canon digital RAW files- whats the point

Discussion in 'Canon' started by nt, Jul 7, 2003.

  1. nt

    Lionel Guest

    There are almost no similarities between processing an image digitally &
    processing it chemically. What is true of one is highly unlikely to be
    true of the other. With film, you have no choice but to make the colour
    balance of your image a close match to the charateristics of the film,
    while electronic sensors are dramatically more forgiving in this
    respect. (While some film types are more flexible than electronic
    sensors in other ways. Please don't get the idea that I'm saying that
    digital is /always/ superior to film.)
    Well, I have no idea what arguments this other person was using, nor do
    I know whether the context was the same as this one, nor do I know their
    level of expertise on the topic. So I'm quite happy to start from
    scratch.
     
    Lionel, Jul 9, 2003
    #41
    1. Advertisements

  2. nt

    Lionel Guest

    No worries, I'll be sure to call on you in the unlikely event that I
    need a scan done by someone who doesn't understand the differences
    between 8 & 16 bit digital colour.
    Your point makes no sense in context. The neutral value is totally
    dependant on the colour mapping being used by the system in question.
    Once it's in the computer, it's all just numbers. The 'meaning' of those
    numbers is assigned by the software that's manipulating them.
    Just to get this back on track, my point is that if (for example) X
    represents a midscale blue value in a system, then the colours
    represented by X=1 & X-1 are going to be harder to distinguish from X in
    a 12 or 16 bit space than they will be in an 8 bit space.
    The aliasing I'm referring to (which results in banding or posterising)
    occurs when you change the colour mapping of your image data, & more
    than one input value maps to the same output value. This is much, much
    more likely to occur in an 8 bit representation than in a 16 bit
    representation. This is why Photoshop has a 16 bit mode, & why
    professionals often use it, despite the fact that you have fewer
    features available to you than in 8 bit mode.
    Because 4 bits can represent only a 16th as many values than 16 bits.
    The knowledge that you don't really understand what you're saying? -
    Most definitely. It becomes clearer with your every post.
     
    Lionel, Jul 9, 2003
    #42
    1. Advertisements

  3. nt

    Miro Guest

    So why does the number of graduations or bit depth make it any less
    distorted when you shift the colour information 15% ?
     
    Miro, Jul 9, 2003
    #43
  4. nt

    Miro Guest

    You are working on the black-box rule. Something for nothing. It's not
    forgiving at all. There is a difference in the colour channels obtained.
    Just because YOU THINK you are getting the same thing doesnt mean YOU ARE.

    If you ever get an 80B filter you will see for yourself. Till then .....
    talk to the hand !
     
    Miro, Jul 9, 2003
    #44
  5. nt

    Bruce Murphy Guest

    So what you're saying is that by running and pretending to laugh, you're
    hoping that noone realises you haven't listed precisely what this 'factory
    training' was, nor what any of your imagined majors are.

    Why don't you stop frantically trying to prentend to be things you're not?

    B>
     
    Bruce Murphy, Jul 9, 2003
    #45
  6. nt

    Lionel Guest

    The digital distortion comes when you attempt to shift the colour
    information 15%, but your bit depth forces the computer to shift it
    14.5%, for example. Worst is when multiple values end up shifted to the
    same value - that's when you get posterisation. This is all extremely
    basic stuff. If you were actually as big an expert as you claim to be, I
    wouldn't be having to explain it to you.
     
    Lionel, Jul 9, 2003
    #46
  7. nt

    Lionel Guest

    You don't have the faintest idea what I'm talking about, do you?
     
    Lionel, Jul 10, 2003
    #47
  8. nt

    Lionel Guest

    Gee, Miro has ignored this post. I wonder why?

    <grin>
     
    Lionel, Jul 10, 2003
    #48
  9. nt

    Lionel Guest

    Yes, if it's reasonably painless to get it right in the shot, it's
    certainly better to do it that way than in the computer. With WB & mild
    colour casts on a digital, it's generally easier in software, especially
    if you're very comfortable with software anyway.
    <grin> You'll get no argument from me on that one.
     
    Lionel, Jul 10, 2003
    #49
  10. nt

    Lionel Guest

    No, I'm not. If you're claiming that, you're going to have to back that
    claim with some actual data, rather than the handwaving you've been
    doing so far.
    And that difference would be what, exactly?
    The same as what?
    What's an 80B filter, & why should I care about it?
     
    Lionel, Jul 10, 2003
    #50
  11. nt

    Miro Guest

    Because I just love watching Bruce flounder.
     
    Miro, Jul 10, 2003
    #51
  12. nt

    Miro Guest

    You dont have the faintest idea why your comments are disconnected from my
    points.
     
    Miro, Jul 10, 2003
    #52
  13. nt

    Lionel Guest

    Um, that's debatable. In one sense (that any manipulation of a digital
    image /can/ result in some data loss) he's got a point, but the
    impression he's trying to give (that putting a filter on the lens of a
    digital camera is less lossy than fixing WB in software) is incorrect.
     
    Lionel, Jul 10, 2003
    #53
  14. nt

    Lionel Guest

    Yes, that's quite a good analogy.
     
    Lionel, Jul 10, 2003
    #54
  15. nt

    Miro Guest

    Talk to the hand.
     
    Miro, Jul 10, 2003
    #55
  16. nt

    Lionel Guest

    Well then, you better start explaining, hadn't you? You see, it sure
    looks like I've successfully called your bluff - just like Bruce has
    with your claim to be 'factory-trained' on various things. Funny how you
    keep forgetting to reveal who conducted this training, who you worked
    for, or what machines you were trained on.
    <sarcasm>
    A more cynical person than myself might be tempted to believe that you
    just made all that stuff up, but I'm *sure* you'll be able to tell us
    all about this training of yours, eh Miro?
    </sarcasm>

    PS: I notice that you haven't said anything about who Foley & Van Dam
    are.
    I'm sure you'll be pleased to know that I've been keeping track of all
    the points you've side-stepped in this thread, & will be more than happy
    to list them when you claim to have won the debate.
     
    Lionel, Jul 10, 2003
    #56
  17. nt

    Lionel Guest

    Miro, you're a bullshit artist & a complete dickhead.

    HTH!

    Cheers,

    Lionel.
     
    Lionel, Jul 10, 2003
    #57
  18. nt

    Miro Guest

    Stick to fax machines.
     
    Miro, Jul 10, 2003
    #58
  19. nt

    Lionel Guest

    Heh. Good to you see admit defeat so gracefully.
     
    Lionel, Jul 10, 2003
    #59
  20. nt

    auspics Guest

    Hmm...
    Sorry Ken. I realise now it was Bruce Murphy.
    Probably confused you with him because of the same "bash Miro" attitude you
    have.
    JT
     
    auspics, Jul 10, 2003
    #60
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.