RAW vs. cRAW

Shatun wrote: I do remember the mp3 inovation time. At that moment a lot of people told that there is no differences and they loafing from others who told that they could hear the difference. The same I can say about Dolby True HD and lossy Dolby Digital. A bit wrong comparation between sound and image but I hope it helps to show my opinion.

Thanks for the good discussion Shatsun. However, I don't agree with the MP3 comparision. Technically, it is clear that MP3 is lossy, and as such it is much more close to JPG for images. cRAW is harder to compare: it is algorithmically almost loss-less and much closer to lossless compression like the huffman used in DNG. If there is some loss of precision, it is hard to quantify how much this is visible since only some precision is lost which (in my opinion) will always fall within the noise.

Wow, I have no had the time to read this thread and didn't realise there were so many stern cRaw zealots around looking for shreds of evidence and documentation approved by the all correct photography authority.

I don't know about some of you guys but I'm no lab monkey so I don't conduct misleading controlled tests that are designed to prove my points. Nor do I like to write dissertations on digital sensor science.

I'm a photographer and I shoot photos.

And if there's one thing that I know about RAW vs cRaw is this:

Firstly unless you have a 12 bit display, no one is viewing a 12 bit image.

When we shoot raw, we have 12 bits data, most of which cannot be viewed at the same time, unless we compress the data, by lifting shadows and pulling highlights.

cRAW DEFINITELY does NOT have the same highlight headroom as a full raw image and it is not possible to pull highlights as much as with a 12 bit raw.

Don't kid yourself that you are viewing a 12bit jpeg after you edit your raw. And 16 bit tiff, wow unless you are loaded and can afford a screen that displays 16 bit images, don't even go there.

craw essentially has the same dynamic range as a jpeg.

14 bit raw takes it to an even higher level where there is immense dynamic range, again, not all viewable at once, but much more can be captured in a single raw file, to be compressed into a viewable 8 bit jpeg.

Your only other option is to take many 8 bit jpgs and make an HDR. but then you still just have 8 bits.

Sorry I didn't pass my phd so I can't back all that up, but feel free to show me your own shreds and documents.

If you don't like what I have to say then you can skip my post and call me a fool. but try shooting a scene one day with craw and then raw and compare your highlight headroom.

Vivec wrote: Hi Gnatsum, Relax, no-one is being a 'zealot' here -- different opinions and viewpoints is what makes Dyxum a lively place gnatsum wrote: I'm a photographer and I shoot photos. That's cool -- and you are right: whehter using craw or raw is probably not going to matter for the photo. Gnatsum wrote: cRAW DEFINITELY does NOT have the same highlight headroom as a full raw image and it is not possible to pull highlights as much as with a 12 bit raw. I respectfully disagree here; read my earlier post for the details: cRaw can accurately represent the highest highlights and darkest darks. The only case where a potential loss of precision occurs in a (super) high contrast range within 16 pixels with subtle hues. But even there, the loss of precision is minimal. Anyway, I have made my points. Everyone can have their own viewpoints and should use what they feel best about -- photography should be fun

cRAW it is then! That's what you said, right?