Active Topics
| The Following User Says Thank You to jaimex2 For This Useful Post: | ||
 |
|
2010-11-14
, 00:48
|
|
Posts: 451 |
Thanked: 424 times |
Joined on Apr 2010
@ England
|
#12
|
Originally Posted by ossipena
you seem to know your stuff, on a lot of topic, way more than me anyway, but if you wasn't so rude and overpowering in your posts i'm sure more people would be willing to learn from you.
you are climbing into a tree with your butt first. (and you don't really understand raws that well).
sorry for the offtopic.
anyway, thanks for your post, i learnt a bit more about RAW.
Last edited by jd4200; 2010-11-14 at 00:51.
|
|
2010-11-14
, 07:01
|
|
Posts: 356 |
Thanked: 172 times |
Joined on Jan 2010
@ Canada
|
#13
|
Originally Posted by ossipena
So you are stating unequivocally that the sensor/imaging system in the N900 is incapable of producing greater than 8 bits per channel of precision?
errrrr.... raw file is raw file. it is all you can get. it has everything the sensor has outputted when read.
I'm not being argumentative -- I understand what a RAW file is. I simply don't know anything about the absolute capabilities of the N900's camera hardware, and what the FCam developers have chosen to focus on..
These are DNGs we're dealing with, so I'm wondering if they might be linear DNGs - ie: partially processed - rather than pure RAW data encapsulated in the DNG wrapper. Linear DNG might explain why they're only 8 bits per channel. It would also make a certain amount of sense from a usability standpoint as Nokia hasn't released an N900 RAW profile that I'm aware of.
So... 'yes' errrrr 'no': Are you 100% certain that 8 bits per channel is the absolute limit of what the hardware is capable of?
| The Following User Says Thank You to Bingley Joe For This Useful Post: | ||
 |
|
2010-11-14
, 07:21
|
|
Posts: 3,159 |
Thanked: 2,023 times |
Joined on Feb 2008
@ Finland
|
#14
|
Originally Posted by Bingley Joe
Sorry, I didn't remember right. The actual output is 10bit per pixel so the raw isn't actual raw file. those 2 bits probably give you zero headroom still.
So you are stating unequivocally that the sensor/imaging system in the N900 is incapable of producing greater than 8 bits per channel of precision?
I'm not being argumentative -- I understand what a RAW file is. I simply don't know anything about the absolute capabilities of the N900's camera hardware, and what the FCam developers have chosen to focus on..
These are DNGs we're dealing with, so I'm wondering if they might be linear DNGs - ie: partially processed - rather than pure RAW data encapsulated in the DNG wrapper. Linear DNG might explain why they're only 8 bits per channel. It would also make a certain amount of sense from a usability standpoint as Nokia hasn't released an N900 RAW profile that I'm aware of.
So... 'yes' errrrr 'no': Are you 100% certain that 8 bits per channel is the absolute limit of what the hardware is capable of?
http://retiisi.dyndns.org/~sakke/foo...APL_090511.doc
any dslr sensor is frigging huge compared to the n900's one which is pretty much in the middle of yellow and purple rectangles (1/2.5"). yes smaller sensors have better specs but if you need about 50 of them in order to get same area than fx camera has, well you probably get the point,
__________________
Want to know something?
K.I.S.S. approach:
wiki category:beginners. Browse it through and you'll be much wiser!
If the link doesn't help, just use
Google Custom Search
Want to know something?
K.I.S.S. approach:
wiki category:beginners. Browse it through and you'll be much wiser!
If the link doesn't help, just use
Google Custom Search
|
|
2010-11-14
, 15:28
|
|
Posts: 356 |
Thanked: 172 times |
Joined on Jan 2010
@ Canada
|
#15
|
Originally Posted by ossipena
Thanks, ossipena -- that's good to know. I agree that the extra 2 bits probably aren't terribly useful, but I'd still prefer to have them than not.. I mean, I'd need them if I ever find myself trying to photograph someone getting a shave and a hair cut!
Sorry, I didn't remember right. The actual output is 10bit per pixel so the raw isn't actual raw file. those 2 bits probably give you zero headroom still.
|
|
2010-11-14
, 21:26
|
|
Posts: 46 |
Thanked: 392 times |
Joined on Apr 2010
@ Stanford University
|
#16
|
FCamera DNGs contain 10 bits per pixel, which is the full bit depth of the sensor.
We've done some investigating on where the blue/yellow color issues are coming from, but don't yet have a solution, unfortunately.
-Eddy, one of the FCam devs
We've done some investigating on where the blue/yellow color issues are coming from, but don't yet have a solution, unfortunately.
-Eddy, one of the FCam devs
| The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to ETalvala For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2010-11-15
, 08:52
|
|
Posts: 12 |
Thanked: 27 times |
Joined on Nov 2010
|
#17
|
ETalvala, great to know you are working on this issue! Hope you will come to the solution soon 'cause no matter how hard I tried - still no good with correcting this issue in photoshop. I also noticed that when you are aiming a frame with standard camera app the picture also have this blueish vignetting. But when you press the "shoot" button and after the phrase "processing image" the photo displayed on screen have no such an issue - so it's all a matter of post-processing i believe.
|
|
2010-11-15
, 09:31
|
|
Posts: 3,159 |
Thanked: 2,023 times |
Joined on Feb 2008
@ Finland
|
#18
|
Originally Posted by Zoin
define post processing?
so it's all a matter of post-processing i believe.
I'd say it is a matter of image processing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayer_filter
the raw file has only individual values of those squares. image processing is the thing that converts the data into viewable format and I understand word post processing as modifying already created viewable file.
__________________
Want to know something?
K.I.S.S. approach:
wiki category:beginners. Browse it through and you'll be much wiser!
If the link doesn't help, just use
Google Custom Search
Want to know something?
K.I.S.S. approach:
wiki category:beginners. Browse it through and you'll be much wiser!
If the link doesn't help, just use
Google Custom Search
| The Following User Says Thank You to ossipena For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2011-12-24
, 15:59
|
|
Posts: 515 |
Thanked: 259 times |
Joined on Jan 2010
|
#19
|
Originally Posted by ETalvala
From the research I've seen there is something about the oblique angle of light against the sensor that causes the color cast in the RAW files.
FCamera DNGs contain 10 bits per pixel, which is the full bit depth of the sensor.
We've done some investigating on where the blue/yellow color issues are coming from, but don't yet have a solution, unfortunately.
-Eddy, one of the FCam devs
I've used a program called CornerFix to address the issue:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/cornerfix/
Please see the attached two photos. For best results slideshow the 4 files where you can switch quickly between the two pairs of photos. When you see one pair back and forth in a slideshow you'll see the off-color vignetting much more clearly.
| The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to geohsia For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2012-01-04
, 08:44
|
|
Posts: 9 |
Thanked: 3 times |
Joined on Oct 2011
@ Cambridge MA
|
#20
|
Originally Posted by geohsia
You just made my day - I've been looking for something like this for the past month. Do you have a profile you're using? If so, can you share it? I will try to make one this week or next.
From the research I've seen there is something about the oblique angle of light against the sensor that causes the color cast in the RAW files
I've used a program called CornerFix to address the issue:.
Last edited by plaka666; 2012-01-04 at 08:45. Reason: text fix, wtf is up with quoted html code being parsed to text?
| The Following User Says Thank You to plaka666 For This Useful Post: | ||
The solution was to use a black permanent marker on the blue strip facing the lens to get rid of the reflection. Works a treat.
The chrome frame doesn't seem to make to bad of a difference, try taking a photo with the front cover off. It's really flash photography that suffers.
Back to the discussion, how do we get the best photo results using all thats available to the n900?
Last edited by jaimex2; 2010-11-14 at 00:37.