Colors from RAW images look different than “raw” colors in real life and somehow… “ugly”. Of course these files needs post-processing so the colors of those will be better and life-like, but I think there is something about the camera, the sensor… so that RAW files look like that.
I’m looking forward to reading interesting explanations from you guys!
In: 18
Here, it really depends on what kind of raw images we’re talking about: Video or Still.
For Stills: raws are very similar to a database just noting which pixel or even subpixel (the red, green and blue value of each pixel) has received which amount of light. It is then the job of a raw converter to convert that into a normal picture. These pictures are very contrasty initially but as you still have the raw data, you can manipulate them much better.
Video raw works very differently. To simplify extremely: while each frame is initially taken like a photograph the amount of data this generates is nearly impossible to save 24-60times a second.
This is why each frame is processed before it’s being stored. The still is being edited by the camera to lower the contrast and lower saturation. The frame is then stored pretty much as a jpg or another compressed filetype. This reduces the amount of data to manageable sizes.
Because the still is now very “flat” (less contrast less saturation) you still retain a huge chunk of dynamic range and this gives you the best possible options for post processing.
Sensors try to do two things:
1) Give you a very plain and basic image, so that you can have more freedom when editing it
2) Try to capture more information about light (ie. dynamic range, the difference between the brightest spot and the darkest spot in the image), in order to do this they use various schemes (it’s basically all maths), which result in a flatter image with muted colors, but with a lot on information in it that you can later take advantage of in editing softwares.
And of course it has to do with the quality of the sensor too.
RAW images can include a greater range of colours and brightnesses than your monitor can display. Commonly they’re displayed by reducing their contrast and saturation enough so that your monitor can cover the range. While this means you can see a representation of the full range of colours captured, it also means they don’t look realistic and have a muted appearance.
The idea is that RAW images can be processed in a range of ways to convert them into images that use a colour gamut standard that’s understood by display devices. By delaying this processing until after the images have been taken, you can take full advantage of the camera’s image quality and make colour grading decisions at a more convenient time.
RAW images can include a greater range of colours and brightnesses than your monitor can display. Commonly they’re displayed by reducing their contrast and saturation enough so that your monitor can cover the range. While this means you can see a representation of the full range of colours captured, it also means they don’t look realistic and have a muted appearance.
The idea is that RAW images can be processed in a range of ways to convert them into images that use a colour gamut standard that’s understood by display devices. By delaying this processing until after the images have been taken, you can take full advantage of the camera’s image quality and make colour grading decisions at a more convenient time.
RAW images can include a greater range of colours and brightnesses than your monitor can display. Commonly they’re displayed by reducing their contrast and saturation enough so that your monitor can cover the range. While this means you can see a representation of the full range of colours captured, it also means they don’t look realistic and have a muted appearance.
The idea is that RAW images can be processed in a range of ways to convert them into images that use a colour gamut standard that’s understood by display devices. By delaying this processing until after the images have been taken, you can take full advantage of the camera’s image quality and make colour grading decisions at a more convenient time.
RAW images aren’t really even images. They can be rendered to an image, but they contain sensor data with little to no interpretation. Things like exposure are partially controlled in software, and RAW files have data not adjusted for exposure, though it has some metadata. This is also why software like lightroom can do more dramatic but largely lossless changes to the base image in things like exposure: it reinterprets the data as opposed to changing the already interpreted data.
RAW images aren’t really even images. They can be rendered to an image, but they contain sensor data with little to no interpretation. Things like exposure are partially controlled in software, and RAW files have data not adjusted for exposure, though it has some metadata. This is also why software like lightroom can do more dramatic but largely lossless changes to the base image in things like exposure: it reinterprets the data as opposed to changing the already interpreted data.
RAW images aren’t really even images. They can be rendered to an image, but they contain sensor data with little to no interpretation. Things like exposure are partially controlled in software, and RAW files have data not adjusted for exposure, though it has some metadata. This is also why software like lightroom can do more dramatic but largely lossless changes to the base image in things like exposure: it reinterprets the data as opposed to changing the already interpreted data.
It’s like raw carrots vs. cooked carrots in a soup. Raw is the ingredient, it can become anything you want if you’re willing to put in some extra work. The soup is a finished product, it tastes better, but its fate is already sealed, it can no longer become anything you want. So a pro chef would prefer to start with raw ingredients and cook them himself to his liking, but someone with less skill or less time might prefer to just buy finished carrot soup.
Recording a raw image simply means that the camera doesn’t do any post processing on the image so that this can be done later on a computer with more control. A raw image is not meant to look realistic or better or anything. You can, however, make it look better later if you have the right skills and taste, but that’s up to you, not the camera.
It’s like raw carrots vs. cooked carrots in a soup. Raw is the ingredient, it can become anything you want if you’re willing to put in some extra work. The soup is a finished product, it tastes better, but its fate is already sealed, it can no longer become anything you want. So a pro chef would prefer to start with raw ingredients and cook them himself to his liking, but someone with less skill or less time might prefer to just buy finished carrot soup.
Recording a raw image simply means that the camera doesn’t do any post processing on the image so that this can be done later on a computer with more control. A raw image is not meant to look realistic or better or anything. You can, however, make it look better later if you have the right skills and taste, but that’s up to you, not the camera.
Latest Answers