Curiosity only: If we could print a RAW file, would it look better then a printed JPEG file?

Started Feb 16, 2013 | Discussions thread
HumanTarget
Contributing MemberPosts: 678
Like?
Re: Curiosity only: If we could print a RAW file, would it look better then a printed JPEG file?
In reply to apaflo, Feb 18, 2013

apaflo wrote:

lumber and nails that can be used to build a house. Only in the abstract is that pile a "house". It takes a specific design of a unique house, and then a lot of sawing and nail pounding to make a pile of lumber into a house.

Same with raw sensor data. In a very abstract way that is your picture. But it could be used to produce nearly an infinite number of different pictures and it is only when someone "designs" a specific image concept and applies the required tools that an "image" is formed.

That's a poor analogy.  It would be more like buckets of paint to paint the house with.  A raw file contains an image of one scene.  You can adjust the color/tones, but you cannot make a picture of nails into a picture of a house, for instance.

It is impossible to standardize raw conversion because we each see a different possible image. Much the same as we don't all build the same house given enough lumber.

It would be very possible to standardize the conversion.  Every time you open a raw file in a converter it's applying default settings.  If all converters used the same settings/calculations, that'd be standardized.  I've looked at reverse-engineered raw file formats and know full well what they contain.

But it would be a pointless thing to do.  And it makes more sense to keep the decoding open so that better demosaicing and de-noising algorithms can be developed, for one.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow