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

71–80 of 114 posts

Re: Understanding ProRAW

#71

Post by hungryhobo »

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…

raw doesn't automatically give you better results, but it retains much more information and therefore in post production you have a lot more room to make artistic changes (color grade)

Re: Understanding ProRAW

#72

Post by redvenom »

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…

There's not much difference between the different formats in terms of engineering genius. The Raw data from a camera is basically a matrix of numbers...not too much innovation possible there. The fact that there are different formats is somewhat of a historical accident, and they preceded the DNG format. The format absolutely CAN be stored in a DNG, and in fact Pentax cameras have the option of either DNG or PEF.

Re: Understanding ProRAW

#73

Post by sandofsky »

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…

You can download a free converter from Adobe that takes these proprietary formats and converts them to DNG. It contains the exact same information, so no, there's nothing special in these formats. If you want to do something innovative and don't want to follow Apple's example and contribute to the spec, use the "DNGPrivateData" tag. It's in the spec for this very reason.

If you insist on using your own format for some strategic reason, annoying the entire RAW ecosystem, you're acting like a jerk. On the other hand, if you're doing it because you want to express your engineering genius, I agree that isn't acting like a jerk. That's acting like a child.

Re: Understanding ProRAW

#74

Post by redvenom »

vmception wrote: post #62
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.

The iPhone 12 Pro is better than EVIL & DSLR cameras, and that mostly comes down to software. Introducing ProRAW in a software update is already going to solidify that. If digital cameras want to compete here is what they need to do: - add live photos as a default If photography enthusiasts wants to gatekeep: - buy an older camera and stick with that... collectible. If Apple wants to continue making their devices mor…

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.

Re: Understanding ProRAW

#75

Post by redvenom »

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?

In most situations that photographers actually care about (i.e. capturing beautiful, good light), ILCs already murder the iPhone. Computational photography may be cool but it is just helping the iPhone emulate ILCs.

Re: Understanding ProRAW

#76

Post by redvenom »

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…

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

Re: Understanding ProRAW

#77

Post by sandofsky »

mikece wrote: post #70
Dylan16807 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Reflect how, and why couldn't that data be stored in a DNG?

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."

Re: Understanding ProRAW

#78

Post by tambourine_man »

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…

Oh dear. I'm sorry, but you are objectively wrong on so many levels it's hard to know where to start. But I guess I'll try nevertheless :)

- Sharpen/noise reduction: If you want to avoid over-denoising and over-sharpening you need RAW, there's no way around it. I find Apple's rendering (and most other phone makers) distasteful. Anything above ISO 800 is just trash on JPG but pretty good on RAW. It's the reason I left my Canon G10 and later S100 on the drawer years ago when the iPhone started shooting RAW.

- Dynamic range (latitude, for old folks like me). If you want detail on the sky and on the shadow under the rock on a sunny day, you need RAW. Also, no other way around it. Magic-AI-Smart-Auto-HDR+ can sometimes help but it's comical at most others. Distributing the tones is part of the creative process.

>Camera gear and RAW are just tools and will not make your pictures better

Oh yes, they will. 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.

Since we're on HN, a good analogy would be that because all computers are Turing Complete, they are all equivalent and you shouldn't worry with specs, OS, languages, editors, compilers, etc.

While one can make an interesting sports event shot with a pin-hole you can't use it to freeze someone in mid-air, etc, etc. I think you get the point :)

Re: Understanding ProRAW

#79

Post by geerlingguy »

redvenom wrote: post #74
vmception wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The iPhone 12 Pro is better than EVIL & DSLR cameras, and that mostly comes down to software. Introducing ProRAW in a software update is already going to solidify that. If digital cameras want to compete here is what they need to do: - add live photos as a default If photography enthusiasts wants to gatekeep: - buy an older camera and stick with that... collectible. If Apple wants to continue making their devices mor…

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.

You can go past 100mm (35mm equivalent), but the quality really turns to mud even with the best adapted lenses!

Re: Understanding ProRAW

#80

Post by cmod »

altarius wrote: post #30
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.

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.)
Post reply on HN