Do raw images have more dynamic range than JPEG?
Dec 20, 2021 16:33:54 #
Dec 20, 2021 16:38:14 #
Dec 20, 2021 16:53:20 #
Dec 20, 2021 16:55:03 #
RAW is not an image file, it is, as the name implies, raw data so it would contain all of the dynamic range of the sensor.
Not being an image file, it is not viewable, but must be converted to a file format such as JPEG.
The short answer is, sort of 'yes' but it is because of the limitations of JPEG.
Not being an image file, it is not viewable, but must be converted to a file format such as JPEG.
The short answer is, sort of 'yes' but it is because of the limitations of JPEG.
Dec 20, 2021 17:06:04 #
larryepage
Loc: North Texas area
Urnst wrote:
Do they? Thanks!
They can and usually do. But if you are shooting at very high ISOs, your camera may be capturing only 5 or 6 stops of dynamic range (and maybe even less) to start with, even if it can capture 14 bits at base ISO. In that case, the limiting factor is the amount of data captured by the camera initially, and the storage format makes no difference, because the full range of captured information can easily be stored in either a JPEG or raw file. Saving an image properly exposed at an ISO of 25,600 as a raw file will not add one bit more information versus one stored as a JPEG. This can be clearly seen in the graphs on the Photons to Photos website. Of course, there can be some advantages to having the space provided in the extra bits available if further processing is done later.
Dec 20, 2021 17:13:11 #
Definitely. However, RAW is not an image file but information from the sensor.
--Bob
--Bob
Urnst wrote:
Do they? Thanks!
Dec 20, 2021 17:18:01 #
Dec 20, 2021 17:30:17 #
rwilson1942 wrote:
RAW is not an image file, it is, as the name implies, raw data so it would contain all of the dynamic range of the sensor.
Not being an image file, it is not viewable, but must be converted to a file format such as JPEG.
The short answer is, sort of 'yes' but it is because of the limitations of JPEG.
Not being an image file, it is not viewable, but must be converted to a file format such as JPEG.
The short answer is, sort of 'yes' but it is because of the limitations of JPEG.
That's not exactly true.
To be displayed on a screen, or printed out, an image must be converted to a bitmap. For most files, this is done automatically on the fly as it is opened. There is no reason the conversion has to go RAW -> JPG -> bitmap. If you have the proper converter installed on your computer, it can go directly from RAW -> bitmap to be displayed.
Dec 20, 2021 17:31:51 #
rmalarz wrote:
Definitely. However, RAW is not an image file but information from the sensor.
--Bob
--Bob
And what you see in a RAW editor is not a JPEG nor a TIFF, nor any other "format".
It is simply a display rendering so one can see it in order to edit it.
Otherwise one would not have to specify in what format you want to save it.
Dec 20, 2021 17:37:22 #
Any JPEG you have gotten from your camera was, at one point, a block of raw data. Your camera could just save that block of data to your SD card, or you could convert it to a JPEG before saving, or it could save both.
So, the best answer to the original question is to invert it : A JPEG file created from a block of raw data cannot have more dynamic range than a RAW file created from the same block. It might have the same dynamic range or a lower range.
So, the best answer to the original question is to invert it : A JPEG file created from a block of raw data cannot have more dynamic range than a RAW file created from the same block. It might have the same dynamic range or a lower range.
Dec 20, 2021 19:38:43 #
It is semantics to say RAW is not an image file. Raw is by definition an image file. Some platforms/programs cannot display or represent it natively but no image can be displayed without codecs/compilers/drivers etc. I'd say that a RAW file has more information than can be unambiguously interpreted and displayed.
Dec 20, 2021 19:43:47 #
Alphabravo2020 wrote:
It is semantics to say RAW is not an image file. Raw is by definition an image file. Some platforms/programs cannot display or represent it natively but no image can be displayed without codecs/compilers/drivers etc. I'd say that a RAW file has more information than can be unambiguously interpreted and displayed.
Well, it is simply DATA from the sensor, in a particular format designed my the camera manufacturer, I guess one could say since it's not a document, spreadsheet, or any other file type, one could refer to it as an image file since the data is used to create an image.
Edit:
JPEG is data in a universal picture format; RAW is a proprietary data format, for a picture.
Dec 20, 2021 19:48:33 #
Longshadow wrote:
Well, it is simply DATA from the sensor, in a particular format designed my the camera manufacturer, I guess one could say since it's not a document, spreadsheet, or any other file type, one could refer to it as an image file.
I don't disagree. I was being semantical myself 😝
Dec 20, 2021 20:45:00 #
Alphabravo2020 wrote:
I don't disagree. I was being semantical myself 😝
Yea.
I suppose being a programmer, I'm kinda semantical about it.
Has to do something with logic.
Dec 21, 2021 05:46:59 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.