Submitted by Roger Breton on
I want to compare the difference between "RAW Composite" and "RGB Render".
Here is the RGB Render Options : https://1drv.ms/u/s!AkD78CVR1NBqlssjbaCDXRNcl80t6w?e=GModKz
Here is the RAW Composite Options : https://1drv.ms/u/s!AkD78CVR1NBqlssiR6Udg91XDHFpgA?e=5FaZtp
I confess I was not sure what the difference would be?
Since, in both cases, the Autoscale and Apply gamma curve is turned on.
In RAW Composite, I also checked the 3-channel output option.
Yet, despite seemingly the same set of Output Options is used for both Export, the result is vastly different.
Here are Photoshop screen captures for both options:
a) RGB Render: https://1drv.ms/u/s!AkD78CVR1NBqlssgA2lLp2_vHtbGzQ?e=nBMYmG
b) RAW Composite: https://1drv.ms/u/s!AkD78CVR1NBqlssh-BkBqpqLecohUw?e=ChpRMn
I thought, naively perhaps, that Autoscale would have the same effect of remapping RAW tones on output in both cases?
Obviously I was wrong. The RAW Composite version looks exactly like the RAW composite option in the main menu bar, in the main window under the Display option.
One important difference is that RAW Composite actually outputs the RAW (true linear data) from the camera.
Thank you in advance for your kind help and patience.
Yes, results SHOULD be
Submitted by lexa on
Yes, results SHOULD be different because of white balance (applied in RGB Render and not applied in RAW composite case)
Add new comment