2 ms·
Ah, yeah, the current JPEG XL is not enough for the full RAW coverage. (I was talking more about per-channel color spaces.) There is indeed a reserved extra cha
by lifthrasiir 3y ago
Ah, yeah, the current JPEG XL is not enough for the full RAW coverage. (I was talking more about per-channel color spaces.) There is indeed a reserved extra channel type for specific filter layouts among others, but its specification doesn't exist yet.
- JyrkiAlakuijala 3y agoFor some, possibly most, needs of using raw having yuv444, 14+ (or 16+) bits of precision and lossless or near-lossless (with strong guarantees of maximum error on individual pixels) compression is supposedly acceptable. I base this interpretation mostly on digital photography discussions I have seen on the internet. I am not a photographer myself. (12 bits of component already requires adapting to the current lighting and can supposedly slow down professional photography.)