I guess there are purists and non-purists. I am the latter.spoilerhead wrote:imho a "RAW" File is what presents as closely as possible the output of the image sensor itself.
a m/sRAW is what i consider a HDR Jpeg (what it basically is) m/sRAW is demosaiced, thereby can't be "sensor data" anymore.
I consider a file to be raw if it acts like a raw file. That is, if all of the adjustment functionality is available with a file that is available with a raw, then I consider it raw. I consider dng to be raw and I consider mRaw and sRaw files to be raw. I guess I go by the standard that if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck it is seems reasonable to assume it is a duck or, at least, call it a duck.
I understand that others feel differently and only consider something that mirrors exact sensor data to be raw, but, for me, that standard is too narrow. Anything that acts like a raw file should be considered to be a raw file. In my opinion.
But, beyond my opinion, it seems to me that the latter posts are missing the whole point of the original post. ASP properly handles the mRaw and sRaw images from earlier Canon DSLRs. It does a fine job with those from the 60D and the 7D as well as the 500D so why does it fail with the 5D3? That was the basic question posed in the first post. And, regardless of whether or not users consider mRaw and sRaw images to be truly RAW, if the software properly processed them from earlier cameras surely it is a bug if it does not do so with later cameras.
