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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 10, 2004, 5:01 PM   #41
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 88
Default

ZoomFan,

Thank you for your reply. Unfortunately the link you gave is out of date. What was the name of the piece you referenced?

I agree white balance ranks only second in importance, but I work on that with a JPEG image without too much trouble. I still don't get why RAW allows you to do this any better.

parallel
parallel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 10, 2004, 5:20 PM   #42
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 54
Default

Perhaps these are one of them (the 1st?)
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...w_vs_jpg.shtml
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tu...workflow.shtml
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/te.../process.shtml

All came from typing RAW into the search field near the bottom of the index page.
pjskelti is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 10, 2004, 10:00 PM   #43
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 272
Default

I think ZoomFan answered below/above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by parallel
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.
Guerito is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 11, 2004, 9:45 AM   #44
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 88
Default

pjskelti,

Many thanks for that link, that actually gives comparative examples.
It seems that Luminous Landscape has issued an update.

ďMy original tests and write-up comparing the D30's RAW mode with Large/Fine JPG mode showed a dramatic difference in favour of RAW. Phil Askey of Digital Photography Review drew to my attention that this results was very much at odds with his own tests. I have consequently redone the tests and find that Phil is essentially correct. I'm not sure why these new test results are different, but I'm glad that they are.

snip

My evaluation is that Phil is correct. The image quality is close, though I do judge the RAW file to be somewhat sharper č maybe by 5% - 10%. You'll have to decide for yourself if it's worth the extra storage space and processing to work in RAW mode. I probably will.Ē

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...w_vs_jpg.shtml

So it seems the advantage of RAW is not as much as others have previously stated.
parallel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 11, 2004, 10:47 AM   #45
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 54
Default

The difference will be a direct relation to the highest JPEG quality provided by the camera - so in some instances, that could be quite dramatic.
For the majority of users, and those familiar with PS or Graphic Converter, etc, JPEG resolution is available from 1-12 on a scale of lowest to highest quality.
If a camera manufacturer decided Fine was 8-9, then the difference between their HQ JPEG and RAW would be noticable, whereas another who'd done theirs at 10 - the difference would be less noticable.
Aside from whether there's a noticable difference or not, the impression I get is that a lot of users want the RAW format as an option in the menu at least, so as they can then dictate the final image after post processing rather than let the camera decide what their starting point is.
Also, the WB not being perhaps as critical in RAW shots means quicker setup time to getting the shot - which may be more desirable than getting WB correct and then losing the shot or not getting one just as good as if they'd been able and ready to shoot a few secs/mins ago.

Given today's technology and computer speeds, there is a real need to let the user make more decisions about the final image than the camera. Therefore manufacturers can have it both ways as well as the consumers - P&S capabilities if that's all you want or need, and a full-blown, hands-on output for those who want that aspect to explore and utilise without being forced to spend $/£1500 minimum for the privilege.
pjskelti is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 11, 2004, 2:18 PM   #46
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 4
Default

Parallel,

I think the response pjekelti made regarding image quality covers that area well enough and touched on the key difference between JPEG and RAW: in camera processing. The argument between which is better in terms of image quality, JPEG vs. RAW, can be somewhat subjective and certain images show differences better than others. With some images JPEG compression shows almost no degradation to the image. In other cases, you develop artifacts. JPEG is generally terrific if the level of compression is sufficiently low. If you start with what the sensor provides though, you have the best possible chance for getting the image you desire in every case. No guessing about JPEG artifacts or more importantly the other settings in the camera. If the discussion were to be JPEG vs. uncompressed like TIFF in your UZI, I wouldnít argue for TIFF. The big difference isnít the quality differences in compression itís the quality differences of the post exposure processing that are key to this discussion.

The other luminous landscape links begin to touch on the subject of the post processing advantages of RAW.

Color correction is a sort of personal process, but it generally involves adjustment layers and color separations or the use of levels or curves (and sometimes combinations of these tools). If youíre using variations, itís sort of a quick way of using some of the power separations can yield. There are several excellent books on these topics. However, the best example I can give of RAW vs. JPEG is imagining using Photoshop without undo or adjustment layers. Thatís what in camera white balance, sharpness, saturation, and other settings are doing for you. If the goal is a snapshot that looks good enough for an album that generally will get the job done with little to minimal post exposure touch up. However, if youíre trying to get the best possible results, itís going to take some time to undo any mistaken assumptions the in camera processing made for the exposure. The RAW converters expose these controls to a user with much finer granularity for each setting. You can view the results in roughly real time on a reasonably fast PC. You can directly compare the results of different settings on the same image. If you get into an image and find youíve overly sharpened you can undo the process simply. Iím not saying you canít end up in the same place if you start with a JPEG, but youíd better be prepared to make feathered selections, break out the right combination of unsharp mask, Gaussian blur, etc. Itís simply more tedious with less precise results. It becomes more of an art and Iíd prefer to spend my time getting my next exposure. The best Photoshop users fix problems I wouldnít be willing to confront for most exposures because I already spend enough time at the computer during the week.
ZoomFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 11, 2004, 6:16 PM   #47
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 88
Default

I have no major disagreement with what you said. I donít have RAW so the discussion is a tad academic anyway. I have a feeling that I would use JPEG for 99% of my images even if I did, as the difference is small Iím glad to see.

I believe it is far more important to get out and take photos and spend time on finding interesting subjects and working on composition than struggling for the last gnatís whisker of resolution or color fidelity. I suppose that is why I have an FZ10 and not a dSLR.
parallel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 11, 2004, 7:03 PM   #48
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 54
Default

Your last comment is certainly valid, but not for all users or situations.
First off, not everyone want's or can afford even the entry level dSLRs, but yet they'd like to be able to do more image manipulation themselves to get the best possible output from their camera. A bit like being able to have an image they admire and get admiration for, yet knowing they didn't need to have to cart about the weight and hassle of a dSLR body and lenses.
Everyone wants the most for the least - whether that be least money spent or least post processing, each one of us has our own personal criteria and agenda when it comes to DP.
As I said previously, the FZ10 should at least allow it's owners to decide the amount of image manipulation they want to be bothered with rather than being limited from the off. Not that I'm saying the FZ10 is poor or whatever, but as there's never been a RAW image output from a pre-production or test FZ10 to compare to, then we'll never really know just how much data is being lost by the JPEG levels Panasonic have opt for in the menu settings.
If there was a way to see what the sensor sees and compare it to what we actually get as the capyured image, then it'd be very interesting to see just how much better some of our shots could be and after PS editing.

Hopefully Panasonic are listening and paying attention to the discussions taking place on the various forums around the globe about this camera, and will seriously consider offering more of the features being requested in future FZ's as well as keeping the price keen. I'd personally like to see the next FZ stand out of the rest of the manufacturers on features rather than the make of lens used or the x factor of it's zoom. While both have their place, neither counteract the lack of certain features we're interest in seeing on it.
pjskelti is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 11, 2004, 11:10 PM   #49
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1
Default

I am considering a FZ10. The availability of raw would make my choice easy. But although the opinions of 100 forum users may not have signifigant weight with Panasonic, there is a small group on our side Panasonic does respect- the design and marketing team at Canon. They chose normal, fine, and superfine for the S1 and priced it at $499.
dan barry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 12, 2004, 5:22 AM   #50
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 54
Default

I've taken a look at the Canon website and have to say, that camera isn't bad on a specs basis, but it's nothing spectacular. And that the camera looks plasticky - it doesn't come close to being as solidly designed as the Panasonic. Surely as the worlds biggest camera manufacturer, they could have went the extra distance to trounce the FZ. Seems they had a case of DFR's - Do Fine Rightly!

Also, their SF JPEG file size is about the same as the FZ10, so there must be some common thinking that the levels they're using are considered approriate or the best compromise between memory buffer requirements (cost) and image quality, short of providing RAW capability and converter for PS (another cost), as well as keeping the included memory card size down to 32 MB (another cost) - all so they can hit their target price point.

So, on that note, I'm still proud as Punch that I went for the FZ10 - just hope there's common thinking to push RAW as a viable feature on the next FZ to allow those of us who like to think we're Prosumers rather than consumers, have the 'best' of both worlds.
pjskelti 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 1:46 AM.