Confusing review about noise and detail in RAW vs. best JPEG

On 9/17/2015 1:54 AM, android wrote:
In article ,
John McWilliams wrote:

On 9/16/15 PDT 10:06 PM, android wrote:
In article ,
nospam wrote:

In article , android
wrote:

Whatever... A processed file can seem to cary more information than an
raw file. That's why they are called raws.

other way around.

a processed file never has as much information as the raw file does.

And that was that that I wrote!

you said "A processed file can seem to cary more information"

"verb (used without object)
1.
to appear to be, feel, do, etc"

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/seem

now you agree that it does not.

make up your mind.

Mr. "android" had it right. Except that it's "RAW", not lowercase.

(Cue AB for dissenting opinion)

Well... It's not WRONG to call raw RAW, even though nospam probably
wouldn't, but the meaning of RAW is raw. Like sushi, packed but not
altered. ;-)


But not all sushi is completely raw, though most is.

--
PeterN

On 9/17/2015 2:02 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , android
wrote:

Well... It's not WRONG to call raw RAW, even though nospam probably
wouldn't, but the meaning of RAW is raw. Like sushi, packed but not
altered. ;-)

raw is not an acronym and therefore should not be capitalized.


How can we tell with you?
Please point out the last time you capitalized an acronym, in a newsgroup.

--
PeterN

On 9/17/2015 6:56 AM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
nospam wrote:
In article , android
wrote:

Well... It's not WRONG to call raw RAW, even though nospam probably
wouldn't, but the meaning of RAW is raw. Like sushi, packed but not
altered. ;-)

raw is not an acronym and therefore should not be capitalized.

A RAW file does not use an acronym, therefore your rules about
acronyms do not apply. It's a convention.

Sort of like having enough sense to learn to use upper case
characters to make you writing more readable, or being an
arrogant ass and not...


But you just don't understand. It's to his/her advantage to be confusing.
Sheesh, dontya no nuttin.

--
PeterN

On 2015-09-17 16:17:08 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 09:04:46 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:
On 2015-09-17 15:16:14 +0000, Tony Cooper said:
On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 02:02:43 -0400, nospam
wrote:
In article , android
wrote:

Well... It's not WRONG to call raw RAW, even though nospam probably
wouldn't, but the meaning of RAW is raw. Like sushi, packed but not
altered. ;-)

raw is not an acronym and therefore should not be capitalized.

IBM is not an acronym. Still, it should be capitalized or the FBI
(not an acronym) will come after you.

Scuba and laser are acronyms. It is not necessary to capitalize these
words.

As are sonar (Sound Navigation and Ranging), radar (Radio Detection and
Ranging, lidar (Light Detection and Ranging), vascar (Visual Average
Speed Computer & Recorder), etc.

NASCAR (National Association of Stock Car Auto Racing) is both acronym
and brand.

The owner of a brand can choose how that brand name appears. Apple
uses what is called "CamelCase" with iPhone and iPad. PowerPoint is
another example of CamelCase.

NASCAR is a brand name, but scuba and laser are not. NASCAR could
have chosen NasCar as how their brand name should appear, but did not.

Yup.

Those of us who write RAW instead of raw do so to distinguish it from
the connotation of unfinished or not cooked. There's no real need to
make the distinction in a venue where the term is as well understood
as it is here, but we don't always use the term around informed
people.

Anybody with the slightest familiarity with digital imaging understand
the intention, and resulting distinction when using uppercase "RAW".
With those less informed an explaination is usually forthcoming.

There is no "should" or "should not" consideration to the
capitalization or lack of it. It falls under no group of rules.

However, the distinction helps to differentiate between a RAW image
file, raw emotions, raw food, and a raw wound.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2015-09-16 22:38, Mort wrote:
Hi,

I recently read an extensive and comprehensive review of the Canon S-120
on line, and one of his conclusions puzzles me.

He stated that , in this camera, RAW gives more noise and less detail
than the best quality setting of JPEG. That is at odds with everything
that I have read about the superiority of RAW over even the best quality
setting of JPEG.

Any comments or explanations would be appreciated.

A competent treatment of a raw image to JPEG may make it look far better
than the basic raw image when imported into an editor.

Read that line carefully before going on.

Indeed, that's why we prefer raw - we decide where to take it - not
allowing some algorithm to do the work. To be fair, the in camera
converters do have many choices of treatment and they are quite good at
delivering what the client hopes to see.

The S-120 is a P&S camera. So for an image taken in the sweet spot of
the camera and properly exposed, the direct JPEG will satisfy 99% of
ordinary needs.

OTOH, with the raw you can take that image in as many directions as you
like - including the one the camera did. But with the raw you get a
fresh take, every time.

Once the camera has spewed out its JPEG version (and assuming the raw
version is not kept) you are stuck with the limitations of that JPEG.
It's overall information quantity has been reduced. The colour range
has been reduced. The contrast range has been reduced. Even the
overall resolution was likely reduced.

In article ,
PeterN wrote:

On 9/17/2015 1:54 AM, android wrote:
In article ,
John McWilliams wrote:

On 9/16/15 PDT 10:06 PM, android wrote:
In article ,
nospam wrote:

In article , android
wrote:

Whatever... A processed file can seem to cary more information than an
raw file. That's why they are called raws.

other way around.

a processed file never has as much information as the raw file does.

And that was that that I wrote!

you said "A processed file can seem to cary more information"

"verb (used without object)
1.
to appear to be, feel, do, etc"

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/seem

now you agree that it does not.

make up your mind.

Mr. "android" had it right. Except that it's "RAW", not lowercase.

(Cue AB for dissenting opinion)

Well... It's not WRONG to call raw RAW, even though nospam probably
wouldn't, but the meaning of RAW is raw. Like sushi, packed but not
altered. ;-)


But not all sushi is completely raw, though most is.

Well... Yeah...
--
teleportation kills

In article ,
Alan Browne wrote:

On 2015-09-16 22:38, Mort wrote:
Hi,

I recently read an extensive and comprehensive review of the Canon S-120
on line, and one of his conclusions puzzles me.

He stated that , in this camera, RAW gives more noise and less detail
than the best quality setting of JPEG. That is at odds with everything
that I have read about the superiority of RAW over even the best quality
setting of JPEG.

Any comments or explanations would be appreciated.

A competent treatment of a raw image to JPEG may make it look far better
than the basic raw image when imported into an editor.

Read that line carefully before going on.

Indeed, that's why we prefer raw - we decide where to take it - not
allowing some algorithm to do the work. To be fair, the in camera
converters do have many choices of treatment and they are quite good at
delivering what the client hopes to see.

The S-120 is a P&S camera. So for an image taken in the sweet spot of
the camera and properly exposed, the direct JPEG will satisfy 99% of
ordinary needs.

OTOH, with the raw you can take that image in as many directions as you
like - including the one the camera did. But with the raw you get a
fresh take, every time.

Once the camera has spewed out its JPEG version (and assuming the raw
version is not kept) you are stuck with the limitations of that JPEG.
It's overall information quantity has been reduced. The colour range
has been reduced. The contrast range has been reduced. Even the
overall resolution was likely reduced.

I must say that putting the CHDK on my Ixus cameras toke them to the
next level... I think that I made some frames available here via
dropbox? Now those are replaced by my EOS-M. EOS is an acronym is
capital but Eos a name, like anybody cares...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eos
--
teleportation kills

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

Well... It's not WRONG to call raw RAW, even though nospam probably
wouldn't, but the meaning of RAW is raw. Like sushi, packed but not
altered. ;-)

raw is not an acronym and therefore should not be capitalized.

IBM is not an acronym. Still, it should be capitalized or the FBI
(not an acronym) will come after you.

international business machines

Scuba and laser are acronyms. It is not necessary to capitalize these
words.

they should be, but have now become generic words.

In article 2015091709044612957-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

Scuba and laser are acronyms. It is not necessary to capitalize these
words.

As are sonar (Sound Navigation and Ranging), radar (Radio Detection and
Ranging, lidar (Light Detection and Ranging),

those should be capitalized but have become generic words, so people
don't bother.

vascar (Visual Average
Speed Computer & Recorder), etc.

i've never seen vascar not capitalized.

On 2015-09-17 16:59:40 +0000, nospam said:

In article 2015091709044612957-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

Scuba and laser are acronyms. It is not necessary to capitalize these
words.

As are sonar (Sound Navigation and Ranging), radar (Radio Detection and
Ranging, lidar (Light Detection and Ranging),

those should be capitalized but have become generic words, so people
don't bother.

vascar (Visual Average
Speed Computer & Recorder), etc.

i've never seen vascar not capitalized.

Neither have I, except when you type it and my usage in this thread.
....and depending on where you live, there are not that many folks who
have any idea of what VASCAR is.
NY State Troopers love it.
http://www.vascarplus.com/Pages/plus3c.jpg

--
Regards,

Savageduck