That's EXACTLY what I see with my RX100M6, some intense blues going to purple in the camera jpegs, any raw converter gets the blue correct.On that note, I have this comparison when I was still shooting raw + JPEG. THe processed RAW has more accurate colors than the JPEG.
Camera JPEG.
RAW processed with DXO PL5.
As if raw was something so sophisticated that you need interim formats on your way to raw.
Raw tends to be 14 or 12 bit. HEIF is 10 bit. 10 bit offers a lot over 8 bit, although 14 bit is better (12 bit is also generally sufficient). It is just about how much information you record.
Support for HEIF will grow in time.
Those two sides can merge.
Raw is for recording. Jpeg is for viewing, that's the difference. Heif is the same, for viewing. 10 bits in heif are still display-referred so to say.
May be
They can, but for now they're not merged.
I think the A7IV has it. That's my target. Camera companies should push it across the board through FW updates. That and TIFFs.
That really is the key difference, though it seems to be very hard to get across. I would say perceptually referred rather than 'display' referred, unless 'display' refers to that act of display rather than a piece of hardware. The key point is JPEGs and HEIFs are specifications of how a human observer is supposed to see it rather than a record of the light that the camera captured. The brain can process the same mix of light in any number of ways, and the processing of a raw file includes making plenty of decisions about how it should be seen.The fact that they get processed according to some default assumptions hides the fact that there are many alternatives.
Well I am 64 next week and I still can't decide whether to shoot RAW or jpeg. I generally shoot RAW because I actually enjoy photo editing and I love having a unprocessed RAW file to bring to life. I do occasionally shoot jpeg depending on which camera I use but I always worry that perhaps I could have got a better shot by using RAW. I don't like using RAW + jpeg because it just creates double the work
It's obvious that the problem is with the JPEG processing and not the sensor. It is possible to fine-tune the OOC JPEGs by adjusting the Auto White balance which is what I did when I was a JPEG-only shooter.That's EXACTLY what I see with my RX100M6, some intense blues going to purple in the camera jpegs, any raw converter gets the blue correct.On that note, I have this comparison when I was still shooting raw + JPEG. THe processed RAW has more accurate colors than the JPEG.
Camera JPEG.
RAW processed with DXO PL5.
That's a good point. I could never get the results I wanted from RAW until I started using DXO PL5. I never got good results out of Lightroom or Corel I assume because I was unwilling to put the time and effort into learning them properly.
I think the standard terms are "scene-referred" (raw) vs. "output-referred" (JPEG).
Until recently I used Aperture 3.6 & initially edited both raw & jpg. But the jpg images were always better than the processed raw images so I ended up just taking jpg. My old Mac crashed & I can no longer use Aperture 3.6 & am now using Affinity Photo 2. It's not as good as the Aperture 3.6 when it come to handling jpg images. I now take raw + jpg & find with Affinity Photo 2 that 'sometimes' the results are better using raw.
Very likely. Still, they aren't very accurate terms. The difference isn't about whether you're looking at the scene or the output, but whether you're in a physical or perceptual colour space (using the term 'colour space' very loosely).
Input-referred (unrendered) would a bit more accurate
I learned about the terms scene-referred and output-referred in a post by Eric Chan. I also often see scene-referred vs. display-referred mentioned, but since the output is not only a display, output-referred makes more sense.Input-referred (unrendered) would a bit more accurate
That's because raw doesn't accurately record the colorimetry of the scene.
Yes, that's a commonly used term, doesn't necessarily mean there is no better one, and that the better one is not in use. Even the abbreviation RIMM, meaning "Reference Input Medium Metric", contains "input".I learned about the terms scene-referred and output-referred in a post by Eric Chan. I also often see scene-referredInput-referred (unrendered) would a bit more accurate
That's because raw doesn't accurately record the colorimetry of the scene.
It might be common but it's new to me. I had to look it up and found this;Yes, that's a commonly used term, doesn't necessarily mean there is no better one, and that the better one is not in use. Even the abbreviation RIMM, meaning "Reference Input Medium Metric", contains "input".I learned about the terms scene-referred and output-referred in a post by Eric Chan. I also often see scene-referredInput-referred (unrendered) would a bit more accurate
That's because raw doesn't accurately record the colorimetry of the scene.
