New answers tagged

1

There are probably several things going on here all at once that can each contribute to the variability you have noticed. Aperture positions are not exact from one frame to the next, particularly with cameras that use mechanical linkages between the camera body and the lens to set the position of the aperture diaphragm, such as the vast majority of Nikon F-...


2

The cameras produce different results because you're using the same raw processing settings for cameras that have different sensors and processing pipelines. You need to tweak the settings to match the camera. To improve highlight detail: Don't increase the exposure setting so much. Increase shadow and highlight recovery. This should work if the detail ...


2

If you're using Windows 10 then install 'Raw Image Extension' from Microsoft Store https://www.microsoft.com/en-in/p/raw-image-extension/9nctdw2w1bh8?activetab=pivot:overviewtab [


0

If you can see bokeh circles of faraway light sources, they appear like paper disks of diameter f/a (optical focal length divided by aperture number) would look when placed in the focusing distance. That gives you a rough manner of estimating the focusing distance based on visual artifacts. It requires such artifacts to be prominent, of course, so you are ...


0

If you want to avoid compression then raw files are your best choice when available. A camera recorded tiff isn't any better than a jpeg... the image is still processed and data lost/converted in the same way as an 8bit color jpeg; only the resulting image data isn't compressed which makes the files even larger than raw files. I would use jpegs with very low ...


1

Post camera processing can cram in as much additional meta data as desired, so I assume you are interested in what the camera produces directly. In general, RAW is going to have everything the camera offers. Conversion to another format isn't going to create more meta data. It's certainly possible that a given manufacturer may only insert selected meta data ...


2

One very good option is to use TIFF format as it support EXIF, IPTC. Also you can store the images in uncompressed, lossless compressed, lossy compressed form. You can have multipage files. As benefit TIFF support 8,16,24,32 even more (for some colour space/compression) bits. And it support RGB, CMYK, YCbCr colour spaces. But be aware usually the size of ...


2

There is no such thing as a "lossless" RGB format representing a color photograph. The only lossless information that is available is the sensor output. Once you start processing, information gets lost that might be retained using different processing methods. In contrast to a "lossless" RGB format, the camera output is not RGB (but ...


1

Since you know the size of the aruco markers, the focal length of the lens, and the sensor size (or the effective focal length in 35mm terms), you could use the recorded size of the markers w/in the image to determine the recorded FOV, and therefore the distance at which they were recorded. Various calculators for determining image aspects (distance): http://...


1

Some cameras record the focusing distance. But given the wide DoF of smartphone cameras I doubt this has any usable accuracy (assuming they focus at all). For exposure, some cameras (my DSLR) output the measured EV in the EXIF while others (my phone) don't, but all output the aperture, exposure time and exposure bias, if any, from which you can recompute the ...


Top 50 recent answers are included