Yes, anything over 255 255 255 would be truly radiant in 8-bit terms .. whiter than white, eh?
Yes, anything over 255 255 255 would be truly radiant in 8-bit terms .. whiter than white, eh?
and btw the faststone luminousity histogram reads both raw and jpeg and you can flick back an forth to see the difference as well.
Do you have a special version of Faststone that shows raw histograms?
@IanSForsyth has written: @DonaldB has written:as ive said it doesnt matter as the jpeg is clipped.
You do realize that if you change the color profile that created that jpeg or even the color space used that jpeg image it may not even show clipping
No, he doesn't realize anything ... he's not here to learn anything, he's here to piss us all off and to bask in the Donald-bashing.
Nobody on the planet could be that stupid - so it has to be deliberate!
Bring it on, Donald, I'm ready for you - give it your best shot!
give it your best shot you cant even take a test image. thats real smart.
@DonaldB has written:lets get this straight AGAIN. the incamera histogram represents at best, the raw file NOT the Jpeg. which part do you not understand ?
That is total nonsense and you are again squirting words out of the wrong hole.
I can guarantee you 100% that Sony engineers will also tell you your camera's histogram is not a raw histogram.
For a given scene your camera's histogram will vary according to the WB and colour space settings you set which proves your camera's histogram cannot possibly be a raw histogram.
People in this thread have shown you the flaws in your findings and logic. You choosing to not accept them does not make your logic and findings true ๐
prove it if you can actually take an image.
@DonaldB has written:16 bit converted raw read 250 250 250
That's almost pure black!
๐คฃ๐๐คฃ๐ what planet are you from ๐ฝ๐ฝ
@DonaldB has written:This histogram shows clipping.
you need glasses . or use the 100% zoom tool ,maybe you should zoom to 400%๐๐
@JimKasson has written: @DonaldB has written:16 bit converted raw read 250 250 250
That's almost pure black!
๐คฃ๐๐คฃ๐ what planet are you from ๐ฝ๐ฝ
Pure white in 16 bit precision is 65535 65535 65535
@DonaldB has written: @JimKasson has written: @DonaldB has written:16 bit converted raw read 250 250 250
That's almost pure black!
๐คฃ๐๐คฃ๐ what planet are you from ๐ฝ๐ฝ
Pure white in 16 bit precision is 65535 65535 65535
LOL... man. you need to come up with a better answer than that ๐ your scratching the bottom now.
@IliahBorg has written: @DonaldB has written:This histogram shows clipping.
you need glasses . or use the 100% zoom tool ,maybe you should zoom to 400%๐๐
Non-clipped histogram has a downslope at the right. Yours is classic clipping.
@DonaldB has written: @IliahBorg has written: @DonaldB has written:This histogram shows clipping.
you need glasses . or use the 100% zoom tool ,maybe you should zoom to 400%๐๐
Non-clipped histogram has a downslope at the right. Yours is classic clipping.
no it doesnt . again you need to play with your camera more, your loosing touch
@DannoLeftForums has written: @DonaldB has written:lets get this straight AGAIN. the incamera histogram represents at best, the raw file NOT the Jpeg. which part do you not understand ?
That is total nonsense and you are again squirting words out of the wrong hole.
I can guarantee you 100% that Sony engineers will also tell you your camera's histogram is not a raw histogram.
For a given scene your camera's histogram will vary according to the WB and colour space settings you set which proves your camera's histogram cannot possibly be a raw histogram.
People in this thread have shown you the flaws in your findings and logic. You choosing to not accept them does not make your logic and findings true ๐
prove it if you can actually take an image.
I have posted images in several threads both here and on dpreview. Feel free to post comments or feedback on any of them ๐
@JimKasson has written: @DonaldB has written: @JimKasson has written: @DonaldB has written:16 bit converted raw read 250 250 250
That's almost pure black!
๐คฃ๐๐คฃ๐ what planet are you from ๐ฝ๐ฝ
Pure white in 16 bit precision is 65535 65535 65535
LOL... man. you need to come up with a better answer than that ๐ your scratching the bottom now.
You really have no idea what you are talking about have you ๐คฃ๐คฃ
What Jim posted is totally correct ๐
I can guarantee you 100% that Sony engineers will also tell you your camera's histogram is not a raw histogram.
For a given scene your camera's histogram will vary according to the WB and colour space settings you set which proves your camera's histogram cannot possibly be a raw histogram.
People in this thread have shown you the flaws in your findings and logic. You choosing to not accept them does not make your logic and findings true ๐
come on people please post some test shots and histograms from your underwelming camera gear.
Thats right your too embarressed because you cant prove me wrong and make a fool of yourselves.
Im going to mow the lawn, so i better see some action shots not arm chair shots. because so far you have all missed the target ๐คจ๐
@IliahBorg has written: @DonaldB has written: @IliahBorg has written: @DonaldB has written:This histogram shows clipping.
you need glasses . or use the 100% zoom tool ,maybe you should zoom to 400%๐๐
Non-clipped histogram has a downslope at the right. Yours is classic clipping.
no it doesnt
Oh it does.
www.rawdigger.com/howtouse/beware-histogram
@DannoLeftForums has written: @DonaldB has written:lets get this straight AGAIN. the incamera histogram represents at best, the raw file NOT the Jpeg. which part do you not understand ?
That is total nonsense and you are again squirting words out of the wrong hole.
I can guarantee you 100% that Sony engineers will also tell you your camera's histogram is not a raw histogram.
For a given scene your camera's histogram will vary according to the WB and colour space settings you set which proves your camera's histogram cannot possibly be a raw histogram.
People in this thread have shown you the flaws in your findings and logic. You choosing to not accept them does not make your logic and findings true ๐
You're wasting your time, Danno.
I don't see it as a waste of time.
A while ago I posted that the reason I changed my mind about leaving DPRevived was that I would miss being a thorn in DonaldB's backside.
If he chooses to continue posting total BS and lies then I am more than happy, along with others, to highlight it ๐ as a community service ๐๐
Thats right your too embarressed because you cant prove me wrong........
Your false logic, findings and blatant lies have been proven on multiple occasions in multiple threads by multiple people.
The best part of this thread and your other stupid threads is that no-one is buying the BS you are posting.
Bobn2 is therefore correct when he described you as a harmless troll ๐
I can guarantee you 100% that Sony engineers will also tell you your camera's histogram is not a raw histogram.
For a given scene your camera's histogram will vary according to the WB and colour space settings you set which proves your camera's histogram cannot possibly be a raw histogram.
@JimKasson has written: @DonaldB has written: @JimKasson has written: @DonaldB has written:16 bit converted raw read 250 250 250
That's almost pure black!
๐คฃ๐๐คฃ๐ what planet are you from ๐ฝ๐ฝ
Pure white in 16 bit precision is 65535 65535 65535
LOL... man. you need to come up with a better answer than that ๐ your scratching the bottom now.
Photoshop's 16-bit mode is really 15 bits pus one state. But here's a pure white reading in Ps:
@DonaldB has written:Thats right your too embarressed because you cant prove me wrong........
Your false logic, findings and blatant lies have been proven on multiple occasions in multiple threads by multiple people.
The best part of this thread and your other stupid threads is that no-one is buying the BS you are posting.
Bobn2 is therefore correct when he described you as a harmless troll ๐
I can guarantee you 100% that Sony engineers will also tell you your camera's histogram is not a raw histogram.
For a given scene your camera's histogram will vary according to the WB and colour space settings you set which proves your camera's histogram cannot possibly be a raw histogram.
oh com on Dunno, has the cat got your shutter finger ๐๐๐