4 ms·

Typically they are not to my knowledge! Though I am also not an expert. Most camera makers apply a fixed sensor profile, and possibly a dark frame to remove noi

Typically they are not to my knowledge! Though I am also not an expert. Most camera makers apply a fixed sensor profile, and possibly a dark frame to remove noise before writing out the values to whatever file. Some of them may apply lens optimizations to correct distortion or vignetting as well.

mubou 2y ago
On top of that, I hear the RAW format on some smartphones is saved after the phone does its fake-HDR and computational photography bullshit, so it's even further from "raw" with those cameras.
- kalleboo 2y ago
  This is true for Apple's "ProRAW" that you get if you choose RAW in the iOS camera app. Third party camera apps like Photon can shoot actual RAW raw though, the hardware and OS APIs do support it.
tobyhinloopen 2y ago
The corrections are just metadata, the RAW data is still there. This is true for both DNG and ARW (Sony). Dont know the other brands. The corrections can even look different based on what program you use to interpret them.
- buildbot 2y ago
  I don’t think that’s true in general. As a sibling comments points out, this is not true for some DNGs - for example, the output of an iPhone is in DNG, but with many, many transforms already baked in. A DNG might even be debayered already. GFX 100s II’s apply a transform to RAW data at iso 80, see: https://blog.kasson.com/gfx-100-ii/the-reason-for-the-gfz-100-ii-iso-80-unusually-good-read-noise/ https://blog.kasson.com/gfx-100-ii/the-reason-for-the-gfz-10... I don’t know much about ARW, but I do know that they offer a lossy compressed format - so it’s not just straight off the sensor integer values in that case either.
  - spookie 2y ago
    damn, that is a quirk that would've led me pulling my hair out if I worked with those.
    - tobyhinloopen 2y ago
      At least it's only at ISO 80, where noise would be minimal anyway (: I rarely use noise reduction because I don't like the artificial cleanliness of the result.
  - tobyhinloopen 2y ago
    Okay true, but that's not the format's fault (: The GFX 100s II thing is very interesting. Totally not what I would expect from such a "high end" camera.

mubou 2y ago

On top of that, I hear the RAW format on some smartphones is saved after the phone does its fake-HDR and computational photography bullshit, so it's even further from "raw" with those cameras.

kalleboo 2y ago
This is true for Apple's "ProRAW" that you get if you choose RAW in the iOS camera app. Third party camera apps like Photon can shoot actual RAW raw though, the hardware and OS APIs do support it.

tobyhinloopen 2y ago

The corrections are just metadata, the RAW data is still there. This is true for both DNG and ARW (Sony). Dont know the other brands. The corrections can even look different based on what program you use to interpret them.

buildbot 2y ago
I don’t think that’s true in general. As a sibling comments points out, this is not true for some DNGs - for example, the output of an iPhone is in DNG, but with many, many transforms already baked in. A DNG might even be debayered already. GFX 100s II’s apply a transform to RAW data at iso 80, see: https://blog.kasson.com/gfx-100-ii/the-reason-for-the-gfz-100-ii-iso-80-unusually-good-read-noise/ https://blog.kasson.com/gfx-100-ii/the-reason-for-the-gfz-10... I don’t know much about ARW, but I do know that they offer a lossy compressed format - so it’s not just straight off the sensor integer values in that case either.
- spookie 2y ago
  damn, that is a quirk that would've led me pulling my hair out if I worked with those.
  - tobyhinloopen 2y ago
    At least it's only at ISO 80, where noise would be minimal anyway (: I rarely use noise reduction because I don't like the artificial cleanliness of the result.
- tobyhinloopen 2y ago
  Okay true, but that's not the format's fault (: The GFX 100s II thing is very interesting. Totally not what I would expect from such a "high end" camera.