-1
\$\begingroup\$

I was interested in understanding if from the point of electrical engineering storing the RAW data of the sensor directly into the memory of the camera require special hardware. Could be more expensive to implement a camera that store RAW format compared to a camera without this feature? I was thinking of storing the photo in RAW format may require special busses or other circuitry compared to store the data in a compressed format like .jpg.

My problem is specific to CCD and CMOS camera, I would like to understand if storing RAW format can require special hardware or is only a limitation imposed by the firmware i.e. if a change the firmware I can store acquisition in RAW format.

\$\endgroup\$
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @old_timer I don't think it was to board, my question was simple is connected to a firmware or there is also some hardware requirements. It's a pity if somebody that could answer that, can't answer because it's closed. \$\endgroup\$ – G M Jun 12 '19 at 11:32
  • \$\begingroup\$ @old_timer I can't understand. The things you say seem answers to my question, I never thought to ask it on StackOverflow by the way. I was interested if there could be any hardware limitations I am not interested in the manufacturer's choices. If you don't' work there and you don't know the answer why block people that maybe have worked there and could answer my question. \$\endgroup\$ – G M Jun 13 '19 at 11:28
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Sorry that I am unable to get through to you on why this is too broad and why your short list of options for a multiple choice question are too limited. This was correctly closed as too broad. There are fives to tens of different reasons why this would happen in these products, and at least one product for each of those many different reasons. So there is no one answer to this question, so it is too broad by definition. the right answer for one specific product is the wrong answer for the next specific product. \$\endgroup\$ – old_timer Jun 13 '19 at 15:03
3
\$\begingroup\$

Yes, it's just a firmware choice, and no, there's no special hardware required. The only expense would be larger memory to hold the uncompressed images.

Also, image compression can hide tiny flaws in the sensor which might be rather obvious in raw images. So an additional expense would be associated with using sensors that have fewer flaws to begin with.

\$\endgroup\$
3
\$\begingroup\$

There's no inherent special hardware needed to be generally able to store RAWs, but:

One of the technological challenges of modern high-end cameras is how to get the images out of the picture-taking system as fast as you can take them.

Hence, such cameras have relatively large RAM caches to copy image data to before writing it to flash.

Since RAW images take more memory than compressed imagery, they simply take longer to write to flash memory.

Hence, if you want to offer your user with a high number of consecutive images to be taken before having to stop the continuous trigger due to images not getting out of RAM into flash, you'll have to force the user to buy faster flash memory (often impossible, due to flash memory having limited speed, and also limited interface speed), or to integrate more image cache and lossless image compression. (That's actually a field where camera manufacturers hold a lot of patents.)

\$\endgroup\$

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.