Hi,
Am 12.04.19 um 10:26 schrieb Christian:
> Understand. But there may be users who prefer a consistend size
> between ooc and processed images or when using several raw converters in
> parallel.
>
> So I suggest an option in the export-pane :
>
> [x] crop to original/nominal size
I guess
Hi,
probably because the image then no longer has the exact aspect ratio it
is supposed to have.
For example both the Nikon D750 and D7100 in-camera engines output
6000x4000 pixel JPEG files, which is exactly 3:2. But the additional
pixels at the edges bump the RAW data to 6032x4032 (D750) or
I would think that Fujifilm's rational is that the original raw edge
pixels are really not to be valued and only are used for the 'final
edge' calculation.
On 2019-04-12 1:26 a.m., Christian wrote:
Hi,
Understand. But there may be users who prefer a consistend size
between ooc and processed
Hi,
Understand. But there may be users who prefer a consistend size
between ooc and processed images or when using several raw converters in
parallel.
So I suggest an option in the export-pane :
[x] crop to original/nominal size
logic: if image is larger than original size and not
has been
Hi,
many higher-end camera sensors have more pixels than advertised. These
pixels are used to improve image processing around the edges of the
image, but they can also be recovered and presented to the user. Which
not all RAW converters and in-camera JPEG engines do.
So these additional pixels
Hi Chris.
I believe this question was addressed couple times already. Camera
sensors in fact have bigger resolution than in camera JPGs (or stock
software). They crop it to avoid quality issues which may occur in some
sensors. I believe it is camera specific.
Timur.
On Thu, 2019-04-11 at 19:48
Hi.
Fuji X-Trans II Files do have a nominal size of 4896 x 3264 px.
The ooc-JPGs do have exactly this size.
But after export from darktable the JPGs are a bit larger
(eg. 4932 x 3296).
I tried also another converter (RFC EX 2.0). This generates JPGs with
the original size.
So: Is this
