Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="knutinh" data-source="post: 102071" data-attributes="member: 14776">the discussion of raw vs jpg for cameras is very different from wether or not to support raw in mp.I cant see the big use for diect support of raw images in mp if its going to take some work, as long as external conversion is simple and hardly consumes extra hd space.If you as a serious photographer, he'll likely tell you that raw is preferred for capture because you are using the entire dynamic range of the sensor, not only 8 bits.<a href="http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/" target="_blank">http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/</a>This guy has done a lot of testing on digital and analog cameras. Amongst the more interesting stuff is the graph below:<img src="http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dynamicrange/jpeg-transfer-fcn.a.gif" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" />Figure 5a. Jpeg image values plotted against 16-bit linear image values shows the jpeg transfer function (the default contrast on the 10D). Note that the jpeg saturates at about half the level of the 16-bit data. The 16-bit file has a greater than 1 stop increase in dynamic range before data saturation compared to the jpeg image. Of course, as long as computer displays and printers are low-dynamic range as well as low dynamic presicion, the increased precision of the raw file matters little unless you are planning to post-process that image with exposure compensation etc.-k</blockquote>

[QUOTE="knutinh, post: 102071, member: 14776"] the discussion of raw vs jpg for cameras is very different from wether or not to support raw in mp. I cant see the big use for diect support of raw images in mp if its going to take some work, as long as external conversion is simple and hardly consumes extra hd space. If you as a serious photographer, he'll likely tell you that raw is preferred for capture because you are using the entire dynamic range of the sensor, not only 8 bits. [url]http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/[/url] This guy has done a lot of testing on digital and analog cameras. Amongst the more interesting stuff is the graph below: [img]http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dynamicrange/jpeg-transfer-fcn.a.gif[/img] [i]Figure 5a. Jpeg image values plotted against 16-bit linear image values shows the jpeg transfer function (the default contrast on the 10D). Note that the jpeg saturates at about half the level of the 16-bit data. The 16-bit file has a greater than 1 stop increase in dynamic range before data saturation compared to the jpeg image. [/i] Of course, as long as computer displays and printers are low-dynamic range as well as low dynamic presicion, the increased precision of the raw file matters little unless you are planning to post-process that image with exposure compensation etc. -k [/QUOTE]

Verification