4 ms·

I don't think that's the best example. A lot of those post-shots were extremely over-processed, blown out highlights, distorted colours, etc. This shows a pure

I don't think that's the best example. A lot of those post-shots were extremely over-processed, blown out highlights, distorted colours, etc. This shows a pure comparison (it should link to the right time-mark). First shows some before/after full shots then does a split screen comparison in various situations: https://youtu.be/WTr2L3uCYts?t=80 https://youtu.be/WTr2L3uCYts?t=80 5D3 comparison: https://youtu.be/6Pvy-J7kNTQ?t=30 https://youtu.be/6Pvy-J7kNTQ?t=30

bscphil 8y ago
That first video doesn't seem like a great example either. The RAW footage has clearly been color graded, so it's not a one to one comparison. It would be better to see some of the limitations of trying to regrade the camera's default h264 output, and a true comparison of the difference in sharpening. The RAW footage has clearly been sharpened to some extent because there's quite visible ringing in a lot of those shots. It would also be nice to see it without Youtube's compression, if anyone has a better link. (Your second video seems much more in line with what I'd expect, but it's still hard to see clear differences with Youtube's compression.)
- gridspy 8y ago
  In the GP's YT link, many people are talking about the color grading. One commenter said: "I disagree when I shoot raw and h.264 my camera has the ability to shoot both at once and spit both files out, and these are exactly how it looks no color grading fresh out the camera. "
- jacobolus 8y ago
  There’s not much meaning to a “non-color graded” or “non-sharpened” picture. Many choices must inevitably be made along the pipeline from estimated-electron-count-per-sensor-pixel -> image on a display. Default choices are not inherently more correct (or truer to the scene or whatever) than deliberate choices. The fairest comparison is probably to find someone highly skilled at image editing and get them to try to make the best output images they can from both inputs. You’ll get to see places where the standard processing and compression actually lost data. Often the processed-in-camera version still has enough data that a more-or-less comparable output image can be produced, but if you start peeping on pixels you might notice extra noise, banding, blur, ringing, ... The problem with the comparison videos in this thread is that the person/software deciding what to do with the “raw” data has made a bunch of choices to allocate more contrast to shadow and highlight areas, etc., while the in-camera software made a different choice... and nobody tried to reconcile the two versions afterward. Comparing the amount of usable data available

bscphil 8y ago

That first video doesn't seem like a great example either. The RAW footage has clearly been color graded, so it's not a one to one comparison. It would be better to see some of the limitations of trying to regrade the camera's default h264 output, and a true comparison of the difference in sharpening. The RAW footage has clearly been sharpened to some extent because there's quite visible ringing in a lot of those shots. It would also be nice to see it without Youtube's compression, if anyone has a better link. (Your second video seems much more in line with what I'd expect, but it's still hard to see clear differences with Youtube's compression.)

gridspy 8y ago
In the GP's YT link, many people are talking about the color grading. One commenter said: "I disagree when I shoot raw and h.264 my camera has the ability to shoot both at once and spit both files out, and these are exactly how it looks no color grading fresh out the camera. "
jacobolus 8y ago
There’s not much meaning to a “non-color graded” or “non-sharpened” picture. Many choices must inevitably be made along the pipeline from estimated-electron-count-per-sensor-pixel -> image on a display. Default choices are not inherently more correct (or truer to the scene or whatever) than deliberate choices. The fairest comparison is probably to find someone highly skilled at image editing and get them to try to make the best output images they can from both inputs. You’ll get to see places where the standard processing and compression actually lost data. Often the processed-in-camera version still has enough data that a more-or-less comparable output image can be produced, but if you start peeping on pixels you might notice extra noise, banding, blur, ringing, ... The problem with the comparison videos in this thread is that the person/software deciding what to do with the “raw” data has made a bunch of choices to allocate more contrast to shadow and highlight areas, etc., while the in-camera software made a different choice... and nobody tried to reconcile the two versions afterward. Comparing the amount of usable data available