Thread: Nokia has exciting news for N900 users
View Single Post
danramos's Avatar
danramos is offline danramos
2010-07-26 , 16:00
Posts: 4,672 | Thanked: 5,455 times | Joined on Jul 2008 @ Springfield, MA, USA
#470
Originally Posted by attila77 View Post
The point of RAW is that postprocessing parameters can be applied (and changed) later - JPEG bakes those in and you cannot un-apply them. Compression artifacts are not even on the top of that list - think white balance, sharpening, demosaicing, noise reduction, darken/lighten with less loss of details, etc, etc.
JPEG doesn't "bake those in" any more than TIFF, DNG or RAW. Once you have the image and you begin to process the image, ALL the data is just as malleable and useful as anything RAW gives you. Hell, JPEG even borrows a page out of TIFF and records a lot of that in the EXIF metadata. RAW isn't a format. It's just a proprietary aperture dump. Putting it into a 100% quality JPEG with EXIF metadata would record most of the same information (ALL of the info, if you use the MakerNote tag in the EXIF metadata) with pretty decent quality and it would at least work everywhere. To that end, unless I'm still missing something, I don't see the utility of the RAW dump. Mind you, we're also still only talking about a 5MP cell phone camera, too.