so that a full RGB value can
    can calculated for each site, sort of "guessing," for example what the
    B and G values should be for any given "R" location. The RAW file
    contains just the original information, no interpolation to give an
    image.

    Once the interpolation algorithm is applied, the resulting image
    information can be stored as a bitmap, a dot-for-dot identification of
    the color information at each pixel. Bitmaps tend to be large so
    compression schemes can be used to facilitate storage. Some
    compression schemes can decrease the file size without any loss of
    accuracy ("lossless"). Others such as JPG, use a form of compression
    which sacrifices some accuracy ("lossy") in reproducing the original
    bitmap image in order to achieve a higher degree of compression.

    KF
    Ken F., Aug 11, 2004
    #11
  12. PeterH

    Guest

    In message <>,
    Gisle Hannemyr <> wrote:

    >Some of Canon cameras also let the user specify that a second, full
    >size JPEG should be embedded in the RAW file - so that the user have
    >"both" options (RAW and SF JPEG) available at all times. I don't see
    >much point in doing this - it add significant to the file size and you
    >can always reproduce SF JPEG on your PC if you just have the RAW data.


    It takes far too long to convert all your RAW images to JPEG. An
    embedded JPEG at full resolution allows you to browse your images in
    full resolution very quickly. I have viewed the embedded JPEG from
    every one of the 23000 or so RAW shots I have taken with my 10D (that I
    didn't delete in the field) in irfanview, where they load in a fraction
    of a second, and I can see whether or not the images are well-focused,
    and I can see the composition, to decide which ones to delete and which
    to convert, and which are fine as they are, in JPEG mode (if color
    balance and exposure are good). Converting RAW to JPEG in the computer
    would take 5 to 15 seconds per image.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
    , Aug 11, 2004
    #12
  13. Hi PeterH

    I cannot really be assed with reading the rest of the postings so here are a
    couple of observations that may help and may possibly be repeating what
    other learned colleagues (or non-learned colleagues) may be saying:

    1 - any sensor outputs or has the option to output raw data. It may be an
    ozone sensor or some other sensor. The raw output is an inherent and
    intrinsic characteristic of the construction of the sensor

    2 - in digital image processing the chips do a wonderful and near iraculous
    job of converting the sensor data output into an image. If the output is in
    TIFF that has a particular set of characteristics that differ from the
    characteristics of JPEG files. But - and it is a great big Arty Phacting
    B-U-T the sensor data has been processed by stuff put in there by the
    manufacturer

    3 - in order to bypass the data processing put in there the raw output
    becomes important (remember we are not in the realm of P&S but in the
    technically sophisticated realm of professional digital image processing)
    and the losses & gains may not be what the pro photographer requires hence
    raw becomes .RAW a file extension

    4 - the above really ain't important in P&S and becomes relatively critical
    in pro photography

    5 - one hopes this helps

    Arts

    "PeterH" <reply to > wrote in message
    news:HYlSc.50153$...
    > I am correct in assuming the following about RAW image files.
    >
    > RAW image files must be converted to say a jpeg or tif in order to be
    > processed in an image software package (eg Photoshop) for printing.
    >
    > Or can RAW files be processed/manipulated as RAW files and then converted

    to
    > jpeg.
    >
    > I keep hearing about RAW convertors but I don't understand when the
    > convertor is used and why.
    >
    > Is it used before you can do any processing of the image or can the RAW
    > image be processed without any conversion?
    >
    > Does conversion mean saving as a jpeg or tif or bmp?
    >
    > regards
    >
    > PeterH
    >
    >
    Arty Phacting, Aug 11, 2004
    #13
  14. ps - imagine data as a database (garbage in ~ garbage out) RAW helps to
    circumvent possible losses by returning primetime data from the sensor as
    output :)

    the Arty one

    "Arty Phacting" <> wrote in message
    news:v8xSc.1918$...
    > Hi PeterH
    >
    > I cannot really be assed with reading the rest of the postings so here are

    a
    > couple of observations that may help and may possibly be repeating what
    > other learned colleagues (or non-learned colleagues) may be saying:
    >
    > 1 - any sensor outputs or has the option to output raw data. It may be an
    > ozone sensor or some other sensor. The raw output is an inherent and
    > intrinsic characteristic of the construction of the sensor
    >
    > 2 - in digital image processing the chips do a wonderful and near

    iraculous
    > job of converting the sensor data output into an image. If the output is

    in
    > TIFF that has a particular set of characteristics that differ from the
    > characteristics of JPEG files. But - and it is a great big Arty Phacting
    > B-U-T the sensor data has been processed by stuff put in there by the
    > manufacturer
    >
    > 3 - in order to bypass the data processing put in there the raw output
    > becomes important (remember we are not in the realm of P&S but in the
    > technically sophisticated realm of professional digital image processing)
    > and the losses & gains may not be what the pro photographer requires hence
    > raw becomes .RAW a file extension
    >
    > 4 - the above really ain't important in P&S and becomes relatively

    critical
    > in pro photography
    >
    > 5 - one hopes this helps
    >
    > Arts
    >
    > "PeterH" <reply to > wrote in message
    > news:HYlSc.50153$...
    > > I am correct in assuming the following about RAW image files.
    > >
    > > RAW image files must be converted to say a jpeg or tif in order to be
    > > processed in an image software package (eg Photoshop) for printing.
    > >
    > > Or can RAW files be processed/manipulated as RAW files and then

    converted
    > to
    > > jpeg.
    > >
    > > I keep hearing about RAW convertors but I don't understand when the
    > > convertor is used and why.
    > >
    > > Is it used before you can do any processing of the image or can the RAW
    > > image be processed without any conversion?
    > >
    > > Does conversion mean saving as a jpeg or tif or bmp?
    > >
    > > regards
    > >
    > > PeterH
    > >
    > >

    >
    >
    Arty Phacting, Aug 11, 2004
    #14
  15. PeterH

    PeterH Guest

    Of course I have already done this but I always get far better replies from
    NGs like this because I figure I am "talking" to people who know what they
    are talking about and I can reply to if I don't understand.

    I'm amazed you even go to NGs yourself if your only reply to NGers is to
    search Google.



    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "PeterH" <reply to > wrote:
    >
    > > I keep hearing about RAW convertors but I don't understand when the
    > > convertor is used and why.

    >
    > There is no way to be polite or kind about this:
    >
    > http://www.google.com/help/index.html
    >
    > Go ahead, enter the exact subject line of your posting at
    > www.google.com and click "search". What do you have to lose?
    PeterH, Aug 12, 2004
    #15
  16. PeterH

    Drifter Guest

    On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 09:49:27 GMT, "PeterH" <reply to
    > wrote:

    >I am correct in assuming the following about RAW image files.
    >
    >RAW image files must be converted to say a jpeg or tif in order to be
    >processed in an image software package (eg Photoshop) for printing.
    >
    >Or can RAW files be processed/manipulated as RAW files and then converted to
    >jpeg.
    >
    >I keep hearing about RAW convertors but I don't understand when the
    >convertor is used and why.
    >
    >Is it used before you can do any processing of the image or can the RAW
    >image be processed without any conversion?
    >
    >Does conversion mean saving as a jpeg or tif or bmp?
    >
    >regards
    >
    >PeterH



    read here
    http://www.photo.net/learn/raw/

    or even better
    http://luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-raw-files.shtml


    Drifter
    "I've been here, I've been there..."
    Drifter, Aug 12, 2004
    #16
  17. PeterH

    Guest

    On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 14:43:49 +0200, Gisle Hannemyr
    <> wrote:

    >This is indeed confusing. In Photoshop, there is even a file format
    >called "Adobe RAW" - which has nothing whatsoever to do the RAW image
    >files you probably ask about. Adobe calls the type of files you are
    >interested in "camera RAW".
    >
    >"Camera RAW" - or just "RAW" is the original



    It is all indeed confusing!


    "RAW" is Canon's proprietary image format for raw image data. At
    least some people who use "RAW" really mean "raw".

    "raw" means image data straight from the sensor. It's not an image
    format, but rather a description of the way the image data is being
    handled.

    (As another data point, Nikon's proprietary image format for raw image
    data is labeled with "NEF" rather than "RAW".)


    B
    , Aug 12, 2004
    #17
  18. writes:
    > On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 14:43:49 +0200, Gisle Hannemyr wrote:


    >> "Camera RAW" - or just "RAW" is the original (i.e. un-interpolated
    >> and un-corrected) linear sensor data from the camera's image
    >> sensor.


    > It is all indeed confusing!
    > "RAW" is Canon's proprietary image format for raw image data.


    Huh? Canon's proprietary raw image format is called "Canon RAW"
    (with a ".CRW" label) or "Canon RAW mk II" (with a ".CR2" label).

    > "raw" means image data straight from the sensor.


    Yes, that is what I wrote. Thank you for repeating the point.

    > (As another data point, Nikon's proprietary image format for raw image
    > data is labeled with "NEF" rather than "RAW".)


    Sure. And Olympus label their proprietary RAW format ".ORF", Sony
    use .SRF, and so on. Kodak, interestingly, uses ".TIF" to label
    the proprietary RAW format from their DCS 460 and DC 420 digicams.
    --
    - gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
    ========================================================================
    «To live outside the law, you must be honest.» (Bob Dylan)
    Gisle Hannemyr, Aug 12, 2004
    #18
  19. PeterH

    Guest

    In message <>,
    Gisle Hannemyr <> wrote:

    >> "raw" means image data straight from the sensor.

    >
    >Yes, that is what I wrote. Thank you for repeating the point.


    It's not the exact RAW data of the sensor, though. It is the digitized
    values of the charges being drained from the sensor, and these values
    are affected by the ISO setting.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
    , Aug 12, 2004
    #19
  20. PeterH

    Bill Hilton Guest

    >From: Gisle Hannemyr

    >Huh? Canon's proprietary raw image format is called "Canon RAW"
    >(with a ".CRW" label) or "Canon RAW mk II" (with a ".CR2" label).


    Unless you have a Canon 1Ds, in which case the RAW file suffix is .tif (talk
    about confusing :).
    Bill Hilton, Aug 12, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. D@Z

    raw image files from a camera

    D@Z, Jun 15, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    1,138
    bigjon
    Jun 25, 2005
  2. Jim Gizzi

    Image Rescue and Conon RAW files

    Jim Gizzi, Oct 8, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    422
    Simon Stanmore
    Oct 8, 2003
  3. Daz_n_Pat

    Please explain raw photos to a newbie.

    Daz_n_Pat, Apr 8, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    39
    Views:
    907
  4. Jerry

    Please explain why B/W image has blue edges

    Jerry, Feb 9, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    294
  5. Richard DeLuca

    Please explain TIF And RAW

    Richard DeLuca, Oct 13, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    489
    Alan Meyer
    Oct 15, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page