▲ 509 ▼ What an unprocessed photo looks like (maurycyz.com) submitted 10 months ago by monica_b1998@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world 34 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] ryrybang@lemmy.world 15 points 10 months ago (4 children) How do you get a sensor data image from a camera? permalink fedilink source hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] ada@piefed.blahaj.zone 20 points 10 months ago RAW files. Even then, you mostly see the processed result based on whatever processing your raw image viewer/editor does. But if you know how to get to it and use it, the same raw sensor capture data is there permalink fedilink source parent [–] forks@lemmy.world 17 points 10 months ago (2 children) Most cameras will let you export raw files, and a lot of phones do as well(although the phone ones aren't great since they usually do a lot of processing on it before giving you the normal picture) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] trolololol@lemmy.world 1 point 10 months ago (1 child) My understanding is that really raw phone data also have a lot of lens distortion, and proprietary code written by the camera brand has specific algorithms to undo that effect. And this is the part that phone tinkerers complain is not open source (well, it does lots of other things to the camera too). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) Modern mirrorless cameras do this too. For example, this is what my Canon kit lens looks like with/without digital barrel distortion correction: Not my photos. From: https://dustinabbott.net/2024/05/canon-rf-s-18-45mm-f4-5-6-3-is-stm-review/ And https://dustinabbott.net/2024/04/canon-rf-24-50mm-f4-5-6-3-is-stm-review/ My own unprocessed RAWs are pretty wild. But (IMO) it’s a reasonable compromise to make lenses cheaper and better, outside of some ridiculous examples like the 24-50. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ada@piefed.blahaj.zone 20 points 10 months ago RAW files. Even then, you mostly see the processed result based on whatever processing your raw image viewer/editor does. But if you know how to get to it and use it, the same raw sensor capture data is there permalink fedilink source parent
[–] forks@lemmy.world 17 points 10 months ago (2 children) Most cameras will let you export raw files, and a lot of phones do as well(although the phone ones aren't great since they usually do a lot of processing on it before giving you the normal picture) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] trolololol@lemmy.world 1 point 10 months ago (1 child) My understanding is that really raw phone data also have a lot of lens distortion, and proprietary code written by the camera brand has specific algorithms to undo that effect. And this is the part that phone tinkerers complain is not open source (well, it does lots of other things to the camera too). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) Modern mirrorless cameras do this too. For example, this is what my Canon kit lens looks like with/without digital barrel distortion correction: Not my photos. From: https://dustinabbott.net/2024/05/canon-rf-s-18-45mm-f4-5-6-3-is-stm-review/ And https://dustinabbott.net/2024/04/canon-rf-24-50mm-f4-5-6-3-is-stm-review/ My own unprocessed RAWs are pretty wild. But (IMO) it’s a reasonable compromise to make lenses cheaper and better, outside of some ridiculous examples like the 24-50. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] trolololol@lemmy.world 1 point 10 months ago (1 child) My understanding is that really raw phone data also have a lot of lens distortion, and proprietary code written by the camera brand has specific algorithms to undo that effect. And this is the part that phone tinkerers complain is not open source (well, it does lots of other things to the camera too). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) Modern mirrorless cameras do this too. For example, this is what my Canon kit lens looks like with/without digital barrel distortion correction: Not my photos. From: https://dustinabbott.net/2024/05/canon-rf-s-18-45mm-f4-5-6-3-is-stm-review/ And https://dustinabbott.net/2024/04/canon-rf-24-50mm-f4-5-6-3-is-stm-review/ My own unprocessed RAWs are pretty wild. But (IMO) it’s a reasonable compromise to make lenses cheaper and better, outside of some ridiculous examples like the 24-50. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) Modern mirrorless cameras do this too. For example, this is what my Canon kit lens looks like with/without digital barrel distortion correction: Not my photos. From: https://dustinabbott.net/2024/05/canon-rf-s-18-45mm-f4-5-6-3-is-stm-review/ And https://dustinabbott.net/2024/04/canon-rf-24-50mm-f4-5-6-3-is-stm-review/ My own unprocessed RAWs are pretty wild. But (IMO) it’s a reasonable compromise to make lenses cheaper and better, outside of some ridiculous examples like the 24-50. permalink fedilink source parent