Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
RAW vs Jpeg (again)
Page <<first <prev 11 of 16 next> last>>
Jul 19, 2019 15:52:14   #
dwermske
 
My point is that any file that can be manipulated by software to create an image is an image file regardless of what format the contents of the file are. However, a file contains data that can't be manipulated by software to create an image is not an image file. Try manipulating the data within a Word or Excel file and create an image. I don't think it will work very well. Therefore they are not image files. RAW files are image files because they can be manipulated by software to create an image. Some image file formats are "proprietary" while some are "generic". "A rose by any other name is still a rose". To say that just because "spacebook" or Facebook can't or won't display RAW files because they are not image files is ludicrous. The only real reason is, they don't want to have support so many different "proprietary" image file formats. Not that they are not image files. They only want to support "generic" image file formats!

Reply
Jul 19, 2019 15:53:53   #
rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona
 
That is exactly what happens with a jpg or tiff file. The issue is that these, among others, are standardized file file formats. RAW files are generally proprietary to the camera manufacturers and thus, browsers don't interpret the data as they easily can jpg, tif, etc. The computer needs an assistant in the form of a codec that permits the interpretation. Without that either being provided or downloaded and installed the RAW file will not be readable.
--Bob
dwermske wrote:
So my OS is converting the data to something that can be viewed. Isn't that exactly what happens when viewing a JPG or a TIFF? Different method, same results. Software converts the data a format that can be viewed! So if software converts data to a format that can be viewed what's the difference? In every case software is involved and data is converted. If a data file can be used to produce an image through software manipulation then that file is an image file regardless of what the file format is.
So my OS is converting the data to something that ... (show quote)

Reply
Jul 19, 2019 16:00:04   #
selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA
 
dwermske wrote:
So my OS is converting the data to something that can be viewed. ...

The operating system does not come with raw conversion software built in.

But software you installed when you bought your camera might be doing it. Also your raw conversion software might be doing it.

Look at one of your raw files to see if you can recognize an icon next to the name.

Or you can right-click the file name and select "Open with" to see how many programs might be able to view the image it contains.

Reply
 
 
Jul 19, 2019 16:10:43   #
dwermske
 
rmalarz wrote:
That is exactly what happens with a jpg or tiff file. The issue is that these, among others, are standardized file file formats. RAW files are generally proprietary to the camera manufacturers and thus, browsers don't interpret the data as they easily can jpg, tif, etc. The computer needs an assistant in the form of a codec that permits the interpretation. Without that either being provided or downloaded and installed the RAW file will not be readable.
--Bob


You are correct but that does not eliminate a RAW file from being an "IMAGE" file. I to be specific, a RAW file is a "proprietary" image file. Just because the format it is not "standardized" does not eliminate it from being an "IMAGE" file. Just like Word files and Pages files are both document files. In this case both are proprietary while TXT files might be considered standardized.

Reply
Jul 19, 2019 16:31:55   #
rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona
 
Apparently, you want to become semantically argumentative. A RAW file, to be technical, is a data file which, through the use of software to interpret it, will produce an image on a screen. It is nothing more than data, and proprietary at that. Similarly, any of the other files, jpg - gif - tif, etc., are data files, but standardized so that programmers can include interpretative code within programs and applications to produce the images their data represent. These are all simply data files interpreted to produce an image.

I'm sure if I wanted to spend the time doing it, I could use excel to produce an image. However, it still remains an excel file whether it produces an image or not. Excel can be used to produce some very impressive graph files. The graphs are derived from the data within the excel file and require software procedures to render them visible as graphs.
--Bob

dwermske wrote:
You are correct but that does not eliminate a RAW file from being an "IMAGE" file. I to be specific, a RAW file is a "proprietary" image file. Just because the format it is not "standardized" does not eliminate it from being an "IMAGE" file. Just like Word files and Pages files are both document files. In this case both are proprietary while TXT files might be considered standardized.

Reply
Jul 19, 2019 16:52:15   #
rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA
 
rmalarz wrote:
Apparently, you want to become semantically argumentative. A RAW file, to be technical, is a data file which, through the use of software to interpret it, will produce an image on a screen. It is nothing more than data, and proprietary at that. Similarly, any of the other files, jpg - gif - tif, etc., are data files, but standardized so that programmers can include interpretative code within programs and applications to produce the images their data represent. These are all simply data files interpreted to produce an image.

I'm sure if I wanted to spend the time doing it, I could use excel to produce an image. However, it still remains an excel file whether it produces an image or not. Excel can be used to produce some very impressive graph files. The graphs are derived from the data within the excel file and require software procedures to render them visible as graphs.
--Bob
Apparently, you want to become semantically argume... (show quote)
JPEG, TIFF, etc are file types - once you know what type you have, you know how to interpret what you have; ‘raw’ is a collection of types - CR2, NEF, DNG, etc; you need to know what type you have before you can start thinking about interpreting it.

Reply
Jul 19, 2019 16:52:25   #
dwermske
 
So if every file is just data, which it is. Why do you spend so much time trying to convince me that raw files are not image files. Raw files are just data files that are used to produce images just like TIFF & JPG. Different methods, same results, an image! Therefore a RAW file contains data which is the information that can be used to produce in image. RAW is generic term for propritary image formats

Reply
 
 
Jul 19, 2019 16:55:34   #
srt101fan
 
rmalarz wrote:
Apparently, you want to become semantically argumentative. A RAW file, to be technical, is a data file which, through the use of software to interpret it, will produce an image on a screen. It is nothing more than data, and proprietary at that. Similarly, any of the other files, jpg - gif - tif, etc., are data files, but standardized so that programmers can include interpretative code within programs and applications to produce the images their data represent. These are all simply data files interpreted to produce an image.

I'm sure if I wanted to spend the time doing it, I could use excel to produce an image. However, it still remains an excel file whether it produces an image or not. Excel can be used to produce some very impressive graph files. The graphs are derived from the data within the excel file and require software procedures to render them visible as graphs.
--Bob
Apparently, you want to become semantically argume... (show quote)



Reply
Jul 19, 2019 16:55:47   #
dwermske
 
rehess wrote:
JPEG, TIFF, etc are file types - once you know what type you have, you know how to interpret what you have; ‘raw’ is a collection of types - CR2, NEF, DNG, etc; you need to know what type you have before you can start thinking about interpreting it.


Just like JPG and TIFF, the file types you defined tell you the process to use. My point is that they are all IMAGE file types.

Reply
Jul 19, 2019 17:13:53   #
rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA
 
dwermske wrote:
Just like JPG and TIFF, the file types you defined tell you the process to use. My point is that they are all IMAGE file types.

but 'raw' tells you nothing - that was my point.

Reply
Jul 19, 2019 17:30:49   #
dwermske
 
OK, let's see if I have this right. RAW is not an image format but CR2, NEF, DNG, etc. are image formats and they are RAW image formats. RAW is a generic term for "ALL" RAW image formats. However, RAW files can be turned into images but only from known RAW image formatted files. Simple concept, RAW is a whole bunch of different image formats that can be turned into images. Is that it?

Reply
 
 
Jul 19, 2019 17:31:56   #
DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA
 
dwermske wrote:
You are correct but that does not eliminate a RAW file from being an "IMAGE" file. I to be specific, a RAW file is a "proprietary" image file. Just because the format it is not "standardized" does not eliminate it from being an "IMAGE" file. Just like Word files and Pages files are both document files. In this case both are proprietary while TXT files might be considered standardized.


The reason I call a jpg an image file is because it starts with an image in the form of a bitmap, then compresses it according to a well-documented algorithm in such a way that it can be simply uncompressed back into an image.

The reason I don't call a raw file an image file is because it starts with a set of data from a sensor. The data are derived from an image imposed on the sensor, but where a bitmap image is composed of pixels, each of which has a red, green, AND blue component, the data in the raw file can be described as being composed of pixels, but they have a red, green OR blue component. The difference is that an image is composed of full color pixels while the raw data are composed of monochrome pixels. The conversion of the monochrome pixels to a color bitmap involves much more than just the decompression of the data. Some of the parameters applied to the conversion involve the white balance, the contrast and saturation of the full color elements, and sharpening. Those parameters are essential in the formation of the image, and have already been applied to the image compressed into a jpg.

You can call a raw file an image if you want because an image can be extracted from it, or you can call a jpg a data file if you want because it's not the final image that it represents before being decompressed. You are just arguing semantics at that point.

"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,' " Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't—till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!' "
"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument'," Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."

Reply
Jul 19, 2019 17:41:03   #
dwermske
 
DirtFarmer wrote:
The reason I call a jpg an image file is because it starts with an image in the form of a bitmap, then compresses it according to a well-documented algorithm in such a way that it can be simply uncompressed back into an image.

The reason I don't call a raw file an image file is because it starts with a set of data from a sensor. The data are derived from an image imposed on the sensor, but where a bitmap image is composed of pixels, each of which has a red, green, AND blue component, the data in the raw file can be described as being composed of pixels, but they have a red, green OR blue component. The difference is that an image is composed of full color pixels while the raw data are composed of monochrome pixels. The conversion of the monochrome pixels to a color bitmap involves much more than just the decompression of the data. Some of the parameters applied to the conversion involve the white balance, the contrast and saturation of the full color elements, and sharpening. Those parameters are essential in the formation of the image, and have already been applied to the image compressed into a jpg.

You can call a raw file an image if you want because an image can be extracted from it, or you can call a jpg a data file if you want because it's not the final image that it represents before being decompressed. You are just arguing semantics at that point.

"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,' " Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't—till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!' "
"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument'," Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."
The reason I call a jpg an image file is because i... (show quote)


A bit map is just an interperted form of the sensor data and an incomplete form at best. Why do you consider a bit map to be image data while sensor data not to be image data? They both must be converted to become an image.

Reply
Jul 19, 2019 18:03:20   #
mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey
 
dwermske wrote:
My point is that any file that can be manipulated by software to create an image is an image file regardless of what format the contents of the file are. However, a file contains data that can't be manipulated by software to create an image is not an image file. Try manipulating the data within a Word or Excel file and create an image. I don't think it will work very well. Therefore they are not image files. RAW files are image files because they can be manipulated by software to create an image. Some image file formats are "proprietary" while some are "generic". "A rose by any other name is still a rose". To say that just because "spacebook" or Facebook can't or won't display RAW files because they are not image files is ludicrous. The only real reason is, they don't want to have support so many different "proprietary" image file formats. Not that they are not image files. They only want to support "generic" image file formats!
My point is that any file that can be manipulated ... (show quote)


I think the issue is how the software renders the visible file. Viewing jpegs is very quick because it is a standard formated image that will look the same on every single computer and in every single piece of software, assuming their monitors are all calibrated similarly. Raw files data can look very different depending on which options are chosen to view a raw file and which software is used. This affects not only the speed of opening a raw file, but it's resolution, sharpness and colors. That is why jpeg is said to be a standard image format with a specific configuration and raw is just data which is processed differently, and freely interpreted, depending on the capabilities of the software that's reading the file.

Reply
Jul 19, 2019 18:05:51   #
DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA
 
dwermske wrote:
A bit map is just an interperted form of the sensor data and an incomplete form at best. Why do you consider a bit map to be image data while sensor data not to be image data? They both must be converted to become an image.


I guess we have different concepts of a bitmap.
I call an array a bitmap if it is composed of a series of points, each with a defined color. The dimensions of the array are the dimensions (in pixels) of the image. As a data file, it is a series of number groups, each of which defines the red, green, and blue elements of a given pixel.

That sounds to me pretty much like how an image is represented in a computer. How would you describe an image?

Once again, I think we're hung up on words, which mean different things to different people.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 11 of 16 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.