Merits of YCC processing

or why I hope for better JPEGs out of D2x and D2hs

First of all, it separates luminance from colour - "Y" is luminance coordinate, "C" are two colour coordinates.

Second, YCC includes wider colour range then (s)RGB.

From the first, we can hope for much less colour artifacts and maze patterns; from the second, we can expect better colour fidelity. If new ASIC used in these cameras is converting RAW data using YCC colour representation (which would be very natural, as RAW data is actually much closer to YCC then to RGB; but conversion is more computation-intensive), we will see about 20% more resolution, lower noise, less blotches, less moire, less maze/jigsaw etc. YCC files are easier and cleaner to resize.

One of the reasons why RAWMagick interpolation is pretty clean (and slow) is because we do it in a kind of YCC colour model.

 

One more thing to consider - seems that D2Hs, same as D2x, is applying white balance not in digital, but in analog. This extends dynamic range by lowering the noise and minimizing artifacts in shadows.

 

I know it sounds techie. But IMHO supergigapixel chase is a bit on another side - oversimplification.

 

"Lab" is device-independent space (hence calculations to convert to Lab accurately are pretty intensive; as you need to "strip" off all device-dependent information), while YCC is a pretty simple one. What they have in common is that chroma/colour information is separated from brightness/luminance information. But YCC inherits all device-specific behavior, while Lab is free from it.

Pre-balancing is a good thing, as you use the 12 bits fully. Otherwise:
imagine Green is exposed properly, but white balancing of Red and Blue is obtained by multiplication by 2.something (typical daylight) in RAW processing. So, your Red and Blue dynamic ranges are one stop less; less then 11 bits. This "helps" to blow out highlights and to have more noise i n shadows (blotches included).

Now, if camera amplifies in analogue, this brings less noise then if it is done in digital. Comparing digital multiplication in D1 with results of analogue amplification in D2x is pretty convincing.

Second (additional) multiplication (to correct/fine tune white balance) done in RAW processing software is lossless, if done properly. Our experience with RML proved it.

 

Indeed.

To signal from individual photo sensors, right.

Given it is applied in RAW converter properly - that is without overflow in highlights and underflow in shadows. The reason why ACR is better then NC in recovering highlights; and RML is better then ACR is that NC overflows very easily; ACR - not so easily; RML - never.