3 ms·

iPhone 16 Pro lets users capture ProRAW photos in JPEG-XL format

44 points by ksec 2y ago

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
out_of_protocol 2y ago
Big note, the article is about RAW compression and not standalone .jxl image files
- FollowingTheDao 2y ago
  "RAW compression" is an oxymoron.
  - bartwr 2y ago
    It's not. a) compression can be lossless. b) RAW is not about storing literal photons ADC measurements. It always has "some" processing as those always go through an ISP. We can obviously discuss which processing is the cutoff point and it will differ for different applications, but typically this would include things like clipping, sharpening, or denoising. And even some pro DSLRs would remove row noise or artifacts in supposedly "RAW" files! If you can change the exposure or WB - it is what is the minimum practical/useful definition of a RAW.
    - FollowingTheDao 2y ago
      >If you can change the exposure or WB - it is what is the minimum practical/useful definition of a RAW. No. No it is not at all. Are you a photographer? I am not talking about processing before the photo is saved, I am talking abot the compression of the save file. Are you trying to tell me that these are the same? RAW "A camera raw image file contains unprocessed or minimally processed data from the image sensor of either a digital camera, a motion picture film scanner, or other image scanner. Raw files are so named because they are not yet processed, and contain large amounts of potentially redundant data" JPEG-XL Lossless compression uses an algorithm to shrink the image without losing any IMPORTANT data.
      - bartwr 2y ago
        Yes, I am an (amateur) photographer for the last 27 years, from film, DSLRs, mirror less, mobile. And I worked on camera ISPs - both hardware modules, saving RAW files on mobile for Google Pixel, as well as software processing of RAWs. But I guess you know better than me. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
        ahoka 2y ago
        [flagged]
        FollowingTheDao 2y ago
        I see you are impressively knowledgeable in this field. But my issue is not with your knowledge, it is with your comprehension and logic. So, fro example, Nikon typically provides three options for Raw: Compressed, Lossless Compressed and Uncompressed, as seen below: https://photographylife.com/cdn-cgi/imagedelivery/GrQZt6ZFhE4jsKqjDEtqRA/photographylife.com/2017/08/Nikon-D810-RAW-Options.png/w=9999 https://photographylife.com/cdn-cgi/imagedelivery/GrQZt6ZFhE... "Lossless Compressed means that a Raw file is compressed like an ZIP archive file without any loss of data. Once a losslessly compressed image is processed by post-processing software, the data is first decompressed, and you work with the data as if there had never been any compression at all. Lossless compression is the ideal choice, because all the data is fully preserved and yet the image takes up much less space. Uncompressed – an uncompressed Raw file contains all the data, but without any sort of compression algorithm applied to it. Unless you do not have the Lossless Compressed option, you should always avoid selecting the Uncompressed option, as it results in huge image sizes." Why make the distinction if there is no difference? Apple is COMPRESSING the image. Period. RAW photos can be compressed, but if they are then they are "RAW Compressed" Files, not "RAW" files.Apple is not saying you are shooting RAW Compressed, it says you are shooting ProRAW photos, which is slick marketing because everyone thinks they are shooting RAW photos but ProRAW is not RAW. The iPhone 12 gave you a choice to shoot RAW or ProRAW, but my iPhone 13 ProMax only allows the ProRAW option. I have no option to avoid Apple processing my photos anymore. It is semantics but words matter. If something is off with the compression algorithm or the processing how would you know? More, if the difference did not matter, why does Sony go out of the way to explain the difference? https://www.sony.com/electronics/support/articles/00257081 https://www.sony.com/electronics/support/articles/00257081 If a computer compresses and expands the image using an algorithm you are not getting back the same image. Period. I do not care if you perceive it to be the same, it is not the same.
  - sureIy 2y ago
    Wrong. Check out ZIP files. Raw files inside, compressed.
amelius 2y ago
[flagged]
- anotherboffin 2y ago
  I guess creativity and technical advancements take longer than the yearly upgrade cycle required by marketing.
- jessyco 2y ago
  Regardless of how people are feeling about Apples products, any news is better than no news so I'm sure their not to hurt by the media having mixed reviews. They operate their own way regardless of media. I'm sure if the demand for the products slowed down they may stop producing yearly incremental changes but enough people are out there upgrading from older models (I have an 11 pro and this years 16 looks very tempting to me for example). Perspective.
lostemptations5 2y ago
[flagged]
londons_explore 2y ago
Smartphone cameras for the past ~8 years have been using multiple frames to improve noise performance, resolution and dynamic range. Sometimes as many as 128 frames are stacked, over many seconds, especially in low light. Gyro and optical flow data is also used to help align frames, and noise models to decide how to blend them (and avoid ghosting when things are changing in the frame). How exactly does one fit 128 frames of lossless data from a 12 megapixel sensor into an 18 megabyte file? Or is ProRAW not as RAW or as lossless as the name would imply?
- echoangle 2y ago
  Maybe it’s just one frame per file? Also, you could probably achieve some pretty good compression with multiple frames because the frames are probably very correlated, right?
  - londons_explore 2y ago
    So if it's one Raw sensor frame, it will be noisy, and you won't get any of the computational photography benefits. It will end up looking like a photo from a 10 year old phone. You will get a little compression storing multiple frames, but not much, because the photon shot noise is independent for each frame - and in lossless images, the noise (which does not compress according to information theory) often has more entropy than the ideal image (which compresses well). Or you could store one post-processed frame, after you have combined 128 frames and done the computational photography stuff. But at that point, it isn't exactly raw data anymore.
    - FollowingTheDao 2y ago
      "So if it's one Raw sensor frame, it will be noisy," That is not why noise is created in digital photographs. And Noise or Grain in a photograph is not always a negative. "Noise in photography is the arbitrary alteration of brightness and color in an image. The onset of this random variation generates what is called “noise”or “grain”, which is basically formed by irregular pixels misrepresenting the luminance and tonality of the photograph. These pixels are visible to the eye due to their large size." A signal RAW image does not have to have noise. Noise can be created by incorrect exposure and low light. >Or you could store one post-processed frame, after you have combined 128 frames and done the computational photography stuff. But at that point, it isn't exactly raw data anymore. Yes, and Apple should not be calling any images it captures from an iPhone "RAW".
chrisan 2y ago
Kinda sidebar here, apologies, but a question for any DSLR/Mirrorless owners out there: I've always been frustrated by the reach of phone cameras and finally got a mirrorless and 100-400 lens. It is an aps-c so the equivalent max focal length is 640mm which has been great for wildlife or some long views out on a hike. The sensor is 32.5MP which knocks the socks off my old iphone 12 pro, however this new 16 (or maybe it started with 15?) is 48MP. Now I know its going to be unlikely we see a phone camera with the reach - but what about landscape photography? Would a 16 pro on a tripod be able to compete with real camera gear. I assume you can focus stack or bracket with ProRAW? This hobby is expensive and just trying to decide if I invest in a lens (my only other one is the kit lens) for landscape. Final output would be for a 4k tv (samsung frame is nice for that) or possibly print
- frostburg 2y ago
  No. Tiny sensor, can't use grad NDs, wide angle camera even worse, relies on intense computational methods for dynamic range that will destroy the specific light and time character of landscapes. Making prints, especially large prints, requires high technical quality images that phones can't provide.
- sureIy 2y ago
  Lenses are definitely a factor in “quality” of photos, so some situations are impossible/hard to recreate with mobile phones. What mobile sensors will never achieve is fast shots in the dark. It’s physically not possible. While “night modes” are impressive, even with long exposures you will not get the same quality as an actual DSLR with a tripod. Megapixels aren’t important unless you crop, zoom digitally or print.
- 112233 2y ago
  With real camera gear that costs as much as the phone? Depends, in many situations it will probably beat real camera, because of all the computational stuff. Especially if the output is 8Mpix. Once shooting conditions get tricky (moving trees/water, high dynamic range with glare and shadows, night sky etc), it of course will be possible to select camera gear that will beat the phone.
ksec 2y ago
Guess I will be buying a iPhone 16 Pro then.
- throwaway81523 2y ago
  Can a zillion standalone mirrorless cameras with bigger sensors and more photographic control do the same thing?
  - tempodox 2y ago
    Never, ever. Remember, the iPhone is magic! /s
  - cheschire 2y ago
    Will I remember to take my camera everywhere?
  - joking 2y ago
    They can, but you have to do it yourself instead of leaving it to the phone. For a specific foto it’s ok, but I doubt any one wants to sit after each day to process the photos one took during the day

44 points by ksec 2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

out_of_protocol 2y ago

Big note, the article is about RAW compression and not standalone .jxl image files

FollowingTheDao 2y ago
"RAW compression" is an oxymoron.
- bartwr 2y ago
  It's not. a) compression can be lossless. b) RAW is not about storing literal photons ADC measurements. It always has "some" processing as those always go through an ISP. We can obviously discuss which processing is the cutoff point and it will differ for different applications, but typically this would include things like clipping, sharpening, or denoising. And even some pro DSLRs would remove row noise or artifacts in supposedly "RAW" files! If you can change the exposure or WB - it is what is the minimum practical/useful definition of a RAW.
  - FollowingTheDao 2y ago
    >If you can change the exposure or WB - it is what is the minimum practical/useful definition of a RAW. No. No it is not at all. Are you a photographer? I am not talking about processing before the photo is saved, I am talking abot the compression of the save file. Are you trying to tell me that these are the same? RAW "A camera raw image file contains unprocessed or minimally processed data from the image sensor of either a digital camera, a motion picture film scanner, or other image scanner. Raw files are so named because they are not yet processed, and contain large amounts of potentially redundant data" JPEG-XL Lossless compression uses an algorithm to shrink the image without losing any IMPORTANT data.
    - bartwr 2y ago
      Yes, I am an (amateur) photographer for the last 27 years, from film, DSLRs, mirror less, mobile. And I worked on camera ISPs - both hardware modules, saving RAW files on mobile for Google Pixel, as well as software processing of RAWs. But I guess you know better than me. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
      - ahoka 2y ago
        [flagged]
      - FollowingTheDao 2y ago
        I see you are impressively knowledgeable in this field. But my issue is not with your knowledge, it is with your comprehension and logic. So, fro example, Nikon typically provides three options for Raw: Compressed, Lossless Compressed and Uncompressed, as seen below: https://photographylife.com/cdn-cgi/imagedelivery/GrQZt6ZFhE4jsKqjDEtqRA/photographylife.com/2017/08/Nikon-D810-RAW-Options.png/w=9999 https://photographylife.com/cdn-cgi/imagedelivery/GrQZt6ZFhE... "Lossless Compressed means that a Raw file is compressed like an ZIP archive file without any loss of data. Once a losslessly compressed image is processed by post-processing software, the data is first decompressed, and you work with the data as if there had never been any compression at all. Lossless compression is the ideal choice, because all the data is fully preserved and yet the image takes up much less space. Uncompressed – an uncompressed Raw file contains all the data, but without any sort of compression algorithm applied to it. Unless you do not have the Lossless Compressed option, you should always avoid selecting the Uncompressed option, as it results in huge image sizes." Why make the distinction if there is no difference? Apple is COMPRESSING the image. Period. RAW photos can be compressed, but if they are then they are "RAW Compressed" Files, not "RAW" files.Apple is not saying you are shooting RAW Compressed, it says you are shooting ProRAW photos, which is slick marketing because everyone thinks they are shooting RAW photos but ProRAW is not RAW. The iPhone 12 gave you a choice to shoot RAW or ProRAW, but my iPhone 13 ProMax only allows the ProRAW option. I have no option to avoid Apple processing my photos anymore. It is semantics but words matter. If something is off with the compression algorithm or the processing how would you know? More, if the difference did not matter, why does Sony go out of the way to explain the difference? https://www.sony.com/electronics/support/articles/00257081 https://www.sony.com/electronics/support/articles/00257081 If a computer compresses and expands the image using an algorithm you are not getting back the same image. Period. I do not care if you perceive it to be the same, it is not the same.
- sureIy 2y ago
  Wrong. Check out ZIP files. Raw files inside, compressed.

amelius 2y ago

[flagged]

anotherboffin 2y ago
I guess creativity and technical advancements take longer than the yearly upgrade cycle required by marketing.
jessyco 2y ago
Regardless of how people are feeling about Apples products, any news is better than no news so I'm sure their not to hurt by the media having mixed reviews. They operate their own way regardless of media. I'm sure if the demand for the products slowed down they may stop producing yearly incremental changes but enough people are out there upgrading from older models (I have an 11 pro and this years 16 looks very tempting to me for example). Perspective.

lostemptations5 2y ago

[flagged]

londons_explore 2y ago

Smartphone cameras for the past ~8 years have been using multiple frames to improve noise performance, resolution and dynamic range. Sometimes as many as 128 frames are stacked, over many seconds, especially in low light. Gyro and optical flow data is also used to help align frames, and noise models to decide how to blend them (and avoid ghosting when things are changing in the frame). How exactly does one fit 128 frames of lossless data from a 12 megapixel sensor into an 18 megabyte file? Or is ProRAW not as RAW or as lossless as the name would imply?

echoangle 2y ago
Maybe it’s just one frame per file? Also, you could probably achieve some pretty good compression with multiple frames because the frames are probably very correlated, right?
- londons_explore 2y ago
  So if it's one Raw sensor frame, it will be noisy, and you won't get any of the computational photography benefits. It will end up looking like a photo from a 10 year old phone. You will get a little compression storing multiple frames, but not much, because the photon shot noise is independent for each frame - and in lossless images, the noise (which does not compress according to information theory) often has more entropy than the ideal image (which compresses well). Or you could store one post-processed frame, after you have combined 128 frames and done the computational photography stuff. But at that point, it isn't exactly raw data anymore.
  - FollowingTheDao 2y ago
    "So if it's one Raw sensor frame, it will be noisy," That is not why noise is created in digital photographs. And Noise or Grain in a photograph is not always a negative. "Noise in photography is the arbitrary alteration of brightness and color in an image. The onset of this random variation generates what is called “noise”or “grain”, which is basically formed by irregular pixels misrepresenting the luminance and tonality of the photograph. These pixels are visible to the eye due to their large size." A signal RAW image does not have to have noise. Noise can be created by incorrect exposure and low light. >Or you could store one post-processed frame, after you have combined 128 frames and done the computational photography stuff. But at that point, it isn't exactly raw data anymore. Yes, and Apple should not be calling any images it captures from an iPhone "RAW".

chrisan 2y ago

Kinda sidebar here, apologies, but a question for any DSLR/Mirrorless owners out there: I've always been frustrated by the reach of phone cameras and finally got a mirrorless and 100-400 lens. It is an aps-c so the equivalent max focal length is 640mm which has been great for wildlife or some long views out on a hike. The sensor is 32.5MP which knocks the socks off my old iphone 12 pro, however this new 16 (or maybe it started with 15?) is 48MP. Now I know its going to be unlikely we see a phone camera with the reach - but what about landscape photography? Would a 16 pro on a tripod be able to compete with real camera gear. I assume you can focus stack or bracket with ProRAW? This hobby is expensive and just trying to decide if I invest in a lens (my only other one is the kit lens) for landscape. Final output would be for a 4k tv (samsung frame is nice for that) or possibly print

frostburg 2y ago
No. Tiny sensor, can't use grad NDs, wide angle camera even worse, relies on intense computational methods for dynamic range that will destroy the specific light and time character of landscapes. Making prints, especially large prints, requires high technical quality images that phones can't provide.
sureIy 2y ago
Lenses are definitely a factor in “quality” of photos, so some situations are impossible/hard to recreate with mobile phones. What mobile sensors will never achieve is fast shots in the dark. It’s physically not possible. While “night modes” are impressive, even with long exposures you will not get the same quality as an actual DSLR with a tripod. Megapixels aren’t important unless you crop, zoom digitally or print.
112233 2y ago
With real camera gear that costs as much as the phone? Depends, in many situations it will probably beat real camera, because of all the computational stuff. Especially if the output is 8Mpix. Once shooting conditions get tricky (moving trees/water, high dynamic range with glare and shadows, night sky etc), it of course will be possible to select camera gear that will beat the phone.

ksec 2y ago

Guess I will be buying a iPhone 16 Pro then.

throwaway81523 2y ago
Can a zillion standalone mirrorless cameras with bigger sensors and more photographic control do the same thing?
- tempodox 2y ago
  Never, ever. Remember, the iPhone is magic! /s
- cheschire 2y ago
  Will I remember to take my camera everywhere?
- joking 2y ago
  They can, but you have to do it yourself instead of leaving it to the phone. For a specific foto it’s ok, but I doubt any one wants to sit after each day to process the photos one took during the day