RAW Really Means RAW?

[table1349]

Someone has WAY too much free time on their hands. The TPF database must be near full of BS.

Call these guys:
http://www.sewerhistory.org/images/bm/bms3/1944_bms307.jpg

 

[KmH]

uncompressed 8-bit interpolated image file: 9,801 pixels * 24 bits per pixel = 28 kilobytes
BAYER (uninterpolated): 10,000 sensors * 12 bits per sensor = 15 kilobytes

An 8-bit interpolated file is still only 8-bits per image pixel, though an 8-bit image is often referred to as a 24-bit image because of the 3 channels (RGB) used to display the image.

Digital camera - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Gavjenks]

uncompressed 8-bit interpolated image file: 9,801 pixels * 24 bits per pixel = 28 kilobytes
BAYER (uninterpolated): 10,000 sensors * 12 bits per sensor = 15 kilobytes

An 8-bit interpolated file is still only 8-bits per image pixel, though an 8-bit image is often referred to as a 24-bit image because of the 3 channels (RGB) used to display the image.

Digital camera - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We are specifically talking about 8-bit interpolated PNG and JPEG files, which are three-channel 24 bits per pixel.

There may very well be some other format that is interpolated and only 8 bits for each pixel total, but JPEG ain't it.

 

[480sparky41 40]

Well, gee. Let's simplify it. One raw pixel contains one number. One JPEG pixel contains three numbers. So why isn't a JPEG file THREE TIMES larger than a raw?

...because the three numbers are each smaller than the one number is. It's like saying "a loaf of bread is one thing, and three slices of bread are three things, so why aren't the slices of bread three times bigger?"

JPEGS are 8 bit files. That means that every color value ranges from 1 to 256, and it uses 8 bits of computer memory to store.

RAW files are usually at a minimum (and what we have been using in this example) 12 bits. That means that every color value ranges from 1 to 4096, and it uses 12 bits of computer memory to store.


12 x 1 = 12 (12 bits per color x 1 color)
8 x 3 = 24 (8 bits per color x 3 colors)
24 = TWICE as large as 12, not three times.


The fact that the numbers are larger in raw files for each color is precisely the reason, in fact, why shooting in raw gives you more post processing latitude than shooting in jpeg, because those extra 4 (or more) bits give you intermediate tonal values that allow you to stretch and mess around with colors and lightness during conversion without getting posterization.

Thanks for the remedial math class. I learned absolutely nothing from it.

Now I've heard everything.

Yes, it will. Since 24 is twice as large as 12 per pixel and photosensor respectively, the ratio of file size will approach exactly 2:1 as the sensor gets larger. While the sensor is small, file overhead data and the fact that there are slightly more sensors on the edge will keep the ratio slightly under 2:1. But as the square gets larger and data takes up more of the file, it will become almost perfectly 2:1.

You obviously didn't read my post. Try going back and read it. Pay attention this time, however.

.......... I'm not calling Sparky names, etc.

No further comment.

I'm punching out.

 

[KmH]

We are specifically talking about 8-bit interpolated PNG and JPEG files, which are three-channel 24 bits per pixel.

So according to that statement, an interpolated Raw file has 48 bits per pixel (16 bits per RGB color channel), unless the color bit-depth is subsequently reduced.

 

[Derrel]

Don't worry fellas...Derrel will make it look like an accident!!!!


I will forget to set the camera to RAW, and accidentally shoot in JPEG mode...

 

[Gavjenks]

We are specifically talking about 8-bit interpolated PNG and JPEG files, which are three-channel 24 bits per pixel.

So according to that statement, an interpolated Raw file has 48 bits per pixel (16 bits per RGB color channel), unless the color bit-depth is subsequently reduced.

...Um, no. I said PNG and JPEG files (which happen to be interpolated if they originated from a camera image) have 3 channels at 8 bits each, for a total of 24 bits per pixel. There's no secret hidden messages or implications involved about RAW. It's a straightforward fact about two non-RAW filetypes.

Thanks for the remedial math class. I learned absolutely nothing from it.

I'm sorry to hear that. Here are two other more visual methods for you, in case you are a visual learner:




Or if you prefer seeing the binary laid out, four uncompressed jpeg pixels would require something like this on a storage medium:
(11110010)(10111010)(10100101) (01011101)(01001010)(10110010) (10100101)(01010011)(10101010) (10101010)(01010101)(11010101)

While four uncompressed uninterpolated RAW sites would require something like:
(010110101110) (100111010101) (010010000011) (101010110011)

 

[o hey tyler]

Here is the answer that wins the thread. Almost every other post is irrelevant.

Shoot jpeg if you don't want to process your images.

Shoot raw if you do want to process your images.

End of story. No more math. No more interpolation. That's the clear cut answer. Raw gives your more processing latitude and the superfluous BS posted in this thread is mostly unimportant and straying from the real question.

PS you're welcome.

 

[cowleystjames]

Here is the answer that wins the thread. Almost every other post is irrelevant.

Shoot jpeg if you don't want to process your images.

Shoot raw if you do want to process your images.

End of story. No more math. No more interpolation. That's the clear cut answer. Raw gives your more processing latitude and the superfluous BS posted in this thread is mostly unimportant and straying from the real question.

PS you're welcome.

Thank you for simplifying, this post was getting way boring.......

 

[Helen B]

Here is the answer that wins the thread. Almost every other post is irrelevant.

Shoot jpeg if you don't want to process your images.

Shoot raw if you do want to process your images.

End of story. No more math. No more interpolation. That's the clear cut answer. Raw gives your more processing latitude and the superfluous BS posted in this thread is mostly unimportant and straying from the real question.

PS you're welcome.

Nice, condescending answer. Shame that it seems to talk down (way down, in this case) to the OP and it doesn't seem to answer the OP's questions.

Would you prefer that a completely incorrect answer be left uncorrected? What would you prefer to have happened after Gavjenks said that raw files are already debayered? I would truly like to know - you are clearly so much wiser that the rest of us in these matters.

 

[Overread17 5]

Ok people seriously CLAM DOWN!

Firstly if you don't like a discussion just close the tab and move on - wise cracks that you find it boring or dull are simply childish. Go find something you do enjoy and contribute to that instead of running down other peoples threads.

Secondly if someone isn't understanding something or is misinterpreting it either take the time to correct them and provide additional information or click the little X button and move onto another tab if you can't/don't want to. Again these childish remakes are getting old and tired and some of you are doing it way too often!

Now enough drama back to discussing the topic at hand

 

[IByte]

Ok people seriously CLAM DOWN!

Firstly if you don't like a discussion just close the tab and move on - wise cracks that you find it boring or dull are simply childish. Go find something you do enjoy and contribute to that instead of running down other peoples threads.

Secondly if someone isn't understanding something or is misinterpreting it either take the time to correct them and provide additional information or click the little X button and move onto another tab if you can't/don't want to. Again these childish remakes are getting old and tired and some of you are doing it way too often!

Now enough drama back to discussing the topic at hand

Time for big bad Mishy and her whip to calm things down lol.

 

[snerd]

My question was probably somewhat ambiguous. Given that something has to happen to the RAW file in-camera for me to be able to view it, I recognize that some kind of processing has to be done to it. I was referring in general to any processing post-camera. Shot in Neutral or Faithful, anyway, the files are dull and always need some kind of PP applied to them. I guess that's why they're called RAW! Good thread, too. Tame compared to some boards I frequent.

 

[o hey tyler]

Nice, condescending answer. Shame that it seems to talk down (way down, in this case) to the OP and it doesn't seem to answer the OP's questions..

I'm sure you're saying that because you've never exhibited an ounce of condescension in your life?

No my post was not being negative towards the OP. it was directed towards the bickering and over complication of the issue.

 

[amolitor]

Gavjenks also thinks scanners use Bayer arrays. God knows where he thinks the demosaicing takes place.