a6k Loc: Detroit & Sanibel

I would like to simplify and re-state what I have seen above combined with what I believe to be facts from earlier "study". I invite calm, reasoned correction and/or elucidation. I don't know if anyone cares about this level of detail but I find it worth knowing for its own sake.
Edit-tried to fix the HTML and failed. Please ignore that.

<ul>
<li>A photo site is a single receptor of light which reacts to light in the visible spectrum in an analog (continuous) way.</li>
<li>On the sensor, a photo site will have a color filter which means that a particular photo site will record a value for R, G or B.</li>
<li>For reasons I don't actually understand, there are 2 G's for each R and B.</li>
<li>A pixel is the combination of its photo sites. The pixel is digital. The camera converts the analog signals into digital values at a very early stage in creating a "file".</li>
<li>An image has pixel dimensions. Example: my Sony a6500 takes raw or JPG images that are 6000 pixels wide and 4000 pixels high. While this will influence the file size, it is not a 1 to 1 relationship. I showed that math in an earlier post in this thread.</li>.
<li>A pixel can have a value in any combination of the colors and thus must represent multiple sets of bits (a bit has a value of only 1 or zero). A pixel in my raw files can have 12 or 14 bits. </li>
<li>But a byte is considered by the operating system to have only 8 bits even when the computer is likely using 64 bits at a time. To say it another way, if a file contains 16,000,000 bits then it will be shown by the OS to be 2,000,000 bytes. Obviously, there is not a 1-1 relationship between a 14 bit pixel value and the file size in pixels.</li>
<li>Many or even most cameras use some form of compression in creating a raw file. There are various such forms and some are called "lossless".
<li>Speaking with certainty only of my own camera, the raw file's pixels ignore most of the settings that would influence a JPG of the shot. However, the embedded JPG usually does reflect those settings. In my own camera, such things as Creative Style and even White Balance are not directly affecting the raw file.</li>
<li>The item above is as good a definition of "processed" as I can state.</li>
<li>However, the meta-data recorded in the file will reflect the settings and is usually used to some degree by post processing software. Various programs will handle this differently. There are only a few in my experience that will show the underlying content but they include RawDigger, RPP64 and RawTherapee.
<li>Ignoring compression itself, the raw file is as raw as it can be as far as I know. Some cameras may violate this but I don't know.</li>
<li>A good example of a compressed raw file is a DNG which some cameras produce natively. The ARW files on my various Sony cameras also seem to be both compressed and as raw as they can be.</li>
</ul>

Novicus Loc: north and east

To me , the Importance would be , say in Photo-Journalism , as in :

Did the camera record the scene as perceived by the Journalist , and...Can it be Proven ?!

Is the Digital Negative Truly of Forensic worth....sometime ago ,a boss wanted the CF-card , as Evidence that the picture was Not Altered,..I have been wondering ever since of its " Evidence Worthiness " if you will. ( I " Develop " in mfg. software )

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

I have some new information, so I am updating this thread rather than spread information around by creating a new one.

The most recent Pentax cameras {K-70, KP, K-1ii} contain an 'accelerator' chip which is said to have a role in Noise Reduction; at a CP+ interview, the Pentax representative said this chip comes between the sensor and the processor, so whatever this chip does, apparently that is applied to the "raw" data. I believe Sony is doing something similar, but the circuitry may consist of an 'active' layer added to the sensor itself.