I have no problems with browsing in PSCS - what are your concerns there? I only have the 5050 files to compare at this stage.
MS to support RAW
- Thread starter fpoole
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
Has anyone tried Raw Shooter? Jim (Swimswithsharks) turned me onto it at CCV. I haven't used it for adjustments but it sure makes looking through your files alot easier. One very handy little thing is you can mark each pic with a number, 1-2-3, and sort them. It was very handy to go through all the files to make the cuts.
Oh yeah...it's free!
Oh yeah...it's free!
ChrisA
Contributor
drbill:
Dr. bill,
Short answer is "No".
The term "RAW" today when applied to difital camera means "As read off the sensor with no additional processing applied". the camera sensor has pixels each covered with a colored filter, either red, greem or blue. With only three colors it is hard to evenly fill a square array so they either use two greens in each group of four pixels or two different shades of green.
or maybe even leave one unfiltered Some arrays are not even square.
Displayable images have an RBG valve for each pixel location so there is some interpolation required to convert from RAW to say TIFF and then some compression to get to JPG. RAW likley has 10 bit quantization too. RAW is generally just the bits as they came out of the analog to digital converter.
I do know something space based imaging and believe me, the image you got was anything but "RAW" in the above sense. The images you worked with were likely made with a device that works more like a scanner then a camera and "color" images were made by taking multiple monochrome imes through a set of bandpass filters. Likely the filters used to make the image were not RGB. Likely at least one band was in the IR. They called it RAW because it was not formatted into a more standard format like TIFF. What you got was almost certainly higly processed imagery.
Reading a RAW camera formatis easy. What's hard is converting it to adisplayable image. This required interpolation as the camera did not measure every color at every pixel location for some images. What is the best way to interpolate? Bi-cubic,linear or what? It depends on what is being photographed. Fine tuning of the color balance and exposure can also be done durring the converion. The best RAW readers give the uers good control of the process. The RAW converter built into the camera has t take some short cuts
lamont
Contributor
ChrisA:
crud, there goes my idea of reverse engineering the RAW format. probably easier to take photoshop apart with a debugger and reverse engineer the algorithm and i don't have that kind of spare time...
ChrisA
Contributor
lamont:
You don't need to reverse engineering the RAW format. There already exists an Open Sourse library for reading "RAW" formats.
http://www.cybercom.net/~dcoffin/dcraw/
One of the advantages of this package is that it supports well over 100 cameras from Nikon, Canon, Kodak, and most others.
Like many Open Source software package this one outperforms the "Windows only" software
supplied by the camera manufactures but required more from the user. Kind of like the
difference between a DSLR and a point and shoot.
lamont
Contributor
ChrisA:
SWEET! that's what i've been looking for...
Similar threads
