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

What an unprocessed photo looks like

maurycyz.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 418 posts

Re: What an unprocessed photo looks like

#51

Post by nospice »

Forgeties79 wrote: post #27

For those who are curious, this is basically what we do when we color grade in video production but taken to its most extreme. Or rather, stripped down to the most fundamental level. Lots of ways to describe it. Generally we shoot “flat” (there are so many caveats to this but I don’t feel like getting bogged down in all of it. If you plan on getting down and dirty with colors and really grading, you generally shoot f…

"Flat" is a bit of a misnomer in this context. It's not flat, it's actually a logarithmic ("log profile") representation of data computed by the camera to allow a wider dynamic range to be squeezed into traditional video formats.

It's sort of the opposite of what's going on with photography, where you have a dedicated "raw" format with linear readings from the sensor. Without these formats, someone would probably have invented "log JPEG" or something like that to preserve more data in highlights and in the shadows.

Re: What an unprocessed photo looks like

#52

Post by reactordev »

barishnamazov wrote: post #36
delecti wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a related anecdote. When I worked at Amazon on the Kindle Special Offers team (ads on your eink Kindle while it was sleeping), the first implementation of auto-generated ads was by someone who didn't know that properly converting RGB to grayscale was a smidge more complicated than just averaging the RGB channels. So for ~6 months in 2015ish, you may have seen a bunch of ads that looked pretty rough. I think I…

I don't think Kindle ads were available in my region in 2015 because I don't remember seeing these back then, but you're a lucky one to fix this classic mistake :-) I remember trying out some of the home-made methods while I was implementing a creative work section for a school assignment. It’s surprising how "flat" the basic average looks until you actually respect the coefficients (usually some flavor of 0.21R + 0.…

If you really want that old school NTSC look: 0.3R + 0.59G + 0.11B

This is the coefficients I use regularly.

Re: What an unprocessed photo looks like

#54

Post by sho_hn »

bstsb wrote: post #42
barishnamazov wrote: post #7

I love posts that peel back the abstraction layer of "images." It really highlights that modern photography is just signal processing with better marketing. A fun tangent on the "green cast" mentioned in the post: the reason the Bayer pattern is RGGB (50% green) isn't just about color balance, but spatial resolution. The human eye is most sensitive to green light, so that channel effectively carries the majority of t…

hey, not accusing you of anything (bad assumptions don't lead to a conducive conversation) but did you use AI to write or assist with this comment? this is totally out of my own self-interest, no problems with its content

Upon inspection, the author's personal website used em dashes in 2023. I hope this helped with your witch hunt.

I'm imagining a sort of Logan's Run-like scifi setup where only people with a documented em dash before November 30, 2022, i.e. D(ash)-day, are left with permission to write.

Re: What an unprocessed photo looks like

#55

Post by reactordev »

ajkjk wrote: post #50
bstsb wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

hey, not accusing you of anything (bad assumptions don't lead to a conducive conversation) but did you use AI to write or assist with this comment? this is totally out of my own self-interest, no problems with its content

found the guy who didn't know about em dashes before this year also your question implies a bad assumption even if you disclaim it. if you don't want to imply a bad assumption the way to do that is to not say the words, not disclaim them

The hatred mostly comes from TTS models not properly pausing for them.

“NO EM DASHES” is common system prompt behavior.

Re: What an unprocessed photo looks like

#56

Post by dheera »

krackers wrote: post #4

>if the linear data is displayed directly, it will appear much darker then it should be. This seems more a limitation of monitors. If you had very large bit depth, couldn't you just display images in linear light without gamma correction.

If we're talking about a sunset, then we're talking about your monitor shooting out blinding, eye-hurting brightness light wherever the sun is in the image. That wouldn't be very pleasant.

Re: What an unprocessed photo looks like

#57

Post by nospice »

card_zero wrote: post #43
nospice wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A better discriminator might be global edits vs local edits, Even that isn't all that clear-cut. Is noise removal a local edit? It only touches some pixels, but obviously, that's a silly take. Is automated dust removal still global? The same idea, just a bit more selective. If we let it slide, what about automated skin blemish removal? Depth map + relighting, de-hazing, or fake bokeh? I think that modern image proc…

What's this, special pleading for doctored photos? The only process in the article that involves nearby pixels is to combine R G and B (and other G) into one screen pixel. (In principle these could be mapped to subpixels.) Everything fancier than that can be reasonably called some fake cosmetic bullshit.

I honestly don't understand what you're saying here.

Re: What an unprocessed photo looks like

#58

Post by to11mtm »

dheera wrote: post #39
barishnamazov wrote: post #7

I love posts that peel back the abstraction layer of "images." It really highlights that modern photography is just signal processing with better marketing. A fun tangent on the "green cast" mentioned in the post: the reason the Bayer pattern is RGGB (50% green) isn't just about color balance, but spatial resolution. The human eye is most sensitive to green light, so that channel effectively carries the majority of t…

This is also why I absolute hate, hate, hate it when people ask me whether I "edited" a photo or whether a photo is "original", as if trying to explain away nice-looking images as if they are fake. The JPEGs cameras produce are heavily processed, and they are emphatically NOT "original". Taking manual control of that process to produce an alternative JPEG with different curves, mappings, calibrations, is not a crime.

JPEG with OOC processing is different from JPEG OOPC (out-of-phone-camera) processing. Thank Samsung for forcing the need to differentiate.

Re: What an unprocessed photo looks like

#59

Post by sho_hn »

xgulfie wrote: post #14
stavros wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing I've learned while dabbling in photography is that there are no "fake" images, because there are no "real" images. Everything is an interpretation of the data that the camera has to do, making a thousand choices along the way, as this post beautifully demonstrates. A better discriminator might be global edits vs local edits, with local edits being things like retouching specific parts of the image to make d…

There's an obvious difference between debayering and white balance vs using Photoshop's generative fill

Pretending that "these two things are the same, actually" when in fact no, you can seperately name and describe them quite clearly, is a favorite pastime of vacuous content on the internet.

Artists, who use these tools with clear vision and intent to achieve specific goals, strangely never have this problem.

Re: What an unprocessed photo looks like

#60

Post by card_zero »

XCSme wrote: post #40
itishappy wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What about taking 3 photos while quickly changing the filter Works great. Most astro shots are taken using a monochrome sensor and filter wheel. > filters are something like quantum dots that can be turned on/off If anyone has this tech, plz let me know! Maybe an etalon? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabry%E2%80%93P%C3%A9rot_inter...

> If anyone has this tech, plz let me know! I have no idea, it was my first thought when I thought of modern color filters.

That's how the earliest color photography worked. "Making color separations by reloading the camera and changing the filter between exposures was inconvenient", notes Wikipedia.
Post reply on HN