Am Mittwoch, 2. Mai 2018, 16:06:32 CEST schrieb Timur Irikovich Davletshin: > Is this cut-off area camera dependent, fixed or certain algorithm to > detect border errors is applied?
It's camera dependent. > On Wed, 2018-05-02 at 16:00 +0200, Tobias Ellinghaus wrote: > > Am Dienstag, 1. Mai 2018, 20:55:20 CEST schrieb Timur Irikovich > > > > Davletshin: > > > Question just out of my natural curiosity. Just noticed that > > > darktable > > > always produces pictures that are 30-50 pixels smaller when > > > exporting > > > from DNG than from camera Raw file. And even more, they never match > > > claimed camera resolution. Biggest difference is on EOS 5D Mark > > > III. > > > > > > E.g. It claims 5920x3950 in DT image information but exported > > > picture > > > is (from CR2) 5794x3868 and (from DNG) 5760x3840. Nikon files show > > > the > > > same. > > > > > > At least in case of Adobe's converted files there is some logic > > > that > > > they always match builtin JPGs in size. > > > > > > Remember I disabled all default modules (just 'original' in history > > > stack), DNGs produced from Raw are not demosaiced (latest version > > > of > > > Adobe's tool with default settings). > > > > No idea what Adobe does to the DNG files, but at least camera raw > > files have > > (in general) some black borders and otherwise broken areas at the > > edges that > > we cut off. Therefore the exported image size doesn't match the raw > > file size > > 1:1. Camera JPEGs are a little smaller as they try to adhere to the > > advertised > > aspect ratio and probably cut off more to err on the safe side (and > > make the > > in-camera processing easier). > > > > > Did I miss something? > > > > > > Thanks for explanation in advance, > > > > > > Timur. > > > > Tobias > > ____________________________________________________________________________ > darktable user mailing list > to unsubscribe send a mail to darktable-user+unsubscr...@lists.darktable.org
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
