Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="WayneF" data-source="post: 377714" data-attributes="member: 12496">Binary math is right, and Raw is very good, but not quite that good.&nbsp; <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />&nbsp; Raw suffers from the Bayer pattern.&nbsp;&nbsp; One JPG pixel is three RGB colors.&nbsp; One Raw pixel is one color, R or G or B.&nbsp;&nbsp; So RGB from Raw has to be interpolated from neighboring pixels too.&nbsp; This is a loss of ultimate resolution, and is one reason for megapixels in excess of any reasonable print size.This is of course all true about the camera JPG too, original source is the Raw.Really, the JPG vs Raw argument is mostly just about if the camera automatic processing finishes it (converts to JPG), using camera settings we probably set months ago (not related to THIS scene at all).&nbsp; And the camera tools, like White Balance, are pretty crude, rarely just right.&nbsp; We don't know the correct color to specify, not until we see the result.Or does Raw software allow US to do it, based on the results we can SEE happened in this specific image, so we KNOW what will be the best course.That conversion is 12 or 14 bits either way. &nbsp;However, subsequent JPG processing because the camera did it poorly, is 8 bits.&nbsp; Also, then the first work has to be UNDONE, additional data shifting, in that 8 bits.It really comes down to how much you care about your images.&nbsp; Make do, good enough, or you want it better?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="WayneF, post: 377714, member: 12496"] Binary math is right, and Raw is very good, but not quite that good. :) Raw suffers from the Bayer pattern. One JPG pixel is three RGB colors. One Raw pixel is one color, R or G or B. So RGB from Raw has to be interpolated from neighboring pixels too. This is a loss of ultimate resolution, and is one reason for megapixels in excess of any reasonable print size. This is of course all true about the camera JPG too, original source is the Raw. Really, the JPG vs Raw argument is mostly just about if the camera automatic processing finishes it (converts to JPG), using camera settings we probably set months ago (not related to THIS scene at all). And the camera tools, like White Balance, are pretty crude, rarely just right. We don't know the correct color to specify, not until we see the result. Or does Raw software allow US to do it, based on the results we can SEE happened in this specific image, so we KNOW what will be the best course. That conversion is 12 or 14 bits either way. However, subsequent JPG processing because the camera did it poorly, is 8 bits. Also, then the first work has to be UNDONE, additional data shifting, in that 8 bits. It really comes down to how much you care about your images. Make do, good enough, or you want it better? [/QUOTE]

Verification