This is really way to technical for this kind of user supported help site, but, here it is :
From Understanding What is stored in a Canon RAW .CR2 file, How and Why, Version 0.78 (May 10th, 2017)
The necessary steps to interpret a CR2 files (like any RAW format) are:
- Decoding of the file format, to identify the Camera model, find the image dimensions and data. Finds White Balance information
- Decompression of the sensor data. We will see that it does NOT contains direct RGB data for each pixel.
- Interpolation of the sensor data to obtain an RGB picture.
- Applying some post-processing, at least White Balance and Gamma correction. Color Space conversion.
- Producing a final "ready to view" file, in Jpeg or Tiff format.
3. Decode the lossless jpeg grayscale picture
3.1. Introduction
The RAW or the sRAW data is in IFD #3, encoded in Jpeg lossless format.
See, you haven't got a clue what you are talking about. One post you say RAW files are black and white. Next post you post an image that is NOT black and white! Which one is it??? Why don't you post a picture that shows the individual pixels like I did???
Next post you show how to decode a RAW file, which has NOTHING to do with the RAW file that Canon has already badly "cooked". Quick tip, we are talking about HOW the camera processes the data BEFORE it writes the RAW file. You are talking about what to do AFTER!
And yes, the reason why I am posting here is because I am sorry for all those poor souls who have followed your "advice" and now are stuck with the wrong gear because of YOU!
Anyhow, really have more important things to do. I have made my point and whoever wants to listen will do. I am sure your photography is as enlightened as your posts!
@TTMartin wrote:
@KlausEnrique wrote:I am not confusing anything... If manufacturers did not "cook" their images, that is what the RAW files would look like!
Seriously, everything that you said below is incorrect. I thought photography was your hobby. I am beginning to think it is trolling...
@TTMartin wrote:
Umm, a true RAW image would be a black and white greyscale image. The color is added because the RAW converter knows which pixel has which color of the Bayer Filter over it.
You are confusing RAW conversion with the RAW file itself. Yes, Canon DPP does much of the same type of cooking when it converts the RAW file that Nikon and Sony bake into the RAW file.
Again the difference is Nikon and Sony bake it into the RAW file so you are stuck with it. With Canon that processing is done at the time of RAW conversion.
That has some ramifications, one Canon won't do as well on 'tests' that use a RAW converter other than DPP, the other is if you need a RAWer RAW file like Astrophotographers do then either you have to buy a specialized D810A from Nikon (which has the same dynamic range as the Canon 5D Mk IV) or hack your Nikon camera to prevent it from baking in processing in the RAW file.
As for a RAW file having color in the pattern of the Bayer filter you are just flat out wrong. I can't help you with that. The RAW file will contain a black and white grayscale image. The RAW conversion software then needs to know which color of the Bayer filter corresponds to which pixel.
That is why when Canon comes out with a new camera we get post with photos like this when people use a RAW converter that doesn't know which pixel to assign to which color.
As for who is trolling, I know it is Politics 101 to accuse others of exactly what you are doing, then when I respond it sounds like **bleep** for tat. Well, you've got 17 posts here all of which are complaining about Canon's DR. Instead I'm here helping people, in fact one my replies have been selected as the solution to a person's problem 76 different times. So I'm not the troll here, but, you certainly seem to be.
@KlausEnrique wrote:See, you haven't got a clue what you are talking about. One post you say RAW files are black and white. Next post you post an image that is NOT black and white! Which one is it??? Why don't you post a picture that shows the individual pixels like I did???
I'm typing this really slowly, so maybe you'll understand. The image in the RAW file is black and white greyscale. To be output you have to use a RAW converter that knows which pixel is covered by the Red filter, Blue filter, and the two Green filters. The RAW converter then uses this information to create a color image. When the RAW converter doesn't have the correct information on which pixel is supposed to be Red, Blue or Green, it produces funky output like this.
This is NOT a RAW image, it is a image that was output from a RAW converter that didn't know which pixels were supposed to be Red, Blue and Green in the black and white greyscale file, so when it converted it, it output an incorrectly colored image.
I didn't one that shows individual pixels like you did, because all the pixels in the RAW image file (IFD #3) are grey. Your image showing individual pixel is an simplified illustration of how the RAW converter converts that greyscale image into color, because it knows the greyscale image went through colored filters.
@KlausEnrique wrote:
The 6DII is a crippled version of the 5DIII with the sensor divided into a few more MPs. Nobody should buy it! If you want to spend $2K on a FF Canon system, people should spend an extra $200 and buy the 5DIII instead...
How is it 'crippled' compared to the 5D Mk III?
It has equivalent dynamic range.
It has a higher fps 6.5 vs 6.
It has a quieter shutter than the 5D Mk III.
It has GPS, WiFi, and a tilt swivel LCD that the 5D Mk III lacks.
It is lighter than the 5D Mk III.
It has a small boost in megapixels as you pointed out.
The AF system has it's pluses and negatives. Fewer and more concentrated AF points, but, has more cross type AF points. The 6D Mk II can focus at f/8 on 27 AF points including 9 cross type. The 5D Mk III can only focus at f/8 on it's center AF point, and that was because of a firmware upgrade.
Sorry, I just don't buy what you are saying. You are so intent on slamming the 6D Mk II, but, the facts just don't support your statements.
Dynamic range is the same... Agreed. For a camera that is coming out how many years after the 5DIII, you think that is good?
Yes, you are right in that it is not crippled in every way. But
5DIII
- Better AF system
- Dual Card Slots
6DII
- Dual Pixel Tech (you forgot to mention it!) - Good
- higher fps 6.5 vs 6 - You are not going to notice it
- It has GPS, WiFi, and a tilt swivel LCD that the 5D Mk III lacks - Good
- It is lighter than the 5D Mk III - Good
- It has a quieter shutter than the 5D Mk III - You are not going to notice it
So you pick a swivel LCD over dual card slots? You would take Dual Pixel over a better AF system? Would you really pick a brand new 6DII over the 5DIII? Really??? Heck, if a kid came to me and asked me, I'd be like buy the OLD 6D and save yourself $1K!
Again, I feel you guys are swinging at everything. You made up your mind that the 6DII is a great camera and nothing anybody says will change your mind. Fine. But in my mind, the 6DII is an inferior camera to the 5DIII and the 5DIII was announced in 2011... I would have hoped at the very least for Canon to improve the dynamic range, which they didn't and which is a HUGE DISAPPOINTMENT...
TTMartin wrote:
KlausEnrique wrote:
The 6DII is a crippled version of the 5DIII with the sensor divided into a few more MPs. Nobody should buy it! If you want to spend $2K on a FF Canon system, people should spend an extra $200 and buy the 5DIII instead...
How is it 'crippled' compared to the 5D Mk III?
It has equivalent dynamic range.
It has a higher fps 6.5 vs 6.
It has a quieter shutter than the 5D Mk III.
It has GPS, WiFi, and a tilt swivel LCD that the 5D Mk III lacks.
It is lighter than the 5D Mk III.
It has a small boost in megapixels as you pointed out.
The AF system has it's pluses and negatives. Fewer and more concentrated AF points, but, has more cross type AF points. The 6D Mk II can focus at f/8 on 27 AF points including 9 cross type. The 5D Mk III can only focus at f/8 on it's center AF point, and that was because of a firmware upgrade.
Sorry, I just don't buy what you are saying. You are so intent on slamming the 6D Mk II, but, the facts just don't support your statements.
