3 ms·

> What could the state of the art in demosaic, noise, latitude, color accuracy be with that kind of speed and tools? Do you shoot JPEGs exclusively? I shoot RA

> What could the state of the art in demosaic, noise, latitude, color accuracy be with that kind of speed and tools? Do you shoot JPEGs exclusively? I shoot RAW, so the only thing I care about post image capture is being able to preview my photos, show a histogram, zoom in to check for focus accuracy and delete images. Everything else I can do on my desktop, which will always be much more capable than whatever I can put on-device.

tambourine_man 8y ago
Almost exclusively RAW, but sometime shot both at the same time. But even RAW is not as “unbaked” as you might imagine. Specially in higher ISO
- frankchn 8y ago
  Sure, but that is mainly noise reduction and some dead/hot pixel mapping isn't it, and some manufacturers (Sony) do more of that than others (Canon/Nikon). Demosaicing, histogram adjustments, and the final render to JPEG is still done on my PC when I shoot RAW. In other words, what improvements do you think camera manufacturers can add to the post-capture RAW workflow if we had a faster processor/better software? (Of course, in pre-capture, there is always room for more improvements to metering and autofocus, but camera manufacturers know this and are constantly making adjustments and improvements each generation.)
  - tambourine_man 8y ago
    Better signal processing, amplification, read noise and probably lot more that I can’t even imagine. And of course, all the stuff during capture you mentioned could be a lot better too. Picture being a camera engineer and suddenly have 10X more speed and a decent platform to work with. 32bit multiple exposure RAW in a single click, who knows.
    - frankchn 8y ago
      > Better signal processing, amplification, read noise and probably lot more that I can’t even imagine. Yeah, I get that, but I don't think there is an improvement here by sticking a modern smartphone CPU and OS into a camera. Making improvements to those metrics ultimately require newer sensors with lower read noise and better on-chip ADCs. The camera manufacturers can't do 24-bit RAWs @ 20fps when the sensor only outputs 12-bits @ 10 fps. If we are doing multiple exposures, then as you know, cameras already have exposure bracketing, and I can do the rest in my PC.
      - tambourine_man 8y ago
        >Making improvements to those metrics ultimately require newer sensors with lower read noise and better on-chip ADCs. Which big pocket tech companies could do :) >If we are doing multiple exposures, then as you know, cameras already have exposure bracketing, and I can do the rest in my PC. Sure, but we have gyroscopes, accelerometers, electronic shutters and 2Ghz processors on this dream device of mine. Surely we can do better than using a tripod, exposing entire scenes multiple times and try to align and blend them in the computer hours later.
        frankchn 8y ago
        > Which big pocket tech companies could do :) Yeah, unfortunately I don't think big tech is that interested. Unless it is a strategic move, even at $1b/year in profit, it is not worth Tim Cook's time to do this ($1b/year is less than 2% of AAPL profit). I am not sure there is $1b/year in profit to be made across all the ILC manufacturers at this point. > but we have gyroscopes, accelerometers These are helpful and I wish cameras would record these and stuff them into the EXIF data somehow, so that I can do better post. I think we just have some disagreements about where post-processing should happen :p

tambourine_man 8y ago

Almost exclusively RAW, but sometime shot both at the same time. But even RAW is not as “unbaked” as you might imagine. Specially in higher ISO

frankchn 8y ago
Sure, but that is mainly noise reduction and some dead/hot pixel mapping isn't it, and some manufacturers (Sony) do more of that than others (Canon/Nikon). Demosaicing, histogram adjustments, and the final render to JPEG is still done on my PC when I shoot RAW. In other words, what improvements do you think camera manufacturers can add to the post-capture RAW workflow if we had a faster processor/better software? (Of course, in pre-capture, there is always room for more improvements to metering and autofocus, but camera manufacturers know this and are constantly making adjustments and improvements each generation.)
- tambourine_man 8y ago
  Better signal processing, amplification, read noise and probably lot more that I can’t even imagine. And of course, all the stuff during capture you mentioned could be a lot better too. Picture being a camera engineer and suddenly have 10X more speed and a decent platform to work with. 32bit multiple exposure RAW in a single click, who knows.
  - frankchn 8y ago
    > Better signal processing, amplification, read noise and probably lot more that I can’t even imagine. Yeah, I get that, but I don't think there is an improvement here by sticking a modern smartphone CPU and OS into a camera. Making improvements to those metrics ultimately require newer sensors with lower read noise and better on-chip ADCs. The camera manufacturers can't do 24-bit RAWs @ 20fps when the sensor only outputs 12-bits @ 10 fps. If we are doing multiple exposures, then as you know, cameras already have exposure bracketing, and I can do the rest in my PC.
    - tambourine_man 8y ago
      >Making improvements to those metrics ultimately require newer sensors with lower read noise and better on-chip ADCs. Which big pocket tech companies could do :) >If we are doing multiple exposures, then as you know, cameras already have exposure bracketing, and I can do the rest in my PC. Sure, but we have gyroscopes, accelerometers, electronic shutters and 2Ghz processors on this dream device of mine. Surely we can do better than using a tripod, exposing entire scenes multiple times and try to align and blend them in the computer hours later.
      - frankchn 8y ago
        > Which big pocket tech companies could do :) Yeah, unfortunately I don't think big tech is that interested. Unless it is a strategic move, even at $1b/year in profit, it is not worth Tim Cook's time to do this ($1b/year is less than 2% of AAPL profit). I am not sure there is $1b/year in profit to be made across all the ILC manufacturers at this point. > but we have gyroscopes, accelerometers These are helpful and I wish cameras would record these and stuff them into the EXIF data somehow, so that I can do better post. I think we just have some disagreements about where post-processing should happen :p