4 ms·

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 wit

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.