- Joined
- Jul 9, 2014
- Messages
- 337
- Reaction score
- 116
You are perfectly right Malcolm, all files are processed from the sensor, even raw files.
Sizes matches as normal, jpg around 4mb, dng around 40mb, so its not there were the problem lays...
RAW is processed, JPG is not
- Thread starter gr8pics
- Start date
Sizes matches as normal, jpg around 4mb, dng around 40mb, so its not there were the problem lays...
I see nothing wrong or unexpected with this file. Below you find it with all settings set to 0 except contrast which I set to -100 for a super-flat look (also removed sharpening and noise-reduction).
The raw files are stored as uncompressed mosaic 16 bits per pixel. The varying fileside of dng is due to a basic jpeg and metadata included in the dng.
The raw files are stored as uncompressed mosaic 16 bits per pixel. The varying fileside of dng is due to a basic jpeg and metadata included in the dng.
Agreed the dng file posted looks completely normal to me as well. I don't see any processing.
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2014
- Messages
- 337
- Reaction score
- 116
With all due respect Tomas, i know how this works, im a professional photographer, and have processed hundred thousands of raw files over the years, i do this for a living.
Did you open the jpg file as well?
Please open the default dng in PS, and do the same with the jpg file, screenshot both, and please post it here after so we can see.
It is much easier if you explain what is wrong with the dng as I (and others) cannot find the problem. As dng is meant for a workflow with post-processing, the out-of-the-box look is more-or-less irrelevant.
Again, I set contrast to -100 and we get the same flat look. Let me repeat that dng is meant (only) for a workflow with postprocessing.
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2014
- Messages
- 337
- Reaction score
- 116
Why you keep explaining what a raw file is, just to troll?
You are still on the old file, i can see it, cause its says "open copy" on your button in the post processing app of yours called "raw plugin"
So let me do it for you then, again, and this time side by side.
Still dont see the difference?
I don't know how to reply to this but let me try regardless. You find all the settings on the right-hand side of my screengrabs. The only adjustment made to both files is setting contrast to -100 and removing sharpness and noise-reduction.
Edit: What your screengrab shows is contrast set to 0.
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2014
- Messages
- 337
- Reaction score
- 116
I thought you knew what a raw file is.
I have repeatedly said, that the jpg version is the one looking like a raw, and the other way around. I didnt tell you to start adjusting the raw to make it look like as flat as the jpg, but even after you did, the jpg is still flatter than your adjusted raw.
I have repeatedly said, that the jpg version is the one looking like a raw, and the other way around. I didnt tell you to start adjusting the raw to make it look like as flat as the jpg, but even after you did, the jpg is still flatter than your adjusted raw.
I understand that, but it is of no consequence as it is only a starting point. (for jpeg, however, it is "final").
Below you find your picture after a one-minute edit. Again, I see no problems here.
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2014
- Messages
- 337
- Reaction score
- 116
Still you dont get it Tomas, problem is not wether its possible to edit or not, its more than enough data for this in raw, thats the advantage of it, but when it comes out processed, it gives me even less range of stretching the file compared to if it was neutral.
If shadow areas have been processed to almost pitch black due to high contrast applied, then those shadow areas will start to crack much sooner, and noise will appear, and i loose the advantage of having the 12 stops of DR i want on this camera, thats already not the best you can get, thats why all margin counts here.
If shadow areas have been processed to almost pitch black due to high contrast applied, then those shadow areas will start to crack much sooner, and noise will appear, and i loose the advantage of having the 12 stops of DR i want on this camera, thats already not the best you can get, thats why all margin counts here.
The dng is a uncompressed, 16 bit per pixel mosaic of the sensor data. The jpeg is produced from the same source-data and has no additional range even if it has a very flat look applied. This is in other words the best you will get from this sensor. We can of-course hope for even better sensors in later iterations of the phantom, but I for one am very pleased given the price-range (my D810 ofcourse has much more data available in the raw-files, but flying would be extremely costly and also inconvenient).
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2014
- Messages
- 337
- Reaction score
- 116
Okay Tomas, you didnt get any of this thread.
I didnt ask what a raw file is, i asked why the jpg comes out flat like a raw normally does, and the other way around... Anyway, there are others here that understand what im talking about.
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2014
- Messages
- 337
- Reaction score
- 116
Exactly!
Exactly!!!
Raw file is not suppose to come out as "normal" like a jpg, and here everything have been turned around.
Jpg looks like how a raw is suppose to look like unprocessed, and raw looks like a "finished" jpg.
Exactly!!!
Raw file is not suppose to come out as "normal" like a jpg, and here everything have been turned around.
Jpg looks like how a raw is suppose to look like unprocessed, and raw looks like a "finished" jpg.
Similar threads
