 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
| ||||||||
 |
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||||
|
|
| 
| User list | Rules | You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
Hello there
autopano pro 2.6.4
Mac OSX 10.8.2
I am new to digital photography
I shot 2 RAW photos on a canon EOS 1000D,
I imported them into autopano and joined them together to make a panorama
I like the result and would like to save a RAW version ideally in iPhoto (or Aperture) for future reference.
I saved as the kro format for RAW but this wont import into iPhoto
Is there a way of keeping the RAW file ?
Regards
Danny
Offline
try jpeg or tiff
there is no raw output format, but you can save the *.pano file and rebuild the pano later
henrik
Offline
Thank you Henrik
Pity about that, I gather that if I could get a RAW file out of autopano, I would then have more scope to edit and improve it. I wonder how professional users of autopano pro deal with this ?
Regards
Danny
Offline
danbo wrote:
I wonder how professional users of autopano pro deal with this ?
Professional Users know about the nature of RAW format . . 
We use to render 16bit - TIFF, PSD or PSB instead.
best, Klaus
Offline
Why don't you save as 16 bit tif files?
This is a standard format that will allow you to edit your panoramas and get the best out of it.
RAW in itself is not a MUST. This is only (!!!) the best format out of a digital camera, because raw files include the information captured by the sensor when you shot your picture, while jpeg are the result of internal image processing done by the camera, unfortunately with unrecoverable loss...
When you perform image processing (eg panorama creation with APP), or image processing with Photoshop), the computer works will floating numbers... and saves the images as integer numbers (8 bits, 16 bits.... depending on the output format you will select). At this stage, a 16 tif is able to record more information than a 14 bit RAW file would be able to. So, forget about RAW after processing; it would be useless.
Offline
Brilliant answer Hermer-blr - thank you for having the patience to explain carefully, now I'm learning ! (And thank you klausesser also).
Danny
Offline
hermer-blr wrote:
At this stage, a 16 tif is able to record more information than a 14 bit RAW file would be able to.
No way, don't confuse the bit maximum capacity ( ok 16 is higher than 14) , and the amount of information. And a 16 bit tiff image derived from a raw image cannot contain more information.
Bernard
Offline
To Nanard
This is not what I intended to write. Sorry, for having been unclear.
I fully share your view that encapsulating (or converting or whatever word you want to use) a 14 bit raw into a 16 bit, 32 bit, 64 bit (or whatever you want) format will not add information.
But when you process a RAW image, you create information : APP, when stitching a panorama, adds information, Photoshop, when applying a filter, adds information. This information may be, for instance, more colours values than in the nominal RAW image. This is why, at this stage (ie after processing), I would recommand to use 16 bit tif or one of the other formats proposed by Klaus.
Offline
Pages: 1