I knew digital cameras and phones had to do a lot of processing and other types of magic to output anything human eyes can work with, but I had no idea just how much. This is wild.
What an unprocessed photo looks like
3 Comments
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
So RAW file was never raw after all ? Or does it just include all the raw data and information to do the math ?
From what I understand sensors in cameras do not usually capture what humans can’t see.
It’s RAW in the sense it gives you the processed pixels intact without any (lossy) compression.
Have you actually READ the article? And THOUGHT about how things work? The key insight is here: “the camera’s analog-to-digital converter (ADC) output can theoretically output values from 0 to 16382”.
The camera gives you (theoretically) 16382 levels. You monitor can (theoretically) show 256 levels. 256/16382 ≈ 1.5%.
What does it mean? That means that when RAW photo is converted to ANYTHING that can be shown on your monitor 98% of data is ALWAYS lost. Your monitor simply couldn’t show that many shades of grey.
And the “processing” that’s described in that article explains how camera picks THE RIGHT 1.5% to show you.
When math says that more than 98% of data is lost… why are you surprised that the remaining part is tiny?
1.5% is 1.5%, after all, postprocessing can only decide WHICH 1.5% are retained and WHICH 98% are thrown away.