Iliah Borg

Iliah Borg

Lives in United States AK, United States
Has a website at http://www.libraw.org/
Joined on Nov 11, 2002

Comments

Total: 116, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Pocketable APS-C: Fujifilm X70 real-world samples (164 comments in total)
In reply to:

agentlossing: My takeaway is that underexposing to -1.7 EV is too much for this sensor, as in the waterfall pic. Slight underexposure is fine, however, and detail retention is pretty impressive. Lens appears to be fairly high-resolving, details aren't super crisp but you can tell they would stand a fair amount of microcontrast adjustment.

@Barney Britton: it seems the camera emulates ISO 800, because the raw data numbers correspond to ISO 200. Means effective underexposure is about 2 stops before the highlights start clipping. Tags say that the meter calibration is -2.72 instead of Fuji regular normal -0.72.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 9, 2016 at 15:20 UTC
In reply to:

nerd2: Fake ISO helps.

@nerd2 : yes, myth. 1. read ISO standard. 2. compare raw data.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 27, 2016 at 01:39 UTC
In reply to:

nerd2: Fake ISO helps.

@nerd2 : Funny myth.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 26, 2016 at 11:31 UTC
In reply to:

zeinali: Just looking at colorful jackets of four men, immediately you could find
some kind of process even at ISO-200 in RAW images.

@Barney Britton : Many thanks. We will add this compression scheme to LibRaw, will probably take some time to decode. Uncompressed files are already supported, also in RD and FRV.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 26, 2016 at 02:35 UTC
In reply to:

zeinali: Just looking at colorful jackets of four men, immediately you could find
some kind of process even at ISO-200 in RAW images.

@ Barney Britton : would appreciate a compressed raw sample for studio scene shot, if possible.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 25, 2016 at 21:56 UTC
In reply to:

zeinali: Just looking at colorful jackets of four men, immediately you could find
some kind of process even at ISO-200 in RAW images.

@zeinali : you are looking at a converted result and making a categorical statement of what raw is, right?

Direct link | Posted on Jan 25, 2016 at 21:54 UTC
In reply to:

EasyClick: This is a brilliant technology! It would definitely revolutionise digital imaging. Finally we can step closer to 'film look' than ever before. How long before Sony buys them up? (if they were smart enough) Then again, they might develop their own 'Quantum' film technology with some minor differences and rebrand it as their own. Any sensor development company should be smart and invest into those guys.

By the way, I don't see why the look should be referenced to Wes Anderson at all. It's quite the opposite, Anderson is trying to imitate the film look lost because of the crazy colour grading from Hollywood.

Well, for every sensor "response becomes non-linear as it approaches saturation". Problems are: this is unstable, and causes the skew of white balance; the fixed pattern noise jumps up, pixel non-uniformity becomes an important factor.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 12, 2015 at 13:49 UTC
On article What difference does it make? Sony uncompressed Raw (618 comments in total)
In reply to:

GrahamSeventy1: I always thought RAW was lossless

@M Jesper:
> Raw isn't actually an image yet.
> Of course it is

> Some people just explain the same thing differently
Some people explain it right, and some explain it wrong.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 23, 2015 at 23:14 UTC
On article What difference does it make? Sony uncompressed Raw (618 comments in total)
In reply to:

IdM photography: Lossy compressed RAW is NOT RAW... A RAW file must contain the unaltered data as coming out from the sensor. It's just unbelievebable that Sony could invent lossy compressed RAW files... I hope they correct this soon, and implement a lossless compression.

@sensibill : "They aren't a bit by bit readout of the ADC, after all. Never have been, with any camera." - Never say never ;)

Direct link | Posted on Sep 23, 2015 at 21:30 UTC
On article What difference does it make? Sony uncompressed Raw (618 comments in total)
In reply to:

IdM photography: Lossy compressed RAW is NOT RAW... A RAW file must contain the unaltered data as coming out from the sensor. It's just unbelievebable that Sony could invent lossy compressed RAW files... I hope they correct this soon, and implement a lossless compression.

Uncompressed lossless raw still is not what is coming out of the sensor, the sensor output is altered. And many of the alterations are welcome enhancements. Please see http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/56430990
However, much depends on how one defines "sensor".

Direct link | Posted on Sep 23, 2015 at 19:33 UTC
On article What difference does it make? Sony uncompressed Raw (618 comments in total)
In reply to:

M Jesper: Since Sony apparently won't be offering a lossless compression option themselves for a while, you can save a lot of space on your HDD's by doing the Lossless compression yourself using Adobe's DNG Converter (or during import in Lightroom). The size difference compared to uncompressed is huge. While not as much as Lossy compression, it's close! Though it won't help save card space on the road.

*And no you don't lose anything or limit compatibility, it's actually more like the opposite. The data does not change, it is simply packed in a different container. Currently using it for my Fuji RAF files that are also uncompressed, never had any problem with the DNG's anywhere. Probably saving about 40% with it.

@Wenetu not for the lenses that are not yet available at the time the current version of Adobe converter was published. Not for lens converters. There is no reason to trash original manufacturer's data, if the format is considered to be archival.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 23, 2015 at 19:11 UTC
On article What difference does it make? Sony uncompressed Raw (618 comments in total)
In reply to:

GrahamSeventy1: I always thought RAW was lossless

Raw is an image.

http://www.fastrawviewer.com/viewing-raw-is-not-impossible

Direct link | Posted on Sep 23, 2015 at 18:54 UTC
On article What difference does it make? Sony uncompressed Raw (618 comments in total)
In reply to:

M Jesper: Since Sony apparently won't be offering a lossless compression option themselves for a while, you can save a lot of space on your HDD's by doing the Lossless compression yourself using Adobe's DNG Converter (or during import in Lightroom). The size difference compared to uncompressed is huge. While not as much as Lossy compression, it's close! Though it won't help save card space on the road.

*And no you don't lose anything or limit compatibility, it's actually more like the opposite. The data does not change, it is simply packed in a different container. Currently using it for my Fuji RAF files that are also uncompressed, never had any problem with the DNG's anywhere. Probably saving about 40% with it.

The actual problem is that data became unreadable. To record lossless raw only to lose metadata via conversion to DNG is ironic.

Suppose for the next version of ACR or Lr Adobe will figure out how to use that data. Where are you going to get it if the original ARW files are erased?

Direct link | Posted on Sep 23, 2015 at 18:51 UTC
On article What difference does it make? Sony uncompressed Raw (618 comments in total)
In reply to:

aut0maticdan: Awesome!

For storage purposes, one could just convert to DNG on import to reduce size, right? Their isn't much value in keeping Sony's RAW format like there may be with formats like NEF where you get additional data when using compatible software.

Try to find
0x7980 ChromaticAberrationCorrParams
and
0x7982 DistortionCorrParams
in DNG

Direct link | Posted on Sep 23, 2015 at 18:35 UTC
On article What difference does it make? Sony uncompressed Raw (618 comments in total)
In reply to:

M Jesper: Since Sony apparently won't be offering a lossless compression option themselves for a while, you can save a lot of space on your HDD's by doing the Lossless compression yourself using Adobe's DNG Converter (or during import in Lightroom). The size difference compared to uncompressed is huge. While not as much as Lossy compression, it's close! Though it won't help save card space on the road.

*And no you don't lose anything or limit compatibility, it's actually more like the opposite. The data does not change, it is simply packed in a different container. Currently using it for my Fuji RAF files that are also uncompressed, never had any problem with the DNG's anywhere. Probably saving about 40% with it.

The reason is that TIFF structure is not so good for the task. The table I refer to is in tags 0x7820 to 0x782d

Direct link | Posted on Sep 23, 2015 at 18:26 UTC
On article What difference does it make? Sony uncompressed Raw (618 comments in total)
In reply to:

exapixel: The fix to "small format with artifacts" should be "small format without artifacts", not "big format". I look forward to having critically acceptable raw output from Sony camera bodies, but jeez, it's not like either lossless data compression or visually lossless image data compression are hard to do.

I'm also having some trouble believing the numbers quoted above for file sizes. 40.7MiB is believable for 42Mpx raw image using Sony's current lossy raw format, but 14 bits * 42Mpx works out to only 70MiB, not 80. Is the new uncompressed Sony raw format using 16 bits per pixel? That works out to 80.1MiB, which would match the size quoted above once you add JPEG preview and other overhead. So Sony's new format is worse than uncompressed -- it's INFLATED by two extra wasted zero bits per pixel. Lame.

@TheEulerID : you are correct, Nikon uncompressed format is such that a 14-bit value occupies 2 bytes.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 23, 2015 at 18:08 UTC
On article What difference does it make? Sony uncompressed Raw (618 comments in total)
In reply to:

IdM photography: Lossy compressed RAW is NOT RAW... A RAW file must contain the unaltered data as coming out from the sensor. It's just unbelievebable that Sony could invent lossy compressed RAW files... I hope they correct this soon, and implement a lossless compression.

> A RAW file must contain the unaltered data as coming out from the sensor

So, no correlated double sampling then?

Direct link | Posted on Sep 23, 2015 at 17:55 UTC
On article What difference does it make? Sony uncompressed Raw (618 comments in total)
In reply to:

M Jesper: Since Sony apparently won't be offering a lossless compression option themselves for a while, you can save a lot of space on your HDD's by doing the Lossless compression yourself using Adobe's DNG Converter (or during import in Lightroom). The size difference compared to uncompressed is huge. While not as much as Lossy compression, it's close! Though it won't help save card space on the road.

*And no you don't lose anything or limit compatibility, it's actually more like the opposite. The data does not change, it is simply packed in a different container. Currently using it for my Fuji RAF files that are also uncompressed, never had any problem with the DNG's anywhere. Probably saving about 40% with it.

@M Jesper - WB/Tint is only a matter of convenience, it changes with the change of DCP. WB table is embedded for calibration purposes and is not readable after the conversion to DNG through current Adobe DNG converter.

"Open format" means very little. It is not enough that the format is openly readable. One can read Etruscan language but has extreme difficulty in understanding the exact meanings of the words and grammatical forms.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 23, 2015 at 17:52 UTC
On article What difference does it make? Sony uncompressed Raw (618 comments in total)
In reply to:

M Jesper: Since Sony apparently won't be offering a lossless compression option themselves for a while, you can save a lot of space on your HDD's by doing the Lossless compression yourself using Adobe's DNG Converter (or during import in Lightroom). The size difference compared to uncompressed is huge. While not as much as Lossy compression, it's close! Though it won't help save card space on the road.

*And no you don't lose anything or limit compatibility, it's actually more like the opposite. The data does not change, it is simply packed in a different container. Currently using it for my Fuji RAF files that are also uncompressed, never had any problem with the DNG's anywhere. Probably saving about 40% with it.

Have you checked EXIF data is preserved and readable after the conversion to DNG? In particular, WB RGB Levels table?

Direct link | Posted on Sep 23, 2015 at 17:19 UTC
On article Sony brings uncompressed Raw to a7S II, a7R II and... (562 comments in total)
In reply to:

The Lotus Eater: There seems to be a fair amount of concern as to whether Sony will offer lossless compressed files with these updates - I'm sure not many people want unnecessarily large raw files.

The terms lossless/uncompressed and lossy/compressed seem to have become almost interchangeable throughout this whole saga, to the extent that I suspect Sony's press team either doesn't understand the difference or hasn't communicated it as well as they could have.

Hopefully we can assume Sony's engineers will deal with it properly and to the satisfaction of everybody. Well, almost everybody.

@T3 : we do not just look at raw files, like we listen to mp3. We process raw files. Not many sound recording studios would agree that an mp3 file is a good start for a master :)

Direct link | Posted on Sep 15, 2015 at 19:43 UTC
Total: 116, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »