# RAW Really Means RAW?



## snerd (Aug 25, 2013)

It is just a RAW file, like it says, no processing at all done to it? That means that "every" photo taken has to have some kind of post processing done to it, right? This bears out in my case, as "every" photo sootc is fairly dull and neutral. Reason I ask is just the laziness factor, I guess. For less to no post processing one would need to use the jpeg option and let the camera do the processing, right? It just seems at times that thinking of having to sit and process 50-100 photos makes me tired before I start. But that's the price we pay for shooting RAW, right?


----------



## SCraig (Aug 25, 2013)

Shoot RAW + JPEG then you get both.

Yes, if you shoot in RAW only then you will at least have to perform a RAW conversion to get it to a format usable for other purposes.  Giving a RAW file to someone or uploading it to a web site is normally a waste of time.


----------



## Overread (Aug 25, 2013)

You've a few options;

1) Use a RAW processing software option like Lightroom which can have pre-set values for a whole selection of photos or edit them in batches; letting you perform the same general steps quickly and easily, whilst retaining the option to go into the RAW file and work on it individually. 

2) Use RAW+JPEG mode so that you can work with the JPEGs if you want or use the RAWS on those select photos that want more editing.


----------



## snerd (Aug 25, 2013)

I use LR 5.2 and am slowly learning it. I shoot images in Neutral as has been explained elsewhere. What I was kind of thinking was shooting both RAW+JPG, but having the RAW Neutral and the JPG in the camera's Standard picture style. But I'm assuming that cannot be done.


----------



## Overread (Aug 25, 2013)

Picture styles like neutral or faithful won't affect the RAW photo at all. They only affect the JPEG mode and the in-camera JPEG made and embedded into every RAW photo which is what is displayed on the back of the camera LCD and in preview images of the RAW (keeping it to neutral/faithful is often a good move since it directly affects the view of the histogram in the camera).


----------



## KmH (Aug 25, 2013)

snerd said:


> It is just a RAW file, like it says, no processing at all done to it?


A lot of processing has to be done to a Raw file to make it approximate what our eyes see.

The image sensor in a digital camera cannot 'see' color, only luminosity. Most DSLR cameras have a Bayer Array filter (among others) in front of the image sensor that the Raw conversion software uses to interpolate color (demosaicing). Different Raw converters use different interpolation algorithms so a Raw file converted using ACR will look a bit different from a Raw file converted in DPP or View NX2.

The analog voltage each pixel develops has to be converted to a digital number. Some DSLRs convert the analog voltage to a 12-bit digital number, some convert the analog voltage to a 14-bit digital number.
A 12-bit digital number can only represent 4096 discrete values, while a 14 bit digital number can represent 16,384 discrete values.

The image sensor is a linear device, while our eyes are non-linear. So a gamma curve correction has to be applied to a Raw file so it looks like what we see.
http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/linear_gamma.pdf

Some Raw converters apply some sharpening, noise reduction, anti-aliasing, tone mapping.

The Digital Negative: Raw Image Processing in Lightroom, Camera Raw, and Photoshop


----------



## Designer (Aug 25, 2013)

snerd; I switch around in file formats according to what I aim to do with the images.  When I am experimenting with flash, etc., I usually just view the JPG only.  For family pictures I usually capture both NEF and JPG fine large.  For attempting to do some "art" I might only shoot NEF anticipating that the JPG won't be used for anything anyway.

Please note: not saving a JPG only saves a relatively little bit of space in your SD card, so I wouldn't worry about filling up your card too quickly.  Just get more SD cards.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 25, 2013)

Not sure on exactly how Lightroom 5.2 is configured, but if you manually set Preferences>Presets>Apply auto-tone corrections I believe that will automatically apply some corrections which will make the imported raw files look a bit "snappier".

The way I see it, there are two ways of looking at RAW images: they way they came out of the camera, as-shot, OR the other way, with adjustments made to them, such as exposure brightening, contrast adjustment, color and WB corrections, and so on.

The problem with viewing images that have been "adjusted" a good amount, when viewing them by the hundreds, is that under-exposed images, or over-exposed images, and otherwise technically deficient images, look a LOT like the best frames; 3-shot exposure brackets tend to look all "equalized"; "bad" exposures are masked...having Lightroom automatically adjust images tends to obscure the real, genuine exposure/white balance/quality differences that do exist between raw images. So, in that way, I am not always in favor of having my RAW converter apply "corrections".


----------



## snerd (Aug 25, 2013)

Yes, I tried the auto-tone on import one time and did not like the way they looked. A lot of them were way too bright. So I turned it off and adjust each one manually now. Since I've gotten started, I have always shot in Manual and always in RAW. Mainly, I was just wondering what they would look like shot in the camera's Standard style and saved to jpg. I guess I should just try it, huh? Like Designer said, maybe I will change up the format for different situations and see how that works.


----------



## Gavjenks (Aug 25, 2013)

fwiw, some processing is indeed done to images even as RAWs. For instance, it does the Bayer interpolation, and also every company adds a bunch of magenta adjustment to the image before you see it (Bayer sensors usually have two green pixels for every one red and blue pixel, so the truly raw image is really green), and maybe a couple of other things. Can't really tell for sure, because it's usually a "Secret"


----------



## Helen B (Aug 25, 2013)

Bayer interpolation and colour correction is usually done by the raw converter, it is not done by the camera on the raw data before it is saved as a raw file.


----------



## Gavjenks (Aug 26, 2013)

Helen B said:


> Bayer interpolation and colour correction is usually done by the raw converter, it is not done by the camera on the raw data before it is saved as a raw file.


1) How does it show me a non-green, interpolated image on my LCD screen, then, when I am only shooting in RAW? Are you suggesting it converts every time I hit preview, then throws that data away?
2) How does Windows show me a non-green, interpolated preview of my RAW files in my folders, prior to me converting them? Again, it would have to convert every time and then just throw it away if not stored in the RAW.
3) The camera has to have the ability to interpolate and color correct in-camera anyway, so that it can save as jpeg if desired. So if it already has the software, why not use it for RAW too, to most efficiently solve #1 and 2?


----------



## Helen B (Aug 26, 2013)

Have you considered the possibility that there may be a preview JPEG embedded in the raw file?
Nowadays operating systems can include a basic raw converter, which enables preview of the raw data itself when viewing the folder.
Raw conversion can be done on the fly. Storing a single channel of image data is efficient. Just compare the size of a raw file with that of an interpolated file, and do the math. You should find that the raw file is too small to contain three channels of data. Saving an uninterpolated, uncorrected raw file allows different debayering methods and different raw converters to be used later. They are not all equal.

Where did you get the information that raw files are already debayered? Even without a reference, the evidence is there in the file size that they only contain one channel of data. Why do you answer questions on subjects you know so little about?


----------



## Dao (Aug 26, 2013)

Gavjenks said:


> 2) How does Windows show me a non-green, interpolated preview of my RAW files in my folders, prior to me converting them? Again, it would have to convert every time and then just throw it away if not stored in the RAW.




The preview of the RAW file is the result of the Microsoft Camera Codec Pack.  And Microsoft update that once in awhile for newer models

Download Microsoft Camera Codec Pack (16.4.1970.0624) from Official Microsoft Download Center


In my Windows machine, before I install the codec pack, the Windows Explorer cannot show thumbnails nor preview of my Canon RAW files.


----------



## Gavjenks (Aug 26, 2013)

> Just compare the size of a raw file with that of an interpolated file,


What is an "interpolated file?" That's not just a thing by itself. To be sure it is interpolated, you have to save in some specific format like jpeg or png or tiff or whatever, all of which have different baggage they come with confounding variables (compression amounts, or overhead data) that makes it difficult to compare the file sizes with certainty. Which format are you choosing to do your comparison with, and how are you solving the ambiguities involved in inherently different formats?

For example, the closest I can come up with would be to convert a RAW to photoshop and then save it as a lossless-ly compressed PNG file.  When I do that, the file gets SMALLER by about 1 megabyte.  Granted, I am going from 12 bit to 8 bit, but... (three channels 8+8+8 = 24, which should be twice the size of one channel @12)

Which is totally ambiguous. I can't interpret that either way without knowing the details of what sort of compression algorithm my Canon RAW files are using, if any. Some compression methods would become MORE efficient with 12 bit images (like dictionary methods), and others would be less efficient (like PNG style compression). Or if they use none, then that leads to a different conclusion.



> Where did you get the information that raw files are already debayered?  Even without a reference, the evidence is there in the file size that  they only contain one channel of data.


Where did you  get the information that they are NOT already debayered? Your file size evidence is less than convincing (see above). If you have some other reliable reference to how proprietary formats work, then that changes things.

Did you sit down and decompile and reverse engineer them in your free time? Do you work for Adobe or something?

If so, I'm super curious to hear a rare inside scoop on how some of these work exactly.  If not, then you're inferring, just like I am.


----------



## Gavjenks (Aug 26, 2013)

Dao said:


> Gavjenks said:
> 
> 
> > 2) How does Windows show me a non-green, interpolated preview of my RAW files in my folders, prior to me converting them? Again, it would have to convert every time and then just throw it away if not stored in the RAW.
> ...



I know that.  That doesn't tell us anything useful though, because you would need a codec either way.  You would need one to let the OS know how to extract the embedded preview jpeg, and you would need one to let the OS know how to debayer and color correct, if that's what's happening. OR you would need one to let the OS know how to read off the already-debayered primary data if THAT'S what is happening, too.


----------



## collk22 (Aug 26, 2013)

Without seeing any of your work, is it necessary to process 50-100 images in a sitting? The way your OP was written makes it obvious you're not a pro, so why process such a high volume? Just get back from vacation? GREAT "keeper" rate? 

I used to get bogged down and frustrated with the time it took to edit images until I realized I was wasting a lot of time processing images that were only so-so. When I cut back to only spending time on to the images that were the most interesting, I found that I could process them more quickly and with higher motivation than trying to slog through a bunch of images. You can always go back through them and play around a later date. Again, without being critical of your work (having never seen it), maybe you could try spending more time reviewing/rating your images to figure out which ones are really the best of the best and deserving of your time and energy in processing.


----------



## snerd (Aug 26, 2013)

collk22 said:


> Without seeing any of your work, is it necessary to process 50-100 images in a sitting? The way your OP was written makes it obvious you're not a pro, so why process such a high volume? Just get back from vacation? GREAT "keeper" rate?
> 
> I used to get bogged down and frustrated with the time it took to edit images until I realized I was wasting a lot of time processing images that were only so-so. When I cut back to only spending time on to the images that were the most interesting, I found that I could process them more quickly and with higher motivation than trying to slog through a bunch of images. You can always go back through them and play around a later date. Again, without being critical of your work (having never seen it), maybe you could try spending more time reviewing/rating your images to figure out which ones are really the best of the best and deserving of your time and energy in processing.


Probably one of the best answers given. Yes, I'm a beginner and think they "all" are keepers. But looking through my catalog I can see quite a few duplicates, and some just plain boring ones. I guess I should do what I do with Flickr, only concentrate on the better ones for keepers. Right now I'm shooting mainly landscapes with an animal or two here and there. Flickr: The Oklahoma Kid's Photostream


----------



## Helen B (Aug 26, 2013)

Gavjenks said:


> > Just compare the size of a raw file with that of an interpolated file,
> 
> 
> What is an "interpolated file?" That's not just a thing by itself. To be sure it is interpolated, you have to save in some specific format like jpeg or png or tiff or whatever, all of which have different baggage they come with confounding variables (compression amounts, or overhead data) that makes it difficult to compare the file sizes with certainty. Which format are you choosing to do your comparison with, and how are you solving the ambiguities involved in inherently different formats?
> ...



I would have thought that the obvious, logical way to do this would be to compare uncompressed data, so that the difference in file size caused by compression was removed. Do you need me to walk you though such a comparison? A 14-bit uncompressed raw file from the 12 MP Nikon D3 is about 24 MB. There's not enough room for three channels of uncompressed 14 bit data from a 12 MP camera in 24 MB. They expand to around 36 MB when debayered and converted to uncompressed 8 bits per channel per pixel, as one would expect.





> > Where did you get the information that raw files are already debayered?  Even without a reference, the evidence is there in the file size that  they only contain one channel of data.
> 
> 
> Where did you  get the information that they are NOT already debayered? Your file size evidence is less than convincing (see above). If you have some other reliable reference to how proprietary formats work, then that changes things.
> ...



It's a subject that is frequently discussed in papers on workflow, data storage, image processing, raw converters etc etc. It's all over the place. I don't need to infer, I read discussions about debayering and where and when it happens regularly. I also use RawDigger regularly, and have a fairly good idea how the raw files of the cameras I use are structured. I use both Bayer pattern and Foveon sensors (the DP2 Merrill is an incredible camera for the size and I'm happy to use it, despite its little foibles), and I see the difference in raw file size every day. I use five different raw converters (Sigma DPP, Nikon Capture NX2, ACR, Iridient Developer and DxO Optics) for different purposes.

Next questions for you: When you are in a hole why don't you stop digging? Are you just a troll?


----------



## 480sparky (Aug 26, 2013)

Gavjenks said:


> .......  Granted, I am going from 12 bit to 8 bit, but... (three channels 8+8+8 = 24, which should be twice the size of one channel @12).......



How can you compare _one_ 12-bit raw color to _three_ 8-bit color channels and attempt to claim it supports your argument?

In order to create your 24-bit pixel, the demoasaicing process draws on four 12-bit raw pixel data sets. So 12+12+12+12 is gonna be larger than 8+8+8.


----------



## Gavjenks (Aug 26, 2013)

480sparky said:


> How can you compare _one_ 12-bit raw color to _three_ 8-bit color channels and attempt to claim it supports your argument?
> In order to create your 24-bit pixel, the demoasaicing process draws on four 12-bit raw pixel data sets. So 12+12+12+12 is gonna be larger than 8+8+8.



Every sensor ---> one pixel, so it's going from 12 bits in the single sensor originally to 8+8+8 in a jpeg or a PNG at the end of the day.  It's not 4 sensors to every 1 pixel; they share sensors.



> I would have thought that the obvious, logical way to do this would be to compare uncompressed data, so that the difference in file size caused by compression was removed. Do you need me to walk you though such a comparison? A 14-bit uncompressed raw file from the 12 MP Nikon D3 is about 24 MB. There's not enough room for three channels of uncompressed 14 bit data from a 12 MP camera in 24 MB. They expand to around 36 MB when debayered and converted to uncompressed 8 bits per channel per pixel, as one would expect.


Okay that's great, but not very obvious when your Canon body does not *have *compressed and non-compressed options.
Without inside information as to file format (which I think I may have found now... maybe), file sizes alone is not enough, therefore, to tell me if it is interpolated or not, since I can't force the camera to tell me whether it is one or the other. It is just whatever it always is.  It could be a 2:1 badly compressed non-interpolated image, or a 6:1 decently compressed interpolated image.



> It's a subject that is frequently discussed in papers on workflow, data storage, image processing, raw converters etc etc. It's all over the place.


Okay, so you do have additional information about the structure itself. _Like I said before, that changes things_, and you encouraged me to go search with more effort for specifications (the first couple seemed to know everything about EXIF but nothing about data format), and I think I may have found a decent one.

Thanks *shrug*

Requesting details instead of just taking somebody at their unsupported word about random facts does not = trolling. :roll:


----------



## 480sparky (Aug 26, 2013)

Gavjenks said:


> Every sensor ---> one pixel, so it's going from 12 bits in the single sensor originally to 8+8+8 in a jpeg or a PNG at the end of the day.  It's not 4 sensors to every 1 pixel; they share sensors....m:



Clear as mud. This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.


----------



## Gavjenks (Aug 26, 2013)

480sparky said:


> Gavjenks said:
> 
> 
> > Every sensor ---> one pixel, so it's going from 12 bits in the single sensor originally to 8+8+8 in a jpeg or a PNG at the end of the day.  It's not 4 sensors to every 1 pixel; they share sensors....m:
> ...



However many individual photowell sensors you have, that's how many pixels you will usually have, minus maybe a few for the scraps on the edge of the sensor where the conversion pattern falls apart. So if you have an 18 megapixel camera, you have approximately 18 million photowells on your sensor (and each one is just one color), NOT 76 million (a set of 4 for each pixel),

Cartoon:

 
The colored boxes are the individual light sensors in the Bayer array.

the black grid overlaid on it are the pixels that will end up in your interpolated image. Every pixel draws data from multiple sensors to get it's full RGB values. And every sensor contributes information to multiple pixels (in this cartoon example, 4 and 4). They all share and spread around the data and overlap, rather than having dedicated sensors per pixel.

So in the above image, each of those colored boxes would require 12 bits of memory to store its value from a photo (12-bit deep data in one color). Each BLACK box, however, required 24 bits in a jpeg (8 bits green 8 bits red, 8 bits blue).

So for a 12 bit depth camera, the size of an uncompressed file should increase by about 2x when you interpolate from the Bayer array to a jpeg (or an 8 bit PNG).

What Helen was saying was that with a Nikon, you can just set it to uncompressed RAW, and then convert it to an uncompressed 8 bit file in your program of choice, and you can see a similar file size increase for yourself, without having to delve into the guts of the file code.





The actual number of pixels may vary (there are many patterns and ways of combining the data) in different cameras and file types, but there will always be some sort of sharing in a Bayer interpolation, never (I think) dedicated and exclusive sensors for specific pixels


----------



## 480sparky (Aug 26, 2013)

Gavjenks said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > Gavjenks said:
> ...




Yes, each 8-bit JPEG image is created using four 12-bit sensor data inputs, and each raw sensor pixel data gets used by 4 JPEG pixels.  So it's _almost_ a 1:1 ratio of the number of sensor pixels compared to the JPEG size.  The only discrepancy is created by pixels along the edges of the image... the raw sensor pixel data from those only gets used twice, and the corners just once.

But once again, you're comparing the THREE COLOR CHANNELS (or as you say, 24-bit) of a JPEG pixel to a SINGLE 12-bit raw pixel.

So take a theoretical sensor that measures 100 x 100 pixels.  It should create a JPEG that's 99 x 99 pixels.  Now, 100 x 100 = 10,000.  99 x 99 = 9,801.  See?  It's _almost_ a 1:1 ratio, the number of sensor pixels compared to the number of final image pixels.  (1:0.9801 if you wanna get technical).  As the total number of sensor pixels increase, the ratio gets closer.  500 x 500 = 250,000, with a resulting 499 x 499 = 249,001 final image pixels.  That 250,000 : 249,001, or 1:0.996004.

Try the math at 1, 5, 10, or 20, or even 30 megapixels..... the ratio gets closer and closer to 1:1 with every increase in the number of mp.

Therefore: For every 8-bit *color channel* in the finished JPEG, there's (_slightly more than_) one 12-bit raw pixel providing the data.


----------



## Gavjenks (Aug 26, 2013)

> 10,000.  99 x 99 = 9,801.  See?  It's _almost_ a 1:1 ratio


Right, I agree....

I'm not talking about number of pixels or number of channels, I'm talking about* disk space* required to store the *whole *file.

uncompressed 8-bit interpolated image file: 9,801 pixels * 24 bits per pixel = *28 kilobytes*
BAYER (uninterpolated): 10,000 sensors * 12 bits per sensor = *15 kilobytes

*Slightly higher than half size for the Bayer. And in the infinite limit, it will approach a perfect 2:1 ratio of file size as you increase sensor size indefinitely.


----------



## table1349 (Aug 26, 2013)

Helen B said:


> Gavjenks said:
> 
> 
> > > Just compare the size of a raw file with that of an interpolated file,
> ...



Helen, perhaps this would answer your question:  http://digital.olivesoftware.com/Ol...ock&href=TWE/2013/08/04&id=Ar0800200&ext=.png


----------



## 480sparky (Aug 26, 2013)

Gavjenks said:


> > 10,000.  99 x 99 = 9,801.  See?  It's _almost_ a 1:1 ratio
> 
> 
> Right, I agree....
> ...




Well, gee. Let's simplify it.  One raw pixel contains _one_ number.  One JPEG pixel contains _three _numbers.  So why isn't a JPEG file THREE TIMES larger than a raw?



Gavjenks said:


> *..........*And in the  infinite limit, it will approach a perfect 2:1 ratio of file size as you  increase sensor size indefinitely.



Now I've heard everything.


----------



## slow231 (Aug 26, 2013)

Gavjenks said:


> Requesting details instead of just taking somebody at their unsupported word about random facts does not = trolling. :roll:



funny coming from someone that continuously presents completely unsupported thoughts as certain fact. if only you would spend this kind of effort requesting details out of your own BS before spewing it.


----------



## Gavjenks (Aug 27, 2013)

> Well, gee. Let's simplify it.  One raw pixel contains _one_ number.  One JPEG pixel contains _three _numbers.  So why isn't a JPEG file THREE TIMES larger than a raw?



...because the three numbers are each smaller than the one number is. It's like saying "a loaf of bread is one thing, and three slices of bread are three things, so why aren't the slices of bread three times bigger?"

JPEGS are 8 bit files.  That means that every color value ranges from 1 to 256, and it uses 8 bits of computer memory to store.

RAW files are usually at a minimum (and what we have been using in this example) 12 bits. That means that every color value ranges from 1 to 4096, and it uses 12 bits of computer memory to store.


12 x 1 = 12   (12 bits per color x 1 color)
8 x 3 = 24   (8 bits per color x 3 colors)
24 = TWICE as large as 12, not three times.


The fact that the numbers are larger in raw files for each color is precisely the reason, in fact, why shooting in raw gives you more post processing latitude than shooting in jpeg, because those extra 4 (or more) bits give you intermediate tonal values that allow you to stretch and mess around with colors and lightness during conversion without getting posterization.



> Gavjenks said:
> 
> 
> > *..........*And in the  infinite limit, it will approach a perfect 2:1 ratio of file size as you  increase sensor size indefinitely.
> ...



Yes, it will. Since 24 is twice as large as 12 per pixel and photosensor respectively, the ratio of file size will approach exactly 2:1 as the sensor gets larger. While the sensor is small, file overhead data and the fact that there are slightly more sensors on the edge will keep the ratio slightly under 2:1.  But as the square gets larger and data takes up more of the file, it will become almost perfectly 2:1.



In fact, some RAW files use 14 or even 16 bit depths.  If it were 16 bit, then the jpeg would only approach being 50% larger than the uninterpolated file in the limit. (24 / 16 = 1.5)





> funny coming from someone that continuously presents completely  unsupported thoughts as certain fact. if only you would spend this kind  of effort requesting details out of your own BS before spewing it.


If you'll notice, I didn't say Helen was evil or inherently wrong to present facts without support in the first place. I said that she _shouldn't be insulted or surprised_ when people ask for more details or support.

Nor am I insulted or surprised when people ask for more details or support when I do the same thing.  For instance, right here right now with the 8 bit vs. 12 bit thing.  I'm not calling Sparky names, etc.


----------



## HughGuessWho (Aug 27, 2013)

Someone has WAY too much free time on their hands. The TPF database must be near full of BS.


----------



## table1349 (Aug 27, 2013)

HughGuessWho said:


> Someone has WAY too much free time on their hands. The TPF database must be near full of BS.


Call these guys:
http://www.sewerhistory.org/images/bm/bms3/1944_bms307.jpg


----------



## KmH (Aug 27, 2013)

Gavjenks said:


> uncompressed 8-bit interpolated image file: 9,801 pixels * 24 bits per pixel = *28 kilobytes*
> BAYER (uninterpolated): 10,000 sensors * 12 bits per sensor = *15 kilobytes
> 
> *



An 8-bit interpolated file is still only 8-bits per image pixel, though an 8-bit image is often referred to as a 24-bit image because of the 3 channels (RGB) used to display the image.

Digital camera - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Gavjenks (Aug 27, 2013)

KmH said:


> Gavjenks said:
> 
> 
> > uncompressed 8-bit interpolated image file: 9,801 pixels * 24 bits per pixel = *28 kilobytes*
> ...



We are specifically talking about 8-bit interpolated PNG and JPEG files, which are three-channel 24 bits per pixel.

There may very well be some other format that is interpolated and only 8 bits for each pixel total, but JPEG ain't it.


----------



## 480sparky (Aug 27, 2013)

Gavjenks said:


> > Well, gee. Let's simplify it.  One raw pixel contains _one_ number.  One JPEG pixel contains _three _numbers.  So why isn't a JPEG file THREE TIMES larger than a raw?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thanks for the remedial math class. I learned absolutely nothing from it.



> Now I've heard everything.





Gavjenks said:


> Yes, it will. Since 24 is twice as large as 12 per pixel and photosensor respectively, the ratio of file size will approach exactly 2:1 as the sensor gets larger. While the sensor is small, file overhead data and the fact that there are slightly more sensors on the edge will keep the ratio slightly under 2:1.  But as the square gets larger and data takes up more of the file, it will become almost perfectly 2:1.



You obviously didn't read my post.  Try going back and read it.  Pay attention this time, however.





Gavjenks said:


> ..........  I'm not calling Sparky names, etc.



No further comment.

I'm punching out.


----------



## KmH (Aug 27, 2013)

Gavjenks said:


> We are specifically talking about 8-bit interpolated PNG and JPEG files, which are three-channel 24 bits per pixel.


So according to that statement, an interpolated Raw file has 48 bits per pixel (16 bits per RGB color channel), unless the color bit-depth is subsequently reduced.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 27, 2013)

*Don't worry fellas...Derrel will make it look like an accident!!!! *



*I will forget to set the camera to RAW, and accidentally shoot in JPEG mode...*


----------



## Gavjenks (Aug 27, 2013)

KmH said:


> Gavjenks said:
> 
> 
> > We are specifically talking about 8-bit interpolated PNG and JPEG files, which are three-channel 24 bits per pixel.
> ...



...Um, no. I said* PNG and JPEG *files (which happen to be interpolated if they originated from a camera image) have 3 channels at 8 bits each, for a total of 24 bits per pixel. There's no secret hidden messages or implications involved about RAW. It's a straightforward fact about two non-RAW filetypes.



> Thanks for the remedial math class. I learned absolutely nothing from it.


I'm sorry to hear that.  Here are two other more visual methods for you, in case you are a visual learner:




Or if you prefer seeing the binary laid out, four uncompressed jpeg pixels would require something like this on a storage medium:
(11110010)(10111010)(10100101)  (01011101)(01001010)(10110010)  (10100101)(01010011)(10101010)  (10101010)(01010101)(11010101)

While four uncompressed uninterpolated RAW sites would require something like:
(010110101110)  (100111010101)  (010010000011)  (101010110011)


----------



## o hey tyler (Aug 27, 2013)

Here is the answer that wins the thread. Almost every other post is irrelevant.

Shoot jpeg if you don't want to process your images.

Shoot raw if you do want to process your images.

End of story. No more math. No more interpolation. That's the clear cut answer. Raw gives your more processing latitude and the superfluous BS posted in this thread is mostly unimportant and straying from the real question.

PS you're welcome.


----------



## cowleystjames (Aug 28, 2013)

o hey tyler said:


> Here is the answer that wins the thread. Almost every other post is irrelevant.
> 
> Shoot jpeg if you don't want to process your images.
> 
> ...



Thank you for simplifying, this post was getting way boring.......


----------



## Helen B (Aug 28, 2013)

o hey tyler said:


> Here is the answer that wins the thread. Almost every other post is irrelevant.
> 
> Shoot jpeg if you don't want to process your images.
> 
> ...



Nice, condescending answer. Shame that it seems to talk down (way down, in this case) to the OP and it doesn't seem to answer the OP's questions. 

Would you prefer that a completely incorrect answer be left uncorrected? What would you prefer to have happened after Gavjenks said that raw files are already debayered? I would truly like to know - you are clearly so much wiser that the rest of us in these matters.


----------



## Overread (Aug 28, 2013)

Ok people seriously CLAM DOWN!

Firstly if you don't like a discussion just close the tab and move on - wise cracks that you find it boring or dull are simply childish. Go find something you do enjoy and contribute to that instead of running down other peoples threads.

Secondly if someone isn't understanding something or is misinterpreting it either take the time to correct them and provide additional information or click the little X button and move onto another tab if you can't/don't want to. Again these childish remakes are getting old and tired and some of you are doing it way too often!

Now enough drama back to discussing the topic at hand


----------



## IByte (Aug 28, 2013)

Overread said:


> Ok people seriously CLAM DOWN!
> 
> Firstly if you don't like a discussion just close the tab and move on - wise cracks that you find it boring or dull are simply childish. Go find something you do enjoy and contribute to that instead of running down other peoples threads.
> 
> ...



Time for big bad Mishy and her whip to calm things down lol.


----------



## snerd (Aug 28, 2013)

My question was probably somewhat ambiguous. Given that something has to happen to the RAW file in-camera for me to be able to view it, I recognize that some kind of processing has to be done to it. I was referring in general to any processing post-camera. Shot in Neutral or Faithful, anyway, the files are dull and always need some kind of PP applied to them. I guess that's why they're called RAW! Good thread, too. Tame compared to some boards I frequent.


----------



## o hey tyler (Aug 28, 2013)

Helen B said:


> Nice, condescending answer. Shame that it seems to talk down (way down, in this case) to the OP and it doesn't seem to answer the OP's questions..



I'm sure you're saying that because you've never exhibited an ounce of condescension in your life?

No my post was not being negative towards the OP. it was directed towards the bickering and over complication of the issue.


----------



## amolitor (Aug 28, 2013)

Gavjenks also thinks scanners use Bayer arrays. God knows where he thinks the demosaicing takes place.


----------



## table1349 (Aug 28, 2013)

I do believe that this is a sound that is soon to be heard in this thread.







Gee folks, there is a youtube for just about everything ain't there??


----------



## pixmedic (Aug 28, 2013)

ill settle this...
raw is..

raw  (rô)_adj._ *raw·er*, *raw·est* *1. * Uncooked: raw meat.
*2. **a. * Being in a natural condition; not processed or refined: raw wool. See Synonyms at crude.
*b. * Not finished, covered, or coated: raw wood. See Synonyms at rude.
*c. * Not having been subjected to adjustment, treatment, or analysis: raw data; the raw cost of production.

*3. * Untrained and inexperienced: raw recruits.
*4. * Recently finished; fresh: raw plaster.
*5. * Having subcutaneous tissue exposed: a raw wound.
*6. * Inflamed; sore: a raw throat.
*7. * Unpleasantly damp and chilly: raw weather.
*8. * Cruel and unfair: a raw punishment.
*9. * Outspoken; crude: a raw portrayal of truth.
*10. * Powerfully impressive; stark: raw beauty; raw talent.
*11. * Nude; naked.

*Idiom: * *in the raw**1. * In a crude or unrefined state: nature in the raw.
*2. * Nude; naked.

[Middle English, from Old English hr
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





aw; see  kreu
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




- in Indo-European roots.]
*raw
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




ly*_ adv._
*raw
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




ness*_ n.

there ya go!


seriously though. 
if you shoot in raw, you HAVE to do some sort of software conversion before you get a generally usable picture file. 
if you shoot jpeg, you can take the file straight out of the camera and post it to facebook or wherever. 
_


----------



## table1349 (Aug 28, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> *ill* settle this...


Sorry to hear you are feeling *ill* there pixmedic.  Hope you get to feeling better soon.


----------



## pixmedic (Aug 28, 2013)

gryphonslair99 said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > *ill* settle this...
> ...



I appreciate it. 
I have run the gauntlet of modern medicine and found that i am no American Gladiator. 
at this point, its more a matter of "not feeling worse" than any expectations of feeling "better".


----------



## snerd (Aug 28, 2013)

That's it! Let's all get RAW! Guys excluded, except me. Ladies, after you!!


----------

