Olympus E-M1 RAW vs JPEG trough uncorrected RAW processing.

Fri13

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Jan 30, 2014
Messages
359
GIF size 1.2 MiB!

Never would had guessed the difference between RAW converters what follow official decoding and unofficial.

http://i.imgur.com/00Eb37y.gif

Shot as RAW+JPEG and not applying any other corrections to RAW import than +0.3EV so it converter gets similar look.

Check the resolution difference and angle of view. Lens correction I could understand but the FOV...
 

Ulfric M Douglas

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Mar 6, 2010
Messages
3,709
Location
Northumberland
What's the big deal?
I see two photos, one where lens correction was applied and one not.

The huge black artifacts are the weird thing, how did this occur?
 

Fri13

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Jan 30, 2014
Messages
359
What's the big deal?
I see two photos, one where lens correction was applied and one not.
Check the FOV and resolution change.

There is no artifacts. Corners have heavy vignetting (one slim filter used) and the right edge dark area is part from a building roof.
 

OzRay

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 29, 2010
Messages
4,991
Location
South Gippsland, Australia
Real Name
Ray, not Oz
I don't get it. You'd be better off posting two separate images and explaining what you did and what you interpret from the processing.

PS animated GIFs give me the sheets.
 

janneman

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Dec 6, 2012
Messages
433
Location
Netherlands
Real Name
Jan (John) Kusters
something very weird is going on in the 'unofficial' converged version; the posterazation in the upper left corner is most definitely not raw.
 

Fri13

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Jan 30, 2014
Messages
359
something very weird is going on in the 'unofficial' converged version; the posterazation in the upper left corner is most definitely not raw.
GIF format allows only 256 colors

Animation shows clearly the difference (requires desktop browser) in FOV and resolution change.
 

kevinparis

Cantankerous Scotsman
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Messages
3,912
Location
Gent, Belgium
I am confused about just what point you are trying to make?

That an uncorrected RAW looks different/worse than a corrected JPEG?

wnen you look at the VF or LCD on the camera you only ever see the corrected version

Put the RAW in any decent app like olympus viewer, Aperture, iPhoto, Lightroom etc and you will see the RAW as a corrected image as the manufacturer intended.

K
 

kevinparis

Cantankerous Scotsman
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Messages
3,912
Location
Gent, Belgium
if you just could get the "RAW" with any "decent" editor.... but you get a edited version.
Think you need to have a better understanding of what RAW is.

a RAW file is just that... the raw information from the sensor - so if you could look at that, then what you would see would be a matrix of pixels of varying brightness - all of them monochrome.

The camera always captures RAW. However if you are shooting JPEG what happens is that the processor in the camera takes that matrix of pixels, and because it knows which ones were capturing red, green or blue light, it can do some complex maths called demosiacing that allows it to reconstruct a full colour image and then will apply lens corrections to the image before applying any setting you have on the camera such as saturation before generating the JPEG.

If you are shooting raw... then its still does all that - it needs a JPEG to show you on the screen your finished shot. But what it does is bundle the un demosiacced sensor data, along with some indication of the types of lens correction that has to be done and a thumbnail JPEG, and writes that to a file.

That RAW file , once it is transferred to you computer therefore still needs to be 'interpreted' in order for it to become an image that you can look at. This is where applications like Aperture, Lightroom and Olympus Viewer etc come into play.

Olympus Viewer has an advantage as it knows precisely how to get the best that Olympus thinks it can get out of the sensor data, as they know all the characteristics of the sensor.

Olympus don't share that deep level of understanding with Adobe, Apple etc... so those guys have to have to work out their own interpretation of the data - which is why raw camera support doesnt come out at the same time as the camera, and why different apps can have different looks for the same RAW file.

So you can never see a RAW file - just an interpretation of the monochrome information captured by the sensor

K
 

pdk42

One of the "Eh?" team
Joined
Jan 11, 2013
Messages
6,564
Location
Leamington Spa, UK
All true Kevin - but I'll just add that, from a philosphical viewpoint, you never see JPEG files either! For that, they need to be decompressed, interpreted, resized and turned into a pixel array that you see on your screen. Even rendering an image on screen means going through layer upon layer of OS and video driver card processing. I know I'm splitting hairs, but the truth is the final result of a digital capture involves processing complexity beyond what most of us know or understand!
 

kevinparis

Cantankerous Scotsman
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Messages
3,912
Location
Gent, Belgium
All true Kevin - but I'll just add that, from a philosphical viewpoint, you never see JPEG files either! For that, they need to be decompressed, interpreted, resized and turned into a pixel array that you see on your screen. Even rendering an image on screen means going through layer upon layer of OS and video driver card processing. I know I'm splitting hairs, but the truth is the final result of a digital capture involves processing complexity beyond what most of us know or understand!
philosophical hair splitting!!! on a camera forum.... I love it... and you are absolutely right

K
 

Fri13

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Jan 30, 2014
Messages
359
Think you need to have a better understanding of what RAW is.

a RAW file is just that... the raw information from the sensor - so if you could look at that, then what you would see would be a matrix of pixels of varying brightness - all of them monochrome.

The camera always captures RAW. However if you are shooting JPEG what happens is that the processor in the camera takes that matrix of pixels, and because it knows which ones were capturing red, green or blue light, it can do some complex maths called demosiacing that allows it to reconstruct a full colour image and then will apply lens corrections to the image before applying any setting you have on the camera such as saturation before generating the JPEG.

If you are shooting raw... then its still does all that - it needs a JPEG to show you on the screen your finished shot. But what it does is bundle the un demosiacced sensor data, along with some indication of the types of lens correction that has to be done and a thumbnail JPEG, and writes that to a file.

That RAW file , once it is transferred to you computer therefore still needs to be 'interpreted' in order for it to become an image that you can look at. This is where applications like Aperture, Lightroom and Olympus Viewer etc come into play.

Olympus Viewer has an advantage as it knows precisely how to get the best that Olympus thinks it can get out of the sensor data, as they know all the characteristics of the sensor.

Olympus don't share that deep level of understanding with Adobe, Apple etc... so those guys have to have to work out their own interpretation of the data - which is why raw camera support doesnt come out at the same time as the camera, and why different apps can have different looks for the same RAW file.

So you can never see a RAW file - just an interpretation of the monochrome information captured by the sensor

K
oh I know what is RAW. I work with low level computer technology like A/D conversion systems.
 

Fri13

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Jan 30, 2014
Messages
359
All true Kevin - but I'll just add that, from a philosphical viewpoint, you never see JPEG files either! For that, they need to be decompressed, interpreted, resized and turned into a pixel array that you see on your screen. Even rendering an image on screen means going through layer upon layer of OS and video driver card processing. I know I'm splitting hairs, but the truth is the final result of a digital capture involves processing complexity beyond what most of us know or understand!
Splitting hairs, the display driver is part of the OS, but other way operating system doesn't manipulate or process the data itself, it only operate the hardware and other software that what has access, how long and what it can do with it. very very boring and simple but still very complex stuff.

Operating systems are not what people think they are. a typical operating system is only few megabytes by size at max, and that already includes thousands of different devices drivers, useless to most computers.
 

Fri13

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Jan 30, 2014
Messages
359
Lens correction often changes the FOV, and can dramatically change the FOV for really wide lenses.
Yes, didn't just know how much it really did with the E-M1. Not yet have I had access to study it what it really keeps inside and not going to dissemble it until it gets broken outside of warranty or someone else gives one new to me

but the change is little larger than I expected. Vignetting was something I didn't expect by amount and the resolution change was interesting too by its scale.
 

pdk42

One of the "Eh?" team
Joined
Jan 11, 2013
Messages
6,564
Location
Leamington Spa, UK
Splitting hairs, the display driver is part of the OS, but other way operating system doesn't manipulate or process the data itself, it only operate the hardware and other software that what has access, how long and what it can do with it. very very boring and simple but still very complex stuff.

Operating systems are not what people think they are. a typical operating system is only few megabytes by size at max, and that already includes thousands of different devices drivers, useless to most computers.
Not entirely splitting hairs. Colour correction, gamma etc is handled via the OS and video drivers.
 

kevinparis

Cantankerous Scotsman
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Messages
3,912
Location
Gent, Belgium
Splitting hairs, the display driver is part of the OS, but other way operating system doesn't manipulate or process the data itself, it only operate the hardware and other software that what has access, how long and what it can do with it. very very boring and simple but still very complex stuff.

Operating systems are not what people think they are. a typical operating system is only few megabytes by size at max, and that already includes thousands of different devices drivers, useless to most computers.

with all due respect I think your concept of what an operating system is is a little limited. taking the Mac OS... yes the core OS is relatively small.. its a variant of Unix. However its the layers above this , the API's like CoreImage, CoreData etc that add the functionality that allow developers to easily create applications that give users the ability to do stuff is quite sophisticated

RAW decoding is a system level capability in the Mac OS... this means that raw images can be demosiaced and rendered in any application that chooses to do so without having to have its own dedicated raw decoder. In Mac OS even the Finder, the basic OS file browser can display Raw images

K
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2009-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom