BebuLamar wrote:
I tried to say that the raw file has less data than for an image.
Well not sure how you got to that conclusion. The raw file usually contains a .jpeg as well as the rastor data of the raw image, + metadata. So .. ?? Please explain what you meant.
JD750 wrote:
Well not sure how you got to that conclusion. The raw file usually contains a .jpeg as well as the rastor data of the raw image, + metadata. So .. ?? Please explain what you meant.
Just depends on how you want to count it up.
Let's say you have a 24 megapixel raw file. That's 6000 x 4000 pixels = 24,000,000 pixels x 14 bits stored per pixel = 336,000,000 bits.
Now let's assume you have an 8 bit RGB TIFF file from that same 24 megapixel camera. That's 6000 x 4000 pixels = 24,000,000 pixels x 24 bits stored per pixel = 576,000,000 bits.
Let's do that again for a 16 bit RGB TIFF file and you get 24,000,000 pixels x 48 bits stored per pixel =1,152,000,000 bits.
Longshadow wrote:
Less than? (my bolding)
JPEG?
Before compression?
My RAW files are much larger than my JPEGS for a given image.
Yes - and is all that RAW data retained when you save to a viewable file?
Longshadow wrote:
Less than? (my bolding)
JPEG?
Before compression?
My RAW files are much larger than my JPEGS for a given image.
I don't try any more. The raw files have only 1 color channel data per pixels versus all others would have 3 color channel data per pixel. But if you don't get it. I am sorry.
Delderby wrote:
Yes - and is all that RAW data retained when you save to a viewable file?
All of the data is transformed. All of the data is used. A raw file that is 6000 x 4000 pixels produces an RGB image file that is 6000 x 4000 pixels.
BebuLamar wrote:
I don't try any more. The raw files have only 1 color channel data per pixels versus all others would have 3 color channel data per pixel. But if you don't get it. I am sorry.
I guess I don't get it.
Don't need to worry about it either. I don't care if there are 3 or 30 channels. Don't even know what a channel is, don't care.
I don't worry about pixels, X by Y numbers, how what gets saved, I just use the files, in an editor.
The editor does what it does.
I edit and save, if I need to reduce the size, I reduce the size.
There are a lot more important things to worry about.
Life is simple.
(And so am I.
)
Longshadow wrote:
I guess I don't get it.
Don't need to worry about it either. I don't care if there are 3 or 30 channels. Don't even know what a channel is, don't care.
I don't worry about pixels, X by Y numbers, how what gets saved, I just use the files, in an editor.
The editor does what it does.
I edit and save, if I need to reduce the size, I reduce the size.
There are a lot more important things to worry about.
Life is simple.
(And so am I.
)
I guess I don't get it. br Don't need to worry abo... (
show quote)
If the facts do not agree with the concept then the facts must be ignored!!
Ysarex wrote:
Just depends on how you want to count it up.
Let's say you have a 24 megapixel raw file. That's 6000 x 4000 pixels = 24,000,000 pixels x 14 bits stored per pixel = 336,000,000 bits.
Now let's assume you have an 8 bit RGB TIFF file from that same 24 megapixel camera. That's 6000 x 4000 pixels = 24,000,000 pixels x 24 bits stored per pixel = 576,000,000 bits.
Let's do that again for a 16 bit RGB TIFF file and you get 24,000,000 pixels x 48 bits stored per pixel =1,152,000,000 bits.
Just depends on how you want to count it up. br b... (
show quote)
Ok…. But wait. Demosaicing, or rendering, utlizes the colors of adjacent pixels to get the three colors per pixel.
“A demosaicing (also de-mosaicing, demosaicking or debayering) algorithm is a digital image process used to reconstruct a full color image from the incomplete color samples output from an image sensor overlaid with a color filter array (CFA). It is also known as CFA interpolation or color reconstruction.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DemosaicingThe information is all there it just has to be processed which is why you have more control over the end result when starting with raw. A raw workflow also takes more work, specific software, and more time.
Look I’m not arguing for raw. I shoot jpeg most of the time myself, but I think it’s good to understand the differences. Then you can choose which to use when, based on that knowledge.
Ha ha I’m glad you laughed and I agree. It’s not necessary to understand those details it’s the result that matters.
We have our unique workflows and if we’re happy with them and the results that’s what counts.
Unfortunately with both jpeg or raw workflows there is no “un-suck” filter.
Adobe is working on that one…
JD750 wrote:
Well not sure how you got to that conclusion. The raw file usually contains a .jpeg as well as the rastor data of the raw image, + metadata. So .. ?? Please explain what you meant.
The jpeg embedded in the raw is only a very small image not full resolution.
JD750 wrote:
Ok…. But wait. Demosaicing, or rendering, utlizes the colors of adjacent pixels to get the three colors per pixel.
“A demosaicing (also de-mosaicing, demosaicking or debayering) algorithm is a digital image process used to reconstruct a full color image from the incomplete color samples output from an image sensor overlaid with a color filter array (CFA). It is also known as CFA interpolation or color reconstruction.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DemosaicingThe information is all there it just has to be processed which is why you have more control over the end result when starting with raw. A raw workflow also takes more work, specific software, and more time.
Look I’m not arguing for raw. I shoot jpeg most of the time myself, but I think it’s good to understand the differences. Then you can choose which to use when, based on that knowledge.
Ok…. But wait. Demosaicing, or rendering, utlizes... (
show quote)
Interpolation is a technique to create data that isn't there.
Ysarex wrote:
You will demonstrate that right? You will back up what you say with an actual proof.
No, not to you. I've determined a good while ago you are not worth the effort, any effort, imo.
Ysarex wrote:
You may remember that I called you on this once before and you skidaddled tail between you legs. So I'm calling big mouth no show unless you put up.
I don't remember that, but if that sends a chill up your leg, so be it...
BebuLamar wrote:
Interpolation is a technique to create data that isn't there.
The information is there you just have to do the math. Say you have two numbers, 5 and 3 and you do math to get the average of 4. The information was there, you just had to extract it. Which took some energy. So it wasn’t free.
And it’s a one way process because given 4, you can’t say for sure what the original two numbers were.
And that is how an image file is created from a raw file.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.