Skellybones posted:

Actually can you do one with these?

grimcreaper posted:

I know absolutely nothing about photography outside of jpegs being lovely quality. What i meant was, was the picture taken and then just converted without running it through filters for that effect minus converting to a jpeg?

Daztek posted:

I will always love Mass Effect 2 and Mass Effect 3 up until the ending

Brazilianpeanutwar posted:

Skellybones posted:

Parpman's Plateau

1500 posted:

jpegs use a lossy compression algorithm (although you can run it as a loss less), meaning that it will add artifacts to an image. Halo and ringing effects, most people would not really see them and as such its fine for most people who just shoot photo's on your phone or even just for fun. But if you are going to do any post effects or editing you don't want those artifacts, if you are going to print really large formats you don't want to have them either. Because most random images a person will take will contain a "messy" random pattern those artifacts are "hidden". Jpegs are really bad at high frequency transitions, for instance text on a page, going from white to black is high frequency content and as such jpegs really screw them up. But in any case unless you are a pro/simi pro photographer, or you are going to do image processing on the image jpegs are just fine.

orcinus posted:

There are no filters, no, but conversion from RAW to JPEG implies adjusting things like white balance, hue, contrast, dynamic range, sharpness, saturation etc.
So no, it's not what you'd get if you were to just click Save. That would be equal to just saving to JPEG in camera.

RAW is RAW. Raw data from the imaging unit, containing more colour information and dynamic range than a JPEG would or could.
During conversion from RAW, you filter, remap and scale that data until you get what you want, what it looked like to your eyes, or what you think it should look like.

Think of it like this:
- let's say camera records the colour red as spanning the range from 0-1000 throughout the pixels of a particular image
- let's say most of the image depicts Ben's face, and it's average value of redness is 250
- if you remap the red values, so what used to be range 0-250 now spans 0-750, while what used to be 250-1000 now spans 750-1000, Ben's face will become way way redder than it used to be

Is that a "filter effect" or photo manipulation? Yes, sure it is. It's a contrast curve. And any JPEG photo you get out of a camera has one already applied to it. Heck, even developing a strip of film and developing positives from it has its own contrast curve (mapping function).

In other words, defining what is and what isn't "running through filters" or photo manipulation is a very tricky thing.
Apart from the image hitting your retina directly, EVERYTHING runs through SOME kind of a filter. Heck, even your retina and brain apply contrast, saturation etc. corrections to things you see around you all the time. Don't believe me? Put on some old-fashioned anaglyph red/blue (3D) glasses on, walk around in the sun for a while, come back inside, take the glasses off, then stare at a blank piece of white paper with one eye, then try the other eye. You'll see the paper appears cyan-tinted with one eye and red-tinted with the other.

Eonwe posted:

okay so, why does this thread get so many posts?

I don't really know why, but there are a lot of people here who love to make fun of CIG (the people that are making this "game"). If the game were bad, that would be one thing. The reason so many people post here, at least IMO, is less because of the bad "game" and more because of how poorly CIG handles everything it does as well as how willing star citizen backers are to accept whatever bullshit CIG feeds them. And CIG does some bizarrre things. They literally read this thread and their decisionmaking is affected by it.

1500 posted:

The funny thing is that camera's could save as a PNG and you would get the same information as a RAW image, but it would have smaller file sizes.

Beet Wagon posted:

caught up with the thread!

oscines posted:

Sickening posted:

After some of the rants he has gone on, do you really believe that he is pleasant to work for? At this point the only thing he has on Chris is that his game was actually finished.

orcinus posted:

Lossy compression is just tip of the iceberg, though.

A RAW image is typically 12-bit, sometimes 14-bit, and contains a much wider dynamic range than an 8-bit JPEG.
On top of that, the range is much more linear than the one in a JPEG, and there is no sharpening (unsharp masking) applied.

Unlike with a JPEG, this allows you to extract more information out of highlights and shadows, by customizing the mapping function (contrast or gamma curve) based on the particular image you're converting. An in-camera JPEG would typically have either a canned gamma curve applied, usually geared towards "punchiness" or most often encountered distributions of pixel values. And without fancy things like local tonemapping.

And once it's "flattened" like that, there's no coming back. The sky that just got blown out to pure white is white forever in a JPEG. There's no rescuing colour information from those pixels, it's gone.

Milky Moor posted:

lol good job running off eightace you loving spergs

orcinus posted:

Nope. Completely wrong.
RAW image from a camera is very very different than a PNG.

A 16-bit TIFF would come close, but again, would not be the same as a RAW image, especially for cameras* that require atypical demosaicing algorithms.

_{*imagers, actually}

1500 posted:

It depends on the format. Not all camera's shoot in 12-bit or 14-bit, but that does mean more contrast, nor does it mean more dynamic range. The higher the bit rate the more quantization levels you will be able to have, it does not necessary mean that you will have more of dynamic range. Now what Jpeg compression does is remove that dynamic range in order to save space in its compressing, and that is the real reason you see that effect.

That is not really accurate, its not about rescuing color information, that information is there, it is just that a filter has been applied. You also can go back, its just a pain and not really worth it. Just like you can remove motion blur and camera shake after the fact, if you know the algorithms to do so. Its no different then if you took a RAW changed it around then saved it again. You can still apply filters and fix a lot that is in a JPEG the same way as you would in a RAW, the only difference is what your starting point is.

Rudager posted:

This confuses me, are they handcrafting planets or generating them with a procedural algorithm?

Skellybones posted:

camera nerds are the worst

1500 posted:

image stuff