Could you actually see photos made from RAW files?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by aniramca, May 30, 2009.

  1. aniramca

    Bob Larter Guest

    In practice, the 1000 MIPS CPU on your desktop can beat the
    battery-powered custom hardware every time. It's pure physics.
     
    Bob Larter, Jun 1, 2009
    #81
    1. Advertisements

  2. aniramca

    Guest Guest

    they're either added in the free dot upgrades or they issue a separate
    raw camera support update.

    <http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1475>
     
    Guest, Jun 1, 2009
    #82
    1. Advertisements

  3. aniramca

    Bruce Guest


    What is important is to realise that Pentax is a dying brand, especially
    in the UK:

    - Pentax Japan is to pay off half of its Japanese workers this year.
    - Pentax UK has paid off most of its sales staff in the past year.
    - Jessops no longer stock Pentax, so the brand has very little high
    street presence in the UK.

    So who cares what their latest DSLR is called? You will probably never
    see one, except online or in a magazine.

    It is a sad conclusion for a proud brand with a great history.
     
    Bruce, Jun 1, 2009
    #83
  4. aniramca

    Bob Larter Guest

    God, I'd hope not! There are two reasons why I shoot RAW: (1) to get the
    most dynamic range from my shots, ie; to push them a stop or two, & (2)
    To fix the white balance for shots that were taken under mixed lighting.
    Yuck. IMHO, the whole point of RAW images is that they haven't been
    screwed around with.
     
    Bob Larter, Jun 1, 2009
    #84
  5. aniramca

    Bob Larter Guest

    That's usually the case, but there's no particular reason that it has to
    be. Indeed, the colour rendition of most cameras would be improved by
    reducing the output resolution by 2:1 during Bayer dematrixing.
     
    Bob Larter, Jun 1, 2009
    #85
  6. aniramca

    Bob Larter Guest

    In other words: "Yes". That must make for some frequent OS upgrades!
     
    Bob Larter, Jun 1, 2009
    #86
  7. aniramca

    Guest Guest

    turns out it was the d2x.

    <http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/technology/scene/10/index_02.
    htm>

    Conventionally, white balance is conditioned digitally. Once an image
    is taken with a digital camera, A/D conversion occurs first, then
    this digital image is evaluated to determine the white balance value,
    according to the conventional process. With the D2X, however, the
    white balance adjustment is in analog, which means that white balance
    value is determined for the image before A/D conversion. So we had to
    figure out a new mechanism for this.

    i don't think it's inherently bad, especially if it does produce better
    results, but i do agree that raw should be raw.
    the cameras have a 12 bit a/d converter so the raw values should be
    0-4095. instead, they range from negative numbers to around 10,000. i
    don't know why they did that, since the original sd9/10 only outputted
    raw and you *had* to process it (again) on the computer.

    what's ironic is the sigma fanbois brag about true colour, the purity
    of the data, how nothing is interpolated and how perfect the results
    are. it turns out there's actually *more* going on than with bayer.
     
    Guest, Jun 1, 2009
    #87
  8. aniramca

    Guest Guest

    the dot upgrades are usually every couple of months, and one complaint
    is that apple is slow in supporting new cameras. they've gotten better
    at it though.
     
    Guest, Jun 1, 2009
    #88
  9. aniramca

    Marty Fremen Guest

    The only way to correct an out of focus picture is to apply a deconvolution
    function which attempts to reverse the mathematical transformation which
    would create the blurred image. A sharpening filter such as Unsharp Mask is
    a generic type of deconvolution filter but there are more flexible ones
    that can be tuned if you know the exact characteristics of the blurring.

    However these programs are never perfect since there will inevitably be
    various imperfections (false information, e.g. noise) in the image which
    will produce artefacts when you apply the deconvolution to them (on the
    garbage in - garbage out princple).

    The advantage of a raw file is that it won't have compression artefacts
    that would cause problems you apply a deconvolution to a JPEG, so it should
    give much cleaner results.

    It's also probable that working with the data before demosaicing it will
    improve things since you will know the precise pixel positions of the red
    blue and green samples you are deconvolving, and not be working with any
    interpolated (and therefore inaccurate) data. However I don't know if any
    deconvolution programs are set up to handle raw data. The only one I've
    tried expected a normal RGB file.
     
    Marty Fremen, Jun 1, 2009
    #89
  10. aniramca

    Eric Stevens Guest

    From an Adobe site
    http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/cameraraw.html

    *The file encryption found in some Nikon raw formats has caused
    some users to question the level of cooperation between Nikon
    and Adobe in providing solutions for raw processing. Get more
    information about Nikon's and Adobe's joint commitment to the
    common needs of customers.


    Eric Stevens
     
    Eric Stevens, Jun 1, 2009
    #90
  11. aniramca

    tony cooper Guest

    How? I have CS4, and I don't see a way to go back to the .dng. I can
    re-open the .dng, but it then opens a new separate file when I click
    "open image". I must be missing something.
     
    tony cooper, Jun 1, 2009
    #91
  12. aniramca

    Guest Guest

    <http://www.dpreview.com/news/0504/05042701davecoffininterview.asp>

    A firestorm of controversy recently erupted when Thomas Knoll of Adobe
    accused Nikon of encrypting the white balance data in the D2X and D2Hs
    cameras, thus preventing Adobe from fully supporting these cameras.

    I cracked this encryption on April 15, and updated dcraw.c and parse.c
    on April 17. So "dcraw -w" now works correctly with all Nikon cameras.

    This is not a new problem. Phase One, Sony, Foveon, and Canon all apply
    some form of encryption to their RAW files. Dcraw decodes them all --
    you can easily find decryption code by searching for the ^ operator.
     
    Guest, Jun 1, 2009
    #92
  13. aniramca

    Guest Guest

    smart objects.

    open a raw image in cs3/cs4, do whatever you want in camera raw, then
    hold down the shift key (on mac, should be the same on pc) and the open
    image button should change to open object.

    next, do whatever you want in photoshop. to go back to camera raw,
    just double-click the bottom layer.
     
    Guest, Jun 1, 2009
    #93
  14. aniramca

    Chris H Guest

    Following the link it goes on to say.....

    Adobe and Nikon are both enthusiastic about the continued innovation of
    digital imaging technology. Both companies recognize that ongoing
    advancement in current RAW formats is bringing a new level of control,
    precision, and quality to the photography community, and we both are
    excited about helping to foster that innovation.

    Adobe is committed to working with Nikon to ensure that our common
    customers have an excellent experience when using Nikon cameras with
    Adobe software, and the company is disappointed that there has been
    confusion about this in the market. Adobe wants to ensure that our
    common customers get the very best quality from their photos when using
    our products together.

    Nikon has endeavored to develop the RAW image concept for digital
    photographers through its Nikon Electronic Format (NEF) file, supporting
    software, and compatible system components. Nikon envisions its role as
    an innovator, and values its participation within the industry's
    organizations, so that the future for RAW images will expand in
    importance and acceptance among the market's photographers.

    Nikon believes that the NEF file has provided important image quality
    through Nikon's pioneering developments. For the future, Nikon intends
    to cooperate with Adobe and other industry members in order to pursue
    its objective of providing images with better quality, convenience, and
    usefulness to end users
     
    Chris H, Jun 1, 2009
    #94
  15. aniramca

    Bob Larter Guest

    When you follow the link, this is what you get:

    "Adobe and Nikon are both enthusiastic about the continued innovation of
    digital imaging technology. Both companies recognize that ongoing
    advancement in current RAW formats is bringing a new level of control,
    precision, and quality to the photography community, and we both are
    excited about helping to foster that innovation.

    Adobe is committed to working with Nikon to ensure that our common
    customers have an excellent experience when using Nikon cameras with
    Adobe software, and the company is disappointed that there has been
    confusion about this in the market. Adobe wants to ensure that our
    common customers get the very best quality from their photos when using
    our products together.

    Nikon has endeavored to develop the RAW image concept for digital
    photographers through its Nikon Electronic Format (NEF) file, supporting
    software, and compatible system components. Nikon envisions its role as
    an innovator, and values its participation within the industry's
    organizations, so that the future for RAW images will expand in
    importance and acceptance among the market's photographers.

    Nikon believes that the NEF file has provided important image quality
    through Nikon's pioneering developments. For the future, Nikon intends
    to cooperate with Adobe and other industry members in order to pursue
    its objective of providing images with better quality, convenience, and
    usefulness to end users"

    IMO, it's pure marketing bullshit. Notice how they say nothing whatever
    about Nikon providing Adobe with the necessary information to decode the
    encrypted data in Nikons NEF files.
     
    Bob Larter, Jun 1, 2009
    #95
  16. aniramca

    Eric Stevens Guest

    There is no single answer. It depends on the camera and the
    manufacturer. I suppose there are cameras which save a RAW file which
    is nothing but a bit-map of the sensor but generally the RAW file is
    modified in some way. In the case of the Nikon D300 there are several
    choices as to how the RAW file may be saved:

    Compressed, lossless compression or lossy compression.

    12 bit or 14 bit.

    I don't know the details of this but I expect that some of it is
    described in the Nikon Software Developers Kit. Whatever it is that
    happens, clearly there is a transformation of some kind. It is
    interesting that the D300 manual specifically says of the lossy
    compression:

    "NEF images are compressed using a non-reversible algorithm,
    reducing the file size by about 40-55% with almost no effect on
    image quality"

    This contradicts what I was saying to Floyd: it is not possible to go
    back to the original sensor image from the RAW file. There will be a
    range of slightly different sensor images which could produce the same
    RAW file.
    See above. The RAW data can be compressed independently of the JPEG
    compression.
    I've got to plead guilty to that. In a moment of brain fade I got
    sucked into what Floyd was trying to talk about rather than the
    original topic which I was trying to talk about. Rereading all this
    below I can see that I had become more than somewhat confused.
    I'm talking in the hypothetical sense of being able to derive from the
    RAW data the light pattern which fell on the sensor to create the RAW
    data in the first place. In the case of RAW data which has not been
    messed around in some way there is only the one sensor image which
    will correspond.



    Eric Stevens
     
    Eric Stevens, Jun 1, 2009
    #96
  17. aniramca

    Guest Guest

    that's ok, just one example is fine.
    actually, just about every camera.
    nothing that would affect bayer interpolation. there may be some noise
    reduction or in the case of the nikon d2x, white balance.
    compression is not modification. it's there to save space. users like
    being able to put more photos on a card so smaller raw files is a plus.


    now, the lossless compression is a modification, although nikon claims
    it's 'visually lossless.' it's also optional and it's a tradeoff for an
    even smaller size image.
    that's not a modification, that's choosing the resolution of the a/d
    converter.
    if it's so clear, where's the evidence?
    lossy compressed raw is the only case where you don't have an exact
    sensor dump (but it's *very* close). fortunately, the d300 offers
    uncompressed and lossless compressed.
    yea and?
    at least you realize you're confused.
     
    Guest, Jun 1, 2009
    #97
  18. aniramca

    Eric Stevens Guest

    Do you see what happens when you delete text without indicating the
    fact?
    Agian though, its time that you learned that proper Usenet netiquette
    is to indicate where you have trimmed the quoted text. I do that. You
    don't.
    I agree about the interpolation. As I explained in another article, I
    boobed on that. The question has never been just one of interpolation
    or no interpolation. Its been about the transformation of the image
    which falls on the sensor to the data which is recorded in the RAW
    file. One image gives one set of data. The one set of data can only
    give the one sensor image (except for the Nikon RAW files using a
    lossy compression).
    Not really. It's counting photons.
    Thats all part of the firmware which transforms the sensor data in the
    data of the RAW file.
    I don't know. All I know is that the text above has been cut and
    pasted from the Nikon site
    http://nikoneurope-en.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/25962
    describing "D300 Firmware Update 1.10 Windows". Clearly the downloaded
    software has something to do with the transformation of the sensor
    data to the data of the RAW file.
    The original argument was over whether or not it was possible to work
    back from the RAW data and arrive at more than one sensor image. I
    said that subject to statistical limitations there is only one sensor
    image corresponding with the RAW data of the file. This raised the
    question of the transformation of the sensor data to the data of the
    RAW file. One aspect of the argument is whether there is any
    transformation and I say there is. Then we got sidetracked onto
    whether or not the transformation is all hardware, and I said that
    software may be involved. That's why the question of the firmware
    upgrade of the D300 entered the picture. The point of this is that the
    RAW file data may not just be dump of the sensor data.

    All of this is irrelevant to the original question which was centered
    around whether the transformation from sensor image to RAW file data
    was fully reversible. In most cases it is in which case you can show
    that only the one sensor image corresponds to any one RAW file data
    set. I described this as being a 'one to one' relationship. This is
    where the current furore started. A moment's brain fade let me be
    dragged into questions of interpolation but I was clearly wrong. I'm
    going to ignore that issue.

    --- snip ----



    Eric Stevens
     
    Eric Stevens, Jun 1, 2009
    #98
  19. aniramca

    Eric Stevens Guest

    AFAIK the contents of the RAW file (ignoring metadata etc) is a fully
    detailed map of the sensor data but is not just a 'dump' of the sensor
    data. At the very least the quantized sensor voltage has to be
    transformed into 12 or 14 bit data. Various corrections may be applied
    in the process.



    Eric Stevens
     
    Eric Stevens, Jun 1, 2009
    #99
  20. aniramca

    Eric Stevens Guest

    Its incorrect, as you (or somebody) chopped out the important part. I
    originally wrote:

    "Floyd, I suspect you have been smoking something which is not
    good for you. Subject to statistical error limitations, there is a
    one to one correspondence between the source image and the
    RAW file. One can be converted to the other using the rules
    inherent in the camera's software. The data in the RAW file can't
    be restructured to make a different image without changing the
    data."

    We were then talking about the "source image" - that which was
    projected onto the sensor by the lens - and not that infinite range of
    images which could be created downstream by the manipulation of the
    RAW data.



    Eric Stevens
     
    Eric Stevens, Jun 1, 2009
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.