5 ms·

My opinion is that finished images from professional photographers are cleaned up interpretations. And increasingly so on an automated basis from smart phone im

by dv_dt 4y ago

My opinion is that finished images from professional photographers are cleaned up interpretations. And increasingly so on an automated basis from smart phone image processing stacks. Raw images often don't look as good to the eye, even if they contain fairly complete information that a professional or automation can work with to provide a number of different finishing approaches that are pleasing to human perceptions. This techs raw capture is significantly different from current image sensor data, and their processed image is mostly making it close to a mature "raw" image is sort of how I take the sample photos in the article.

hedora 4y ago
I agree with you about modern phone cameras, but I have an old digital with minimal postprocessing, and the images come out clear (at a whopping 3 megapixels), as do the raws on my Sony A7. Similarly, film cameras worked fine without piles of neural networks, etc during development. The images in the article are all blurry, but seem decent for a research prototype. Presumably, dumping lots of commercial development resources into the technology will improve it.
naet 4y ago
I think I disagree with your opinion. Raw images often look fantastic if they are captured properly (in focus, exposed correctly). I still work regularly with old film cameras, and the photos develop very very nicely without any digital alterations. When I shoot with my digital I usually save both RAW and JPEG formats so I have the extra raw data if I need it but if I've taken a good shot I minimize my digital alterations. There are some additional tweaks that can be done to a "raw" format camera image that contains extra image data compared to a processed/jpeg type flatter image, but there's no reason they should look bad coming out of the camera. Maybe unbalanced white color values at most.
- NoSorryCannot 4y ago
  Raw camera data requires an interpretation to be displayed on a monitor at all and usually needs a lot of processing to produce a natural-looking photo on the screen. Demosaicing at the very least but gamma curve correction, color response correction, etc. as well.

by dv_dt 4y ago

hedora 4y ago

I agree with you about modern phone cameras, but I have an old digital with minimal postprocessing, and the images come out clear (at a whopping 3 megapixels), as do the raws on my Sony A7. Similarly, film cameras worked fine without piles of neural networks, etc during development. The images in the article are all blurry, but seem decent for a research prototype. Presumably, dumping lots of commercial development resources into the technology will improve it.

naet 4y ago

I think I disagree with your opinion. Raw images often look fantastic if they are captured properly (in focus, exposed correctly). I still work regularly with old film cameras, and the photos develop very very nicely without any digital alterations. When I shoot with my digital I usually save both RAW and JPEG formats so I have the extra raw data if I need it but if I've taken a good shot I minimize my digital alterations. There are some additional tweaks that can be done to a "raw" format camera image that contains extra image data compared to a processed/jpeg type flatter image, but there's no reason they should look bad coming out of the camera. Maybe unbalanced white color values at most.

NoSorryCannot 4y ago
Raw camera data requires an interpretation to be displayed on a monitor at all and usually needs a lot of processing to produce a natural-looking photo on the screen. Demosaicing at the very least but gamma curve correction, color response correction, etc. as well.