JPEG v RAW

On Feb 18, 11:08 pm, "adminforto" <n....DeleteThis@nospam.org> wrote:
> "Blair Howard" <blairh....DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1171826887.809900.211100@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Hi Folks:
>
> > I've just posted an article about the pros and cons of shooting JPEG
> > versus RAW files. Everyone seems to know there are many different
> > kinds of digital files, the two versions above included. Anyway, I've
> > been getting a lot of questions lately asking me to define the
> > difference and why should we use one instead of the other. You can
> > find the article, and others, atwww.blairhoward.com/articles.html.
>
> > Blair
>
> Obviously the JEPEG is better because take less space.
>
> RAW is a simple format but it offers no compression.
>
> For example: SONY DSC-S50 camera's RAW and JEPEG are identical in image
> content but different in file size.
>
> Also RAW does not mean that You get raw output form CCD sensor matrix.
> The raw sensor data is not compatible with raster type images because the
> CCD matrix is not rectangular.

What on earth are you talking about, you might want to read up a bit
on Bayer patterns.

Scott
 >> Stay informed about: JPEG v RAW 

On Feb 18, 9:28 am, "Blair Howard" <blairh... RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hi Folks:
>
> I've just posted an article about the pros and cons of shooting JPEG
> versus RAW files. Everyone seems to know there are many different
> kinds of digital files, the two versions above included. Anyway, I've
> been getting a lot of questions lately asking me to define the
> difference and why should we use one instead of the other. You can
> find the article, and others, atwww.blairhoward.com/articles.html.
>
> Blair

I pretty good write up IMO, thanks.

Scott
 >> Stay informed about: JPEG v RAW 

"Blair Howard" <blairhwrd.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1171826887.809900.211100@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> Hi Folks:
>
> I've just posted an article about the pros and cons of shooting JPEG
> versus RAW files. Everyone seems to know there are many different
> kinds of digital files, the two versions above included. Anyway, I've
> been getting a lot of questions lately asking me to define the
> difference and why should we use one instead of the other. You can
> find the article, and others, at www.blairhoward.com/articles.html.

I take it you didn't proof read it.
 >> Stay informed about: JPEG v RAW 

"Blair Howard" <blairhwrd DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1171826887.809900.211100@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> Hi Folks:
>
> I've just posted an article about the pros and cons of shooting JPEG
> versus RAW files. Everyone seems to know there are many different
> kinds of digital files, the two versions above included. Anyway, I've
> been getting a lot of questions lately asking me to define the
> difference and why should we use one instead of the other. You can
> find the article, and others, at www.blairhoward.com/articles.html.
>
> Blair
>

Obviously the JEPEG is better because take less space.

RAW is a simple format but it offers no compression.

For example: SONY DSC-S50 camera's RAW and JEPEG are identical in image
content but different in file size.

Also RAW does not mean that You get raw output form CCD sensor matrix.
The raw sensor data is not compatible with raster type images because the
CCD matrix is not rectangular.

Because of that technological deficiency all single color CCD images sensor
based camera
produce images with color resolution 3 times worse than B/W.
Manufacturers simply add all RGB elements when calculate MPixel size.
So to find out the real image resolution one need to divide the manufactures
number by 3.
Example: 10 MPixel camera's resolution divide by 3 equals 3,33 MPixel.



http://www.tyrell-innovations-usa.com/shack3d/productinfo/jpsBrown/jps...wnInfo.



http://tyrell-innovations-usa.com/shack3d/
 >> Stay informed about: JPEG v RAW 

dj_nme <dj_nme RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
>adminforto wrote:
>> "Daniel Silevitch" <dmsilev RemoveThis @uchicago.edu> wrote in message
>> news:slrnetj5tu.goh.dmsilev@bardeen.local...
>>
>>>On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 10:08:35 +0100, adminforto <none RemoveThis @nospam.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Also RAW does not mean that You get raw output form CCD sensor matrix.
>>>>The raw sensor data is not compatible with raster type images because the
>>>>CCD matrix is not rectangular.
>>>
>>>No, that's exactly what RAW means. Which, oddly enough, explains the
>>>name.
>
>Not exactly correct.

It is exactly correct unless we distort the meaning of various
terms. When people speak of "processing" in this context they
mean "Image Processing", not "Signal Processing".

Forming image pixels, doing color balance, sharpening and such
assorted image manipulations is "processing". Conversion of the
data from analog to digital is not.

>A RAW file isn't the image data directly from the sensor.

That is exactly what it is. Converting the data from analog to
digital doesn't change that fact, and is *not* image processing,
but rather just data transmission and storage.

>It is processed from the analogue signal the sensor outputs into
>a digital format and then formatted as the manufacturer decides
>into their own RAW file format.

There is no effort made to even make an image out of the data.

It is just raw data from the CCD. The data remains nothing
other than raw sensor data.

You might find it convenient to consider the "sensor" in a
*digital* camera as a block unit labeled "digital sensor", which
is a device that outputs a digital signal. The various
component parts should be ignored.

>If RAW files were the unprocessed data from the sensor, then all
>of the cameras that use the same imaging sensor would produce
>identicaly formated RAW files.

The *data* would be the same, but there is no reason why the
digital representation of the data would be the same, nor is
there any reason why the format of the digital storage mechanism
(the file itself) would be the same.

You are confusing image processing with storage formatting.

>This isn't the case in reality.
>Some cameras are also designed to output a compressed RAW file,
>which is hardly data recorded straight from the image sensor
>into a file.

Yes it is.

....

>RAW files aren't interpolated.

Exactly.

>It is the image signal converted to digital and formatted into a
>file for storage.

It is not an image signal. It is sensor data. There is no
image until it is processed. Digitizing and formatting data
storage is *not* processing an image.

>Interpolation happens with RAW conversion into a bitmap file on
>a computer or when a camera records a image as a jpeg file.

And *that* is indeed image processing.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd RemoveThis @apaflo.com
 >> Stay informed about: JPEG v RAW 

"Scott W" <biphoto.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1171878744.093570.49330@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 18, 11:08 pm, "adminforto" <n....TakeThisOut@nospam.org> wrote:
>> "Blair Howard" <blairh....TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1171826887.809900.211100@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > Hi Folks:
>>
>> > I've just posted an article about the pros and cons of shooting JPEG
>> > versus RAW files. Everyone seems to know there are many different
>> > kinds of digital files, the two versions above included. Anyway, I've
>> > been getting a lot of questions lately asking me to define the
>> > difference and why should we use one instead of the other. You can
>> > find the article, and others, atwww.blairhoward.com/articles.html.
>>
>> > Blair
>>
>> Obviously the JEPEG is better because take less space.
>>
>> RAW is a simple format but it offers no compression.
>>
>> For example: SONY DSC-S50 camera's RAW and JEPEG are identical in image
>> content but different in file size.
>>
>> Also RAW does not mean that You get raw output form CCD sensor matrix.
>> The raw sensor data is not compatible with raster type images because the
>> CCD matrix is not rectangular.
>
> What on earth are you talking about, you might want to read up a bit
> on Bayer patterns.
>
> Scott
>

Does not matter what pattern because none of them are arranged in square
raster like image files.
In order to get raster format camera's processor interpolate RGB components
thus falsifying
the original image of the camera's focal plane.

In analog photography RGB components are aligned in the same area in CCD
they are scattered in patterns.

The only way to get compatible quality is the 3 monochrome CCDs system.

Hope You got it this time.


http://www.tyrell-innovations-usa.com/shack3d/productinfo/jpsBrown/jps...wnInfo.



http://tyrell-innovations-usa.com/shack3d/
 >> Stay informed about: JPEG v RAW 

"Blair Howard" <blairhwrd DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1171826887.809900.211100@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> Hi Folks:
>
> I've just posted an article about the pros and cons of shooting JPEG
> versus RAW files. Everyone seems to know there are many different
> kinds of digital files, the two versions above included. Anyway, I've
> been getting a lot of questions lately asking me to define the
> difference and why should we use one instead of the other. You can
> find the article, and others, at www.blairhoward.com/articles.html.
>
> Blair
>

Your article contains false assumption!

RAW file always contain processed data and in some Cameras
like SONY DSC-S50 the RAW file content is the same as the JPEG one.




http://www.tyrell-innovations-usa.com/shack3d/productinfo/jpsBrown/jps...wnInfo.



http://tyrell-innovations-usa.com/shack3d/
 >> Stay informed about: JPEG v RAW 

"adminforto" <none.TakeThisOut@nospam.org> wrote:
>
>RAW file always contain processed data and in some Cameras
>like SONY DSC-S50 the RAW file content is the same as the JPEG one.

The Sony DSC-S50 produces either TIFF or JPEG files, but does
not provide a RAW format at all, according to the specs that are
easily found with a google search.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd.TakeThisOut@apaflo.com
 >> Stay informed about: JPEG v RAW 

"adminforto" <none.DeleteThis@nospam.org> wrote:
>In some cameras raw file is completely useless because it contains redundant
>data.

Nonsense.

>And some just a copy of JPEG
>content.

Bullshit.

>Some manufactures adopted TIFF file format for storing raw data.

Nonsense.

>In any case to get the exact output from ADCs one need to build his own
>camera.

Or buy one.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd.DeleteThis@apaflo.com
 >> Stay informed about: JPEG v RAW 

"adminforto" <none.RemoveThis@nospam.org> wrote:
>"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd.RemoveThis@apaflo.com> wrote in message
>news:87wt2e9dx9.fld@apaflo.com...
>> "adminforto" <none.RemoveThis@nospam.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>RAW file always contain processed data and in some Cameras
>>>like SONY DSC-S50 the RAW file content is the same as the JPEG one.
>>
>> The Sony DSC-S50 produces either TIFF or JPEG files, but does
>> not provide a RAW format at all, according to the specs that are
>> easily found with a google search.
>
>Yes,
>and they both contain the same JPEG content.

No they don't. And there is *no* RAW file, as you claimed.

>also Minolta and few others adopted TIFF for storing raw data.

TIFF is *not* a raw format.

>http://www.dalibor.cz/minolta/raw_file_format.htm

Your cite demonstrates the opposite of what you claim. You do
understand that using TIFF headers does *not* make it a TIFF
file, right?

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd.RemoveThis@apaflo.com
 >> Stay informed about: JPEG v RAW 

"adminforto" <none RemoveThis @nospam.org> wrote:
>http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/canon_raw.html

You have serious reading comprehension problems. These cites
demonstrate exactly the opposite of what you claim.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd RemoveThis @apaflo.com
 >> Stay informed about: JPEG v RAW 

On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 10:08:35 +0100, adminforto <none RemoveThis @nospam.org> wrote:
>
> Also RAW does not mean that You get raw output form CCD sensor matrix.
> The raw sensor data is not compatible with raster type images because the
> CCD matrix is not rectangular.

No, that's exactly what RAW means. Which, oddly enough, explains the
name.

And I haven't a clue what that second sentence is trying to say.

>
> Because of that technological deficiency all single color CCD images sensor
> based camera
> produce images with color resolution 3 times worse than B/W.
> Manufacturers simply add all RGB elements when calculate MPixel size.
> So to find out the real image resolution one need to divide the manufactures
> number by 3.
> Example: 10 MPixel camera's resolution divide by 3 equals 3,33 MPixel.

Ah. A Foveon fan. I'll simply say that you are incorrect and refer you
to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayer_filter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demosaicing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_image_format

-dms
 >> Stay informed about: JPEG v RAW 

"adminforto" <none.DeleteThis@nospam.org> wrote:
>"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd.DeleteThis@apaflo.com> wrote in message
>news:878xetancm.fld@apaflo.com...
>> "adminforto" <none.DeleteThis@nospam.org> wrote:
>>>"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd.DeleteThis@apaflo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:87wt2e9dx9.fld@apaflo.com...
>>>> "adminforto" <none.DeleteThis@nospam.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>RAW file always contain processed data and in some Cameras
>>>>>like SONY DSC-S50 the RAW file content is the same as the JPEG one.
>>>>
>>>> The Sony DSC-S50 produces either TIFF or JPEG files, but does
>>>> not provide a RAW format at all, according to the specs that are
>>>> easily found with a google search.
>>>
>>>Yes,
>>>and they both contain the same JPEG content.
>>
>> No they don't. And there is *no* RAW file, as you claimed.
>>
>>>also Minolta and few others adopted TIFF for storing raw data.
>>
>> TIFF is *not* a raw format.
>>
>>>http://www.dalibor.cz/minolta/raw_file_format.htm
>>
>> Your cite demonstrates the opposite of what you claim. You do
>> understand that using TIFF headers does *not* make it a TIFF
>> file, right?
>>
>> --
>> Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
>> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd.DeleteThis@apaflo.com
>
>You are twisting my statements.
>
>I've said that they adopted TIFF rather than reinventing the wheel.

Lets be clear: they have *not* "adopted TIFF for storing raw
data". That is what you said, and that is not true.

>Also You are avoiding acknowledgment of dark frame subtraction which is
>an images processing step before raw format is constructed.

It is *not* an image processing step. Think of it as a sensor
adaptive mechanism. It will help if you think of the "digital
sensor" as a block device, and cease considering component parts
such as the CCD and the AD conversion.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd.DeleteThis@apaflo.com
 >> Stay informed about: JPEG v RAW