In the last article we showed how a digital camera’s captured raw data is related to Color Science. In my next trick I will show that CIE 2012 2 deg XYZ Color Matching Functions 
, 
, 
displayed in Figure 1 are an exact linear transform of Stockman & Sharpe (2000) 2 deg Cone Fundamentals 
, 
, 
displayed in Figure 2
(1) ![\begin{equation*} \left[ \begin{array}{c} \bar{x}} \\ \bar{y} \\ \bar{z} \end{array} \right] = M_{lx} * \left[ \begin{array} {c}\bar{\rho} \\ \bar{\gamma} \\ \bar{\beta} \end{array} \right] \end{equation*}](https://i0.wp.com/www.strollswithmydog.com/wordpress/wp-content/ql-cache/quicklatex.com-641037cf449c1fce6e76d66b53f1d297_l3.png?resize=161%2C64&ssl=1 "Rendered by QuickLaTeX.com")
with CMFs and CFs in 3xN format, 
a 3×3 matrix and 
matrix multiplication. Et voilà:[1]
What are the basic low level steps involved in raw file conversion? In this article I will discuss what happens under the hood of digital camera raw converters in order to turn raw file data into a viewable image, a process sometimes referred to as ‘rendering’. We will use the following raw capture by a Nikon D610 to show how image information is transformed at every step along the way:
In this and the previous article I discuss how Modulation Transfer Functions (MTF) obtained from every color channel of a Bayer CFA raw capture in isolation can be combined to provide a meaningful composite MTF curve for the imaging system as a whole.
There are two ways that this can be accomplished: an input-referred approach (
) that reflects the performance of the hardware only; and an output-referred one (
) that also takes into consideration how the image will be displayed. Both are valid and differences are typically minor, though the weights of the latter are scene, camera/lens, illuminant dependent – while the former are not. Therefore my recommendation in this context is to stick with input-referred weights when comparing cameras and lenses.1 Continue reading COMBINING BAYER CFA MTF Curves – II