> Hi, > > French is my mother tongue (as my name suggests), and I can say that the > babelfish translation is accurate in saying that it is "possible to > *act* on ... the ISO adjustment". > > To my ears this means that the ISO can be somehow (?) set at > post-processing. > > How they achieve such a result while storing only the 12bits in the RAW > file is still a mystery to me. I wouldn't say so if at least 4 more bits > were stored into the RAW. > I'm not sure I understand how that would help. Haven't we written off those bits as containing only random variation caused by noise?
Not that I necessarily think it's a bad idea to use 22 bits internally, either. It does seem right somehow to apply some of the processing on data that contains all info, *including noise* - but I don't think it is significantly different in terms of image quality. > Otherwise, with a 12bit RAW, +1 EV push gives roughly 11 useful bits, +4 > EV (100->1600) gives only 8 useful bits => nothing I can't do with my > *ist DS... > But do you have more than 8 useful when setting the camera at 1600? Again, considering the noise situation. - Toralf -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
