PM ed you.
June 16, 2023
577
-
-
Im not worried about WB auto is as close as you can get for a camera to be a reliable light meter.
-
In what kind of light. you do realize that the red and blue channels can be multiplied by more than a stop without you even knowing it,
A very simple test take a shot of a WB target in direct sunlight your red channel is only receiving 1/2 the amount of light as the green channel so how can that be a reliable meter. There is your problem
Ya my speedometer is only 1/2 as accurate when I go to the east but going west it is all good officer. -
That's fine but given that WB is not applied to the raw data in camera but when the raw data is rendered into a jpeg image either in camera or in post proves that all camera histograms are not a raw histogram.
You stupidly claimed your Sony's camera histogram is a raw histogram đ
Your camera's histogram will vary according to the WB setting and your selected colour space and so cannot possibly be a raw histogram đđ
If you ask the engineers at Sony I can guarantee you 100% they will tell you the camera's histogram is not a raw histogram đ¤Łđ
-
think about it. if i posted a raw histogram what would the jpeg histogram look like đ¤
-
That question has been answered numerous times in multiple threads.
Your Sony camera's histogram is of the processed raw data into a jpeg image just as it is for all digital cameras.
Your camera's histogram is not a raw histogram as you foolishly claimed.
Surely you are not saying that for a given scene your camera's histogram does not alter if you change the WB setting and/or the camera's colour space setting, are you? đ
-
I predict a less than straight-forward "yes" or "no" response as the worm wriggles on the hook ...
-
DonaldB has already made a total fool of himself multiple times by first unconditionally claiming his camera's histogram is a raw histogram and then back tracking to say it might be plausible after Ian showed how DonaldB's camera's histogram cannot possibly be a raw histogram đđ
-
I haven't yet looked at someone else's PM. The SW gives the power, but so far hasn't be necessary, and I would never do it unless there was some evidence of illegal activity.
I'm sorry that you estimate my ethics so low. -
The definitive answer is:
a raw histogram
the jpeg histogram
LOL
-
Those are raw and luminocity histograms, and they look totally different.
Among other differences, raw histogram shows no clipping, luminocity histogram shows blacks and whites clipped.
There is no way to determine from the luminocity histogram by how much, in EV, the highlights are clipped in raw.
-
An even more definitive answer, featuring as it does the next-to-gold-standard "a6300" ...
-
Is the typo and lack of punctuation a result of trying to type on a phone ?
Don Cox
-
It's extremely unlikely that the engineers at Sony will reply to customer queries. They wold pass the query on to the customer relations section.
Don Cox
-
Surely not!
Elsewhere, I got so pissed off at thumb-nail posters that I started posting with no capitals and no punctuation, just like him. Nobody noticed and nobody cared! I soon gave up, the Englishman in me said "enough" ...
Perhaps the Donald can link us to just one of his multitudinous findings to disprove ... and perhaps not ...
-
Dyslexia is a characteristic which affects many people, and can make written social interactions difficult. It's best to bear that in mind.
-
Thats right there is no clipping from the raw file, but the incamera jpeg is clipped đand not just by a little. so end of story the
incamera live histogram is not measured from the recorded/saved jpeg. it could be 1 of 2 manipulated raw or manipulated jpeg but NOT the JPEG. -
No it doesnt thats the border of the histogram showing the ends.
