Started Dec 27, 2007 | Discussions thread
JimH Forum Pro • Posts: 12,911
That's a good point.

I think we must be very careful not to compare a 100% view of an sRAW to a 100% view of a standard RAW file. Obviously, the sRAW should be compared to a 1/4 size (0.5 X 0.5) downsized version of the "normal" RAW.

Still, if we do end up downsizing, do you think there might be some benefit to binning at the RAW level rather than using the usual downsampling algorithms on an already converted color bitmap?

There is a certain "look" to the sRAWs I've played with. But I'm pretty sure I could never use it much because I just don't want to give up the full resolution of the camera.

But if we had a different downsizing strategy built into a RAW converter that let us convert a RAW and specify the final output dimensions (pixel dimensions) of the output file, we might have something useful. If you do the downsizing based on the RAW data and not the converted data, I wonder if we might not find it to produce a final product that was somehow better.

Maybe not.

When I get my 40D back, I'll have to play with this. We'd need some tripod shots in both formats to compare, and I admit that I have never done that. I just tried a few sRAWs to see what was what, and was impressed with the way they looked. But I might have been simply fooled by looking at 100% and thinking "My, how sharp that is." Which is, of course, not fair at all if comparing it to my previous experience with 100% views of full-size images.

-- hide signature --

Jim H.

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