iPhone 14 - 48Mpx DNG file analysis

[Guillermo Luijk]

On this review a 48Mpx "RAW" DNG file from the new iPhone 14 Pro is provided:

https://www.austinmann.com/trek/iphone-14-pro-camera-review-scotland

Here processed with ACR and rescaled to 1920px width:

http://guillermoluijk.com/misc/iphone14.jpg

http://guillermoluijk.com/misc/iphone14bn.jpg


iPhone 12 ProRAW DNG files were strange: RGB data were white unbalanced requiring white balance, but I found evidences that white balance was applied on them during processing and then this WB was undone.
This iPhone 14 Pro file makes more sense to me: it is already white balanced, and that's it. So it doesn't need any white balance prior to output colour space conversion.

This is what the unprocessed RGB data contained in the DNG file look like when they are just extracted and assigned to sRGB. Colours seem close to the final ones, not "greenish" like in most RAW files including iPhone 12 Pro DNG files:

http://guillermoluijk.com/misc/iphone14full.jpg

(up left unprocessed, bottom right with a curve to lift the shadows. In both cases we have the native sharpness from the iPhone 14 without any sharpening)

The log histogram in EV stops shows a scene's Dynamic range of around 9 stops:

http://guillermoluijk.com/misc/iphone14hist.gif

With a non linear 16-bit encoding, the format devotes more levels to the shadows:
http://guillermoluijk.com/misc/iphone14sombras.gif

Than to the highlights:
http://guillermoluijk.com/misc/iphone14luces.gif

To more properly encode high contrast scenes. Given the high number of total levels, I guess the DNG file was produced by merging more than one capture in a HDR fashion, which is very common in any smartphone.

Regards!

[Benny Profane]

Thanks for all that.

I have one very simple question, after seriously considering this phone/camera after a dog and pony show at the Verizon store. (My Pixel 2 is dying) Is the 48mp raw confined to what seems to be a fairly wide focal length, and, if one wants to zoom with the old two finger technique, does that negate the whole 48mp raw quality? So, do I have to shoot in that wide focal length all the time to get a nice Raw image? I ask that because they have a separate telephoto lens, duh, but there is no high Rez Raw in that mode.

I am fascinated, but, if I'm stuck in, say, a 35mm wide lens format (35mm film equivalent), I would rather have a real camera with a pancake lens, like my smaller Fuji XE1 with the 27mm lens when I'm on my bike, or, whatever the highest Rez Fuji is in that size camera these days. (I know the XE1 is a bit dated). But, it would be awesome to have a 48mp Raw image maker with me where ever I go, which the iPhone can give me.

[Benny Profane]

Well, I downloaded the Pro Raw 48mp image of that strange Highland beast that Austin Mann fellow so generously linked to on his Dropbox. Opened it in camera raw, did nothing, and printed on a 8.5/11 Canson Rag Photographique, one of my two papers of choice, the other Canson Plantine. Then I enhanced the RAW image, (superesolution), printed again on 8.5x11. No difference. Then, I spent a sheet of 17x22 on the enhanced image. Nice, but, at that size you realize much of it is out of focus, which really softens it up. The depth of field is from the very foreground grass to just about behind the horns, and those horns may have movement blur issues. Looks like a lowlight shot. But, the hair on the thing's forehead and nose is pretty sharp and detailed. Not a Fuji H2 or even my XT3, but, really, impressive.

Now, again, it's also a very strange example. I don't know about you, but, I make it a policy to keep safe distance from horned animals that outweigh me by a half ton or more. Re: the numerous tourist massacres at Yellowstone. Hell, I have been around domesticated longhorn cattle some, and, no way I want to be up against that. It's a cool shot, but, again, maybe something just to play with the wide angle view? I don't want to work with that angle all the time. And, I certainly won't get near a beast like that for an interesting shot.

The enhanced image comes in at 558M, btw. The non enhanced at 140M. I print from PS.

[Guillermo Luijk]

I wouldn't call the DNG file as RAW but "RAW". It's actually a 48Mpx 16-bit RGB TIFF file where white balance and demosaicing have already been applied to the genuine RAW data.

Regards

[Benny Profane]

Ah, thanks. So, there is some color processing. It looks good for a RAW.

On this Max Pro 14, can you assign a sort of profile before it gets processed into this Tif?

[fdisilvestro]

A couple of comments

Disclaimer: I just upgraded to an Iphone 14 pro, so these comments are based on my own experience:

- The ProRaw file are "Linear Raw" DNGs, which have been demosaiced and color balanced, but are still not an output file such as a regular TIF or JPG. Some call this "half baked", and it is similar to what a software like DXO PureRaw does.

If you open a ProRaw file in RawDigger, it will show as a "linear raw" file (if it weren't a raw file, it would not even open)

You still need to complete the process either within an apple device or Adobe Lightroom, where you could change the profile if you wanted, and adjust the white balance, as well as any other adjustment.

If you don't select the Apple ProRaw profile, the image will look quite dark, but you can edit to your liking.

Notes about previous questions:

48MP is available only on the normal camera (which is actually a wide angle) without zooming. This mode is painfully slow, so I would not use it for normal shooting.
If you zoom, then the file will have a variable MP count, corresponding to the portion of the sensor used. E.g. you can have a 20MP image if you zoom middle way.
The ultra-wide and the telephoto cameras are 12MP only.

Final note about the review linked above: Going from 12 MP to 48 MP does not "quadruple" the resolution. It is only "double", as the sensor is a 2 dimensional device. To quadruple you would need a 16X MP sensor. This is misconception that I have seen multiple times online.

[Benny Profane]

Thanks for that. Just opened a new can of worms. I didn't pay attention what profile was assigned in Camera Raw when I opened it. Now, I open it again in Lightroom, and it seems that I must use the Apple Pro Raw profile as a "base" profile. I have no other choices, like the Adobe profiles I can use with my Fuji files. I can go to their "artistic" profiles I never use. Interesting. I'm already being locked in to a proprietary process forced on me by Apple. And then you tell me, yes, I am locked in to a wide angle lens. Not good. I naively thought I could finally have an everyday device that shot Raw, but, nope. It seems that the braintrust here is much more educated on the subject of Raw and DNG, so, I'll just sit back and await more information from smarter people.
I still may buy the iPhone, because I need a new phone, got my money's worth out of a five year old Pixel 2. I am accustomed to Android, so the debate in my mind is that system or Apple. Btw, I found out the hard way, do not leave your phone on the passenger seat in the sun driving long distances. It will shutdown from overheating, and the battery will "bulge". pushing the screen out from the case. That's where I am right now, but, still working.

Oh well, maybe somehow I can score a Fuji XE4 somewhere, and put a pancake lens on it for bike riding. Or find the small Sony and/or Canon cameras with zoom lenses. Something tells me that's the last of small, relatively expensive compact digitals that will be made, because phones are killing that market.

[Guillermo Luijk]

- The ProRaw file are "Linear Raw" DNGs, which have been demosaiced and color balanced, but are still not an output file such as a regular TIF or JPG. Some call this "half baked", and it is similar to what a software like DXO PureRaw does.

iPhone 14 DNG's are white balanced but iPhone 12 aren't. No idea if iPhone 13 DNG's are white balanced or not. DXO PureRAW doesn't apply white balance either.

If you don't select the Apple ProRaw profile, the image will look quite dark

Not really, it is not a matter of profiles but gamma. The image displays dark when interpreted as gamma encoded data, but it if your device is aware of the gamma=1 the image won't display dark. You just need to open the DNG data in Photoshop (or any other viewer) with any gamma=1 profile and the image won't look dark.

I am accustomed to Android, so the debate in my mind is that system or Apple.

DxO Mark has just declared the Google Pixel 7 Pro the best photographic smartphone, so you could stay the Android route

https://www.dxomark.com/smartphones/Google/Pixel-7-Pro

Regards

[Benny Profane]

DxO Mark has just declared the Google Pixel 7 Pro the best photographic smartphone, so you could stay the Android route

https://www.dxomark.com/smartphones/Google/Pixel-7-Pro

Regards

Well, yeah, but, My Pixel 2 was sufficient for Instagram fun and making files that are/were only seen on screens, even a decent sized monitor, which is where 99% of images created today ever get seen, if at all. And that's five year old tech. What I was waiting for was something that would give me a decent sized print, even if it was only a component of a composite. "Oh, look, cool tree, I can strip that in." I guess I have to wait more. That's OK, I predicted this moment maybe seven years ago, when phones would surpass point and shoots and even lessor "serious" cameras in file quality, and, here we are. Five to eight years from now, who knows. All I know is, we've probably reached peak point and shoot camera sales by far, and may not see anything less than 40mp Fujis or Sonys or Nikons very soon, because phones took that market. As I said, probably time to buy the Canon PowerShot G5 X Mark II or the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 VII, because they'll probably just stop making them, like the Honda S2000 in car world, because nobody was buying them. I just need something portable and quality.

This ongoing chip shortage is not helping. I can't find Fujis anywhere.