Raw conversion ..

I have been wondering for some time..

Is there any info to what type of picture "format" raw is converted in its
intermediate state ie before the user makes a decision to save it under the
form of a known picture format? (jpg, tiff etc)
What I mean is .. raw = converted(=demosaic)= picture in PP program
"memory" .. so what picture "format" is this picture in?
TIA

imbsysop wrote:
I have been wondering for some time..

Is there any info to what type of picture "format" raw is converted in its
intermediate state ie before the user makes a decision to save it under the
form of a known picture format? (jpg, tiff etc)
What I mean is .. raw = converted(=demosaic)= picture in PP program
"memory" .. so what picture "format" is this picture in?


Imagine a program like photoshop. It can read in a whole raft of image
format files, edit them, and then write them back in the same or
different format.

When the image is read in it is converted to the data layout in memory
as defined by the programmers of photoshop. This is "obfuscated" as
there is no real need to know what it is. (Other image 'tag' data is
also read in and to the extent the output format allows, is written into
that format (with that tags format for the final file). Alternately,
the input tags may cause change to occur to the image data itself).

It may be that some editors don't use their own representation and use a
common format (in memory) such as TIF or similar. But there is no real
need for the user to know about it.

Raw conversions are similar in that they read in, are de-mosaiced to an
internal format and written out to a user desired format.

imbsysop wrote:
I have been wondering for some time..

Is there any info to what type of picture "format" raw is converted in its
intermediate state ie before the user makes a decision to save it under the
form of a known picture format? (jpg, tiff etc)
What I mean is .. raw = converted(=demosaic)= picture in PP program
"memory" .. so what picture "format" is this picture in?
TIA


At that point there is no picture "format" since the format is an
encoding used to store the picture in a file.

It's quite likely that each program does it differently and has its own
optimizations to manage efficiently a fair amount of storage (especially
when it has to support a long undo history).

The Gimp and its RAW-handling extensions are open source software, so
you can have a look :-)
--
Bertrand

On 2009-09-28 14:14:07 -0700, imbsysop said:

I have been wondering for some time..

Is there any info to what type of picture "format" raw is converted in its
intermediate state ie before the user makes a decision to save it under the
form of a known picture format? (jpg, tiff etc)
What I mean is .. raw = converted(=demosaic)= picture in PP program
"memory" .. so what picture "format" is this picture in?
TIA

In most cases you should end up working in TIF.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

Savageduck wrote:

In most cases you should end up working in TIF.

Why?

-Wolfgang

"Wolfgang Weisselberg" wrote in message
...
Savageduck wrote:

In most cases you should end up working in TIF.

Why?



Because it's lossless, capable of handling 16 bit files, preserves layers
and other effects offered by photoshop, et al, allows a couple forms of
lossless compression, none of which a noob needs to know in order to know
which format will best preserve his or her electronic image file.

--
www.mattclara.com

The raw data is rendered as an image in the video buffer, nothing more and
no different than any other screen image regardless of content.
Raw converters apply a modicum of processing to an image before opening it
or there would be no viewable content, just the 1s and 0s of digital data.
There is no disputing that a Nikon NEF image looks different opened in Nikon
NX compared to the Adobe converter. The differences reflect aesthetic
decisions made by the programmers/publishers of the program. If you like the
way NX opens images it may shorten your workflow; you may prefer the
relative paucity of processing that the Adobe converter applies.
You cannot save to the raw format from an image processing program in the
raw format. NX and the Adobe converter merely save instructions on how to
open the raw image to its previous but reversible state.

Matt Clara wrote:
"Wolfgang Weisselberg" wrote in message
...
Savageduck wrote:

In most cases you should end up working in TIF.

Why?


Because it's lossless, capable of handling 16 bit files, preserves
layers and other effects offered by photoshop, et al, allows a couple
forms of lossless compression, none of which a noob needs to know in
order to know which format will best preserve his or her electronic
image file.


Yes, TIFF is tops if you need layers, but keeping the RAW file is the
most complete archival source of a digital image. And it's way smaller
than a TIFF.

--
John McWilliams

In article , Matt Clara
wrote:

In most cases you should end up working in TIF.

Why?

Because it's lossless, capable of handling 16 bit files, preserves layers
and other effects offered by photoshop, et al, allows a couple forms of
lossless compression, none of which a noob needs to know in order to know
which format will best preserve his or her electronic image file.

the photoshop format itself does all that and more.

plus, many apps these days use a non-destructive workflow directly on
the raw file so there isn't a tif or psd to save.

"lebouef" wrote:
The raw data is rendered as an image in the video buffer, nothing more and
no different than any other screen image regardless of content.
Raw converters apply a modicum of processing to an image before opening it
or there would be no viewable content, just the 1s and 0s of digital data.

That should probably be stated as raw converters apply
*at* *least* a moduicum of processing. They may also
apply a considerable amount of processing, and in fact
commonly do.

There is no disputing that a Nikon NEF image looks different opened in Nikon
NX compared to the Adobe converter. The differences reflect aesthetic
decisions made by the programmers/publishers of the program.

The reflect a different set of defaults, nothing more.
One example might be that one program uses the camera's
settings to change the defaults, while the other program
does not.

In any case the *user* can change the defaults as
desired, and it is probable (I don't use either of the
programs specified, so I'm not sure) that the two can be
set in a way that makes them very very similar if not
exactly the same.

If you like the
way NX opens images it may shorten your workflow; you may prefer the
relative paucity of processing that the Adobe converter applies.
You cannot save to the raw format from an image processing program in the
raw format. NX and the Adobe converter merely save instructions on how to
open the raw image to its previous but reversible state.

Correct.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)