Peter Galbavy
Member
Just thought I would start a new thread after reading about various opinions in the 300D vs 10D thread.
Speaking from the perspective of someone who occasionally writes software to work on RAW files (see http://www.wonderland.org/crw/ for an old page) here is my personal view;
1. CRW+THM (collectively RAW files) are IMHO like unprocessed digital negatives, while JPEGs are prints. What I mean is that you can reprocess the RAW files over and over again, using different settings and even new algorithms and software to get viewable output. JPEGs can also be processed, but the process is always lossy in some way (except rotation and cropping with correct software).
2. 12 bits vs. 8 bits vs. 16 bits; A normal JPEG is encoded as a 24bit image. The underlying encoding is typically NOT RGB, but the conversion from the typical YUV space to RGB is well known an understood. A D30/D60/10D/300D RAW files presents 12 bits per sensor, where each sensor records only one of red, green or blue. The (white balance first - trust me - and then) demosaiking algorithms recombines these into the more normal image you see. A 16 bit TIFF file made from a RAW file is simply presenting the combination of the colours to a precision of 16 bits per colour - think about how many digits you get when you multiply 1.5 by 1.5 (bad analogy to anyone with more technical background, but I am trying to keep this simple).
3. Convertors. My favorite is BreezeBrowser (www.breezesys.com) and the guy who writes it (Chris Breeze) is a UK chap who is very helpful and far easier to deal with than the others (Adobe, Phase One, Canon ...).
4. The Future. Who knows what software and algorithmic inventions will increase the quality of images from RAW files in the future ? I do know for certain that once you smudge the sensor details together as in a JPEG, you can't go back...
It's late, and I am off to bed - my contacts are drying out - so excuse any obvious spelling or possible technical errors. Hope that some of this is helpful to someone.
rgds,
Speaking from the perspective of someone who occasionally writes software to work on RAW files (see http://www.wonderland.org/crw/ for an old page) here is my personal view;
1. CRW+THM (collectively RAW files) are IMHO like unprocessed digital negatives, while JPEGs are prints. What I mean is that you can reprocess the RAW files over and over again, using different settings and even new algorithms and software to get viewable output. JPEGs can also be processed, but the process is always lossy in some way (except rotation and cropping with correct software).
2. 12 bits vs. 8 bits vs. 16 bits; A normal JPEG is encoded as a 24bit image. The underlying encoding is typically NOT RGB, but the conversion from the typical YUV space to RGB is well known an understood. A D30/D60/10D/300D RAW files presents 12 bits per sensor, where each sensor records only one of red, green or blue. The (white balance first - trust me - and then) demosaiking algorithms recombines these into the more normal image you see. A 16 bit TIFF file made from a RAW file is simply presenting the combination of the colours to a precision of 16 bits per colour - think about how many digits you get when you multiply 1.5 by 1.5 (bad analogy to anyone with more technical background, but I am trying to keep this simple).
3. Convertors. My favorite is BreezeBrowser (www.breezesys.com) and the guy who writes it (Chris Breeze) is a UK chap who is very helpful and far easier to deal with than the others (Adobe, Phase One, Canon ...).
4. The Future. Who knows what software and algorithmic inventions will increase the quality of images from RAW files in the future ? I do know for certain that once you smudge the sensor details together as in a JPEG, you can't go back...
It's late, and I am off to bed - my contacts are drying out - so excuse any obvious spelling or possible technical errors. Hope that some of this is helpful to someone.
rgds,