Talk:Raw image format

message: - About The GIMP, the article says:
"The latest version of GIMP, a free open source photo editing package, imports many raw formats. Older version have a plug-in which allows it to read and convert raw files."
What version does this refer to? Please ammend.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.230.190.131 (talk) 17:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Software support 

message: PRONUNCIATION NEEDED, ARTICLE INCOMPLETE (CATALONIA IS NOT SPAIN)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.3.100.165 (talk) 11:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: PRONUNCIATION

message: While RAW support is a standard feature on dSLRs, it was also included in a lot of compact cameras several years ago, but few people used that because memory cards were expensive. Now memory cards are cheap,but it seams marketing has found RAW to be a "pro" feature and they use it to differentiate product categories.
Example: The Nikon Coolpix P5100 and P5000 cameras are quite high quality products but they don't have RAW support while their predessor the Nikon Coolpix 5000 included it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.133.144.123 (talk) 16:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marketing aspects 

message: This is not entirely true. Most blown out areas are only blown out in one or two channels. Adobe's latest version of camera raw software can recover a brightness value from these channels, that is quite realistic, and mix this with the color values from nearby pixels to produce nearly perfect recovery of some highlights. (i have used it to recover entire faces correctly). --Darkfred Talk to me 11:50, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: (However, overexposed areas are just as white with 12 bits as with 8, so using raw is not a substitute for correct exposure.)

message: I have tried to make the article more accurate by explaining the mosaicing process and changing the comparison with JPEG to relate to how JPEG is actually stored. (previous editor was confusing JPEG with uncompressed RGB, and confusing mosaiced 12bit RAW with 36bit RGB). My grammer is not the best, feel free to make it more readable. --Darkfred Talk to me 22:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accuracy 

message: This section must be in it's own article, if it should exist at all. When complete, it will be too long for the RAW article. For example, all cameras listed on thedcraw-page should be included in this list. Berland 13:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about convert to list of raw formats, with corresponding companies, instead (like the box at top but with more info maybe)?  Dicklyon 15:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is much more interesting than a long list of camera models Berland 16:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: That's what this is for. Dicklyon 06:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that, I'd never have created the list if I'd known that site. Though I still think the list is worth having, perhaps on its own page. Pol098 23:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Noone seemed to oppose this, so I did the move, see List of cameras supporting a raw format. Berland 16:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of cameras supporting a RAW format 

message: However, RAW permits much greater control than JPEG for several reasons:
Finer control is easier for the settings when a mouse and keyboard are available to set them. For example, the white point can be set to any value, not just discrete values like "daylight" or "incandescent".\
The settings can be previewed and tweaked to obtain the best quality image or desired effect. (With in-camera processing, the values must be set before the exposure). This is especially pertinent to the white balance setting since color casts can be difficult to correct after the conversion to RGB is done.
*Both can be done on JPEG images using appropriate software. Similarly they can only be done using appropriate RAW software. I understand there are apparent quality differences between doing this on a 'altered' image and a 'unprocessed' image, but the article currently seems to suggest it isn't possible in JPEG. ny156uk 20:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your point is correct. The important point in this context is only the final quality, which is limited by either 8-bit for JPEG or 12/14/16 bit for RAW format. --Berland 20:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: What's not possible with a JPEG is any recovering of information in pixels that have already been clipped to the colorspace gamut.  It's not because it's JPEG (same deal with TIFF), but because it has been rendered to a colorspace.  With raw, there is no such clipping gamut, just sensor saturation limits.  But you're right, the article does need work. Dicklyon 23:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Questionable

message: The article uses "raw", "Raw", and "RAW" inconsistently. Someone who knows more about what is acceptable should advise on which one to use throughout the article, and use just that one. 221.29.158.74 00:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Per comment below, lower-case is more logical.  Anyone object if I change it?  Dicklyon 23:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Use of capital letters makes sense.  RAW is an acronym for Read And Write.  Sorry, no citation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles McRobert (talk • contribs) 01:47, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's not.  Sorry, no citation.  Dicklyon (talk) 03:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Capitalisation consistency

message: Raw is just a collective term for the different camera manufacturers properitary file formats for saving unprocessed images directly from the CCD. Therefore it should be written raw and not RAW
--EivindF 14:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, logically.  But about half the books that talk about RAW use all caps, as if it was a file type.  I think that's because conceptually it is a type of file, even though maybe different actual types and formats. Dicklyon 15:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a question of grammar, nothing more. Raw is not an acronym, and whether it is a format or not plays no role in how it should be written. It is a noun and an adjective, and should be written as such. A significant number of magazines and online articles use the capitalized spelling, "RAW", yet prevalence does not imply correctness. This is just reluctance on behalf of these authors to think about what they're writing and apply correct grammar to it. DrSlony (talk) 02:38, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Raw is not a format

message: I suspect that these images could be used in this article, but I don't know enough about them to be sure, perhaps editors might find them useful?:
*:Image:Minolta Dynax 7D RAW Camera White Balance.jpg
*:Image:Minolta Dynax 7D RAW 6000K.jpg
*:Image:Minolta Dynax 7D RAW 3500K.jpg
Cheers--DO11.10 22:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone already added a set like that in the color balance article, which seems more sensible, since they have more to do with white point and color balance than with raw format.  Although, if he doesn't fix the license, those will disappear.  Yours are a bit unclear, as the Exif says Auto White Balance on all of them.  How were these images made? Dicklyon 23:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, I plead ignorance. I am just the image fairy.--DO11.10 00:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: :The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
RAW image format → Raw image format — More typical and logical case; stop propagating misconception that it's an acronym —Dicklyon 19:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
* Support (I'm the nominator).  Even though half of books and other sources use it as "RAW", there is no logical basis for that all-caps.  We seem to have a consensus, and a consistent usage in the article, to go  with the the typical and more logical generic word "raw", so we ought to move the article to reflect that. Dicklyon 19:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The evidence is very mixed, which is why I figure we get to choose.  GBS shows about 2/3 of books use all caps in "RAW file format", but that drops to less than half in phrases like "raw conversion".  Uwe Steinmueller, who wrote one such, mixes both forms on his web pages.  Adobe uses "Camera Raw" without all caps; same with Extensis in their "Pro Photo Raw Image Filter"; but Microsoft and OpenRAW went the other way.  We should certainly acknoledge both in the lead, but should pick one to use consistently in the article, and make the title match it.  I chose one, not realizing I wasn't going to be able to do the move, due to some history.  If you'd rather go with all caps, will you do the work to change it all back that way?  Dicklyon 04:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text: So true.  Yet other respected major players like Adobe and NIST and authors Bruce Fraser, Stephen Johnson, and Nick Sullivan don't all-cap it.  So why side with Microsoft? Dicklyon 03:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Any additional comments:
Does anyone understand why the article and the talk page have different names and cross-redirects?  Did someone do an improper move at some point? Dicklyon 03:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. But, since the split history had to be merged anyway, I have ended up moving the article to be at raw image format, if only because that did away with the need for moving this talk page. --Stemonitis 09:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks; with only one weak oppose and one Microsoft supporter in opposition, the consensus seemed close enough.  Thanks for fixing the previous improper move. Dicklyon 14:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
* Support (I'm the nominator).  Even though half of books and other sources use it as "RAW", there is no logical basis for that all-caps.  We seem to have a consensus, and a consistent usage in the article, to go  with the the typical and more logical generic word "raw", so we ought to move the article to reflect that. Dicklyon 19:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The evidence is very mixed, which is why I figure we get to choose.  GBS shows about 2/3 of books use all caps in "RAW file format", but that drops to less than half in phrases like "raw conversion".  Uwe Steinmueller, who wrote one such, mixes both forms on his web pages.  Adobe uses "Camera Raw" without all caps; same with Extensis in their "Pro Photo Raw Image Filter"; but Microsoft and OpenRAW went the other way.  We should certainly acknoledge both in the lead, but should pick one to use consistently in the article, and make the title match it.  I chose one, not realizing I wasn't going to be able to do the move, due to some history.  If you'd rather go with all caps, will you do the work to change it all back that way?  Dicklyon 04:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So true.  Yet other respected major players like Adobe and NIST and authors Bruce Fraser, Stephen Johnson, and Nick Sullivan don't all-cap it.  So why side with Microsoft? Dicklyon 03:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: :Any additional comments:
Does anyone understand why the article and the talk page have different names and cross-redirects?  Did someone do an improper move at some point? Dicklyon 03:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.</div>
It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. But, since the split history had to be merged anyway, I have ended up moving the article to be at raw image format, if only because that did away with the need for moving this talk page. --Stemonitis 09:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks; with only one weak oppose and one Microsoft supporter in opposition, the consensus seemed close enough.  Thanks for fixing the previous improper move. Dicklyon 14:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: "Finally, in October, Apple released Aperture, a photo post-production software package for professionals whose chief feature
 is full support for raw files."
  Actually it only supports a few cameras' raw images as of 7/22/2007. See the post on the apple site below.
http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=828344&tstart=105
 I was quite suprised to find my Panasonic DMC - FZ8 raw files imported with a blank "Unsupported Image Format" message.
LoghouseJD 19:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apple Aperture raw processing limited  to selected cameras. 

message: Since the guy who tagged it didn't start the discussion, I will.
Support – the two articles seem to be on the same topic.  Adobe's "Digital Negative Format" is a specific raw format, but that's not what the digital negative is about.  Dicklyon 02:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did a merge.  Feel free to work it over. Dicklyon 06:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed merge from [[digital negative]]

message: Camera raw files have 12 or 14 bits of intensity information, not the gamma-compressed 8 bits typically stored in processed TIFF and JPEG files; since the data are not yet rendered and clipped to a color space gamut, more precision may be available in highlights, shadows, and saturated colors.
It should read:
Camera raw files have 12 or 14 bits of intensity information, not the gamma-compressed 8 bits typically stored in processed JPEG files; since the data are not yet rendered and clipped to a color space gamut, more precision may be available in highlights, shadows, and saturated colors.
TIFF files can contain 16 bits of information per channel, so it is not a good example.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xenoptrix (talk • contribs) 06:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not really inaccurate, since the 8-bit processed images are indeed typically stored in TIFF files, and since TIFF files typically store 8-bit images.  Yes they can also store 16-bit images, but that doesn't make it untrue or misleading. Dicklyon 06:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, that would be misleading if one said that.  However, it doesn't say that's a benefit over tiff, it says it's a benefit over 8-bit images.  The rest of the statement "since the data are not yet rendered and clipped to a color space gamut, more precision may be available in highlights, shadows, and saturated colors" should probably be clarified as being an advantage over tiff, however.  Work on that; taking TIFF out is going the wrong direction. Dicklyon 06:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: All the pages I edit are on my watch list, so if you address me on a talk page I'll see it; or use my page User talk:dicklyon.  Or use the email link on my user page to send me an email. Dicklyon 06:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccurate/Misleading Information 

message: recently checked in a very large edit. I'm highly suspicious of such large edits, but Google doesn't turn up any sources for copyright violation. Going through the material he changed, I notice he changed the release year of Apple iPhoto 5 from 2005 to 2006. A Google search turned up the Apple press release announcing iLife '05 (which included iPhoto 5). It was indeed released in 2005 - a year before LightZone, which Innov8or has been advertising in this and several other articles. Given his history (and obvious motivations) and the tone of the new material, I'm inclined to just revert it. However I'm wondering if any of it is actually useful and could be rescued with a lot of editing. --Imroy (talk) 10:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I agree... questionable although no obvious copyvio.  Beyond that, his material was unsourced.  I think it was appropriate to rv.  Parts of it might be useful if sourced.  ǝɹʎℲxoɯ (contrib) 16:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted it before I noticed the comments here.  It's a big opinion essay mostly.  Probably has some good points, but without a source to back them up, they seem to be more about his agenda as you note.  Innov8or, feel free to contribute, but preferably in manageable chunks that make verifiable points with an encyclopedic style. Dicklyon (talk) 16:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Innov8or's large edit 

message: The table "RAW image file" at the top of this article incorrectly lists TIFF (.tif) as a RAW file format for Kodak.  Clearly, this standard exchange format is not a RAW file.  However, the TIFF format is technically a general-purpose container format that could theoretically contain any arbitrary data (including RAW subpixel data) if a few engineers were sufficiently out of their freaking minds and applied for a private range of tag values for that purpose....
So the question is this: did Kodak really do something as bonkers as writing RAW subpixel data into a TIFF file, or did somebody just throw up a list of formats that Kodak cameras support and not check it carefully?  If Kodak did do something so utterly bizarre, this should be clearly noted.  If not, the mention of .tif should be removed.
Either way, the mere thought of embedding RAW subpixel sensor data in a TIFF container is going to give me nightmares tonight.  If I wake up crying, I'm blaming all of you.  :-D
P.S.  You left out the Rollei .rdc format, the Sinar .sti format, and probably a bunch of others.  See http://pa.photoshelter.com/help/tour/formats for a large list and search for "raw".
Dgatwood (talk) 07:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, most vendors have chosen to use TIFF as the file format for their camera raw data.  TIFF (tagged image file format) provides a very flexible container.  But these TIFF files should not be opened and displayed as if they contained a regular image. Dicklyon (talk) 23:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  TIFF is NOT a RAW file... or is it? 

message: Is it necessarily true that a raw image must come from a camera or scanner? It is my opinion that a raw file is a raw file regardless of its source.
I believe that years ago (I think before scanners and digital cameras were common), various sorts of image files regarded as "raw" existed; e.g. a screenshot taken directly from the framebuffer would be regarded as raw. There are old programs such as rawtoppm (part of the netpbm software), which considers RGB data to be raw. (Confusingly, netpbm's ppm format exists in "raw" and "plain" varieties, which are different.)
Anyway, my point is that the term "raw" for image files has a long history and hasn't always referred exclusively to digital camera or scanner images. 71.82.211.210 (talk) 22:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a completely different use of the term raw applying to image data, meaning image bytes in a file without any or much header or structural info or metadata.  That's a raw "format".  This article is more about raw image data.  They do get confused a lot, so maybe it's worth a clarifying explanation. Dicklyon (talk) 23:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Raw images necessarily come from a camera or scanner? 

message: The Software Support section needs a complete rewrite:
1: It makes the issue look MUCH more complicated and scary than it is.  Pretty much use any major photo editing software, and you are fine.  The use of raw does not require the use of proprietary (for that camera model/manker) software to the degree this section suggests.
2: It has a "proprietary bad, open standards good" tone to it. 
3: There doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason as to the order and layout of the various software applications.  Maybe it can be broken up in sections, such as major commercial photo editing software; photo viewing apps; support within OS GUI; niche photo editing software (such as GIMP); etc.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.71.15 (talk) 20:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite

message: Please see the discussion at Talk:Image file formats#Naming_conventions_for_image_file_formats on naming conventions for articles on image file formats. Dcoetzee 00:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming conventions for image file formats 

message: Sorry Dicklyon. I think, and it seems, more appropriate my contribution on emerald explanation than the previous (cyan), because this two colours are different and clearly defined in the common use of the words. I suppose that in understanding of this differences between colours, is more useful to refer to specifics examples of colors of objects in normal condition of light (color temperature of the light near 5,000 K).
No matter if in colorimetry (as a mathematical point of view), the two colours are very similar, our ordinary visual experience make us able to recognize and distinguish the two colors. (Zeus57) 16:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for linking emerald.  I've also added sources that clarify that it's a blue-green or cyan sort of color; that is, on the blue side of green.  If you can find further sourced info describing the color that Sony used, by all means do add it.  Dicklyon (talk) 16:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emerald Explanation 

message: two paragraphs in the intro propose a metaphor relating raw files to film negs. but negs are open standards, are very broadly supported, and are suitable for long term archiving. raw files use a plethora of closed, often secret, proprietary file encodings, not widely interoperable, and concerns about potential bit-rot are widely discussed.
adobe's attempt to rationalize the raw mess with their open standard Digital Negative (file format) confuses the metaphor further.
add to this the fact that many (and ever more) younger people will have never used negatives and for them the metaphor wont help them.
to clarify the concept of a raw file, i think the intro would do better to contrast it with the other files that cameras and scanners typically produce, such as jpeg, pdf and what have you.
:Agreed.  There are too many weak analogies to film processing, and they don't fit.  Another is "developing".  Digital images can be processed in many steps.  It's also important to understand that JPEGs cannot be displayed directly either.  You need software to convert them into screen images or paper prints.  In that respect, the only difference between JPEG and raw formats is that JPEG converters are more widespread.  But that's because it's a standard, not because it's easier to display.  I suggest updating the page to explain this.  Groogle (talk) 22:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Raw image files - digital negatives metaphor in the intro 

message: I've removed the statement that digital development is formally known as demosaicing, since demosaicing is only part of the digital development process
Martin.Budden (talk) 09:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Digital development 

message: I noticed quite a few debates about TIFF on this discussion page. The TIFF article in Wikipedia is unfortunately poorly written so I can't point to this one as a source of facts. But: TIFF is a container. Many TIFF flavors exist. 
Confusion about bit depth:
In print & web, people often talk about 24 bit TIFF, meaning a 3*8BIT RGB TIFF. Similarly people mean "indexed" color when they talk about 8 bit images.
This is per-image bit depth.
In other fields, people talk about per channel bit depths. E.g. 8 or 16 bits.
Often overseen/ignored by the digital photographers, but TIFF can store floating point data in 32bits per channel.
Channels can be interpreted in different ways. TIFF tags serve to identify what they mean. Common formats for floating point (raw) data in visual effects, digital cinematography and scientific imaging for TIFF are:
*log Luv
*Lab
*XYZ
Of course, there's also plain RGB data with 32 bits per channel.
Most of these are also identified correctly & read by Photoshop. 
Finally, 32 bit/channel floating point RGB TIFF with or w/o lossless compression (e.g. LZW or Adobe Deflate, aka ZIP) is a valid raw data container. So a generic statement like "TIFF is a raw format" is true in consideration of this fact.
The float data is linear, no information is lost unless the sensor the data came from had more than 32 bits/channel precision (not the case for any cameras used by most mortals for another few years, 14-16 bit seems to be max).
MoritzMoeller (talk)
:So a generic statement like "TIFF is a raw format" is true in consideration of this fact.  That does not follow.  It might make sense to say that TIFF can be used as a raw image format.  Indeed many raw file formats use TIFF as the container, including Adobe's DNG.  That doesn't make TIFF a raw format.  Dicklyon (talk) 08:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  TIFF misconceptions 

message: I came to this article looking for information about the format of .raw files, where there isn't any metadata at all, not even dimensions or color depth, just bits (or bytes if you don't look too close :) ) and to be open requires you to specify on the program the dimension, color depth and a few other parameters if the color depth is bigger than 1 bit, where can I find more information about it?  --TiagoTiago (talk) 22:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In the documentation of the hardware that produced that raw sensor dump.DrSlony (talk) 03:22, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  the raw that isn't medium-rare 

message: I think this page would benefit from a diagram of a typical bayer filter.  It's a pretty significant difference from most image formats.  None of the images currently on bayer filter are quite what I'm looking for. —Darxus (talk) 15:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not all cameras have Bayer filters. Fujifilm X Series cameras, for example, use a different pattern of red, green, and blue photosites. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fujifilm_X-Trans_sensor 151.201.129.79 (talk) 22:56, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bayer filter diagram 

message: In the section "Sensor image data", third paragraph, the second sentence has seven commas and a semi-colon, making it rather imcomprehensible.  
Would someone who understands the subject please re-write it, preferably splitting it into three or four sentences !   Thanks ! Darkman101 (talk) 02:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I made a pass at improving it. Dicklyon (talk) 05:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sensor image data 

message: Article states: "JPEG images are typically saved using a lossy compression format (though a lossless JPEG compression is now available). Raw formats are typically either uncompressed or use lossless compression, so the maximum amount of image detail is always kept within the raw file."
:I'm not aware of any actual uncompressed RAW formats, but I'm sure there must be one or two floating about.  However, I doubt very much that they're typical in any sense.  I thought I'd be bold and change it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.132.198 (talk) 14:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't say 'typically' since this implies a statistic which I'm sure no-one here has carried out, but a raw image is just a dump of a sensor's data, and it's up to the designer whether he wants to compress that or not. DNGs can be uncompressed. DrSlony (talk) 03:25, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It really depends. DNG files are usually uncompressed, same with ARW. On the other hand cRAW saved as ARW uses lossless compression, while sRAW uses heavy lossy compression (by down-scaling of the image). SkywalkerPL (talk) 13:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  What RAW formats are uncompressed? 

message: This article heavily favors the use of "raw" over "RAW", which I feel is the correct way anyway. I would suggest that, aside from external references, all instanced of RAW are switched to raw, and going forward that's all that's used.
Farski (talk) 15:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, of courese.  I have generally edited in that direction, but may not have kept up with all...  Dicklyon (talk) 16:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standardize RAW vs raw 

message: "camera raw image file contains minimally processed data from the image sensor of either a digital camera(...) Raw files are so named because they are not yet processed" - so... they are processed or they aren't? Introduction contradicts itself. SkywalkerPL (talk) 13:01, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the problem is really that the lead section is so poorly written that it's like getting repeatedly bludgeoned by dispicable laziness until one is dumbfounded, —until what might normally make sense does not. I think if you were not forced into a defensive position by the terrible writing (such as inappropriate argot, jargon, and excessive lazy-linking,) you would have breezed by that inconsistency.    —My guess?  minimally processed = unprocessed.  But that will do you no good, will it? If writing quality is judged according to effectiveness of communication, (always the primal, basic criterion) then this lead section loses. It's embarrassingly bad. Curiously, the next few sections, —where these weaknesses are normally better tolerated,— do a much better job! More specifically, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section). Another hint: by definition it is utterly impossible for just one to communicate. Final clue; google: digital photography raw.  --71.133.254.31 (talk) 00:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it just means "little or no processing".  It's hard to define what "no processing" means in the context of any reasonably complex system, and it generally takes a little bit of preprocessing to store sensor data in something like DNG format.  Dicklyon (talk) 03:21, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  this doesn't make much sense 

message: This silly article claims that negatives are "not directly usable as an image". Really? I guess all of the negatives available for sale, as art, and all of the movies using negatives as part of the movie exist in some other Universe? I'd suggest the editors of this piece actually think about what they are writing and not expand analogies into the  ridiculous. ... Oh, I found another gross blunder: it seems that Android 5.0 - according to this article - allows the smartphone user to take RAW images...how does a camera "take" a file format? It should be obvious that any device "takes" sensor dependent data - the only question is how are those (voltage? (for CCDs)) measurements encoded (into a file) for storage? (with possibly several stages of processing (intermediate representations of the raw measurements) prior to storage in a datafile, of course.)216.96.79.240 (talk) 21:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request 

message: I'm not sure this is accurate some of the processes are not fully revisable as they involve rounding of the numbers which will prevent going back. You certainly cannot go from the final image back to the original data. The entire process induces a loss when converting to any of the more common formats.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 14:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  reversible steps