![]() |
2010-06-15
, 14:29
|
Posts: 356 |
Thanked: 172 times |
Joined on Jan 2010
@ Canada
|
#22
|
![]() |
2010-07-13
, 11:04
|
Posts: 6 |
Thanked: 1 time |
Joined on May 2010
@ Wakefield, UK
|
#23
|
![]() |
2010-07-13
, 11:23
|
|
Posts: 663 |
Thanked: 282 times |
Joined on Nov 2009
@ London, UK
|
#24
|
![]() |
2010-07-13
, 11:54
|
Posts: 356 |
Thanked: 172 times |
Joined on Jan 2010
@ Canada
|
#25
|
![]() |
2010-07-18
, 08:03
|
|
Posts: 345 |
Thanked: 72 times |
Joined on Dec 2009
@ Reunion Island
|
#26
|
The Following User Says Thank You to titi974 For This Useful Post: | ||
![]() |
2010-07-18
, 14:24
|
Posts: 356 |
Thanked: 172 times |
Joined on Jan 2010
@ Canada
|
#27
|
![]() |
2010-07-18
, 16:42
|
|
Posts: 2,050 |
Thanked: 1,425 times |
Joined on Dec 2009
@ Bucharest
|
#28
|
The Following User Says Thank You to ndi For This Useful Post: | ||
![]() |
2010-07-18
, 18:30
|
Posts: 356 |
Thanked: 172 times |
Joined on Jan 2010
@ Canada
|
#29
|
Given the specs of the N900 camera, I see no advantage of raw over losless such as PNG, since I very much doubt the sensor has any stuff that can be used. Demosaicing is fine, and even if camera does HDR, PNG supports 16 bit per channel. There is no reason to go for complicated IMO.
The Following User Says Thank You to Bingley Joe For This Useful Post: | ||
![]() |
2010-07-19
, 10:46
|
Posts: 124 |
Thanked: 52 times |
Joined on May 2010
@ Sweden
|
#30
|
Heavy NR combined with over-agressive sharpening is resulting in a lot more artefacts than there should be. I'd much rather take care of that myself with proper desktop-based tools.
(ok, what I'd REALLY like is pure RAW output, but barring that)