>>3781699>Phone raws aren't raws. Nor are camera raws. Phone raws are probably more processed thoughPossibly but idk. They seem pretty raw to me showing everything from vignetting, predictable noise, linear exposure, a need for setting color temp/white balance, and the need for demosaicing.
RAWs are technically processed somewhat by default but without using Adobe software and "presets" they look pretty unprocessed to me.
>In fact, go read the comparison reviews between the snapdragon and exynis versions of Samsung's latest phones. Massive photo quality differences simply due to the cpuAnd if the processing is so heavy it depends on the cpu, you can bet your ass it's processing that takes place in raw generation rather than jpg generation
All the stuff I found quickly seems to mention the JPEGs and video, showing side by sides of processed images. Processed images as in no longer RAW or videos produced and compressed and finalized by the phone so clearly it needs to use the CPU for that. Things like video stabilization and converting from RAW to JPEG or MP4/MKV definitely need to rely heavily on the CPU and different CPUs and settings will yield drastically different results since they may be calculating movements (for stabilization) and white balance (for color correction) and metering (for auto exposure) all differently.
Do you have any source you can point to me showing any difference between the Exynos and Snapdragon versions having different DNGs at the same ISO+Shutter?
I'd like to see it if you do I'm not trying to say you're wrong I'm just skeptical since most reviewers are paid shills and retarded in general.
Kinda off topic but that JerryRigEverything guy compared LCD/OLED TVs once and said LCD can't display stars in a space because the local dimming doesn't illuminate the tiny stars and said you need OLED for that. That's not an LCD problem, but local dimming shit. These reviewers very often don't know what they're talking about or are paid liars.
