61–70 of 418 posts
OK now do Fuji Super CCD (where for reasons unknown the RAW is diagonal [0]) [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_CCD#/media/File:Fuji_CCD...
Processing these does seem like more fun though.
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…
what's so special about green? oh so just because our eyes are more sensitive to green we should dedicate double the area to green in camera sensors? i mean, probably yes. but still. (⩺_⩹)
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 hav…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a single value per pixel, but each pixel has a different color filter in front of it, so it's effectively that each pixel is one of R, G, or B
So, for a 3x3 image, the input data would be 9 values like: R G B B R G G B R ?
G G R R
G G R R
B B G G
B B G G
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "Fake" images are images with intent to deceive The ones that make the annual rounds up here in New England are those foliage photos with saturation jacked. “Look at how amazing it was!” They’re easy to spot since doing that usually wildly blows out the blues in the photo unless you know enough to selectively pull those back.
Photography is also an art. When painters jack up saturations in their choices of paint colors people don't bat an eyelid. There's no good reason photographers cannot take that liberty as well, and tone mapping choices is in fact a big part of photographers' expressive medium. If you want reality, go there in person and stop looking at photos. Viewing imagery is a fundamentally different type of experience.
We’ve had similar debates about art using miniatures and lens distortions versus photos since photography was invented — and digital editing fell on the lens trick and miniature side of the issue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, for a 3x3 image, the input data would be 9 values like: R G B B R G G B R ?
In the example ("let's color each pixel ...") the layout is: R G G B Then at a later stage the image is green because "There are twice as many green pixels in the filter matrix".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Removing dust and blemishes entails looking at more than one pixel at a time.
Nothing in the basic processing described in the article does that.
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
I have actually been deliberately modifying my long-time writing style and use of punctuation to look less like an LLM. I'm not sure how I feel about this.
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…
Everything is an interpretation of the data that the camera has to do What about this? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35107601