M raw sharper less noise?

If you don't need prints, say larger than 11x14 would you not get sharper prints in m raw than you would in raw? I have read that the pictures would be much sharper, has anyone on this forum made a comparison and does it work? I have just started shooting in raw and doubt that I would be qualified to give a proper answer. I am still pretty new at pp in cs4. Also do you find less noise than shooting in raw?

From people who have analyzed this stuff, I've read that mRaw does not give any IQ benefits over Raw -- you can downsize your Raw file with your own sharpening techniques and you can apply noise reduction to have control over your results (I'd do it before downsizing), whereas with "binning" you give up the finer control. So, at this point the only real advantage is the smaller file size.

There are those, though, who speculate that in the coming years a combination of improved binning technology with crazy higher resolutions could lead to real IQ improvements so that a camera of, say, 60 MPs could produce some fantastic 20/25 MP mRaw images.

Of course that's speculation at this point, but fun to ponder...

Thanks for the follow-up. I know as I shoot more raw I will see the benefit but for most of my stuff jpeg seems to look as good as raw. I still have a lot of learning to do on raw processing though. I checked out your Mnt St Helens photos they are nice. We were out that way a few years ago and drove down there from Mnt Rainier. I am glad we made that trip it was well worth it to see St Helens.

Hey, it's definitely a cool area to visit and explore!

Of course, I'm talking about the Pacific Northwest, but if you do want to explore the whole area of Raw processing, visit our RAW Conversion Thread!

Thanks for the information and website. I see that a lot of people on here use lightroom. I need to check it out.

tonylong wrote in post #12460881
There are those, though, who speculate that in the coming years a combination of improved binning technology with crazy higher resolutions could lead to real IQ improvements so that a camera of, say, 60 MPs could produce some fantastic 20/25 MP mRaw images.

Of course that's speculation at this point, but fun to ponder...

Maybe we can get rid of the crappy AA filters as well. They're not needed 99% of the time and when they are you can usually fix it locally in post so you don't need to soften the entire image.

stlouis_26 wrote in post #12460497
has anyone on this forum made a comparison and does it work?

Yes, I've done a comparison of Raw vs sRaw and posted the results here at POTN. I see no real benefit to it, IMHO.

https://photography-on-the.net …172&highlight=r​aw+vs+sraw

At high ISO, like 6400, my tests indicate that mRAW produces slightly less noise than RAW. However, this is at the expense of some sharpness. I now shoot RAW at ISOs up to and including 3200 but switch to mRAW at 6400 (and 12800 if I have to use it).

Thanks for the information. It is a very informative post that I somehow missed when I was looking through the forums. It sounds like most everyone is recommending staying with raw for detail. Thanks again.

I see a good speed increase in LR when im using mRaw. For me thats a good enough reason to stick with that format.
I see no difference between Raw and mRaw. Im not saying there isnt, just that if i cant see it im not going to worry about it, especially as im normally going down to screen size JPGs.

The only advantage to mRaw is saving card space. Processing time, sharpness, etc are much the same. mRaw isn't a true RAW format, it's kindof a hybrid tiff/raw format, but in practice it's ok.

Here is a thread I started a while back that might be worth viewing.
https://photography-on-the.net …172&highlight=R​aw+vs+sRaw