FZ10 Firmware Upgrade

[EffZeeOne]

Originally Posted by Panasonic

No sir it does not.
I have an FZ1, and upadted FZ1, and an FZ2 here. All three only offer TWO (2) compression levels.

When comparing side by side photos taken at the highest resolution, at the lowest compression, there is barely 35K difference. While that might be "larger", 35K is hardly an improvement that would make any visible difference.

The size difference between the stock FZ1 pictures and the upgraded FZ1 pictures can vary, just like the general size of the pictures themselves vary by subject. I've seen plenty of before/after upgrade examples of the same subjects that show a bigger difference in file size than 35k.

The Panasonic Japan website even states that an 8mb SD card will only hold 6 pictures after the upgrade instead of the usual 8. They also show what should be expected with a 64mb SD card, but to keep the math estimation simple, I'll use the 8mb card for this example: 35kb x 6 does not even equal 1/3 of the average size of one additional picture, so I would think the TYPICAL difference in the file sizes must be more than 35kb, or we have to go with the info on the Pananic Japan site being inaccurate or a misprint.

As for visual differences in JPEG compression, if you look at the difference between the FZ1's highest resolution picture in Standard versus Fine quality (compression), you usually can't discern a visual difference there either. A picture using the Fine quality setting is roughtly twice the file size of the same picture using the Standard quality setting -- that's a HUGE difference in size, but the visual differences are usually not noticeable to the human eye. There are very isolated situations in typical amateur digital photography where you would want to use the lowest compression possible -- like for a shot that you know you're going to enlarge into a big sized photograph, or a better reason is when taking a photo of a large group of people because otherwise their facial features won't be as clear. But for the most part the Standard setting works great and saves a lot of space on your memory cards. However, there's always going to be that great shot that you took in Standard quality that you later decide you want to try to enlarge and print an 11x14 print of it, and then you'll notice the difference between the two compressions in such an enlargement and wish you had used the Fine setting. The law of diminishing returns definitely applies to JPEG compression.

[Guerito]

Originally Posted by Panasonic

No sir it does not.
I have an FZ1, and upadted FZ1, and an FZ2 here. All three only offer TWO (2) compression levels.

When comparing side by side photos taken at the highest resolution, at the lowest compression, there is barely 35K difference. While that might be "larger", 35K is hardly an improvement that would make any visible difference.

OK Bob, you win. We've tried to explain to you the benefits of lower JPEG compression and Panasonic's decision to include a lower compression scheme into the FZ1 firmware upgrade, which by the way, you previously denied existed and now deny it‘s enhancement. Seasoned digital photographers know the advantages of shooting at the highest quality level, which can later be degraded if necessary, but for some reason, this method does not appeal to you. Perhaps you are satisfied with good enough. It's too bad that you must constantly argue with what should be looked upon as product improvements by the most knowledgeable people of all, it's user base. I would think that a good designer would be open to suggestions for improving a product, but I guess not everyone thinks like me. An analogy comes to mind in the form of the U.S. automakers. In the 70's and 80's they had the attitude that they would tell the customer what they wanted and what was good for them. On the other hand, Japanese auto marketers made the kind of cars the public wanted. What happened? Toyota is on the way to becoming the world's largest auto maker. Rather than trying to see that we are merely presenting ideas that we feel will better the product, you interpret our suggestions and comments as personal attacks on you, even though most of us have said how we appreciate your participation in this forum. I don’t even want to start to express how I feel about your personal attack on Alex. That was both unprofessional and rude. I can go on for another half page telling you why, but I’ll only bring up one topic. You wanted to know what he did for a living. I don’t see how this would be an indication of his photography skills anymore than being a product designer would. Let me reiterate, again, I appreciate your participation in the group, bur you need to stick to the topic at hand, digitals cameras, and leave personal criticism out of the venue.

[alexo]

Originally Posted by Guerito

I don’t even want to start to express how I feel about your personal attack on Alex

Please don't.
This is all behind us now and there is no need to rehash it.

[parallel]

JPEG is quite complicated. Read the thread at http://www.faqs.org/faqs/jpeg-faq/part1/ and follow the links if you want to get into the math. Understanding the abilities and limitations would save a lot of rather meaningless arm waving.

Looks to me that Panasonic’s engineers understood the situation.

[Guerito]

Wow, I remember reading that very article years ago. Some years back I used to read a lot about JPEG trying to understand the best settings for saving files in Photoshop v2. Hard drives were only a couple of GB's back then, and you did what you could to save space. Now that hard drives and memory cards are so capacious, it no longer concerns me if a less compressed file is larger. I try to throw away as little data as is practical.

[EffZeeOne]

Beyond the math and in the end, the only thing that really matters is end quality and what you intend to do with the pictures. If you're just posting the pictures on the internet, you can get away with some significant compression -- if you're printing, you'll only get away with something less.

As for whether or not the FZ10 has too much compression, who really knows for sure if it's the compression, the conditions, the other camera settings, etc.? There seem to be plenty of people getting very sharp FZ10 pictures at times, so I don't know how much compression is really an issue, but then again I've proven to myself numerous times that the size of the file is definitely dependent on the subject of the picture, even when the compression remains the same. I guess when you're using a compressed format, there's a certain amount of circumstantial luck involved!

[alexo]

Some compressed pictures may look as good as sharp and detailed as their uncompressed counterparts.

In my opinion, compression matters when you post process your pictures. The more detail is there (even if you cannot see it with the naked eye), the better the end result will be.

It should be very apparent when noise reduction software is used. With highly compressed images, the result will look much more "plasticky".

[PAISANO5]

GUERITO;

I AM A NEWBIE TO DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY - CAMERA 2 MONTHS OLD - ON THE SITE 3 WEEKS

BUT I GOT THE SAME REACTION YOU DID AFTER READING "BOB" A FEW TIMES AND JUST HAD TO COMMENT COUPLE OF DAYS AGO ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE OF "COMPRESSION".

AFTER ALL, HAVING TECHNICAL EXPERTISE IS NO EXCUSE FOR BEING ELITIST OR FOR BEING CLOSE MINDED OR ILLOGICAL

IN MY OLD NEIGHBORHOOF IN QUEENS THEY WOULD SAY:

GIMMEE A BREAK"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BOB;


YOU SAID THE QUALITY PROBLEMS WE ARE MENTIONING ARE NOT DUE TO COMPRESSION BUT PROBABLY PRINTING

THEN LATER ON YOU WENT ON & SAID THIS ABOUT THE BEAUTIFUL NEW JERSY PRINTS:

"these were printed at the local Costco / PriceClub so we aren't talking about any special printing conditions

SEEMS CONTRADCTORY TO ME

ISN'T IT POSSIBLE THAT SOME HEAVY PROFESSIONAL TYPE EDITING MIGHT HAVE BEEN DONE BY THIS GUY TO GET HIS GOOD RESULTS.

ALSO IF I AM EXPECTED TO HAVE THE SKILLS & EXPERIENCE OF A PROFESSIONAL TO BE ABLE TO TAKE VERY GOOD PHOTOS WITH YOUR CAMERA THEN I MADE A MISTAKE. I WISH OLYMPUS HAD TOLD ME SOONER..

ANOTHER FACTOR I'D LIKE TO MENTION IS, THAT I'M A NEWBIE (NOT TO LOGICAL THINKING BUT TO DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY)
AND I HAVE LEARNED SO MUCH ON THIS SITE IN A FEW WEEKS FROM VERY KNOWLEDGEABLE & GRACIOUS PEOPLE ON THIS SITE.

THEY ARE THE ONES COMPLANING ABOUT THE COMPRESSION -
NOT FULL FLEDGED PROFESSIONAL PHOTOGRAPHERS WHO YOUR COMPANY DOESN'T MAKE MUCH MONEY ON ANYWAY.

DID YOU GO TO THE TROUBLE TO TELL YOPUR PHOTOGRAPHER ABOUT THESE CONCERNS WE HAVE AND ASK HIM TO COMMENT.

NO INSTEAD YOU INVITE US TO FLY TO NEW JERSEY TO LOOK AT THE PHOTOS DUH!

HERE'S MY TAKE ON IT:

YOU AREN'T LEARNING ANYTHING FROM THE VALUABLE FEEDBACK OF YOUR BEST CUSTOMERS. IN FACT YOU SEEM TO TRY TO ALIBI AWAY THEIR CONCERNS

AS A RESULT, FOR WHATEVER IT'S WORTH, IF THERE AREN'T SOME CHANGES REALLY SOON I DOUBT THAT MY NEXT CAMERA WILL BE A PANASONIC.

THE PROBLEMS ARE ONE THING BUT THE COMPANY REPS REACTION TO THE PROBLEMS ADDS FLAMES TO THE FIRE.


LOU LEDDA

Originally Posted by Guerito

OK Bob, you win. We've tried to explain to you the benefits of lower JPEG compression and Panasonic's decision to include a lower compression scheme into the FZ1 firmware upgrade, which by the way, you previously denied existed and now deny it‘s enhancement. Seasoned digital photographers know the advantages of shooting at the highest quality level, which can later be degraded if necessary, but for some reason, this method does not appeal to you. Perhaps you are satisfied with good enough. It's too bad that you must constantly argue with what should be looked upon as product improvements by the most knowledgeable people of all, it's user base. I would think that a good designer would be open to suggestions for improving a product, but I guess not everyone thinks like me. An analogy comes to mind in the form of the U.S. automakers. In the 70's and 80's they had the attitude that they would tell the customer what they wanted and what was good for them. On the other hand, Japanese auto marketers made the kind of cars the public wanted. What happened? Toyota is on the way to becoming the world's largest auto maker. Rather than trying to see that we are merely presenting ideas that we feel will better the product, you interpret our suggestions and comments as personal attacks on you, even though most of us have said how we appreciate your participation in this forum. I don’t even want to start to express how I feel about your personal attack on Alex. That was both unprofessional and rude. I can go on for another half page telling you why, but I’ll only bring up one topic. You wanted to know what he did for a living. I don’t see how this would be an indication of his photography skills anymore than being a product designer would. Let me reiterate, again, I appreciate your participation in the group, bur you need to stick to the topic at hand, digitals cameras, and leave personal criticism out of the venue.

[Panasonic]

I fully understand and acknowledge what the Japan site states. My response was based on the following test.

Three cameras were placed side by side, an FZ1, FZ2 and an FZ1 that was updated with the new firmware. All three were in auto mode, highest resolution, lowest compression.

Three photos were take of the exact same scene within the span of perhaps 10 seconds. The test was repeated about 6 times with six different photos.

The file size was compared.
The maximum difference between the FZ1 and FZ2 was barely 35K. The FZ1 (upgraded) and FZ2 were virtually identical.

Would you agree with the logic used?

Perhaps during some unique situation you may see a greater variation. Under these situations which are typical of how you might use the camera these are the results I obtained. There is no doubt that compression varied slightly, but the amount appears to be very small.

I'm not trying to argue or debate any issue. Realize that I don't have the luxury of being here hours on end. My responses have to be short and to the point. Com'mon guys, give me a break!

[Reactor]

*pushes through the crowd*

Hello, annoying newbie here.

I just wanted to throw is a little post, just to say how encouraging it is to see a representative of Panasonic on this forum. I've been quite impressed with the FZ10 and FZ2, and have recently decided the FZ10 will be my first digital camera (though I have a background in computer graphics and video). I'm very excited to be aiming for such an excellent piece of hadware, and to see that Panasonic aren't hiding in some corporate corner makes me even more confident that my choice to go with Panasonic will be the right one.

For the record, as a basic end-user, I will be purchasing the camera because of the zoom and image stabilizer. And the cool black solid body... love it. I don't care much about compression articles or small picture size incriments, unless they're so bad it makes me want to cry. If people on here are so bothered by such unimportant things, why not use the energy put into complaining, and use it to focus on taking better pictures instead. I'm not a professional of any stature, so I guess I can get away with "Grow up you pathetic whining gits." and as the Panasonic guy asked, give him a break, since he's doing everyone a favour.

And PLEASE PAISANO5, turn off the friggin' caps-lock before everyone on here starts screaming back at you!