 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
48884e9a$1@news.povray.org...
>
> But the data never exists as a whole in the first place in cheap cameras.
Actually it does exist, at least in Canon cameras. There's even a hack to
get the RAW data instead of the JPEG.
http://www.oyonale.com/blog/2008/03/hacking-cheap-canon-camera.html
>Also they would need to include some RAW conversion software with the
>camera, which needs writing.
I guess that Canon wrote RAW converters for its SLR models. Also, they
bundle a mountainload of crappy, useless "utilities" with the camera anyway,
so it's not like they're lacking developers. Really, this is a case study of
hardware being deliberately crippled through software for marketing reasons.
G.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Thu, 24 Jul 2008 10:21:19 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> did
spake, saying:
>>> But then, isn't film inherantly noisy too?
>> Not really, not in the way digital image sensors are.
>
> Really? I thought film was well-known for being grainy at low light
> levels...
Depends on the film, if I take a good photo using ISO200 film at 1/60th of
a second I can can get the same exposure with the less grainy ISO100 by
shooting at 1/30th or even ISO50 for 1/15th. Of course leaving the shutter
open that long may not be what I want so I could switch to ISO400 for
1/120th.
The larger the ISO the larger the grains in the film that react to light
so the grainier it gets. Digital cameras don't have grains though, they
have fixed-sized sensors. So to emulate the sensitivity they just up the
gain and well you know what happens when you do that for tiny sensors.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 08:57:40 +0100, Invisible wrote:
>>> My point is still that you can't reover what isn't there any more.
>>>
>>>
>> Right, but the information is still there, and so it is recoverable.
>
> Heh. Next thing you'll be telling me that you can take a photograph that
> has faded to a plain yellow sheet of paper and somehow "recover" the
> image that used to be on it. :-P
Even more impressively, they've been able to colour films that were
originally shot in B&W.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_colorization
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 10:21:19 +0100, Invisible wrote:
>>> But then, isn't film inherantly noisy too?
>>
>> Not really, not in the way digital image sensors are.
>
> Really? I thought film was well-known for being grainy at low light
> levels...
Depends on the film speed and camera characteristics.
>>> Heh, not even DCT artifacts? :-P
>>
>> No, just some banding in the sky due to you effectively losing the last
>> 2 least significant bits of data.
>
> I'll have to try it at some point I guess.
>
>> BTW, on a lot of digital cameras now you can save your images in "raw"
>> format, which is usually 12-bit per channel.
>
> My camera isn't that expensive.
>
> (Kinda amusing how not denying access to data is a "feature", eh?)
You're not the first to make this observation. For some cameras, there's
actually alternate firmware you get get that enables this on low-end
cameras that don't expose RAW data to the end user.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> Even more impressively, they've been able to colour films that were
> originally shot in B&W.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_colorization
Yeah, but only with human intervention. You don't just press a button
and out pops an image with colours that correctly match the original.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> But the data never exists as a whole in the first place in cheap cameras.
>
> Actually it does exist, at least in Canon cameras.
That's because they probably use the same hardware in lots of different
cameras. Again it's all about cost, cheaper to use an existing solution that
is slightly more than they need, rather than to develop a new one.
> Really, this is a case study of hardware being deliberately crippled
> through software for marketing reasons.
It's not marketing reasons, it's purely financial reasons, to make maximum
profit. Say it costs Canon $100 to make each camera, whether crippled or
not. You have two options:
Option 1: Sell just one model for $150 and make $50 profit on each camera
Option 2: Sell a crippled version for $125 and a non-crippled one for $200.
If you choose those two prices correctly, you will make more profit.
Companies realise that option 2 is likely to make them much more profit, you
get sales from all the people who couldn't afford $150 before, plus you get
sales from people who think that because it's $200 it must be better than a
$150 camera from another company, and obviously it's better than your $125
you are selling.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 16:13:21 +0100, Invisible wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>> Even more impressively, they've been able to colour films that were
>> originally shot in B&W.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_colorization
>
> Yeah, but only with human intervention. You don't just press a button
> and out pops an image with colours that correctly match the original.
As the original is B&W, that doesn't make sense...
But colourization technology has advanced somewhat since the earliest
films (and in all honesty, the earliest colourized films that I saw were
pretty crap anyways).
But even with colour correction in cameras, the best results usually
involve human intervention.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Yeah, but only with human intervention. You don't just press a button
>> and out pops an image with colours that correctly match the original.
>
> As the original is B&W, that doesn't make sense...
I meant you can't just give a machine a BW picture of a tree and have it
automatically know to turn it green. That's impossible. You must have a
human there, and they must know what the hell the colours are supposed
to be.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
48889cb8@news.povray.org...
> Companies realise that option 2 is likely to make them much more profit,
> you get sales from all the people who couldn't afford $150 before, plus
> you get sales from people who think that because it's $200 it must be
> better than a $150 camera from another company, and obviously it's better
> than your $125 you are selling.
Some of the crippled features only exist in uncrippled form in the high-end,
much more expensive SLRs, that have specific hardware features (namely the
abiility to have different and much better lenses and the SRL system itself)
that cater to different people. Both lines of products do not compete with
each other: they're different markets (with a small line of "bridge" cameras
filling the gap). If Canon had left RAW support in the point-and-shoot
digicams, that would not have prevented power users to buy SLRs.
In the end it surely comes down to money and I'm pretty sure that they ran
simulations about this, but the true rationale still looks like real
marketing to me: Canon judged that a digicam belongs to a market segment
that doesn't need (or even understand) RAW support and other fancy high-end
features, so they took those features off of the list to keep their product
lines neatly separated.
G.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 18:29:54 +0200, Gilles Tran wrote:
> If Canon had left RAW support in the
> point-and-shoot digicams, that would not have prevented power users to
> buy SLRs.
It isn't so much that they didn't leave the support in, they disabled it
specifically in the lower-end cameras. At least according to what I've
read.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
