Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital Cameras (Point and Shoot) > Panasonic / Leica

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 9, 2004, 3:18 PM   #31
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 272
Default

OK, thanks for replying. I already have both of those magazines, I was hoping for another review.

Quote:
Originally Posted by YenRug
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guerito
Which magazines are you refering to?
What Digital Camera, which gave the most favourable review.

Digital Camera Magazine, a rather strange review. The reviewer raved about the camera's lens, saying how it would cost thousands on a DSLR, but then he said that the feature set was very basic and wasted the advantages. It scored very highly, 90+ on most areas, but then got a "relatively" low 80 on value.
Guerito is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 9, 2004, 3:33 PM   #32
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 272
Default

But Bob, you are talking about *one* enhancement. Havenít you seen all of the other enhancements people have been asking for? Also, even though it is termed a ďfeatureĒ, correcting the EVF from gong black under certain conditions would be considered a ďservice problemĒ to many. You should never have said "...'right here' is the place to download your comments." if you plan to dismiss every suggestion we have. Doing so diminishes your credibility even further.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Panasonic
At one point or another everything I stated was said, though it may have been before you started to participate. Some requests such as a third or perhaps a lower compression setting would not be justified right now because in the global picture we aren't seeing complaints or service problems with the current design. Granted, it would be an improvement and you all will welcome it, but there is no actual problem to address. You're asking for an enhancement and given the present schedules, it's not currently scheduled.
Guerito is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 9, 2004, 3:34 PM   #33
Senior Member
 
alexo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 232
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Panasonic
As far as what data that is captured, it's simply not possible that I could document that - not enough time. The responses I receive are internal communications and can't be shared. The data goes in and the results are seen when the next generation is introduced. As far as direct correspondence, with "signatures", it's a nice idea to petition the city councel but not here. The overall process is too global.
Thank you Bob, I believe I get the drift.
alexo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 9, 2004, 9:57 PM   #34
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 272
Default

I don't know if this can be accomplished in a firmware upgrade or not, but I would really like to see an "infinity focus" setting.
Guerito is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 9, 2004, 10:14 PM   #35
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 88
Default

ZoomFan et al,
Iíve never had RAW on a camera to play with, but I had TIFF on my uzi. Iíve tried to debate this on another forum but have never received a satisfactory, factual answer as to the advantages of RAW. After doing several test shots I could not see any appreciable difference between TIFF and a high end JPEG, so I didnít bother with TIFF in practice. I donít print larger than 8 x 10 and that might be a reason. Certainly it will not be visible on a monitor.

If I saw that I was going to do appreciable editing I might convert the original JPEG file to bitmap to work on it, but that doesnít happen very often. As far as I can tell I can do anything I want to do without RAW. RAW would simply take more memory, slow the transfer to the camera, slow the burst mode and have to be converted to something else like TIFF in the end anyway.
Maybe this should be another thread, unless someone can give a concise answer.
parallel

ps. The thought had occurred to me that possibly the RAW image is too noisy from the small 4 megapixel sensor and Panasonic wants to massage it before the user sees it.
parallel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 10, 2004, 12:44 AM   #36
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 272
Default

There are advantages to shooting in RAW format but Iíll just touch upon two of them. First, when a JPEG image is created in the camera, the cameraís software manipulates the file in ways that could (and most likely will), alter the way the picture looks. With a RAW file, you are getting the actual data from the sensor. You can then make adjustments in your image editor and end up with a more accurate rendition of the photo. Also, the file comes out of the camera entirely uncompressed so the camera is not introducing artifacts. If there were not a difference, the professional cameras would not use RAW.
I would also like to interject that the reason many people donít notice a difference between TIFF, JPEG and variations of JPEG compression is that they may not be using a quality monitor. Also, any monitor used for photo editing should be calibrated once a month.

Quote:
Originally Posted by parallel
ZoomFan et al,
Iíve never had RAW on a camera to play with, but I had TIFF on my uzi. Iíve tried to debate this on another forum but have never received a satisfactory, factual answer as to the advantages of RAW. After doing several test shots I could not see any appreciable difference between TIFF and a high end JPEG, so I didnít bother with TIFF in practice. I donít print larger than 8 x 10 and that might be a reason. Certainly it will not be visible on a monitor.

If I saw that I was going to do appreciable editing I might convert the original JPEG file to bitmap to work on it, but that doesnít happen very often. As far as I can tell I can do anything I want to do without RAW. RAW would simply take more memory, slow the transfer to the camera, slow the burst mode and have to be converted to something else like TIFF in the end anyway.
Maybe this should be another thread, unless someone can give a concise answer.
parallel

ps. The thought had occurred to me that possibly the RAW image is too noisy from the small 4 megapixel sensor and Panasonic wants to massage it before the user sees it.
Guerito is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 10, 2004, 7:26 AM   #37
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 49
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guerito
OK, thanks for replying. I already have both of those magazines, I was hoping for another review.
There's another mag, Digital Camera Shopper I think it's called, seems to be published quarterly and carries a huge load of reviews all at once. It's next issue is due 25th March, so hoping the FZ10 is covered in that one.
YenRug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 10, 2004, 8:28 AM   #38
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 88
Default

Guerito,
Thanks for you reply. I am aware of the things that you wrote. You seem to be suggesting that you can do a better conversion to JPEG (or whatever) than the software provided by the camera. By and large Iím not unhappy with the conversion by the cameras that I own. You can still edit the image to suit without it being in RAW.

Iím using a calibrated 19Ē Samsung SyncMaster 950p. The p stands for their professional series. It has been well reviewed. The resolution of a monitor is low enough at 1024 x 768 (which is what I run) that it is unlikely you will see a difference there. You could see a difference in color if there were one, but I donít.
A printer is higher resolution, but I don't see the difference there either.

How about providing images both ways to show the difference?

Edit. I would like the option of an even less compressed JPEG capture, but that is not the argument.
parallel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 10, 2004, 11:11 AM   #39
Senior Member
 
Panasonic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 321
Default

I really wish I had more time to respond to each question individually. You guys are kind enough to take the time, but with my schedule itís just not possible. Let me briefly touch on a few points.

ďSo what you're saying Bob, is that Panasonic prioritises and separates the wishlist from the fixlist - understandable really, but why can't they do both alongside one another. Surely the implementation of a reduced compression ratio/factor could be easily amended and included in any firmware update released to rectify any problems that are being addressed.Ē

The ďfixĒ list so to speak would address a malfunction and that of course has the highest priority. The ďwishĒ list is issues that have been proposed and may be considered for the next generation. My responsibilities do not directly include any planning or development decisions, though our input is essential to the process.

ďBut Bob, you are talking about *one* enhancement. Havenít you seen all of the other enhancements people have been asking for? Also, even though it is termed a ďfeatureĒ, correcting the EVF from gong black under certain conditions would be considered a ďservice problemĒ to many. You should never have said "...'right here' is the place to download your comments." if you plan to dismiss every suggestion we have. Doing so diminishes your credibility even further.Ē

Iím not here to validate any credibility. A countless amount of feedback is shared, introduced into the engine so to speak. Our responsibility is not to follow-up, debate, or demands any specific feature. Those responsibilities fall on product planning teams who decide what future generation products will be. The marketing people here review the offerings and decide which products we will offer. We do aggressively offer suggestions and call attention to certain issues. The support I can offer is for the current product. Since the auto industry seems to be a good comparison, Ford isnít going to redesign the firmware in the climate control system of your 2003 Explorer if 100 people write in with the same idea. Such suggestions might show up in the 2004 or 2005 model. If a malfunction shows up in one of our cameras the necessary steps would be taken to correct it.

Currently the resources we have are very aggressively working on the future products. What more can I say that hasnít been said?
Panasonic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 10, 2004, 12:48 PM   #40
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 4
Default

Parallel,

There are several advantages that RAW provides as opposed to a less compressed JPEG. The best simple description Iíve read is http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...mera-raw.shtml. I am a person who uses RAW for certain situations, but not all. The ideal solution for a camera would be to have a light compression and a RAW mode. If forced to choose on the FZ10, Iíd take RAW because the JPEG compression isnít horrible (Iím not saying it couldnít be improved, only that in the types of situations where Iíd prefer a less compressed image, Iíd ALWAYS choose RAW with this particular camera). For snapshot type work, I almost always shoot JPEG, but if Iím taking time to set exposure at the scene, itís generally worth the switch to RAW because I know Iím likely to spend some time editing the photo.

One of the most important advantages is that you donít have to carefully consider white balance setting at the time of exposure. This might not seem like a big deal, but white balance is one of the most important settings in a digital camera (of course after exposure, but without manual exposure I would have purchased the FZ1 instead of the FZ10 and without manual white balance, I wouldnít have purchased either). If youíve calibrated your monitor as you mentioned, you have a good appreciation for color consistency and what a difference a calibrated ICC profile makes in displaying/matching color. White balance setting has a very similar relationship in camera. If you shoot RAW, you can adjust it post exposure to achieve the color reproduction you desire with greater ease. White balance can be used as a creative tool, just like exposure. In certain situations you want to precisely match colors, in others, you may want to warm skin tones, etc.

Iíve read a number of peopleís posts comparing photos without any post processing, and while this is admirable and good for purchasing decisions, it ignores one of the strongest advantages of a digital camera, namely the digital darkroom. The quality of sharpening, saturation, and other algorithms generally found in digital cameras is at best limited. Controls such as light, medium, and heavy are fantastic for quick settings, but are subjective based on what a firmware developer considered light, medium, and heavy. Bottom line, I prefer to make that decision on my own if Iím going to spend a couple hours editing a photo to display.

JPEG compression is lossy. Yes, it can approach lossless with very light compression, but once the compression step is done, you can never reverse the process. Same goes with in camera sharpening, white balance, and a multitude of other settings all of which MUST be applied at some level to have a JPEG image.

Last, as a firmware engineer, Iíd say a request for a ďless compressed JPEG settingĒ doesnít clearly define a feature. Someone has to make a decision as to what that setting is, and with one decision you get a larger file size upsetting one part of the group and with another youíve got a smaller file that upsets another part of the group. With RAW, the request is clear: save the image the sensor captured. There is no ambiguity to the request. Sure the file size is large, but if youíre going to make an archival quality exposure, this really is the best solution in my opinion.
ZoomFan is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 5:58 AM.