Iliah Borg

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

Comments

Total: 123, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

mvmv: Hmmm… how about highlight recovery test?

@panos_m: " just because there are differences in camera light-meters calibration" -- yet another reason is when less green is allowed into red and blue channels (narrower red and blue filters in CFA).

Link | Posted on Sep 1, 2016 at 15:52 UTC
On article Hands-on with Hasselblad X1D (811 comments in total)
In reply to:

Satyaa: I am not familiar with the Hassy or other MF cameras, and I am curious about the mode dial.
What is the Mq mode and the other two modes between 'P' and 'C3'?
I can't tell if that last one is movie icon.
Thanks.

Quiet, video, bulb, and 3 custom.

Link | Posted on Jun 23, 2016 at 00:17 UTC
In reply to:

pcinhk: As the list of supported Raw cameras is the same as in FastRawViewer (http://www.fastrawviewer.com) it's my guess On1 may be using the LibRaw library.
FastRawViewer, is as its name suggests - check out their videos. it might give a hint as to what could be possible in On1 Photo 11.
LibRaw co-incidentally recently announced a new stable version on 21 April.

Current version of On1 PerfectBrowse is using LibRaw.

We have not seen On1 RAW yet, and can't tell if it is using LibRaw or not.

FastRawViewer is no indication of what could be possible with On1 RAW, we take no responsibility neither for the speed of On1 products, nor for any features / performance / stability issues.

Link | Posted on Apr 29, 2016 at 15:40 UTC
In reply to:

Joe Ogiba: I would prefer the Yuneec TORNADO H920 Multi-Rotor hex-copter with MFT or full frame 4K Sony A7s II low light camera.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_YIzSdBbUU

@Mike Ronesia : Thank you, files are downloaded.

Link | Posted on Apr 4, 2016 at 13:22 UTC
In reply to:

krmuir: A bit disappointed by the results here - ISO 3M offered a little hope that a high ISO breakthrough was on the cards for those that really need it. As a user of A7RII ISO 100000 is completely unusable. I don't see much in the way of improvement here

@krmuir : with about 3 electrons per pixel at saturation?

Link | Posted on Mar 28, 2016 at 14:23 UTC

The black level, starting from Hi 2, is completely uncontrolled. Linearity seems to be lost, too.

Link | Posted on Mar 28, 2016 at 13:40 UTC as 131st comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Joe Ogiba: I would prefer the Yuneec TORNADO H920 Multi-Rotor hex-copter with MFT or full frame 4K Sony A7s II low light camera.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_YIzSdBbUU

@Mike Ronesia : Thank you very much in advance.

Link | Posted on Mar 27, 2016 at 02:55 UTC
In reply to:

Joe Ogiba: I would prefer the Yuneec TORNADO H920 Multi-Rotor hex-copter with MFT or full frame 4K Sony A7s II low light camera.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_YIzSdBbUU

@Mike Ronesia : Could you please upload a sample raw file from CGO4? We would love to support this camera in FastRawViewer and provide you with a free license ;) My e-mail is ib@pochtar.com

Link | Posted on Mar 26, 2016 at 14:13 UTC
On article Retro through-and-through: Fujifilm X-Pro2 Review (2500 comments in total)
In reply to:

nerd2: Fake ISO helps.

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

Link | Posted on Jan 27, 2016 at 01:39 UTC
On article Retro through-and-through: Fujifilm X-Pro2 Review (2500 comments in total)
In reply to:

nerd2: Fake ISO helps.

@nerd2 : Funny myth.

Link | Posted on Jan 26, 2016 at 11:31 UTC
On article Retro through-and-through: Fujifilm X-Pro2 Review (2500 comments in total)
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.

Link | Posted on Jan 26, 2016 at 02:35 UTC
On article Retro through-and-through: Fujifilm X-Pro2 Review (2500 comments in total)
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.

Link | Posted on Jan 25, 2016 at 21:56 UTC
On article Retro through-and-through: Fujifilm X-Pro2 Review (2500 comments in total)
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?

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.

Link | Posted on Nov 12, 2015 at 13:49 UTC
On article What difference does it make? Sony uncompressed Raw (622 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.

Link | Posted on Sep 23, 2015 at 23:14 UTC
On article What difference does it make? Sony uncompressed Raw (622 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 ;)

Link | Posted on Sep 23, 2015 at 21:30 UTC
On article What difference does it make? Sony uncompressed Raw (622 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".

Link | Posted on Sep 23, 2015 at 19:33 UTC
On article What difference does it make? Sony uncompressed Raw (622 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.

Link | Posted on Sep 23, 2015 at 19:11 UTC
On article What difference does it make? Sony uncompressed Raw (622 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

Link | Posted on Sep 23, 2015 at 18:54 UTC
On article What difference does it make? Sony uncompressed Raw (622 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?

Link | Posted on Sep 23, 2015 at 18:51 UTC
Total: 123, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »