If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Could you actually see photos made from RAW files?
Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 02 Jun 2009 21:48:52 -0800, (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote: Eric Stevens wrote: On Wed, 03 Jun 2009 11:37:23 +1000, Bob Larter wrote: Eric Stevens wrote: Are you really saying that a given RAW data file can be created by more than one image? Yes. If you think carefully about how an image sensor works, it's obvious. I may be missing something but its not obvious to me. A lens directs light from a scene so as to form an image on the camera's sensor. Different parts of the image fall on individual sensels which, in the time allowed to them, capture photons which generate electrons. The accumulated electrons form an electrical charge in each sensel. Is there any reason to believe that the same scene would necessarily produce the same effect on the sensor every time? In fact, the light is not represented by a steady, consistent flow of photons. The photons arrive at irregular intervals. It's called "photon noise". The effect is that if the same image is projected onto a sensor, each time the sensor is read the image will be recorded with unique data that is not identical to the other times that image is recorded. This is certainly a problem at low light levels but, by and large, No, it is a problem at higher light levels. this is what I meant by "statistical error limitations". When you get to this level you are in danger of introducing quantum theory. Ha ha ha. That is hilarous. What exactly is the danger in the introduction of quantum theory??? (I really like that, the way you have just two lines invoked both quatum theory and statistical error limitation. Two phrases with big words that mean absolutely nothing in the context in which you have placed them! That's pretty good!) According to the type of sensel, the charge is 'read' in one way or another, and the quantity of charge converted to digital data. Whoops, you just skipped over an awful lot of very fancy technology. The data from the sensor is analog data. The sensel counts photons which it converts to photons. The data is I assume that is a typo and you meant "converts to electrons". If it is something else, repeat it an I'll discuss what you did mean. integer. This is converted to binary digital data. That is not true (assuming you meant it as above). The data is analog. It is not "integer", whatever it is you thing that means. It is indeed converted to binary digital data, though the fact that it is binary is of no significance at all. It could be quaternary and nothing would be different. You might say it is encoded. I would say it is transformed. It doesn't matter which either way. It does matter. You can't seem to get the concept clear that these terms have specific meanings when applied to this technology. I am not using them the way I do just because it is fun, I do it because it makes a difference which term is used for someone who understands the technology. The process by which it is converted to digital data is a one way process that cannot be reversed with accuracy. I've gone into detail on that in another article previously and will not repeat it at length here. You should, if you want me to know what you are talking about. It has been repeated enough times. But of course the 'transformation' can be run backwards, even if you don't use the same hardware. Its the algorithm you have to reverse. It cannot be run backwards. You cannot know from the digital data value which part of the possible range of analog values it came from, and hence you cannot specifically reproduce it. Get that clear. It is not simply my opinion of how the technology works. It is a well known *fact* that you can discover by reading up on it in any good serious text. The digital value of the charge is saved in an array which enables the value of the charge for each individual sensel to be mapped to the position of the sensel. So it is true that the position is relevant. Whoever argued otherwise? You did. That original image on the sensor is characterised by by the raw data array. Any change in the image gives rise to a different data array. Not necessarily. How significant the change is is what determines whether it changes the raw data. Some changes simply are not great enough to cause any difference in the data set. Changes are quantized. A different image on the sensor gives a different number of electrons which are transformed into different digital data. Stop being assinine. First, changes are not what is quantized. Second, do to the changing rate of arrival of photons (photon noise), the number of actual electrons captured might not change. Third, even if the number of electrons change, that might not necessarily change the analog current produced when the sensor is read (for a variety of reasons, most of which are generally called "read noise"). Forth, if the current is changed it has to be changed enough to move it from one quantization range to the next higher or lower (quantization distortion). Clearly there are at least three ways in which a change in the light projected onto the sensor may or may not actually cause a change in the resulting digital data. Each of those has been explaned to you previously. These things are not simple opinions, they are well known facts that you can research the details for any time you wish. All you have done is reiterate the claim. Can you give a step by step explanation along the lines of the one I have just given? You've been given step by step examples several times now. Don't you think it is time to pay attention? Here's a bullet list for your google searches: Photon noise limited read noise limited Quantization distortion -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Could you actually see photos made from RAW files?
Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 02 Jun 2009 22:00:08 -0800, (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote: Chris H wrote: In message , Floyd L. Davidson writes Everything is either one or the other and nothing can be both.) This is not correct. There are plenty of mixed devices about. Analog Devices make a few of them. You can have a complex device that has, for example, an input that is one and an output that is another. But you cannot have a signal that is both. "Everything" means an atomic device, not a complex device. (My apologies, I wrote the above expecting common sense readers who understood the context.) That is *not* part of the firmware. Firmware, other than setting the ISO gain, has no part in any of that other than turning it on and off. You are referring to 'firmware' as though it was 'hardware'. Yet Nikon can program the camera to behave differently so some software/firmware must be involved. Perfectly correct. That does not cause hardware to become firmware. Then what do you think firmware is? Its a mixture of hardware and software. Firmware is computer instructions in a ROM. If something is not processed by a computer, it *cannot* be done with firmware. Note that the entire data flow from the sensor to the output of the ADC is hardware based. It is only after the ADC that the computer can even see the data, so nothing before that can be done "in firmware". How can you claim to know what all of this means when you are missing on all cylinders when it comes to the very basics on which these technologies are built? I am referring to that as hardware because in fact it is hardware. It is not done with software/firmware. Yes it is. What is more I can supply the tools to write the firmware. So you think the analog amplifiers and the ADC are firmware and can be done with software tools??? That's a bit of abject ignorance. And that's a bit of dishonest argument, unless you insist on believing that that the digitisation of the sensel charges is the entirety of the process. We were talking about the data flow from the sensor through the ADC. That is where this silliness was injected, hence that is what it reasonably is expected to reference. If he meant that he can provide software tools to work on the data *after* the area we were discussing, then he should have indicated that his discussion had no relationship to our discussion. It's done with hardware. (I can't tell you which but We have supplied software/firmware tools to more than one OEM digital camera company (P&S variety) Not for those functions you haven't. But he never claimed it was just for those functions. Then exactly what would be the point of injecting that statement? He no doubt could have written COBOL software for Nikon's or Sony's accounting department, but it would be equally abjectly stupid to make the above statement in the context that he did if that is what he meant. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Could you actually see photos made from RAW files?
Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 02 Jun 2009 23:17:16 -0800, (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote: "In a digital circuit, a signal is represented in discrete states or logic levels." - but they don't have to be binary. What's your point? Binary is necessarily digital, but digital is not necessarily binary (though any value that is digital can necessarily be encoded in a binary form). Got that? The point is still that while the number electrons on the head of a pin might be discrete, the current produces by the flow of those electrons is *not* discrete, and therefore is analog. Its not a question of current. Its a question of the number of electrons. The output signal from the sensor is not read in terms of electrons, it is current. Of course the output of an electronic sensor in a camera is the analog current, not the discrete number of electons capture. The output of a sensor is electron charges, which is quantized. No, the output of the sensor is current. That is discharged through an impedance to generate a voltage. The voltage level is what is quantized. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_electronics "Any change in the signal is meaningful, and each level of the signal represents a different level of the phenomenon that it represents." That is correct. Any change is meaningful on the *input* to whereever the signal goes. It does *not* necessarily mean it somehow is meaningful to anything else (such as the number of electrons that cause the signal to exist). Who is trying to say it is meaningful to anything else? You. (See below.) This isn't the case with the output from a charge amplifier. 0.050,000 volts represents 50,000 electrons. 0.050,000,4 volts still represents 50,000 electrons. But 0.050,001 volts represents 50,001 electrons as does 0.050,000,6 volts. Is that supposed to make sense? Yes, and it does. It doesn't. (See above.) The output from the amplifier is an analog signal. So you keep saying. But if you can measure it with sufficient accuracy and discard rounding errors (as can easily be done) you can read the output as integer - which is digital. No, I don't care how accurately you measure current, the reading is *necesarily* analog. You seem to think the current is a one to one relationship with the number of photons that strike the sensor... which is not true. The charge of electrons developed is proportional to the number of photons, but it is not a one to one relationship and is an analog transform. Secondly you seem to think the current has a one to one relationship with the number of electrons... which is not true. Current is the *flow* of electrons, not the number of them. Electrons do not flow in only one direction nor do they go at all the same speed. Therefore the absolute number of electrons in a given charge does not equate to an absolute current. What counts is the number of electrons passing a given point. If you have 5 electrons and two move west while three move east, it's the same current as if you had only 1 electron. The effect of course is that current generated by even a specific count of electrons is analog, not digital. The variations in direction and speed of the electrons as they move causes current variations to be continuously variable, not discretely variable. Anything you thing means otherwise is nonsense. If you doubt that, explain how and why it is fed to an analog amplifier and then to a device called an Analog-to-Digital-Converter. It is the A to D converter which precisely measures the voltage to it to be able to read as integer numbers. That's what I was trying to explain to you above when you asked "Is that supposed to make sense?" That is hilarious. The ADC does not precisely read the integral number of electrons. As you've noted, there might be 50,000 or even more, electrons collected by a single sensor. But even a 14 bit ADC cannot count higher than 16384. More nonsense. In summary: --- Analogue electronics (or analog in American English) are those electronic systems with a continuously variable signal. In contrast, in digital electronics signals usually take only two different levels. The That isn't really true, about "signals usually take only two ...". In fact the entire digital Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN), as well as virtually all of the music and video that is digitally recorded, uses what is called an m-ary level encoding. In most cases that is a 255 level PCM digital signal. At least that's got you away from insisting that they always have to be binary. I have never suggested that anything always has to be binary. Why do you make up these silly excursions into fantasy land? It is fairly easy to find where I've been explaining what the relationship of binary to digital is, and citing the definitions of both digital and analog, on Usenet for many many years. Hence your statement is patently silly on its face. In the case of an image sensor, the output voltage is an analog to the light level that impinges upon it. It still has to be capable of accurate digitisation and to that extent it is digital. That statement is pure nonsense. It doesn't "have to be capable of accurate digitisation", whatever it is that you think that means. It is not digital in any way until it *is* digitized. Electrons. Integer number of electrons. Nothing analog about integer numbers. There is nothing integer about the current and voltages outputted by the sensor either. What point did you have? Here's a good web site that you should read for awhile before you come back with a few more appolgies for so many funny ideas and so much obnoxious argument about stupidity: http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/d.../concepts.html Here's one of their pages in particular that you should read: http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/d...cdanatomy.html The title is "Anatomy of a Charge-Coupled Device", and here is the one sentence you need to pay attention to: "This produces an analog raster scan of the photo-generated charge from the entire two-dimensional array of photodiode sensor elements" That is from the summation of how CCD's work, in the next to the last paragraph of that article. Here's another one that might help you: http://www.microscopyu.com/articles/...italintro.html "Because CCD chips, like all optical sensors, are analog devices that produce a stream of varying voltages, ... " Here's more from the same paragraph, also interesting: "Whether or not the output can actually be resolved into 4096 discrete intensity levels (12 bits) depends on the camera noise. In order to discriminate between individual intensity levels, each gray level step should be about 2.7 times larger than the camera noise. Otherwise, the difference between steps 2982 and 2983, for example, cannot be resolved with any degree of certainty. Some so-called 12-bit cameras have so much camera noise that 4096 discrete steps cannot be discriminated." -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Could you actually see photos made from RAW files?
Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 02 Jun 2009 23:00:27 -0800, (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote: You saw it on the Internet, so it must be true. Sheesh. Cite an authoritative source. (Actually, I'll challenge you to find anything at all from 20 years ago that says anything like that.) I mightn't find the rules but I can find plenty of examples where that was what was done. And I can find 1000 times more where it was not done. Haw. You are now claiming that it is possible to have a continuously variable number of electrons. I maintain the number of electrons can only be represented by integers. So what? That makes the number of electrons digital. Can I quote that to the Floyd L. Davidson with whom I've just been arguing? Not too bright of you... But we aren't actually measuring the number of electrons, are we? We are measuring the current that flows as a result of the charge that was stored (which is roughly proportional to the number of electrons). The current that flows is affected not only by the number of electrons, but how fast they move and which direction they go. Both of those characteristics are continuously variable. Thats why the actual measurement is of charge 'q'. No, you seem to have missed an awful lot. First, what actually is important is the amount of light falling on the sensor. Photons. There is an analog relationship between the number of photons and the number of electrons. Which is to say that noise exists because the exact same number of photons will not always result in the exact same number of electrons. Second the electrons aren't actually electrons at all, they are electron holes. The whole thing is sometimes referred to as a "photoelectron", meaning the amount of charge that results from an average photon. Regardless of all that (which makes your claim moot already), the "actual measurement" is not of charge, it is of current. And that current is analog. And hence electric current is analog, and so is voltage. And you are the guy who has just explained that 255 levels of current or voltage can be used to carry tone signals. But no, that's not digital or digitized. :-( The 255 levels are *not* 255 unique individual current or voltage levels. It is an infinitely variable analog current, modulated by a digital signal, which produces 255 *ranges* of current that are encoded at discrete values. That can be compared to a binary signal using two voltage levels, 0 and 1 to determine two values. In fact the trigger points might be such than any voltage lower than 0.5 Volts has a value of False, and any voltage higher than 0.5 Volts has a value of True. True/False are the binary values. But the voltages for each are analog and cover an infinite number of voltages from whatever the minimum the driver can produce up to 0.5 for one value and from 0.5 up to whatever the maximum the driver can produce for the other value. The difference with 8 bit PCM is that there are 255 valid values. (And I'll leave it to you to figure out why the number is not 256 values.) Now, you may notice that the output of the sensor is a voltage which is continuously variable over an infinite number of values between 0 and 1 volts. That makes it an *analog* device by definition. The output of the sensor is an electrical charge. Actually it is a current flowing into the input impedance of an amplifier, and thus producing a voltage. That's how the electrical charge is measured. Two distinctly different things! Charge is a quantized value, measured in Coulombs, which are necessarily a multiple of "e", the unit of a single charge. Charge is necessarily a digital parameter. Current is the *movement* of charge, measure in Amperes, which is an analog parameter because charges can move faster or slower, and can move in an infinite number of directions. Hence 5 electrons moving can result in an infinite number of different current values. For all practical purposes, the measurement of current views movement direction as simply a variation of the average speed of all of the electrons. Indeed, the definition of "current" is I = nAvQ Whe I is the current in Amperes, n is the number of charged particles per unit volume A is the Area across the conductor v is the drift velosity of the particles Q is the charge on each particle It probably comes as a surprise to you that the actual velosity of the charge, in copper wire, is probably down in the millimeter per second range. The amplifier is affected by the voltage, which is an analog parameter. If you measure it with sufficient precision you can use it to carry digital data. That statement is true, but it doesn't mean what you think it does. Sufficient precision can be within 2 volts for example (the typical precision required for TTL devices). What you cannot do is measure individual charged particles. So go by faster than others, and as a result such an attempt would end up appearing to measure fractions of a charged particle. The electrical charge is dumped into a charge amplifier and it is this which outputs the voltage. This is the first step in transforming sensor image into the RAW data file. And it is clearly an all analog process. That analog data is fed into a device that converts it to digital data. The output of the charge amplifier is then digitised. This is the Actually it is a voltage amplifier. Ew've done that bit already. And you lost, so why not learn something and cease posting nonsense? In the case of the Nikon D300 the RAW file can be output as either 12 bit or 14 bit. It is likely that before it can be transformed into either of those formats it is processed in the camera in some other format. Why is that likely? That is what the output of the ADC is, and all that necessarily happens after that is the data stream is read by the CPU so that it can be written to the file. But in what form is it whenit is read by the CPU - 12 bit or 14 bit or something else again? It is either 12 bit or it is 14 bit, that is what comes from the ADC. For several paragraphs now your comments have had absolutely nothing to do with the text you are quoting. What's your point? I'm beginning to think you really don't know anything about the logic of any of these processes. That's why you have to have the definitions of so many things cited for you? That's why you don't know where the 12-bit/14-bit distinction is made? That's why you think measuring current is measuring a charge? That's why you think the sensor is digital? That's why we go over and over the nonsense that you continue to post???? Eric, get real. We *know* who doesn't understand it. The question is why do you continue this charade? The reason I've been stating that there are many possible images which can produce the same digital data set is because the analog signal to produce any single one of those 4096 values has an infinite number of possible values. Not so. Claim that all you like, but it is true. The digital value of say 1612 corresponds with only one state of the particular sensor element. False. It corresponds to a range of values. Because the range is analog, there are an infinite number of possible values in that range. Analog electronic charge. Haw! Nobody said it was an analog charge Eric. After the data is digitized, it has one value (1612) and you cannot determine which of the infinite number of analog values that could be 1612 it actually was to start with. You might be correct if they truly were analog, but they aren't. So just exactly why is it that every single paper of any repute at all on electronic sensors says it truly is analog? Can you find even one that says it isn't? And why is it that all these devices used between the "analog" part and the "digital" part are *always* called Analog to Digital Converters? (Did you know that if it actually was digital as you claim, it would be called a CODEC, which is short for "coder/decoder", as in a device that encode and decodes digital data?) No, if you understand the nature of the transform then you realize that exactly the opposite is true. The digital value of 1612 might, for example, represent a range of voltages between .25 and .30 volts. When you look at the digital value of 1612, you cannot determine if it was .26675382, or .28778391. All you know that is was between .25 and .30 volts. I think the design of sensels has progressed since you helped invent them. Their charge can be read with much greater precision than you seem to think. Well then I suggest you find an example! The fact is that sensors commonly in use today have 50,000 to 100,000 full well electron counts, and with a 12 bit ADC that has to be reduce to only 4096 levels at the most. Do you want me to cite you a reference describing read noise, photo numbers, electrons, quantum efficiency, and how it is all related? Here's a short list for you: http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/d...amicrange.html http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/...300_40D_tests/ http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...hotons.and.qe/ Basic information theory. (Ever heard of Claude E. Shannon??) Of course I have. What exactly does he have to do with it? Everything. He more or less defined all of it with mathematics, and analyzed what it meant. Because of his work it was decided that the telecommunications industry would benefit from moving to a digital network and abandon the analog network. It was also clear that digital imaging would be much much preferred to analog imaging. That is why inventions which appeared to be useful for digital photography were developed instead of ignored, even though there was no market at all for them at the time. I know all that. But what does he have to do with this particular argument? Everything. All this disccussion about what is analog and what is digital, about why it is impossible to recreate the exact analog side once a signal has be digitized. It all relates to Shannon. If you actually did "know all that", you wouldn't be saying all the hilarious things you say... It takes two to cooperate. Apart from that, I think we are approaching this from two different directions. My background includes university training in physics, electronics and mathematics. My terminology is different from yours (e.g. transform) and so to is my approach to the problem. The problem is simply that you are discussing something that you know virtually nothing about. Nevertheless there is software between the formation of the image on the sensor and the writing of the data to the RAW file. But that software is *not* image manipulation software. All it necessarily does is encode the data so that it can be written to a standard file format. In the case of the D300 I do not think that is the case. Then why don't you just cite some authoritative source which describes it, eh? That is why/how various problems (e.g. vertical stripes) can be cured by a firmware upgrade. That sounds more like the image manipulation that is done to the JPEG conversion, not to raw data. I'm talking of raw data. Then Nikons apply a characterisation curve to the senso data before it is recorded as RAW file data. There is much more. Then you won't mind if I insist that you cite an authoritative source which descibes it, eh? The only "curve" I know of is the custom tone curves, which are applied to the JPEG images but have nothing to do with the raw data. I don't have the information but I am sure the process is reversible (Subject to statistical error limitations). Then why don't you just cite an authoritative source which describes it, eh? See http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...mance.summary/ for a better indication of the number of electrons you can expect to deal with: 50,000 or more. The little guy standing there looking into the well and counting those electrons might be digital, eh? In his own way, he is. But since what cameras do is discharge the device through an impedance and amplify the voltage, we don't have a digital count of electrons, we have an analog signal indicating how much charge there was. Of course it includes noise, so even if we did know the exact analog voltage (which as has been show, we cannot), we still wouldn't be able to determine how many electrons were actually captured. How do you think you get a digital display to X significant figures on a digital volt meter? Thats the same way that the output of a charge amplifier is digitised. There ain't no such thing as a "charge amplifier". If you had not noticed, DVM's generally only have 4 or 5 digits. They certainly are not counting charged particles! Heh heh, what a hoot. The way that DVM's work is generally a voltage controlled oscillator is counted. There isn't actually an sample and hold ADC involved, mostly because they don't have enough precision. Boyle and Smith were the inventors of electronic imaging 40 years ago. If you were working with electronic imaging 40 years ago you _must_ have been working with Boyle and Smith. Bull**** sonny, none of that is true. They were working with CCD's ca 1969, and that is not even close to the beginnings of electronic imaging. I seem to recall Television being invented back in the 1930's or so. That is electronic imaging that existed long before I was born. But well before the CCD was invented at Bell Labs, I was working with Television. By 1969 or so I was also working with digital imaging, though I'll grant that it was nothing near as high tech as a CCD. (Ever see "TTY art". Digital imaging!) -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Could you actually see photos made from RAW files?
Could the two of you, Messrs. Stevens and Davidson, take this offline?
There is some risk that this thread will become tedious. -- lsmft |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Could you actually see photos made from RAW files?
In message , Floyd L. Davidson
writes Eric Stevens wrote: On Tue, 02 Jun 2009 22:00:08 -0800, (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote: You are referring to 'firmware' as though it was 'hardware'. Yet Nikon can program the camera to behave differently so some software/firmware must be involved. Perfectly correct. That does not cause hardware to become firmware. Then what do you think firmware is? Its a mixture of hardware and software. Firmware is computer instructions in a ROM. EEPROM, Flash etc often loaded into RAM at runtime. However often it is in ASICS and FPGA's with softcores. BTW ROMS are rarely used these days. You are 15 years out of date Note that the entire data flow from the sensor to the output of the ADC is hardware based. Yes... But this contains firmware. That is what is in these ASICS It is only after the ADC that the computer can even see the data, so nothing before that can be done "in firmware". Not true. You seem to be over a decade out of date. How can you claim to know what all of this means when you are missing on all cylinders when it comes to the very basics on which these technologies are built? He is correct. You are not. If you would like a 101 on embedded systems I am free tomorrow afternoon when I finish presenting to the UK Ministry of Defence on this topic in the morning. See http://www.safety-club.org.uk/diary....t=detail&id=80 and scroll down to the speakers I am the first one after the welcome. Floyd, what is your expertise in this field? I am referring to that as hardware because in fact it is hardware. It is not done with software/firmware. Yes it is. What is more I can supply the tools to write the firmware. So you think the analog amplifiers and the ADC are firmware and can be done with software tools??? That's a bit of abject ignorance. And that's a bit of dishonest argument, unless you insist on believing that that the digitisation of the sensel charges is the entirety of the process. We were talking about the data flow from the sensor through the ADC. That is where this silliness was injected, hence that is what it reasonably is expected to reference. If he meant that he can provide software tools to work on the data *after* the area we were discussing, then he should have indicated that his discussion had no relationship to our discussion. Not at all. I can provide the tools for the software (firmware) in the ASIC that takes the information from the sensor. It's done with hardware. (I can't tell you which but We have supplied software/firmware tools to more than one OEM digital camera company (P&S variety) Not for those functions you haven't. But he never claimed it was just for those functions. Then exactly what would be the point of injecting that statement? He no doubt could have written COBOL software for Nikon's or Sony's accounting department, No. We only work in the embedded sector. Mainly high reliability systems. -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Could you actually see photos made from RAW files?
On Wed, 03 Jun 2009 07:38:32 -0700, John McWilliams
wrote: Could the two of you, Messrs. Stevens and Davidson, take this offline? There is some risk that this thread will become tedious. A damned good idea. I'm taking it right off line. Eric Stevens |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Could you actually see photos made from RAW files?
John McWilliams wrote:
Could the two of you, Messrs. Stevens and Davidson, take this offline? There is some risk that this thread will become tedious. You already are tedious, but you aren't offline. Hence there is no requirement that someone else go offline at your request. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
Could you actually see photos made from RAW files?
Chris H wrote:
In message , Floyd L. Davidson writes Eric Stevens wrote: On Tue, 02 Jun 2009 22:00:08 -0800, (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote: You are referring to 'firmware' as though it was 'hardware'. Yet Nikon can program the camera to behave differently so some software/firmware must be involved. Perfectly correct. That does not cause hardware to become firmware. Then what do you think firmware is? Its a mixture of hardware and software. Firmware is computer instructions in a ROM. EEPROM, Flash etc often loaded into RAM at runtime. However often it is in ASICS and FPGA's with softcores. BTW ROMS are rarely used these days. You are 15 years out of date ASIC's and FPGA's contain Read Only Memory (ROM), and and EEPROM obviously does too (it *is* a ROM). Note that the entire data flow from the sensor to the output of the ADC is hardware based. Yes... But this contains firmware. That is what is in these ASICS Are you sure of that? It certainly is possible, but I don't know that any of the current crop of cameras are using ASIC's that process raw sensor data with instructions from firmware. Please be specific, and cite a credible reference to something that suggests it is commonly true. It is only after the ADC that the computer can even see the data, so nothing before that can be done "in firmware". Not true. You seem to be over a decade out of date. So lets see you provide a cite to something which verifies what your claim. How can you claim to know what all of this means when you are missing on all cylinders when it comes to the very basics on which these technologies are built? He is correct. You are not. If you would like a 101 on embedded systems I am free tomorrow afternoon when I finish presenting to the UK Ministry of Defence on this topic in the morning. See http://www.safety-club.org.uk/diary....t=detail&id=80 and scroll down to the speakers I am the first one after the welcome. Wonderful. But, errr, do you know *anything* about cameras? If you don't know what ROM is, how can you? We were talking about the data flow from the sensor through the ADC. That is where this silliness was injected, hence that is what it reasonably is expected to reference. If he meant that he can provide software tools to work on the data *after* the area we were discussing, then he should have indicated that his discussion had no relationship to our discussion. Not at all. I can provide the tools for the software (firmware) in the ASIC that takes the information from the sensor. Okay. Now, is that firmware just controlling the data flow or is it manipulating the data? Is there a CPU in the ASIC? -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Could you actually see photos made from RAW files? | mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH [email protected] | Digital Photography | 33 | June 3rd 09 07:32 AM |
Could you actually see photos made from RAW files? | Savageduck[_2_] | Digital Photography | 8 | June 1st 09 04:22 AM |
Could you actually see photos made from RAW files? | Steven Green[_3_] | Digital Photography | 0 | May 30th 09 09:27 PM |
Could you actually see photos made from RAW files? | nospam | Digital Photography | 0 | May 30th 09 09:18 PM |
Could you actually see photos made from RAW files? | Trev | Digital Photography | 0 | May 30th 09 09:18 PM |