![]() Now do a resolution enhance and you get 225*4=900MB of data. It is still in 12 bits which is why you have the 12/8 factor, but you now have full 12 bit r,g,b triplets at each pixel instead of just one of the three. Now demosaic this and you have 50*3*12/8= 225 MB of data (I am using base 10 numbers here for simplicity - note that computers generally use base 2 for filesize display but the difference is small enough to not really matter). Compressed using the cameras compression (which is not as good as dng's compression) you get about 40 to 50MB. if you start with a 50 MP raw image in 12 bits raw, you have about 75MB of data (50*12/8 to store all the bits). Of course if do this, there is no way that the file is still as small. i.e. So you could still call this a raw file but it really depends on how much of a stickler to definitions you are. not rendered into a display color space etc. It is however still in scene referred or camera color space - i.e. ![]() It is however, still linear response data that still has to be rendered through the profile and such so it is still very much "raw" data but it is no longer data direct from the camera sensor as it has been demosaiced by the AI algorithm in enhance raw details. The whole point of enhance details is to better demosaic the image so yeah an enhanced dng is no longer mosaiced. Thank you ahead of time for taking the time to reply! It might just be me, but simply speaking, it seems a little ambiguous whether "raw details" is still raw? Side Note: I have read the Digital Negative (DNG) Specification (PDF) about it. This leads me to think that the demosaiced information in a "raw details" DNG ("Enhanced") is stored along with the original raw data, and that it remains lossless/raw information until the image actually gets flattened (or rasterized). Further adjustments on it in Lightroom/Camera Raw do not react like a typical rasterized/pixel editing Tiff or other rasterized file format would merely using the Camera Raw Algorithms, or the Camera Raw Filter on a pixel image. It does not at all seem to be rasterized. Is it still "lossless" (parametric edits vs pixel edits) in the way that we consider raw files lossless? So my next question is: is a "raw details" image still raw? Sorry for not being more clear, but I do not use "super resolution." Your answer here is getting to the root of my question.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |