Interesting article on RAW vs. JPEG

[EuropeanSwallow]

Found this article (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm) on this Slashdot article (http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/25/1240219) about Adobe claiming it has a hard time supporting Nikon (sorry for bad-mouthing ;)) encripted white balance information in its D2X RAW files, because of DMCA constraints.

More on the RAW format discussion (specially interesting for Free Software supporters) here (http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/25/0511241) and here (http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/23/2050249).

[Jesper]

Here's a website: http://www.openraw.org
for people who want to get the manufacturers to be open about their RAW formats.

[Medic1]

Interesting stuff.....

[Hellashot]

Written for the common camera user.

[tim]

The /. article does raise an interesting point. The individual RAW formats are dumps from the sensor, would open raw impose limitations on the camera manufacturer that would cause problems or loss of quality? I'd rather have a very high quality propriety RAW than a high quality open RAW.

[EuropeanSwallow]

The individual RAW formats are dumps from the sensor, would open raw impose limitations on the camera manufacturer that would cause problems or loss of quality?

Why do you think it would be so? Why would they take that step if they are already being reverse engineered with success?

[mdm]

Errrr, jpeg is looking better all the time.

[CappuccinoDavid]

Well I use RAW because I want all I can get from my fotos. Same as when I was shooting film, I buy the best film to get the best results.

[mdm]

That article made it sound like if you don't edit the raw image the right way it may not look as good as the camera making a jpeg.

[DocFrankenstein]

It took a half hour to download the images from the 1 Gig flash card, and we never even used the RAW files.
If he values his time so much and can be shooting "the next paid assignment" why can't he invest in a faster cardreader? :confused:

[PhotosGuy]

I agree that RAW should become an open format so that my work doesn't become unreadable in the future.
As an alternative, maybe the holdouts on this issue would like to put a few Billion $s in escrow toward updating their obsolete RAW utilities to conform with future operating systems? ;-) (Like that's going to happen!)

[Jon]

Well, a common RAW would be straightforward enough (please note: I didn't say "easy") for most current sensors. But what about the innovative ones, like Sigma's, with essentially 3 sensors and every pixel has its own R, G, and B values, independently determined. Or Fuji's "SR" extended range sensor, with two sets of sensors contributing to each pixel, but using a more "standard" pixel filtering. Or Sony's "Emerald" replacing one of the normal greens? These may, or may not, in specific, be improvements over the norm, but any time you developed a new approach you'd need to modify the "standard" to accomodate.

Actually, JPEG2000 may be a more practical solution.

[EuropeanSwallow]

Actually, JPEG2000 may be a more practical solution.

The problem is that, in termos of openness, particularly for Free Software implementations, JPEG2000 is heavily patent encumbered...

[Pekka]

Found this article (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm) on this Slashdot article (http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/25/1240219) about Adobe claiming it has a hard time supporting Nikon (sorry for bad-mouthing ;)) encripted white balance information in its D2X RAW files, because of DMCA constraints.

More on the RAW format discussion (specially interesting for Free Software supporters) here (http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/25/0511241) and here (http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/23/2050249).


"If you intend to spend hours twiddling with individual shots or have enough time to waste piddling in chat rooms like this (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=7208834) then go ahead and shoot RAW, just remember to save them as something standardized so you can read them later. If you need loads of great images now then shoot straight to standard JPGs."

Ok, LOL :) This article goes to the recycle bin where it belongs....