[TECH] The rendering of the sRAW is it really that of RAW?
In 2007, when I knew the sRAW with my ex-40D, I immediately wanted to test its capabilities. At first glance, ideal for wedding photography or long reports, this mini Raw allowed me to relieve my memory cards but also to limit the annual purchase of hard drives ... With use, I very soon found to a rendering problem (sharpness and white balance). So, this fault is it that caused sRAW?
The RAW.
Well most of us already know the RAW file format (. Canon CR2 and. NEF for Nikon). If he achieves the quintessential images of our sensors, it is also very gourmand.C 'is also now the format that gets the best value / weight. Sensor information are directly injected into the uncompressed file (RGB channels are still 12 or 14bit either RAW or sRAW)
The Squoi?
The sRAW is a kind of Raw ravec a lower dimension, which allows you to keep the same flexibility in terms of development while reducing the size of your files. The sRAW was introduced by Canon (only) with the 1D Mark III in 2007. They wanted to meet the pros who asked not to be the main disadvantage of the race pixels, file size.
In fact this race quickly became debilitating for those who did not make very large prints or crops (wedding photographers, eg sports).
The sRAW or sRaw2 (on boxes DIGIC IV) is 1/4 smaller than the RAW and mRaw or sRaw1 of 1/2 smaller.
So what's the problem?
When I discovered the little brother of RAW with the release of the EOS 40D?, I thought it was the ideal format to shoot on vacation. (Still amateur at the time) When the 5D mark II is output with its huge 21MP resolution, I also came in to replace the head by the RAW sRAW during my marriage. Especially since a 21mp RAW is around 26MB or 60 MB on average when it is edited by an external program like Photoshop! If you fancy saving it in 16bits instead of 8, then it's 120MB files by ... G-Tech to become rich enough to 
At every wedding I take pictures between 2800 and 3500. What may be rapidly, from 72 to 90 gigabytes of RAW processing. Imagine the space on the hard disk and the beast race to develop it quickly. I'm 2 hard drives purchased every year and my Imac 3rd in 4 years, with an accelerated transition to the internal SSD drives.
Based on this observation I have therefore sought to test the capabilities of these formats "magic", sRAW (Small RAW) and MRaw (Medium Raw).
And then disappointment. In Aperture, the change in exposure was not as flexible, changing the white balance was becoming hazardous as I got to be going green is magenta, and quilting forget it, it's as if j 'was "out of focus."
So I decided to investigate with this article. To perform these tests, I have my files with three derawtisé software (engine or RAW) and several very popular Aperture (yes), Lightroom and Canon DPP software owner.
Before the test, how it works this sRAW?
I will try to stay very basic and understandable to not get lost in the stories chrominance, luminance and other Bayer filter.
To reduce the initial size of a photo in RAW, the internal software of the box will take away the pixels (downsampling). This reduces the number of pixels, so the size of said picture. But after removing pixels that contained very detailed parts of the image, we'll have to replace the image in sRAW, and become smaller. For this the software will try to reinterpret (by interpolation) that was in the old image, but a little less detailed.
For sRAW is from 4 pixels in the original RAW to keep only one in sRAW.
According to Canon, this is done without any harm and it was exactly the same development potential as the original RAW. In the Digital Learning Center Canon USA , one can read the testimony of a photographer on the sRAW. The latter describes the advantages of using such a format.
However it encourages photographers to test the sRAW before adopting it into their workflow. This is logical and understandable. But a second warning comes on the need to retest this format by performing impressions and shots.
"Again, we Strongly Suggest That Any owner of the EOS 5D Mark II or EOS 50D sRAW Some shoot test images, and Make Some prints to check how the new small RAW feature Will Work For Them."
http://learn.usa.canon.com
Finding it suspicious, that's what I decided to do to have the heart net. For now I put in yet because the technology-sRAW, because of my prints on my screen and I noticed a loss of sharpness. I still hear myself moaning, "I do not mind if the images are smaller in size, but if you take away the sharpness, then there is a problem here! "
Here is the test:
RAW engines:
Apple Aperture 3.0
Adobe Camera RAW 6.4.1 (Lightroom 3.3)
DPP 3.5.1
Test dive with crop VS RAW SRAW
Test pattern
Test pattern - Original Image
Crops 100%
Pique sRAW
Wow. One realizes immediately that the problem was not with his Canon sRAW but the dérawtiseur! Who would have thought.
In the match on two samples from two different 5D mark II, one can see that the sRAW is impeccable on proprietary software DPP. By cons, of rendering Aperture is very bad. The sharpness becomes soft and lose some contrast. We had expected lontemps compatibility sRaws in Aperture but the engineers went to work quickly ... At Adobe it's much better but still below the PLR.
Here are three sRAW for those who have not yet seen clear differences:
Exposure test VS RAW SRAW:
For clarity, consider it done. Let's go to the expo, crucial in marriage for those who shootent in natural light, so often with highlights. For this stress test I overexposed my case thoroughly in AV mode. Thus we can measure differences in recovery between the RAW and sRAW. These photos were underexposed in post production to a minimum (2EV)
Exposure
Here the recovery of the exhibition is also deteriorated by both Apple and Adobe RAW engines. DPP only comes properly to correct the exposure of two files. On sRAW was slightly lost just over saturation with respect to Raw, but it's still acceptable.
Test white balance VS RAW SRAW
Here the single most important to me. It is primarily for white balance that I shoot in RAW. Field is a parameter that I deal with can, as often in AWB. I prefer more accurately adjust my white balance, once on my computer.
Original image (WB 9000K)
In this test from a photographed image to 9000K to 2500K to correct it in post production. Aperture comes here a lot again. It is completely "out" with a shift toward the green. Otherwise, it is very much in the race.
White Balance Test Sample No. 1
On this second sample, and with a turn over 5600K to 2500K light, a green tint is observable at Apple.
White Balance Test Sample No. 2
Noise test with 100% crop - RAW VS SRAW:
Finally the noise, which for the same images have obtained results that differ. DPP smooth a little more noise than sRAW his cronies. Between Aperture and Lr, except the green hue, dear Apple, the noise seems like ...
Noise Test - 6400iso
Vincent Laforet also deplores the sRAW few flaws , mainly because of artifacts and interpolation that can wipe out its little red stars in time lapse. A check anyway, but I agree with him on his last statement: "Every time I shot in sRAW I always regretted."
"I do not use sRAW for a number of Reasons (artifacting) but notably NEVER When shooting stars as the interpolation Cdn Actually cancel out stars in astro-time lapse photography. If I nail a fantastic time - I can make a aussi fine art print of it shot in full RAW. Not so in sRAW. Every time I've shot sRAW I've regretted it ... "
We have seen, from the RAW to sRAW, four pixels are processed in a single pixel. To reproduce the missing pixels, so there is a software interpolation is done. What can explain such a difference in managing white balance and RAW between the expo and sRAW. Dérawtiseurs at least on third parties such as Lightroom and Aperture, which is very disappointing especially here. To take full advantage of this innovation, however honorable, so it will use Canon's DPP ... Only the engineers at Canon hold the secret algorithms of this process, we will not have real long explanations before
As I enjoy the repeat photography is primarily a story of compromise. Personally I will stay again in Aperture. Therefore, I will use this format for my vacation photos, history of having a little more flexibility on development compared to JPEG, but without waiting for the quintessence of RAW that we love so much.
The small print is "rent" at a party or event, up to the sRAW 13x19cm defends properly. but for viewing on a computer screen or print large format go your way if you want to keep flexibility and quality.
While Canon sRAW frees! Pascal, Guy Bernard, Alain if you read me ...
And you, you shoot in RAW or sRAW?
Read also:
14 reactions
You should have written your article before I shoot for Thales ... I better understand my disappointment with the sRAW Aperture later development (white balance, ect ...)
Your articles are always full!
At the same time, it is understandable that the third party software does not perform as well as DPP who benefit from the expertise of engineers Canon.
But I must admit that Aperture still disappoint many.
Otherwise, we had a discussion recently on the rendering of the 5D II (yeah yeah, this case obsessed). We thought that his great strength in this case, was in fact the bias of the Canon "character" of its rendering. As if Canon had decided that the RAW (which is already a first interpretation software if I understood correctly) in itself would be more than "just" faithful rendition of what is captured. As if they had already applied a preset (deeper tones, slightly saturated giving a vintage effect BASIC) to generate the RAW.
So finally, the photos taken of the 5D Mk II that do not undergo too much change in post-production are easily recognizable. And often, the file SOOC (Straight out of camera) is so clean and has so much character, we could limit (because the WB still ...) shoot in JPEG.
It has therefore asked the question: if shootait from a housing non-Canon (but equal or greater resolution and a full-frame sensor, like a D700), in RAW, is it possible to grind the RAW have the same rendering of the file SOOC 5D Mk II?
If so, this preset is he? :-P
Sorry I'm seriously digressed.
Your articles are always as rigorous Merwen.
We look forward to your 2012 releases
@ Maxim, Lol shucks. Now you know.
@ David: Absolutely, the algos are still at home requires industrial property. You understand the RAW I see!
Each manufacturer to its records, it's very complicated to get exactly the same rendering. although frankly there are serious titillates. Personal in a normal situation in daylight with canon presets in neutral / nikon hard to see a difference. IN fluorescent light (violet, green, red) there would be a greater difference. It's even hard to get a rendering similar to the aperture made in dpp! then with the frame styles, landscape, portrait, etc. concrete leaves. Short for the purist precision (an interest?) DPP will remain their only way IMHO ...
Super interesting. Me who does not like large files and groped me to change software ...
It's crazy to insist on this point David!
There is NOT rendering 5D mark II since every file that comes out (RAW) is necessarily the interpretation of the software with which you read it. At the limit there may be a record "5D mark II" when you matt films made in 5D or when you watch the previews on the device (and there's interpretation of Canon RAW, and get as Merwen says, made it even if you leave your photos in DPP, and only in DPP, I remember having the same reflection Merwen one day, for a picture of purple jellyfish, I absolutely could not have in Aperture the colors I had on my housing while under DPP yes!)
What you call "rendering 5D mark II" would not rather the result of the combo like "5D +85 mm 1.2" or "5D 135 mm" of Canon? Because in the end, the objectives are also to many, and not just an effect "5D" but a fact "what is the best from Canon"?
Ultimately what you call "SOOC" is necessarily a JPEG (therefore an interpretation of Canon at the base) because from the moment you leave a RAW and read by software, it is "SOOC" but already with large nuances specific to the software you use ...
Good, and I thought your goal was to shoot this simple and not "grind" to the death?
Hey this is an article of "pixel peeping" so do not take the head with it. Get out and shoot that's all. Do not rely on either the photos you see on the internet, there is very often the post production, and other people's photos are always best
Finally if you like david, I will send two pictures taken with a 5D and a D700, it is not very interesting but diffcult to see if specific rendering of the inside. There must be a manufacturer interpretation of the curves and colors, but as Brian says it will disappear in LR and Aperture and remain faithful under hyper DPP. Nobody knows her children better than their own parents 
Now quit your screen and send me your photos Winter by email
Taken at his word! Photos sent!
OK!
I stop masturbation Mk II
Challenge Accepted
[...] Study of how SRAW reflexes [...]
The first question that comes to mind is "why is it now 4 to 5000 pictures for a wedding, but in silver, we reached the same result with 10 rolls of film or 360 photos? ", Which reduces a factor of ten storage requirements.
"I have my files with three derawtisé software (engine or RAW) and several very popular Aperture (yes), Lightroom and Canon DPP software owner. "
Hello,
Talk about your use lightroom for testing, but after it turns out that this is Adobe Camera Raw, hence my question, both on the same engine dérawtisation?
"Talk about your use lightroom to test, but after it turns out that this is Adobe Camera Raw, hence my question, both on the same engine dérawtisation? "
CR and LR use the same engine management RAW formats (developed by the same team of Adobe)
@ Jacques: One could not but couldnt get the same result in practice. Few wedding photographer with film that are as close to the current style (overexposed / very reduced depth of field). I know two (hasselblad), but who first dared to film with digital being a complement. Simply because it was riskier to shoot a wedding in f / 2.2 and overexpose. They preferred a good and F5, 6 - f / 8 and an exhibition (too) or just neutral. The digital allows more easily to dare, to correct and learn very quickly thanks to RAW especially precisely. This can then choose the best picture on a series of 3-5
Each perspective is especially style!
@ Mathias, yes as stated Jacques adobe = adobe, looks in the LR was about and get your version of Camera Raw.
Wow, you just open my eyes. I follow you for a long time and I appreciate your objective observation of the world of photography and video.
I have a question. Have you changed your workflow since you did this test?
thank you for all your articles.
Hello, and thank you!
Not always the same. I wait 4 Aperture to see if I switch or not to LR. I would not because it is the level cataloging brothel but for alterations and corrections RAW it's still the best compromise ...