Page 50 of 51 « First 404849 50 51
Reply
Thread Tools
HugoSon is offline HugoSon
2010-07-27 , 07:17
Posts: 221 | Thanked: 51 times | Joined on Nov 2009 @ Germany
#491
Originally Posted by maartenmk View Post
The first part is true, but you could save a JPEG without the post-processing functions applied, couldn't you? You would lose some of the color-depth, but there would hardly be any artifacts, and it is indeed a lot more practical than the RAW output.
...the build in JPEG processing takes into concern some parameters in order to optimize the output; like sharpening, lens aberration, etc.. White-balance has to be applied anyway – so no: just save the RAW dump without applying any settings will result in a worth result. The artifacts you are talking about are coming mostly with the JPEG compression and the fact, that the chip within these cams is just much too small to deal with low light conditions and you see some noise/artifacts because of the too high pixel density on the chip.
 
maartenmk is offline maartenmk
2010-07-27 , 08:45
Posts: 182 | Thanked: 69 times | Joined on Nov 2009 @ Netherlands
#492
Originally Posted by HugoSon View Post
...the build in JPEG processing takes into concern some parameters in order to optimize the output; like sharpening, lens aberration, etc.. White-balance has to be applied anyway – so no: just save the RAW dump without applying any settings will result in a worth result. The artifacts you are talking about are coming mostly with the JPEG compression and the fact, that the chip within these cams is just much too small to deal with low light conditions and you see some noise/artifacts because of the too high pixel density on the chip.
I would be surprised if the JPEG processing and the sharpening etc. are really linked, but if they are, a software JPEG processor could be an option.
And the JPEG compression artifacts are really nothing to worry about, it is the blurring-sharpening that is usually the culprit.
As for lens aberration and white balance, I wouldn't mind if that is applied.
 

The Following User Says Thank You to maartenmk For This Useful Post:
attila77 is offline attila77
2010-07-27 , 08:46
Posts: 3,319 | Thanked: 5,610 times | Joined on Aug 2008 @ Finland
#493
Originally Posted by maartenmk View Post
The first part is true, but you could save a JPEG without the post-processing functions applied, couldn't you? You would lose some of the color-depth, but there would hardly be any artifacts, and it is indeed a lot more practical than the RAW output.
That would not be overly useful to most people, as most sensors are not made up of RGB pixels - you need to process the data to get even that first (the left side shows how RAW would look like if was saved as an image).

__________________
Blogging about mobile linux - The Penguin Moves!
Maintainer of PyQt (see introduction and docs), AppWatch, QuickBrownFox, etc
 

The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to attila77 For This Useful Post:
maartenmk is offline maartenmk
2010-07-27 , 09:47
Posts: 182 | Thanked: 69 times | Joined on Nov 2009 @ Netherlands
#494
Originally Posted by attila77 View Post
That would not be overly useful to most people, as most sensors are not made up of RGB pixels - you need to process the data to get even that first (the left side shows how RAW would look like if was saved as an image).

[...]
I was talking about post-processing, i.e. image enhancements such as edge sharpening.

But i am not trying to have a theoretical debate here, let me state it differently:
The standard jpeg output is the result of post-processing routines in the phone, which are by their nature sub-obtimal.
Raw output on the other hand is nice, but impractical.
.
Therefore I would prefer a jpeg (or ping) output that is as close to the image as captured by the sensor as can reasonably be expected from this type of format.
 

The Following User Says Thank You to maartenmk For This Useful Post:
attila77 is offline attila77
2010-07-27 , 10:03
Posts: 3,319 | Thanked: 5,610 times | Joined on Aug 2008 @ Finland
#495
Originally Posted by maartenmk View Post
The standard jpeg output is the result of post-processing routines in the phone, which are by their nature sub-obtimal.
Raw output on the other hand is nice, but impractical.
.
The thing is, you NEED some postprocessing for the image to look remotely useful. A phone-cam jpeg image, saved without any noise reduction, sharpening and WB/colorspace magic looks genuinely terrible. And if you need to postprocess it anyway before you actually use it, you might as well use RAW as a source. This is also one of the reasons DSLRs have dual-format modes like RAW+JPG. That way you have a low q jpeg for showing/looking/searching, and if you decide an image is a keeper, you can always post-process it later.
__________________
Blogging about mobile linux - The Penguin Moves!
Maintainer of PyQt (see introduction and docs), AppWatch, QuickBrownFox, etc
 

The Following User Says Thank You to attila77 For This Useful Post:
danramos's Avatar
danramos is offline danramos
2010-07-27 , 19:40
Posts: 4,672 | Thanked: 5,455 times | Joined on Jul 2008 @ Springfield, MA, USA
#496
Originally Posted by attila77 View Post
The thing is, you NEED some postprocessing for the image to look remotely useful. A phone-cam jpeg image, saved without any noise reduction, sharpening and WB/colorspace magic looks genuinely terrible. And if you need to postprocess it anyway before you actually use it, you might as well use RAW as a source. This is also one of the reasons DSLRs have dual-format modes like RAW+JPG. That way you have a low q jpeg for showing/looking/searching, and if you decide an image is a keeper, you can always post-process it later.
This is fine, except that at 5 megapixels and on a cell phone that doesn't so much as even have a tripod stand screw-hole in the bottom, this seems unnecessary. I appreciate all the controls in the software, but RAW is neither a good "format" (if it can even be called that) nor is it a particularly useful one.

Regardless, it's nice that it has that option. So I tend to agree with both camps on this one but I would prefer more work done on enhancing the on-the-fly features or even better, add in some RAW file processing features right on the device. This is supposed to be, after all, a computer-first device, right?

Another suggestion: Nokia (or someone) should design a tripod mount adapter (say, an N900 mount with a tripod hole in the bottom).

These would validate the RAW format on this device a little more.
Last edited by danramos; 2010-07-27 at 20:04. Reason: s/designed/should design/
 

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to danramos For This Useful Post:
ZackMorris's Avatar
ZackMorris is offline ZackMorris
2010-07-27 , 20:07
Posts: 355 | Thanked: 245 times | Joined on Jul 2009 @ Northern VA
#497
What is everyone using to process the RAW?
 

The Following User Says Thank You to ZackMorris For This Useful Post:
ZackMorris's Avatar
ZackMorris is offline ZackMorris
2010-07-27 , 20:41
Posts: 355 | Thanked: 245 times | Joined on Jul 2009 @ Northern VA
#498
Also has anyone else noticed that when the files are named they are a month off in the naming structure?
 
ossipena's Avatar
ossipena is offline ossipena
2010-07-27 , 21:02
Posts: 3,159 | Thanked: 2,023 times | Joined on Feb 2008 @ Finland
#499
Originally Posted by maartenmk View Post
The first part is true, but you could save a JPEG without the post-processing functions applied, couldn't you? You would lose some of the color-depth, but there would hardly be any artifacts, and it is indeed a lot more practical than the RAW output.
"some"?

only something like 3800 shades per colour reducing from 4096 to 256

jpeg just doesn't have enough headroom.
__________________
Want to know something?
K.I.S.S. approach:
wiki category:beginners. Browse it through and you'll be much wiser!
If the link doesn't help, just use
Google Custom Search
 
ossipena's Avatar
ossipena is offline ossipena
2010-07-27 , 21:07
Posts: 3,159 | Thanked: 2,023 times | Joined on Feb 2008 @ Finland
#500
Originally Posted by maartenmk View Post
Therefore I would prefer a jpeg (or ping) output that is as close to the image as captured by the sensor as can reasonably be expected from this type of format.
well, it would be so hideous (soft, AA...) and lack the adjustment headroom.

and the pixel pitch is so small that there must be some NR done before even trying to create a jpg.....
__________________
Want to know something?
K.I.S.S. approach:
wiki category:beginners. Browse it through and you'll be much wiser!
If the link doesn't help, just use
Google Custom Search
 
Reply
Page 50 of 51 « First 404849 50 51

Tags
announced, color you loser, fail!, guessed wrong, misstep, riddle me this, you dun goofed

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:20.

Contact Us - Home - Archive - Top