A&P Point and shoot raw capabilites? CHDK firmware. *Comparison PICS*

Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by Danno, Jul 6, 2008.

  1. Danno

    Danno Bronx Poodle OT Supporter

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Messages:
    64,916
    Likes Received:
    47
    Location:
    Indiana
    So, I grabbed a beta version of CHDK for my SX100 IS. It allows RAW pictures to be taken and saved on the card rather than jpg. Shutter speed can go from 64 sec. to 1/100,000 sec. Aperture can go f2.7(?) to f16, usually only do f2.8 to f8.

    Haven't played around much with it as I only started it late last night and have been busy all day today, so I've really only checked out the difference of raw and jpg out of camera. I comes out of camera as a .CRW file, I had to convert it to .DNG and then load it into photoshop to adjust.

    Didn't touch these, just shot them and resized.

    jpg version
    [​IMG]

    raw
    [​IMG]
     
  2. Danno

    Danno Bronx Poodle OT Supporter

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Messages:
    64,916
    Likes Received:
    47
    Location:
    Indiana
    What are the advantages of raw? Is the CHDK firmware deal really raw?

    raw version seems too warm to me out of camera, jpg seems too cool.
     
  3. Hyperite

    Hyperite Vagina Junction OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2002
    Messages:
    28,529
    Likes Received:
    19
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    well, what did you use to develop the RAW into a JPG?
     
  4. Beeno

    Beeno New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2005
    Messages:
    1,067
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    The TDot
    the raw seems to have much better dynamic range
     
  5. Danno

    Danno Bronx Poodle OT Supporter

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Messages:
    64,916
    Likes Received:
    47
    Location:
    Indiana
    Loaded the dng file into lightroom, saved for web (jpg) with cs3.

    Come to think of it, lightroom might have automatically adjusted the pic as it was imported, I didn't check the settings.
     
  6. Bloke

    Bloke Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2003
    Messages:
    26,775
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Pekin, IL
    thats one fast shutter speed. fastest ive seen in a pro camera is 1/12000
    even that is kinda useless
     
  7. Dwight Schrute

    Dwight Schrute New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2003
    Messages:
    8,616
    Likes Received:
    0
    It just uses the sensor as a "shutter". Data is only captured for a small amount of time, there's no physical shutter.
     
  8. Bloke

    Bloke Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2003
    Messages:
    26,775
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Pekin, IL
    ah thanks
     
  9. Danno

    Danno Bronx Poodle OT Supporter

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Messages:
    64,916
    Likes Received:
    47
    Location:
    Indiana
    lol...well, I doubt it will do 1/100,000sec. and if it did I'd think it would just be a black pictures. It is just an option in the chdk menu.

    Not sure how any of this works though. I know that it is saving it as a raw file, i know it will do a 64 sec. exposure. I believe it will do bracket exposuring now also.
     
  10. mojito

    mojito New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2003
    Messages:
    62,877
    Likes Received:
    0
    having features you have no idea how to use. . . priceless
     
  11. DeepRun™

    DeepRun™ Guest


    It allows you to actually capture the waves of light bouncing off of the subject.
     
  12. Danno

    Danno Bronx Poodle OT Supporter

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Messages:
    64,916
    Likes Received:
    47
    Location:
    Indiana
    Fuck, I guess people should never learn anything...ever.:sadwavey:
     
  13. mojito

    mojito New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2003
    Messages:
    62,877
    Likes Received:
    0
    :o

    its just when people fuck with firmware without even knowing why they should or shouldn't :hsugh:
     
  14. Danno

    Danno Bronx Poodle OT Supporter

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Messages:
    64,916
    Likes Received:
    47
    Location:
    Indiana
    Didn't change the firmware of the camera.:hsugh:

    SD card is bootable with the beta firmware on it. Take the SD card out and the camera has its original firmware.
     
  15. isaac86hatch

    isaac86hatch This thread sucks

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2005
    Messages:
    27,892
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Oregon
    .jpg looks better
     
  16. xSteveO

    xSteveO Guest

    it's probably because when you first open it in Photoshop, it's doing an auto adjustment. You need to change the settings to as shot. You won't see any huge detail change between the two. RAW just isn't compressed giving you more to work with like pushing the exposure if it was underexposed, etc.
     
  17. Derrict

    Derrict No, I am not Amish OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,484
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Amish Country, PA
    Fix the WB on the raw image and it'll look better. You can already see a difference in the image quality by looking at the tree leaves. The raw image has more detail in the shadows and midtones.
     
  18. mojito

    mojito New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2003
    Messages:
    62,877
    Likes Received:
    0
    the whole point of RAW is to edit it to where you want, not convert it as shot to jpeg
     
  19. Danno

    Danno Bronx Poodle OT Supporter

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Messages:
    64,916
    Likes Received:
    47
    Location:
    Indiana
    Well, why is there a difference between the two untouched photos? Does the camera do some processing to the jpg before saving it?
     
  20. mojito

    mojito New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2003
    Messages:
    62,877
    Likes Received:
    0
    :bigthumb:

    you know all those saturation, contrast, sharpness . . . seetings in cam? they don't do anything to RAW, only jpeg.

    now how you process RAW is a science in it of it self.
     
  21. xSteveO

    xSteveO Guest

    as I said.

    a) Adobe will automatically adjust the RAW file to different settings. You will see a drop down menu and you will need to select "As shot"

    b) Your camera is processing the JPG. Sharpness, saturation, white balance, etc.
     
  22. Danno

    Danno Bronx Poodle OT Supporter

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Messages:
    64,916
    Likes Received:
    47
    Location:
    Indiana
    :cool:

    I've been playing around with the Adobe Camera Raw plugin and Lightroom. It will take a while to figure out how to process the raw images.
     
  23. Derrict

    Derrict No, I am not Amish OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,484
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Amish Country, PA
    That's pretty much the whole point of JPG mode - the camera post processes the image for you (compressed data). RAW allows the user to do the post processing with the uncompressed data. This is generally beneficial for white balance control and exposure control. With RAW images, you can have up to +/- 2 stops of exposure adjustment. With JPG, it's much less before you begin losing large amounts of detail.
     
  24. Jonny Chimpo

    Jonny Chimpo OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2003
    Messages:
    64,718
    Likes Received:
    362
    Location:
    The sweaty asshole of the universe
    Well one thing that is immediately apparent is that the RAW version has captured far more detail in the shadow areas of the image. Take a look at the leaves on the tree.

    Give it a WB adjustment and the RAW version will look vastly better than the JPG.

    :dunno:
     
  25. Jonny Chimpo

    Jonny Chimpo OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2003
    Messages:
    64,718
    Likes Received:
    362
    Location:
    The sweaty asshole of the universe
    Take a look at this:

    jpg version
    [​IMG]

    raw (adjusted)
    [​IMG]


    Compare the areas circled in the image below:
    [​IMG]

    You'll also notice that more of the color was maintained in the sky and other highlights compared to the JPG image. Also, at least to my eye, the RAW appears sharper than the JPG, though this may be a shot to shot difference in focus. This was just a quick and dirty color adjustment, but you get the idea. The RAW images give you much more to work with than the JPGs because no adjustments or compression have been applied in-camera.

    As a result, the downside is that you'll have to do more work to the images in post to get them right, but the results should be worth it.
     

Share This Page