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

41–50 of 114 posts

Re: Understanding ProRAW

#41

Post by saiya-jin »

lmilcin wrote: post #13

I find people misunderstand what RAW is about and what and who it is for. If you think your pictures are better, you are deluding yourself the same way audiophiles moan about qualities of their high end, thousand dollar per feet audio cables. I use RAW files and full manual because I have an actual workflow where I shoot a bunch of photos in similar setting and want to be able to create Lightroom preset and apply to…

They sure will, since some of us who shoot raw-only don't masturbate about a single/composite picture for 10-30 minutes. We shoot our fullframes as we walk/hike/climb/ski/whatever and move on, to snap another 50 or 200 on that day while not slowing down. Ever been in altitude? You will damn sure appreciate the enhanced options RAW format out of good sensor will give you in postprocess. Ever did a night photo of nature, mountains, stars, milky way etc? Well good luck with JPEGs on those. And I could go on and on for quite some time.

I am not even going into how tools don't make picture better, that's pure clueless rubbish.

Your post sir doesn't make much sense whatsoever.

Re: Understanding ProRAW

#42

Post by Cactus2018 »

SigmundA wrote: post #23
hughes wrote: post #6

If a mirrorless digital camera company ever made their software anywhere near as good as this, or if Apple ever brought their software expertise to a device with a full-frame format sensor and lens mount, they would absolutely dominate that market.

Imagine a Magsafe camera lens / sensor with some kind of high speed wireless interconnect to iPhone: https://daxpix.medium.com/can-the-magsafe-hold-a-camera-lens...

Sony was thinking of this too - DSC-QX series:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSC-QX100

Re: Understanding ProRAW

#43

Post by lmilcin »

formerly_proven wrote: post #38
lmilcin wrote: post #13

I find people misunderstand what RAW is about and what and who it is for. If you think your pictures are better, you are deluding yourself the same way audiophiles moan about qualities of their high end, thousand dollar per feet audio cables. I use RAW files and full manual because I have an actual workflow where I shoot a bunch of photos in similar setting and want to be able to create Lightroom preset and apply to…

> I use RAW files and full manual because I have an actual workflow where I shoot a bunch of photos in similar setting and want to be able to create Lightroom preset and apply to all photos shot with same place, lighting and exposure. This is basically a scene-referred workflow, but without any standardization (like ACES). Because all the files conform to the same transfer function, you can grade ("create a LR preset…

I am an amateur. I have a color card but it only gets used in very complex lighting situation when I need some help understanding what the lighting was to resolve some color issues. I may use SpyderCube when working with indoor light that I do not control.

My understanding of is that brain works in a different way when interpreting moving and still images. In a moving image the differences from reality are much more easily picked up by the brain and so color or image distortion problems stand out much more.

Also, I think, brain is trained to some particular standards of how the moving image is shot and processed. We can easily recognize "movie" or "television" shooting and processing methods and this is starkly visible when somebody is messing with it. For example, The Fellowship of The Ring looked very strange to me the first time I watched it because of how smooth it was due to higher framerate, but at the same time I did not find it out of place for television.

Re: Understanding ProRAW

#44

Post by djxfade »

knolan wrote: post #28
akuma73 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They should drop their custom ASICs and just stick a Qualcomm Snapdragon as a replacement. They could use Android and create a platform with an app store with APIs to access their sensor. Opening up the hardware in this standard way to developers would really add a lot of value to their cameras. I have no idea why they haven't done this already.

I’m sorry but I cannot fathom using Android (or iOS) on a professional camera. My Canon gear is extremely fast and responsive and Android is anathema to that. It powers on instantly and I can flip through menus as fast as I can physically turn the control wheel. I can change batteries in less than a second. My cameras will run for years without slowing down. My 7D is ten years old and as performant as the day I bough…

Fun fact, Android was originally designed to be a digital camera OS.

> The early intentions of the company were to develop an advanced operating system for digital cameras, and this was the basis of its pitch to investors in April 2004

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_(operating_system)#h...

Re: Understanding ProRAW

#46

Post by centimeter »

hughes wrote: post #7
hughes wrote: post #6

If a mirrorless digital camera company ever made their software anywhere near as good as this, or if Apple ever brought their software expertise to a device with a full-frame format sensor and lens mount, they would absolutely dominate that market.

Are there even any camera companies that even have ambitions of reaching a level like this?

Having demosaicing and complicated features like shot compositing happen before “raw” encoding disqualifies this from use in professional-oriented cameras.

Re: Understanding ProRAW

#47

Post by centimeter »

altarius wrote: post #3
jordache wrote: post #2

Very nice write up. However, who is the audience? The demographic that this info is relevant to must be infinitesimal. A serious photographer will try to maximize quality with camera gear that starts out with strong baseline IQ potential - Pro camera, large sensor, quality lenses. People who subscribes to the value prop of iphone 12 pro max, do not lean towards this model for the above reasons.

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…

I agree that most non-photographers probably couldn’t reliably predict if a 3x3” image came from a phone or larger-format camera, but my suspicion is that subconsciously people will think the image with features like true narrow DoF “look better” even if they can’t articulate why.

Re: Understanding ProRAW

#49

Post by strogonoff »

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 full range of values their camera is capable of capturing.

On the other hand, there is a definition for what constitutes scene-referred data.

ProRAW is scene-referred AFAIC. Un-demosaiced CMOS data is useless, and I am not holding my breath for any breakthroughs in demosaicing algorithms. As TFA stated, control over hardware gives Apple the opportunity to handle this stage better than what we are used to in the decoupled camera manufacturers vs. post-processing software developers world.

Unless there is more loss happening in addition to demosaicing, I am inclined to say this is on balance good stuff and good tidings for DNG format, although I wish Apple called it for what it is (i.e., DNG, not ProRAW).

Post reply on HN