3 ms·
Do you have any link explaining this reasoning? It does seem weird to me because not handling camera specific color management seem contradictory to a good expe
by mijamo 4y ago
Do you have any link explaining this reasoning? It does seem weird to me because not handling camera specific color management seem contradictory to a good experience. Raw files are actually not in any way "neutral" or standard, they are pretty specific to the camera and brand depending on how they calibrated their censor and other considerations such as potential treatments etc.
Not handling that at the software level and leaving it to the user means that you would have to do a repetitive and complex work for every single picture when other softwares give you a "neutral" basis (even though any attempt at neutrality is always limited. True neutrality could not display the image with RBG at all...) to work from based on calibrated color profiles for the cameras (some are better at giving you a good basis than others of course).
This would seem like a weird choice as anyways you have to do a bunch of conversion, so not using camera profile just means the conversion is less faithful.
- auxym 4y agoSorry for the misunderstanding, DT does handle the color space of the camera sensor, via the "Input Color Profile" module but this camera calibration data is not published by camera manufacturers. For Canon for example, DT has a single generic "Canon" color matrix profile, which was probably created by a user. You would get better results by calibrating your specific camera. Commercial software makers are able to obtain camera profiles (and other stuff like processing algorithms to match in-camera processing) under NDA from camera makers. Sorry, not specific link, just stuff I picked up by following the pixls.us forum, where the DT and RT devs hang out.