If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#131
|
|||
|
|||
Mike Russell wrote:
Mike Engles wrote: ... [re linear encoding of specialized pixel data values] Is the same true for imaging from spacecraft, interplanetary or otherwise or is gamma encoding done before transmission? Yes. Gama encoding compresses some data values, and there is no reason to do this to raw data from a spacecraft. Here's an article that may interest you, by Alvy Ray Smith, on the distinction of work and display color spaces. http://alvyray.com/Memos/MemosMicros...rAlphaQuestion -- Mike Russell www.curvemeister.com www.geigy.2y.net Hello What I have just read chimes with everything I think should happen in digital imaging. It does completely contradict everything that has been written about gamma encoding in these and other forums with the necessity for gamma to maximise the use of available bits. ftp://ftp.alvyray.com/Acrobat/9_Gamma.pdf Yet this guy seems to be a pioneer of digital imaging. Also why is image data from spacecraft and astronomy not gamma encoded.It is after all digital photography. They must be transmitting/ recording in at least 18 bit. That is the bit level that Chris Cox et al say is the minimum necessary for linear images, without gamma encoding. It does seem that what we have today is two types of digital imaging. One is the truly scientific one that uses ALL linear data. The other is a convenient engineering one that delivers the goods simply, by pre compensating the linear data to display on non linear displays. Engineers were always happy with approximations. Mike Engles |
#132
|
|||
|
|||
Mike Russell wrote:
Mike Engles wrote: ... [re linear encoding of specialized pixel data values] Is the same true for imaging from spacecraft, interplanetary or otherwise or is gamma encoding done before transmission? Yes. Gama encoding compresses some data values, and there is no reason to do this to raw data from a spacecraft. Here's an article that may interest you, by Alvy Ray Smith, on the distinction of work and display color spaces. http://alvyray.com/Memos/MemosMicros...rAlphaQuestion -- Mike Russell www.curvemeister.com www.geigy.2y.net Hello What I have just read chimes with everything I think should happen in digital imaging. It does completely contradict everything that has been written about gamma encoding in these and other forums with the necessity for gamma to maximise the use of available bits. ftp://ftp.alvyray.com/Acrobat/9_Gamma.pdf Yet this guy seems to be a pioneer of digital imaging. Also why is image data from spacecraft and astronomy not gamma encoded.It is after all digital photography. They must be transmitting/ recording in at least 18 bit. That is the bit level that Chris Cox et al say is the minimum necessary for linear images, without gamma encoding. It does seem that what we have today is two types of digital imaging. One is the truly scientific one that uses ALL linear data. The other is a convenient engineering one that delivers the goods simply, by pre compensating the linear data to display on non linear displays. Engineers were always happy with approximations. Mike Engles |
#133
|
|||
|
|||
In message ,
Timo Autiokari wrote: And, there is no reason to do that to images from digital cameras either, just like Adobe shows to us, the ARC (like most of the other conversion sw too) perform all the processing in the linear domain. I'm not so sure that ACR works in a totally linear domain. Images exposed with bracketing, and compensated to be the same with the exposure slider, may have equal mid-tones, but the shadows and highlights will display that a different gamma is used. If you drag the ACR exposure slider to the left, after it runs out of "hidden highlights", it stretches the highlights so that 4095 in the RAW data stays anchored at 255 in the output, and never gets darker. That is not linear exposure compensation. Optimally, I think that a RAW converter should have two basic exposure controls; one to scale the linear data for exposure adjustments, and another control to fit that to an output curve. Why, for the same reason why linear processing os done in scientific imaging also, to avoid the Gamma Induced Errors. -- John P Sheehy |
#134
|
|||
|
|||
"Mike Engles" wrote in message ... SNIP Also why is image data from spacecraft and astronomy not gamma encoded. It is after all digital photography. Not necessarily. There is a difference between photometric data (e.g. spectral reflection/absorption/emission in certain bands), and pictorial imaging (e.g. stereo pairs in either visible light bands or mixed with other spectral data). One common issue between them is the desire to reduce quantization errors (at least half of the LSB) to a minimum. Gamma encoding provides a visually efficient encoding, but it can underutilize the capacity at the lower, and overutilize (=additional quantization errors) at the higher counts. Then there is the trade-off caused by limited transmission bandwidth, and there is only so much one can do with compression... Bart |
#135
|
|||
|
|||
"Mike Engles" wrote in message ... SNIP Also why is image data from spacecraft and astronomy not gamma encoded. It is after all digital photography. Not necessarily. There is a difference between photometric data (e.g. spectral reflection/absorption/emission in certain bands), and pictorial imaging (e.g. stereo pairs in either visible light bands or mixed with other spectral data). One common issue between them is the desire to reduce quantization errors (at least half of the LSB) to a minimum. Gamma encoding provides a visually efficient encoding, but it can underutilize the capacity at the lower, and overutilize (=additional quantization errors) at the higher counts. Then there is the trade-off caused by limited transmission bandwidth, and there is only so much one can do with compression... Bart |
#136
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ... In message , SNIP I already told what the data was - a binary file with the 16-bit unsigned values 0 through 65535. That's it: 00 00 01 00 02 00 03 00 .... fb ff fc ff fd ff fe ff ff ff load as .raw, 256*256, 1 channel, 16-bit, IBM/PC, 0 header. As a precaution, do make sure that you have set the same gamma for your RGB *and* Gray working spaces and switch the "Use Dither" for 8-bit channel conversions to off. It should not matter when you load the data as "raw" data, but just to make sure they don't interfere. Bart |
#137
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ... In message , SNIP I already told what the data was - a binary file with the 16-bit unsigned values 0 through 65535. That's it: 00 00 01 00 02 00 03 00 .... fb ff fc ff fd ff fe ff ff ff load as .raw, 256*256, 1 channel, 16-bit, IBM/PC, 0 header. As a precaution, do make sure that you have set the same gamma for your RGB *and* Gray working spaces and switch the "Use Dither" for 8-bit channel conversions to off. It should not matter when you load the data as "raw" data, but just to make sure they don't interfere. Bart |
#138
|
|||
|
|||
Kibo informs me that Mike Engles stated
that: It does seem that what we have today is two types of digital imaging. One is the truly scientific one that uses ALL linear data. The other is a convenient engineering one that delivers the goods simply, by pre compensating the linear data to display on non linear displays. The difference is actaully quite simple. With photography, the intention is to produce a final image that is as similar as possible to what a human eye would've seen through the viewfinder, which requires a non-linear response. With scientific imaging, OTOH, the interest is generally in absolute data (eg; number of photons, detecting miniscule light sources, etc), so there's no particular reason to try to approximate the response of the human eye. -- W . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^--------------------------------------------------------------- |
#139
|
|||
|
|||
Kibo informs me that Mike Engles stated
that: It does seem that what we have today is two types of digital imaging. One is the truly scientific one that uses ALL linear data. The other is a convenient engineering one that delivers the goods simply, by pre compensating the linear data to display on non linear displays. The difference is actaully quite simple. With photography, the intention is to produce a final image that is as similar as possible to what a human eye would've seen through the viewfinder, which requires a non-linear response. With scientific imaging, OTOH, the interest is generally in absolute data (eg; number of photons, detecting miniscule light sources, etc), so there's no particular reason to try to approximate the response of the human eye. -- W . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^--------------------------------------------------------------- |
#140
|
|||
|
|||
Bart van der Wolf wrote:
"Mike Engles" wrote in message ... SNIP Also why is image data from spacecraft and astronomy not gamma encoded. It is after all digital photography. Not necessarily. There is a difference between photometric data (e.g. spectral reflection/absorption/emission in certain bands), and pictorial imaging (e.g. stereo pairs in either visible light bands or mixed with other spectral data). One common issue between them is the desire to reduce quantization errors (at least half of the LSB) to a minimum. Gamma encoding provides a visually efficient encoding, but it can underutilize the capacity at the lower, and overutilize (=additional quantization errors) at the higher counts. Then there is the trade-off caused by limited transmission bandwidth, and there is only so much one can do with compression... Bart Hello I would have thought that photographs taken by spacecraft are to be viewed. They would be stored on the spacecraft in a file, prior to relay. It strikes me that if gamma encoding is necessary for terrestrial imaging to maximise the use of a limited number of bits, then that would also apply to space photography. There was a thread in the scanner group, where the expert consensus was that any imaging,storage and processing in a linear domain invited image degradation and posterisation. Yet we find that such linear imaging,storage and processing is common in scientific digital imaging, where one would imagine that extreme accuracy was paramount. Do they use a large number of bits to avoid problems associated with linear storage and processing? The expert consensus was that one would need 18 to 20 bit linear images to match the efficiency of a 8 bit gamma encoded image. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Timo Autiokari has been saying for ages that scientific imaging was done linearly. He has been abused soundly for his claims. We have been told that no one who does serious image processing does it linearly. So all the scientists of the world who regularly do their processing in a linear domain are not really serious and that they are merely FADISTS like Timo Autiokari. Mike Engles |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Sony Cybershot P100 VX '640x480' movie mode is fake | Mark Elkington | Digital Photography | 17 | November 2nd 04 01:24 AM |
What's the D300's "Close-up mode" for? | Darryl | Digital Photography | 10 | September 23rd 04 05:11 PM |
Q-Confused about which picture record mode to use in a digital camera. | Mr. Rather B. Beachen | Digital Photography | 1 | July 13th 04 01:50 AM |
What image quality mode to use? | Mr. Rather B. Beachen | Digital Photography | 2 | July 13th 04 01:21 AM |
wireless 550EX in manual mode with 420EX | danny | Other Photographic Equipment | 1 | February 15th 04 03:35 PM |