wlaidlaw Posted September 20, 2009 Share #1 Posted September 20, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Are people finding that there is more highlight detail from the uncompressed DNG's from the M9? I am assuming that they are 14 bit, with the top and bottom bit from the 16 bits discarded, as not containing useful information. I find the lack of highlight detail in skies from the M8 a bit of a limitation. Please see the attached M8 photo taken a few minutes ago - DNG. Even with a 100% of highlight recovery in C1 and more in PS, the sky was much more interesting than this photo shows, taken with WATE at 18mm. Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 20, 2009 Posted September 20, 2009 Hi wlaidlaw, Take a look here Better highlight detail with uncompressed M9 DNG's?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
dfarkas Posted September 20, 2009 Share #2 Posted September 20, 2009 Are people finding that there is more highlight detail from the uncompressed DNG's from the M9? I am assuming that they are 14 bit, with the top and bottom bit from the 16 bits discarded, as not containing useful information. I find the lack of highlight detail in skies from the M8 a bit of a limitation. Please see the attached M8 photo taken a few minutes ago - DNG. Even with a 100% of highlight recovery in C1 and more in PS, the sky was much more interesting than this photo shows, taken with WATE at 18mm. Wilson Yes, I felt that there was about a stop more range in the highlights with the M9. Whether this is due to the 14-bit files, the lower noise signal pathway, the improved color filter array, or all of the above, the files do have more DR. David Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.