hello, i'm new here. i have been reading alot of threads, and i have seen it in a few threads, so i'm curious. i take it it's just another pic format? thx, sos
hello, i'm new here. i have been reading alot of threads, and i have seen it in a few threads, so i'm curious. i take it it's just another pic format? thx, sos
RAW is not "another pic format" -- it is the original, unprocessed image from the camera. Pics may look crude at first but they're more like diamonds in the rough.
hello, i'm new here. i have been reading alot of threads, and i have seen it in a few threads, so i'm curious. i take it it's just another pic format? thx, sos
hello, i'm new here. i have been reading alot of threads, and i have seen it in a few threads, so i'm curious. i take it it's just another pic format? thx, sos
Let me give a shot here.
RAW is NOT a file format. It is actually a lack of a file format. Whereas TIFF, JPEG, GIF, BMP, etc. are all standards that are designed for display or printing purposes, there is NOTHING standard about a RAW file.
What a RAW file is is a direct dump from your camera's sensor as read out by the camera, with a few additional bits of info added to it by the camera for meta-tag, exif and conditional information that can help better develop it. The camera unloads the data from the sensor, does minimal if any processing on it, tags it and drops it into what is called a RAW file.
Pretty much each sensor type, and in some cases each individual camera model have their own format of RAW, and before RAW files can actually be used by most programs they must be developped into some more standard display format or to some more generic semi-RAW format, like Adobe's DNG.
A good analogy would be in comparing it to film...
Most point and shoot digital cameras are like polaroids. You point, you shoot and you look at the end result in the form of a jpeg or tiff file. Just like using a polaroid this means the film has been more processed by the camera, it's made all the development choices for you, and what you get is, for the most part what you get. Yes, you can pixel push the snot out of the results, but there is limited, already processed info in the file.
Working with RAW files is like working with a negative. You get the direct dump out of the sensor and it takes additional processing to turn it into a usable image, but the benefits are that you get EVERY scrap of info the sensor had to give and it hasn't been filtered, altered or processed by the camera. You can bring up or down exposures, tend to get at least 2 more stops of dynamic range to work with, several more bits of color tonality, and so on, giving you complete control over how this RAW data gets processed to make the end resulting picture... Simply put, there is More data and More leeway in the results working with RAW, just like working with negatives in film - Lots of things you can do between negative and final print in film to alter the effects and end results.
I am the sort that if I'm not shooting RAW, either I'm experimenting with a camera, or the camera I'm using can't shoot RAW.
BINGO! All correct, except that the "format" is indeed unique for each and every camera body that produces one. Note that the 20D and 30D use the same sensor, yet require different interpretations. This is because the metadata stored in the nonstandard Makernotes part of EXIF changes with every body--this to cover all the fancy new features.
So it really is getting your unprocessed negative, which you take into your RAW processor and image editor (the "digital darkroom") and produce your final image. In fact, since the RAW processors all simply store a sidecar file outlining the instructions of how to convert the file, you can "print" different variations of each RAW file just like an old film negative--but with even more flexibility (i.e., colro version AND B&W version).
BINGO! All correct, except that the "format" is indeed unique for each and every camera body that produces one. Note that the 20D and 30D use the same sensor, yet require different interpretations. This is because the metadata stored in the nonstandard Makernotes part of EXIF changes with every body--this to cover all the fancy new features.
Not always. I should have probably said "usually different for every model" but there are exceptions. When it comes to CCD sensor cameras, usually every single model is different, because of the nature of CCD sensors and the requirement that the camera do some processing on the data to turn it into an image file at all.
CMOS sensor cameras don't always work that way. Most CMOS sensors pump already formated RAW files that only need have meta-data added and it's ready. The Foveon sensors I know work this way and I'm pretty sure that the Sigma SD-9, Sigma SD-10 and the Polaroid X530 (still available in limited supply but no longer made by Polaroid), for example, all produce interchangible RAW file formats... Infact, the developer for the Polaroid X530 was just a repackaged version of SPP 1.0 by Sigma. I can't say for certain with all cameras but I'm sure there are other cases where different models (and sometimes even different brands) of cameras using identicle (or nearly identicle) CMOS sensors produce totally compatible RAW formats. The format of the Foveon .X3F files didn't make a compatibility change till the third generation of the sensor. I even have a stinking suspicion, but not the time or toys to test it with, that cameras of different brands using identicle CMOS sensors that aren't compatible RAW formats are really only as incompatible as having different file naming conventions.
Oh, and just for note, the compatibility changes between the second and third generation of Foveon Processors, as I heard it, actually wasn't really an incompatiblity issue, but rather incomplete programming, because the coders that put together all the original developers for the X3F file format ignored two portions of the format that were reserved but not implemented till the 3rd sensor, and without that data being processed, the developers simply couldn't determine the resolution of the file being processed, and if the programming had been complete from the get-go, the compatibility would probably have carried over. The older versions of developer code do infact work on Sigma SD-14 RAWs (uses the 3rd gen sensor), but they come out the wrong size and get noise and color distortions from the downsizing.
PS: Because they use the exact same sensor, I'm guessing the SD-14 and the upcoming Sigma DP-1 will use identicle RAW formats.
Comments
RAW is not "another pic format" -- it is the original, unprocessed image from the camera. Pics may look crude at first but they're more like diamonds in the rough.
Here's some reading material
http://dgrin.smugmug.com/gallery/2319310
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
Let me give a shot here.
RAW is NOT a file format. It is actually a lack of a file format. Whereas TIFF, JPEG, GIF, BMP, etc. are all standards that are designed for display or printing purposes, there is NOTHING standard about a RAW file.
What a RAW file is is a direct dump from your camera's sensor as read out by the camera, with a few additional bits of info added to it by the camera for meta-tag, exif and conditional information that can help better develop it. The camera unloads the data from the sensor, does minimal if any processing on it, tags it and drops it into what is called a RAW file.
Pretty much each sensor type, and in some cases each individual camera model have their own format of RAW, and before RAW files can actually be used by most programs they must be developped into some more standard display format or to some more generic semi-RAW format, like Adobe's DNG.
A good analogy would be in comparing it to film...
Most point and shoot digital cameras are like polaroids. You point, you shoot and you look at the end result in the form of a jpeg or tiff file. Just like using a polaroid this means the film has been more processed by the camera, it's made all the development choices for you, and what you get is, for the most part what you get. Yes, you can pixel push the snot out of the results, but there is limited, already processed info in the file.
Working with RAW files is like working with a negative. You get the direct dump out of the sensor and it takes additional processing to turn it into a usable image, but the benefits are that you get EVERY scrap of info the sensor had to give and it hasn't been filtered, altered or processed by the camera. You can bring up or down exposures, tend to get at least 2 more stops of dynamic range to work with, several more bits of color tonality, and so on, giving you complete control over how this RAW data gets processed to make the end resulting picture... Simply put, there is More data and More leeway in the results working with RAW, just like working with negatives in film - Lots of things you can do between negative and final print in film to alter the effects and end results.
I am the sort that if I'm not shooting RAW, either I'm experimenting with a camera, or the camera I'm using can't shoot RAW.
So it really is getting your unprocessed negative, which you take into your RAW processor and image editor (the "digital darkroom") and produce your final image. In fact, since the RAW processors all simply store a sidecar file outlining the instructions of how to convert the file, you can "print" different variations of each RAW file just like an old film negative--but with even more flexibility (i.e., colro version AND B&W version).
http://www.chrislaudermilkphoto.com/
Not always. I should have probably said "usually different for every model" but there are exceptions. When it comes to CCD sensor cameras, usually every single model is different, because of the nature of CCD sensors and the requirement that the camera do some processing on the data to turn it into an image file at all.
CMOS sensor cameras don't always work that way. Most CMOS sensors pump already formated RAW files that only need have meta-data added and it's ready. The Foveon sensors I know work this way and I'm pretty sure that the Sigma SD-9, Sigma SD-10 and the Polaroid X530 (still available in limited supply but no longer made by Polaroid), for example, all produce interchangible RAW file formats... Infact, the developer for the Polaroid X530 was just a repackaged version of SPP 1.0 by Sigma. I can't say for certain with all cameras but I'm sure there are other cases where different models (and sometimes even different brands) of cameras using identicle (or nearly identicle) CMOS sensors produce totally compatible RAW formats. The format of the Foveon .X3F files didn't make a compatibility change till the third generation of the sensor. I even have a stinking suspicion, but not the time or toys to test it with, that cameras of different brands using identicle CMOS sensors that aren't compatible RAW formats are really only as incompatible as having different file naming conventions.
Oh, and just for note, the compatibility changes between the second and third generation of Foveon Processors, as I heard it, actually wasn't really an incompatiblity issue, but rather incomplete programming, because the coders that put together all the original developers for the X3F file format ignored two portions of the format that were reserved but not implemented till the 3rd sensor, and without that data being processed, the developers simply couldn't determine the resolution of the file being processed, and if the programming had been complete from the get-go, the compatibility would probably have carried over. The older versions of developer code do infact work on Sigma SD-14 RAWs (uses the 3rd gen sensor), but they come out the wrong size and get noise and color distortions from the downsizing.
PS: Because they use the exact same sensor, I'm guessing the SD-14 and the upcoming Sigma DP-1 will use identicle RAW formats.