Yes, that's what I was alluding to. But what about what I'm asking below? Theoretically tiff 16 bit tiff brackets converted from a 12 (or 16 bit) RAW file contain more information than a single one. But in practice is there really much difference between enfusing them and making faux bracketed images from that single 16 bit tiff using this technique. How much difference, theoretical and practical, is there between the two groups of intermediate images? John
On Monday, December 17, 2012 1:01:53 PM UTC-6, GnomeNomad wrote: > > On 12/17/2012 12:51 AM, paul womack 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. > > 48-bit RAW has 16-bits per color channel. JPG only has 8. > > -- > Gnome Nomad > [email protected] <javascript:> > wandering the landscape of god > http://www.clanjones.org/david/ > http://dancing-treefrog.deviantart.com/ > http://www.cafepress.com/otherend/ > -- 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
