Re: Linear-light RAW 12bit vs R'G'B' 8bit: how much better is it really?
Re: Linear-light RAW 12bit vs R'G'B' 8bit: how much better is it really?
- Subject: Re: Linear-light RAW 12bit vs R'G'B' 8bit: how much better is it really?
- From: Andrew Rodney <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 13:41:59 -0600
- Thread-topic: Linear-light RAW 12bit vs R'G'B' 8bit: how much better is it really?
On 7/23/07 1:31 PM, "Mark" wrote:
> can someone please explain me why 12 bit linear light RAW images are
> supposed to be much better than gamma corrected 8 bit images?
Better? They are different, I'm not sure you can say better. Raw files are
linear encoded. That's just the way it is. Now the first stop of data
contains half the levels. One might say its better (useful) if you need a
lot of control over highlight rendering as you have a lot of data to work
with. The downside is, in such a file, the last stop of data has precious
few levels. Plus that's where all the noise is seen. So exposure is critical
in getting as much data to the right (highlights) without blowing them out
or the results are less data in the shadows. But this isn't better, its just
the way it. Ultimately you'll end up in a gamma correct space after
rendering the image as you wish in the Raw converter.
> If it is like that, what's the big point in shooting RAW?
One of the big points of shooting Raw is your control over the rendering.
Its explained in Karl Lang's paper that got a few kooks out from the
woodwork discussing the evil Adobe empire instead of the content of the
paper:
http://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/family/prophotog
rapher/pdfs/pscs3_renderprint.pdf
Andrew Rodney
http://www.digitaldog.net/
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Colorsync-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden