Actually, I was curious how using this script on a high bit depth tiff extracted from a good RAW file would compare with: enfusing 6 tiffs extracted from the same RAW file at 6 different exposure levels.
In other words, given RAW and tiff files with similar depth of information how does the sigmoidal contrast setting compare to RAW conversion? Clearly RAW conversion isn't even an option on jpegs. But I'm curious about how similar these two approaches are both theoretically and in actual practice. My understanding of basic concepts of image manipulation is not great, and my initial thought is that the approaches are totally different. (the intermediate files don't look like different exposures in the way actual bracketed shots do.) But after reading what little I found on sigmoidal contrast and considering what little I (think) I know about RAW files, I start to think that the manipulation may not be so different as I initially thought. Perhaps the destinations these two winding roads lead to, are nearer each other than I thought! The main thing I notice with this process is that the highest of the highlights seems to get slightly blown. But is this a result of the strategy itself or just the finer points of it? Perhaps some adjustments might make a difference, say the sigmoidal contrast settings — perhaps the contrast factor needs to be edged down bait? Or maybe the weighting of the enfuse settings should be different from the defaults? Or is it inescapable with this process because of a simple principle of image manipulation theory? Or maybe it's inescapable even with full access to a RAW file? I don't know, I'm just curious. To me it's an ingenious process in any case. :-) If anyone can tell me, or point me to a good resource, I'd love to hear about it. John On Monday, December 17, 2012 4:51:50 AM UTC-6, bugbear wrote: > > JohnPW wrote: > > This is very cool (and, amazingly, I've gotten it to work form me.) I'm > still trying to figure out how to run the perl script, but I'm happy I at > least have the commands working on the command line! > > > Any way, I'm curious, does this script produce essentially the same > results as if you output differently exposed tiffs converted from a RAW > file, or would that technique offer a slightly better result? I ask out of > curiosity (I don't normally have access to a camera that shoots RAW.) > > RAW should (potentially) have a little more data available than a JPEG, so > the results > from that should be (slightly) better. > > BugBear > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Hugin and other free panoramic software" group. A list of frequently asked questions is available at: http://wiki.panotools.org/Hugin_FAQ To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/hugin-ptx
