Understanding ProRAW • Hacker News Board

Re: Understanding ProRAW

#111

Post by strogonoff » Wed, Dec 16, 2020, 7:24 PM UTC

throwaway9d0291 wrote: post #102

strogonoff wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

My exposure to this issue was mostly through mirrorless cameras (where Sony has been huge) and raw video capture formats (I almost got a BMPCC this year, but at the last moment found out that they have entirely dropped support for CinemaDNG and replaced it with compressed BRAW).

I was not at all expecting raw capture to mean something else here compared to DSLR world, so I guess my disappointment shows.

Re: Understanding ProRAW

#112

Post by sandofsky » Wed, Dec 16, 2020, 9:12 PM UTC

pestatije wrote: post #93

mikece wrote: post #64

"RAW data is usually stored in the DNG file format, which stands for Digital Negative. Some camera makers have their own formats, but those companies are jerks." I disagree with the second part of this quote. The major players (Sony, Canon, Nikon) have their own file formats which reflect the choices their engineers made in deciding how to record the raw sensor information at the time of the exposure. Theoretically y…

Yes, coming from someone who is promoting yet another raw format, that sounds a bit grand. And this is Apple we are talking, which doesn't come across as a very standards based/supportive company.

Are you saying Apple is promoting another format? Because if so, you didn’t read the article.

Apple is just using LinearDNG, which has been a public, open standard forever. There is absolutely nothing proprietary that they’re doing, besides slapping a marketing label on it.

Re: Understanding ProRAW

#113

Post by altarius » Wed, Dec 16, 2020, 11:54 PM UTC

cmod wrote: post #80

altarius wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ohh, I just remembered the long-delayed Zeiss ZX1 ($6000 fixed-lens 35mm f/2.0 camera) that has Adobe Lightroom built in. I like the concept, I bet the implementation is quite flawed though. If I were spending that money on a fixed-lens camera, it'd be a Leica Q (thanks, craigmod :/ ) but the concept is interesting.

A used Q in good shape can now be had for a reasonable amount of cash. I’m still on Q1 and love it. (Although the hardware interface improvements to Q2 are subtle but impressive.)

I loved your Leica Q writeup and have been contemplating one ever since.

Re: Understanding ProRAW

#114

Post by unicornporn » Mon, Dec 21, 2020, 11:23 AM UTC

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…

> The very term “raw format” is confusing.

That's why I didn't mention "raw format", only raw. :)

> Sony’s “raw” .arw files that in fact come lossy from some cameras

Yeah, had one of those. First gen ⍺7. To me raw denotes that data has not been demosaiced. But, as you note, mosaiced data can also be cooked and lossy compressed.

I'm not saying ProRAW (i.e. multi exposure linear DNG) is a bad thing. In fact, I've been waiting for something like this for years. The output from my Pixel cameras with their computational features like Night Sight has floored me. But still, there's almost no editing headroom in these overly contrasty JPEGs. The future is merged!