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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Confusing review about noise and detail in RAW vs. best JPEG
On 9/17/2015 1:54 AM, android wrote:
In article , John McWilliams wrote: On 9/16/15 PDT 10:06 PM, android wrote: In article , nospam wrote: In article , android wrote: Whatever... A processed file can seem to cary more information than an raw file. That's why they are called raws. other way around. a processed file never has as much information as the raw file does. And that was that that I wrote! you said "A processed file can seem to cary more information" "verb (used without object) 1. to appear to be, feel, do, etc" http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/seem now you agree that it does not. make up your mind. Mr. "android" had it right. Except that it's "RAW", not lowercase. (Cue AB for dissenting opinion) Well... It's not WRONG to call raw RAW, even though nospam probably wouldn't, but the meaning of RAW is raw. Like sushi, packed but not altered. ;-) But not all sushi is completely raw, though most is. -- PeterN |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Confusing review about noise and detail in RAW vs. best JPEG
On 9/17/2015 2:02 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , android wrote: Well... It's not WRONG to call raw RAW, even though nospam probably wouldn't, but the meaning of RAW is raw. Like sushi, packed but not altered. ;-) raw is not an acronym and therefore should not be capitalized. How can we tell with you? Please point out the last time you capitalized an acronym, in a newsgroup. -- PeterN |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Confusing review about noise and detail in RAW vs. best JPEG
On 9/17/2015 6:56 AM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
nospam wrote: In article , android wrote: Well... It's not WRONG to call raw RAW, even though nospam probably wouldn't, but the meaning of RAW is raw. Like sushi, packed but not altered. ;-) raw is not an acronym and therefore should not be capitalized. A RAW file does not use an acronym, therefore your rules about acronyms do not apply. It's a convention. Sort of like having enough sense to learn to use upper case characters to make you writing more readable, or being an arrogant ass and not... But you just don't understand. It's to his/her advantage to be confusing. Sheesh, dontya no nuttin. -- PeterN |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Confusing review about noise and detail in RAW vs. best JPEG
On 2015-09-17 16:17:08 +0000, Tony Cooper said:
On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 09:04:46 -0700, Savageduck wrote: On 2015-09-17 15:16:14 +0000, Tony Cooper said: On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 02:02:43 -0400, nospam wrote: In article , android wrote: Well... It's not WRONG to call raw RAW, even though nospam probably wouldn't, but the meaning of RAW is raw. Like sushi, packed but not altered. ;-) raw is not an acronym and therefore should not be capitalized. IBM is not an acronym. Still, it should be capitalized or the FBI (not an acronym) will come after you. Scuba and laser are acronyms. It is not necessary to capitalize these words. As are sonar (Sound Navigation and Ranging), radar (Radio Detection and Ranging, lidar (Light Detection and Ranging), vascar (Visual Average Speed Computer & Recorder), etc. NASCAR (National Association of Stock Car Auto Racing) is both acronym and brand. The owner of a brand can choose how that brand name appears. Apple uses what is called "CamelCase" with iPhone and iPad. PowerPoint is another example of CamelCase. NASCAR is a brand name, but scuba and laser are not. NASCAR could have chosen NasCar as how their brand name should appear, but did not. Yup. Those of us who write RAW instead of raw do so to distinguish it from the connotation of unfinished or not cooked. There's no real need to make the distinction in a venue where the term is as well understood as it is here, but we don't always use the term around informed people. Anybody with the slightest familiarity with digital imaging understand the intention, and resulting distinction when using uppercase "RAW". With those less informed an explaination is usually forthcoming. There is no "should" or "should not" consideration to the capitalization or lack of it. It falls under no group of rules. However, the distinction helps to differentiate between a RAW image file, raw emotions, raw food, and a raw wound. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Confusing review about noise and detail in RAW vs. best JPEG
On 2015-09-16 22:38, Mort wrote:
Hi, I recently read an extensive and comprehensive review of the Canon S-120 on line, and one of his conclusions puzzles me. He stated that , in this camera, RAW gives more noise and less detail than the best quality setting of JPEG. That is at odds with everything that I have read about the superiority of RAW over even the best quality setting of JPEG. Any comments or explanations would be appreciated. A competent treatment of a raw image to JPEG may make it look far better than the basic raw image when imported into an editor. Read that line carefully before going on. Indeed, that's why we prefer raw - we decide where to take it - not allowing some algorithm to do the work. To be fair, the in camera converters do have many choices of treatment and they are quite good at delivering what the client hopes to see. The S-120 is a P&S camera. So for an image taken in the sweet spot of the camera and properly exposed, the direct JPEG will satisfy 99% of ordinary needs. OTOH, with the raw you can take that image in as many directions as you like - including the one the camera did. But with the raw you get a fresh take, every time. Once the camera has spewed out its JPEG version (and assuming the raw version is not kept) you are stuck with the limitations of that JPEG. It's overall information quantity has been reduced. The colour range has been reduced. The contrast range has been reduced. Even the overall resolution was likely reduced. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Confusing review about noise and detail in RAW vs. best JPEG
In article ,
PeterN wrote: On 9/17/2015 1:54 AM, android wrote: In article , John McWilliams wrote: On 9/16/15 PDT 10:06 PM, android wrote: In article , nospam wrote: In article , android wrote: Whatever... A processed file can seem to cary more information than an raw file. That's why they are called raws. other way around. a processed file never has as much information as the raw file does. And that was that that I wrote! you said "A processed file can seem to cary more information" "verb (used without object) 1. to appear to be, feel, do, etc" http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/seem now you agree that it does not. make up your mind. Mr. "android" had it right. Except that it's "RAW", not lowercase. (Cue AB for dissenting opinion) Well... It's not WRONG to call raw RAW, even though nospam probably wouldn't, but the meaning of RAW is raw. Like sushi, packed but not altered. ;-) But not all sushi is completely raw, though most is. Well... Yeah... -- teleportation kills |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Confusing review about noise and detail in RAW vs. best JPEG
In article ,
Alan Browne wrote: On 2015-09-16 22:38, Mort wrote: Hi, I recently read an extensive and comprehensive review of the Canon S-120 on line, and one of his conclusions puzzles me. He stated that , in this camera, RAW gives more noise and less detail than the best quality setting of JPEG. That is at odds with everything that I have read about the superiority of RAW over even the best quality setting of JPEG. Any comments or explanations would be appreciated. A competent treatment of a raw image to JPEG may make it look far better than the basic raw image when imported into an editor. Read that line carefully before going on. Indeed, that's why we prefer raw - we decide where to take it - not allowing some algorithm to do the work. To be fair, the in camera converters do have many choices of treatment and they are quite good at delivering what the client hopes to see. The S-120 is a P&S camera. So for an image taken in the sweet spot of the camera and properly exposed, the direct JPEG will satisfy 99% of ordinary needs. OTOH, with the raw you can take that image in as many directions as you like - including the one the camera did. But with the raw you get a fresh take, every time. Once the camera has spewed out its JPEG version (and assuming the raw version is not kept) you are stuck with the limitations of that JPEG. It's overall information quantity has been reduced. The colour range has been reduced. The contrast range has been reduced. Even the overall resolution was likely reduced. I must say that putting the CHDK on my Ixus cameras toke them to the next level... I think that I made some frames available here via dropbox? Now those are replaced by my EOS-M. EOS is an acronym is capital but Eos a name, like anybody cares... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eos -- teleportation kills |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Confusing review about noise and detail in RAW vs. best JPEG
In article , Tony Cooper
wrote: Well... It's not WRONG to call raw RAW, even though nospam probably wouldn't, but the meaning of RAW is raw. Like sushi, packed but not altered. ;-) raw is not an acronym and therefore should not be capitalized. IBM is not an acronym. Still, it should be capitalized or the FBI (not an acronym) will come after you. international business machines Scuba and laser are acronyms. It is not necessary to capitalize these words. they should be, but have now become generic words. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Confusing review about noise and detail in RAW vs. best JPEG
In article 2015091709044612957-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote: Scuba and laser are acronyms. It is not necessary to capitalize these words. As are sonar (Sound Navigation and Ranging), radar (Radio Detection and Ranging, lidar (Light Detection and Ranging), those should be capitalized but have become generic words, so people don't bother. vascar (Visual Average Speed Computer & Recorder), etc. i've never seen vascar not capitalized. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Confusing review about noise and detail in RAW vs. best JPEG
On 2015-09-17 16:59:40 +0000, nospam said:
In article 2015091709044612957-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck wrote: Scuba and laser are acronyms. It is not necessary to capitalize these words. As are sonar (Sound Navigation and Ranging), radar (Radio Detection and Ranging, lidar (Light Detection and Ranging), those should be capitalized but have become generic words, so people don't bother. vascar (Visual Average Speed Computer & Recorder), etc. i've never seen vascar not capitalized. Neither have I, except when you type it and my usage in this thread. ....and depending on where you live, there are not that many folks who have any idea of what VASCAR is. NY State Troopers love it. http://www.vascarplus.com/Pages/plus3c.jpg -- Regards, Savageduck |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Confusing camera product names and series | [email protected] | Other Photographic Equipment | 12 | May 7th 07 05:49 AM |
Magazine review of noise control systems | RichA | Digital SLR Cameras | 4 | September 25th 06 10:42 PM |
Confusing Reviews | measekite | Digital ZLR Cameras | 5 | January 14th 06 12:24 AM |
RAW mode showing more noise than JPEG... | GoogleSher | Digital Photography | 12 | January 8th 05 01:52 AM |
Minolta Numbering System: Confusing For a Beginner | [email protected] | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | January 4th 05 07:51 AM |