Torger, I'd like to thank you very much again. I've explained many points that I need to understand better. I'll really try to learn more about raw and its post processing details. Thank you for these image examples, I really appreciated. I have already printed in big sizes from some little planets based on my 360 panos and I think this is an example where a raw original file can make difference. I guess printed images show some details you can't see on the screen.
Thanks! Carlos E G Carvalho (Cartola) http://cartola.org/360 2011/8/5 torger <tor...@ludd.ltu.se> > On Aug 4, 9:43 pm, "Carlos Eduardo G. Carvalho (Cartola)" > <cartol...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Do you have or know anywhere where I can see samples done with and > without > > raw? I have already seen some, but none have called my attention very > much. > > > > Thanks! > > Just for fun, I took a Canon G11 compact camera hand held shot for > which I had both JPG and RAW, and made a RAW conversion. It is not the > best quality of the source material, a bit noisy and unsharp, but an > interesting comparison nevertheless. I made my creative conversion a > bit "over the top" on purpose. > > Unprocessed JPEG from camera highest quality (cropped the top though > for better composition): > http://www.torger.org/temp/img_jpg_unprocessed.jpg > > Here's the creative RAW conversion: > http://www.torger.org/temp/img_from_raw.png > > Here's when I have tried to replicate as close as possible the same > creative conversion but basing it on the original jpeg: > http://www.torger.org/temp/img_from_jpg.png > > My intention of the creative composition was to enhance the sunlight > and make it as saturated as experienced at sight, and increase > generally the contrast in the clouds. > > Some observations: > > - You can make the same conversion using JPEG as source, so you get > the same image but with worse technical quality. > - The RAW version may look more noisy, because it has not been jpeg > compressed and noise was so low that I did not reduce it further. > Random noise is better to keep for prints than removing it which dulls > colors and kills detail. > - On a quick view of reduced size images the JPEG version may look > better. > - Banding/block artifacts not visible in the orignal jpeg has become > visible after processing, for example in the bright parts of the sky. > - The RAW conversion gains from highlight recovery in the brightest > part of sunlight. > - The RAW conversion has a bit better detail, no smearing from JPEG > compression > - The JPG conversion has lost details in the low contrast parts of the > remote landscape due to lack of tones, which are still there in the > RAW conversion > - I did not correct CA for the JPEG, was not easy to do with my > software (rawtherapee), but automatic for RAW. > > In short - don't expect RAW and 16 bit workflows to "blow you away", > there are a number of subtle quality improvements which at least I > find important. I don't like the idea of spending lots and lots of > money on cameras and lenses just to throw away quality in post. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Hugin and other free panoramic software" group. > A list of frequently asked questions is available at: > http://wiki.panotools.org/Hugin_FAQ > To post to this group, send email to hugin-ptx@googlegroups.com > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > hugin-ptx+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/hugin-ptx > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Hugin and other free panoramic software" group. A list of frequently asked questions is available at: http://wiki.panotools.org/Hugin_FAQ To post to this group, send email to hugin-ptx@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to hugin-ptx+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/hugin-ptx
