Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Understanding ProRAW

blog.halide.cam

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 114 posts

Re: Understanding ProRAW

#101

Post by matwood »

vmception wrote: post #84
redvenom wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The iPhone 12 may have some cool auto computational features, but in no way is it better than an ILC camera like a DSLR. If you actually compare image quality side by side, a DSLR typically will smoke an iPhone. Not to mention there is no way to go past ~100mm on even the best phones.

Oh I forgot, I only do portraits and stopped taking interchangeable lens cameras with me places over half a decade ago. I don't do landscapes or wildlife photography, nor did I ever have a desire to to make rivers look like smudges with a long exposure. For portraits, iPhone 12 Pro in okay lighting is the first one where I say, yeah good enough and often times better. I don't care about DXOMark, I care about what hum…

I keep trying to leave my DSLR at home, but instead am looking at upgrading my Nikon. I love the iPhone and what it can do, and think flagship phones are the best snapshot cameras there have ever been.

But, my Nikon with my 50mm just takes noticeably better pictures in so many situations, particularly portraits. And if I expand my lens usage to my wide angle or my 300mm now we’re into types of pictures phones are completely incapable of taking.

Re: Understanding ProRAW

#102

Post by throwaway9d0291 »

strogonoff wrote: post #49
unicornporn wrote: post #14

So much confusion. ProRAW is not raw because it stores demosaiced (not raw) data. ProRAW is good ole Linear DNG[1] and it has been around forever . However, it's very cool we now have real-time HDR merged linear captures. This has been possible post shot[2]. Lastly, I'm not sure why Apple chose to go with RAW (not raw), because that's how them n00bs spell it out. Raw is not an abbreviation. [1] http://www.barrypearso…

The very term “raw format” is confusing. Having long since ceased to mean “unprocessed sensor data”, nowadays raw (or indeed the ever-shouting all-caps “RAW”) is primarily a marketing term used to denote lossily processed data left and right (ProRes RAW, BRAW, Sony’s “raw” .arw files that in fact come lossy from some cameras), causing much dismay to terminology purists or photography enthusiasts who want to work with…

> nowadays raw (or indeed the ever-shouting all-caps “RAW”) is primarily a marketing term used to denote lossily processed data left and right (ProRes RAW, BRAW, Sony’s “raw” .arw files that in fact come lossy from some cameras)

That does happen but I don't agree that it's "primarily" used that way. Canon and Nikon are still dominant and still use it to refer to uncompressed raw images.

Re: Understanding ProRAW

#103

Post by matwood »

sandofsky wrote: post #77
mikece wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The goal of DNG was long-term archival and maximum compatibility; Nikon NEF, Canon CRW, and Sony ARW file formats are meant to capture the point-in-time exposure information. Some of that point in time information involves the decisions the camera made about the exposure (Active D Light for Nikon... I'm sure Sony and Canon have their own settings they are saving) that matter for recording metadata about the image cap…

The purpose of DNG was to replace all those proprietary formats. It's stated in the introduction to the spec. If you want to store your proprietary "Active D Light," according to the spec: "DNG allows proprietary data to be stored using private tags, private IFDs and/or a private MakerNote."

It’s probably more of a legacy decision at this point, and photographers love their workflows almost as much as they love taking pictures.

Also, the hardware in DSLRs is typically custom ASICS. Do you think there is a hardware limitation that prevents Nikon from outputting DNG at the same performance level as NEF?

Re: Understanding ProRAW

#104

Post by foldr »

redvenom wrote: post #76
altarius wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, I went out to Marin Headlands this morning to photograph the sunrise, brought my 60mpix fullframe camera and some amazing lenses. But while waiting for the best light or long exposures I snap off a couple pictures on the phone. And I was just thinking, if I'd just post to Instagram and not print, I probably wouldn't even bother with the fullframe camera - a nice hike without 20lbs of gear and as great photo…

This highlights the difference between someone who cares about image quality and someone who just cares about reactions and likes.

Almost no-one who matters cares about "image quality". It's something that just needs to be good enough. It's not a particularly important aspect of making a good photo. OP's story highlights a much more important aspect: being in the right place at the right time.

I guess I'm getting old, but I can't help but observe that the image quality provided by a smartphone today is superior to anything available even to rich amateurs when I was a kid in the 90s. This is especially so when you look at color accuracy and dynamic range as well as resolution (which is much less important, but much more often obsessed over).

Re: Understanding ProRAW

#105

Post by redvenom »

foldr wrote: post #104
redvenom wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This highlights the difference between someone who cares about image quality and someone who just cares about reactions and likes.

Almost no-one who matters cares about "image quality". It's something that just needs to be good enough. It's not a particularly important aspect of making a good photo. OP's story highlights a much more important aspect: being in the right place at the right time. I guess I'm getting old, but I can't help but observe that the image quality provided by a smartphone today is superior to anything available even to rich…

Good thing I don't care at all what most people care about. If everyone had your attitude we'd all be listening to pop music instead of classical as well.

Re: Understanding ProRAW

#106

Post by tambourine_man »

lmilcin wrote: post #95
mullingitover wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That camera doesn't matter motto never dies, it seems. Tools are extremely important. They don't work on their own, of course, but are definitively part of the equation. I've attended a lot of photo meets, and if I had a dollar for every shooter who showed up with the latest and greatest gear, only to post poorly composed, poorly lit, overprocessed dreck weeks later... I think a better analogy is bicycles. You can…

I give people another example. All else being equal, I like reading books printed on good paper. But good paper will not make the story interesting and the story will still be interesting even if printed on crap paper. Of course, if you are an author you would like to make the experience pleasurable for your reader. BUT . If you are obsessing with the quality of the paper that you will use to print your book to the p…

Those analogies break pretty fast. Try reading a book on an LCD on a sunny day.

Depending on the kind of work you do you may not need to obsess over your tools and that obsession may actually hinder your creativity, when a base level of “fine” would do.

But that doesn't mean tools don't matter. They very much do, at everything that can be called craftsmanship.

Re: Understanding ProRAW

#107

Post by foldr »

redvenom wrote: post #105
foldr wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Almost no-one who matters cares about "image quality". It's something that just needs to be good enough. It's not a particularly important aspect of making a good photo. OP's story highlights a much more important aspect: being in the right place at the right time. I guess I'm getting old, but I can't help but observe that the image quality provided by a smartphone today is superior to anything available even to rich…

Good thing I don't care at all what most people care about. If everyone had your attitude we'd all be listening to pop music instead of classical as well.

I'm not sure I follow. The musical analogy would be obsessing over "audio quality", which has nothing to do with music genre.

Re: Understanding ProRAW

#108

Post by vmception »

formerly_proven wrote: post #92
vmception wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And what do you use those photos for? I’m only going to sound realistic

> The iPhone 12 Pro is better than EVIL & DSLR cameras goalshifted into "it is ok enough for this single type of photo + light".

A daguerreotype was probably superior processing technology than film with paper but it wasn’t convenient or superior enough to remain an option.

That's where we are today, and that's what "better" colloquially means.

Re: Understanding ProRAW

#109

Post by sudosysgen »

vmception wrote: post #90
sudosysgen wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, if you take one single kind of image that the software is optimized to almost fake, yes you can get close. But you'll never get to the level of, say, an a7iii+85mm1.4 even for portraits, even in good light. In any case, good enough and better are two very different words. I really enjoy taking pictures on an ILC much more and the results I get are noticeably better even in portraits, including by people that do…

I enjoy the a-series but that’s exactly what I’m moving on from I think I’ll get a gimbal and some contraption to trigger flash and maybe some adapter lenses as they trickle out for this form factor Yes, the consistency in such a wide range of lighting situations is what’s attractive. Along with the built in non-destructive editing. Soon, ProRAW for even more of that. Live Photos by default which “captures the moment…

Well, to boot, no, film and paper were far way easier and more powerful to process than daguerréotype, and digital is also way more powerful to process than film. That being said, I do think you lose out on a lot of convenience with an iPhone as your sole camera.

To start, you can actually crop. You can use lenses with a higher focal length than 70mm, which for many people makes all the difference in portraits. If you're using something like ProRAW, you're limited to 1/3 of an FPS vs 20FPS.

If you want to capture the moment on an ILC, you can also just hold the shutter. This would be the very first time we go from a platform that has higher image quality and more editing lattitude to a technology that has less of it. The replacement isn't an entire tool belt and bags of gear, for me it's an A7ii and a 28-75 2.8 (for a total cost lower than the iPhone 12 Pro + my current phone and will outlive it by four or five times).

As for sales, the iPhone has already gobbled up everything except the high end camera market, which is actually seeing increasing sales, so we'll see about that. I don't find it all that probable.

As for ProRAW, it's technically completely inferior to, say, an ARW file.

Re: Understanding ProRAW

#110

Post by Auracle »

vmception wrote: post #89
Auracle wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is going to sound unintentionally confrontational but I’ll put up one of my DSLR portrait shots against your phone shots any day. Good enough? Maybe. Better than a much larger sensor and better lens? No way.

And what do you use those photos for? I’m only going to sound realistic

I’m a professional photographer, so...

Even if I wasn’t, I love large prints and we always have some up in our house. Cell phone pictures are fine if you’re looking at them on your phone - not so much at 20x30”.

Post reply on HN