Top
Best
New

Posted by zdw 19 hours ago

What an unprocessed photo looks like(maurycyz.com)
1923 points | 317 commentspage 5
CosmicShadow 12 hours ago|
Interesting to see this whole thing shown outside of Astrophotography, sometimes I forget it's the same stuff!
exabrial 17 hours ago||
I love the look of the final product after the manual work (not the one for comparison). Just something very realistic and wholesome about it, not pumped to 10 via AI or Instagram filters.
ws404 13 hours ago||
Did you steal that tree from Charlie Brown?
excalibur 11 hours ago|
Surprised that nobody else commented on this, it is a very sad tree.
Forgeties79 17 hours ago||
For those who are curious, this is basically what we do when we color grade in video production but taken to its most extreme. Or rather, stripped down to the most fundamental level. Lots of ways to describe it.

Generally we shoot “flat” (there are so many caveats to this but I don’t feel like getting bogged down in all of it. If you plan on getting down and dirty with colors and really grading, you generally shoot flat). The image that we handover to DIT/editing can be borderline grayscale in its appearance. The colors are so muted, the dynamic range is so wide, that you basically have a highly muted image. The reason for this is you then have the freedom to “push” the color and look and almost any direction, versus if you have a very saturated, high contrast image, you are more “locked” into that look. This matters more and more when you are using a compressed codec and not something with an incredibly high bitrate or raw codecs, which is a whole other world and I am also doing a bit of a disservice to by oversimplifying.

Though this being HN it is incredibly likely I am telling few to no people anything new here lol

nospice 17 hours ago|
"Flat" is a bit of a misnomer in this context. It's not flat, it's actually a logarithmic ("log profile") representation of data computed by the camera to allow a wider dynamic range to be squeezed into traditional video formats.

It's sort of the opposite of what's going on with photography, where you have a dedicated "raw" format with linear readings from the sensor. Without these formats, someone would probably have invented "log JPEG" or something like that to preserve more data in highlights and in the shadows.

Forgeties79 12 hours ago|||
I said “flat” because I didn’t feel like going into “log” and color profiles and such but I’ll admit I’m leaning hard into over-simplification, because log, raw, etc. gets messy when discussing profiles vs codecs/compression/etc. In video we still call some codecs “raw,” but it’s not the same necessarily as how it’s used in photography. Like the Red raw codec has various compression ratios (5:1 tends to be the sweet spot IME) and it really messes with the whole idea of what raw even is. It’s all quasi-technical and somewhat inconsistent.
DustinBrett 12 hours ago||
2 top HN posts in 1 day, maurycyz is on fire!
gruez 17 hours ago||
Honestly, I think the gamma normalization step don't really count as "processing", any more than the gzip decompression step doesn't count as "processing" for the purposes of "this is what an unprocessed html file looks like" demo. At the end of the day, it's the same information, but encoded differently. Similar arguments can be made for de-bayer filter step. If you ignore these two steps, the "processing" that happens looks far less dramatic.
neoromantique 10 hours ago||
>No adblocker detected. Consider using an extension like uBlock Origin to save time and bandwidth. Click here to close.

So cute (I am running a DNS adblock only, on the work browser)

alexpadula 14 hours ago||
Very interesting! Thank you for posting
shepherdjerred 17 hours ago||
Wow this is amazing. What a good and simple explanation!
jonplackett 17 hours ago|
The matrix step has 90s video game pixel art vibes.
More comments...