FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic Closednew sony alpha to be launched in june/july; news?

Page  123 25>
Author
Turerkan View Drop Down
Emeritus group
Emeritus group
Moderator emeritus

Joined: 11 February 2006
Location: Turkey
Status: Offline
Posts: 6253
Direct Link To This Post Topic: new sony alpha to be launched in june/july; news?
    Posted: 03 August 2007 at 10:16
summarised very well by thingomy

like somebody else said (too lazy to look up:P) this thread really has completed its lifetime. Thanks for everyone who has participated!

thread locked.
 



Back to Top
thingomy View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 11 July 2007
Country: United Kingdom
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Posts: 204
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 August 2007 at 10:11
Originally posted by foot foot wrote:

Originally posted by vbpholaw vbpholaw wrote:

You cannot adjust the white balance of a JPEG file, nor can you adjust the "exposure."


actually, in many programs, you can. It's just without the extra pixel bits that RAW provides that in some images the results can be pretty blotchy and not pretty. I know this, i've tried it.

It's not just that jpeg is 8 bits vs 12/16 bits for RAW, it's that jpeg was designed to lossy compress by throwing away more of the blue color channel information. This was a design decision since the human eye is less sensitive to blue than the other color channels.


Guys -- you are all saying the same thing (with only minor diferences) but in totally diferent ways.

In summery: There are significant benifits to using raw technology over jpegs.

Most of the same techneques are available to both but some are significantly more sucessful on raw due to greater bit depth and lack of compression artifacts.

There are a few techneques such as recovery of blown highlights that are specific to raw processing.
--------------

α7iii; α700; α100; 24-105G; 90m2.8G; 16-80CZ; Min100M2.8; Min50F1.4; Beercan; HVL-F56AM; HVL-F36AM; VG-C70AM; (
Back to Top
dtimoce View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 16 February 2007
Country: France
Status: Offline
Posts: 256
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 August 2007 at 09:04
Well, not even very reliable rumors anymore :)
Back to Top
Girello View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 22 August 2006
Country: Italy
Location: Rome
Status: Offline
Posts: 449
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 August 2007 at 08:13
So, what were we saying...ah, yes...are there any news??
A700, Metz 54 MZ-4

Minolta: 100 f/2 + 50 f/1.7 + 35 f2 RS + 17-35 f/2.8-4

Tamron 70-200/2.8 Di LD IF
Back to Top
foot View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 02 November 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Posts: 601
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 August 2007 at 08:07
Originally posted by vbpholaw vbpholaw wrote:

You cannot adjust the white balance of a JPEG file, nor can you adjust the "exposure."


actually, in many programs, you can. It's just without the extra pixel bits that RAW provides that in some images the results can be pretty blotchy and not pretty. I know this, i've tried it.

It's not just that jpeg is 8 bits vs 12/16 bits for RAW, it's that jpeg was designed to lossy compress by throwing away more of the blue color channel information. This was a design decision since the human eye is less sensitive to blue than the other color channels.
Back to Top
vbpholaw View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 12 March 2007
Country: United States
Location: DC Metro Area
Status: Offline
Posts: 2260
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 August 2007 at 02:06
Originally posted by Turerkan Turerkan wrote:

i think nobody is really listening to me..

i did not say JPEG is equal to RAW.. i said you can use all processing tolls on both of them. and vbpholaw may like to experiment with color balance tool of his preferred PP software.


That may be. (And, I also realize this is way off the original topic of the thread, but to the extent some may still be reading this thread, I think it is useful to clarify certain points.)

I do understand what you said, and you are not correct when you say that you can use all processing tools on both RAW and JPEG. You cannot adjust the white balance of a JPEG file, nor can you adjust the "exposure." You can use levels, curves, color balance, hue and other image adjustment tools to affect the brightness (or darkness), color balance, saturation and other aspects of an image, or part of an image, but you cannot make the same type of adjustments to exposure or white balance (i.e., color temperature) of a JPEG file that you can to a RAW file.

While there are various ways of making adjustments to a JPEG file, you have fewer tools available than you have when processing a RAW file, and don't have the degree of flexibility for controlling other factors such as sharpening. For example, while cameras do offer some settings to control, to a degree, the amount of sharpening to the JPEG file the camera does, it is nowhere near as flexible as what RAW processing offers.

Indeed, some camera's processing algorithms for delivering a JPEG file may not provide nearly the same image quality as you can obtain from a RAW file. Take a look at the recent review of the Leica M8 at dpreview to see just how much better the separately processed RAW file is compared to the JPEG file the camera delivers. I believe the Pentax K10D is another example of a camera whose JPEG processing engine does not deliver the full quality the camera is capable of providing.

I understand that not everyone may want to take the time to process RAW files (though new applications like Lightroom and Aperture make it far easier than ever before), and may prefer to shoot JPEGs for any number of reasons. But, it is not particularly helpful to suggest that all the processing adjustments available for a RAW file are also available for JPEG files.
 



Back to Top
Turerkan View Drop Down
Emeritus group
Emeritus group
Moderator emeritus

Joined: 11 February 2006
Location: Turkey
Status: Offline
Posts: 6253
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 August 2007 at 23:37
i think nobody is really listening to me..

i did not say JPEG is equal to RAW.. i said you can use all processing tolls on both of them. and vbpholaw may like to experiment with color balance tool of his preferred PP software.

Back to Top
vbpholaw View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 12 March 2007
Country: United States
Location: DC Metro Area
Status: Offline
Posts: 2260
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 August 2007 at 23:30
Originally posted by Turerkan Turerkan wrote:

Davey: what i mean was (and you can pick it up if you read previous posts than mine) RAW doesnt open new paths of processing, it just makes some paths more viable/easier or whatever you may think of. But still, anything you do to your RAW files is also available, and can be done to JPEG files.


That simply is not true. In processing a RAW file, you can change the white balance setting to fix any color casts due to having a wrong WB setting when you took the photograph, or the camera's inability to automatically adjust the WB correctly (or simply for creative purposes). You also have more latitude in dealing with exposure errors, being able to recover detail in areas where there is up to about one-stop of overexposure. With a jpeg file, you are stuck with the WB setting the camera came up with (or you set intentionally), and overexposed areas are not recoverable - once a highlight is blown out it's blown out (the tests at dpreview show that shooting in RAW provides greater dynamic range than shooting jpegs). There are other related advantages RAW offers, including the ability to process an image several times, such as once for the highlights and then again for the shadows, and then combine the processed images using something like Photoshop's HDR feature to create a photograph with greater dynamic range than you would otherwise obtain. The bottom line is that shooting RAW provides the photographer with greater flexibility in processing the final image than does shooting in jpeg.
Back to Top
CTYankee View Drop Down
Emeritus group
Emeritus group
Moderator emeritus

Joined: 02 November 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Posts: 3511
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 August 2007 at 22:46
Originally posted by Davey Davey wrote:

RAW files are 16-bit. JPEG are only 8-bit. To say that there is no advantage shooting RAW over JPEG is incorrect.

RAW holds at least double the information which is crucial for things like enlargements and editing curves, exposures, etc.


I'm not sure how the 12 bit representations of luminance values make images any more enlargable than 8 bit jpegs. Part of the 12 bit representation provides for greater granularity, but part of it is used to save information for a greater dynamic range (as in "rescuing lost highlight detail") So in high DR shots, PPing your own raw file can preserve more of that range than using the out of camera jpeg.

As for editing curves, etc, some PP 'experts' argue that working with a 16 bit file (which you would save from your raw processor, but which doesn't really contain any more granularity than the 12 bit original) as much as possible prevents posterization or information loss (through repeated edits) while others remain convinced that it doesn't matter by the time you print.

April Foolishness
CZ16-80 | 28-75D | 28/2 | 85/1.4 | 70-300G | 400G
Back to Top
Hobgoblin View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 25 November 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Posts: 1512
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 August 2007 at 22:18
Originally posted by samir samir wrote:

people, for your information we are in August, how about closing this thread...?

28 pages?!?

Mr Sony please release that(those) camera(s) so that we can move on with our lives :)


Could be June/July 2008 at the rate things are moving :-(
Back to Top
samir View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 30 September 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Posts: 860
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 August 2007 at 21:46
people, for your information we are in August, how about closing this thread...?

28 pages?!?

Mr Sony please release that(those) camera(s) so that we can move on with our lives :)
Back to Top
pepcok View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie

Joined: 20 December 2005
Location: Czech Republic
Status: Offline
Posts: 116
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 August 2007 at 21:23
Turerkan:
yes, you can do the same to both RAW and JPEG, but the result doesn't have to be the same ;) imagine a blue sky, you do some curves operations in JPEG and the result is posterization in the sky, due to small amount of tones. In 12bits this can be much better, in terms of the result quality.
Back to Top
Turerkan View Drop Down
Emeritus group
Emeritus group
Moderator emeritus

Joined: 11 February 2006
Location: Turkey
Status: Offline
Posts: 6253
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 August 2007 at 21:07
Davey: what i mean was (and you can pick it up if you read previous posts than mine) RAW doesnt open new paths of processing, it just makes some paths more viable/easier or whatever you may think of. But still, anything you do to your RAW files is also available, and can be done to JPEG files.

hope you got my point..
Back to Top
mhohner View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 14 October 2006
Country: Germany
Status: Offline
Posts: 1724
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 August 2007 at 20:55
Actually, current Minolta and Sony RAW files carry 12 bits per photo site.
Back to Top
Dyxum main page >  Forum Home > Equipment forums > Camera Talk > A-mount APS-C Page  123 25>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.063 seconds.

Monitor calibration strip

Dyxum.com - Home of the alpha system photographer

In memory of Cameron Hill - brettania

Feel free to contact us if needed.