On Tue, 02 Jun 2009 00:28:02 +1000, Bob Larter
wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 31 May 2009 16:11:00 -0800, (Floyd L.
[...]
I've been talking about the RAW file from the beginning. So too were
you at that time. Remember "Floyd, I suspect you have been smoking
something which is not good for you. Subject to statistical error
limitations, ... The data in the RAW file can't be restructured to
make a different image without changing the data."
This is incorrect. As Floyd has said, the same RAW data can result in an
infinite number of final images. For example, one can process it with a
huge range of WB values, or change the EV correction by plus or minus a
couple of stops, set the black level to anything you like, etc, etc.
None of these changes require changes to the RAW data, merely the
interpretation of it.
Its incorrect, as you (or somebody) chopped out the important part. I
originally wrote:
"Floyd, I suspect you have been smoking something which is not
good for you. Subject to statistical error limitations, there is a
one to one correspondence between the source image and the
RAW file. One can be converted to the other using the rules
inherent in the camera's software. The data in the RAW file can't
be restructured to make a different image without changing the
data."
We were then talking about the "source image" - that which was
projected onto the sensor by the lens - and not that infinite range of
images which could be created downstream by the manipulation of the
RAW data.
Eric Stevens