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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Dec 10, 2005, 1:29 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
rduve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,504
Default

I have largely been shooting in the "Standard", high compression JPEG mode with my FZ20 and I am intending to do the same with my new FZ30, at 3:2 ratio (7 MP). From my experience, I can just not see any difference between the two JPEG modes. Are there any comparison tests anywhere on this subject?

Here are two crops, one is from Fine, one from Standard mode. Can you tell which is which (without looking at the EXIF data)?


Attached Images
 
rduve is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Dec 10, 2005, 1:56 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
rduve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,504
Default

and the other one....
Attached Images
 
rduve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 10, 2005, 2:42 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Ian48Harry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Berkshire, England
Posts: 139
Default

rduve wrote:
Quote:
and the other one....
Is in my opinion the better one. I decided BEFORE looking at the EXIF. The EXIF data in the posted shots does not give the original mode info (well I could not see it). The two were taken under slightly different conditions but ... still the second is "better".

Ian
Ian48Harry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 10, 2005, 2:45 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Indian Rocks Beach, FL
Posts: 4,036
Default

I subjected them to defogging, medium sharpening and a JPG cycle. I didn't use excessive sharpening. Artifacts that aren't visible start showing up with processing. If you don't intend any processing you can't really tell the difference.

Edit: I merged them into theone image before processing, so they both got exactly the same.
Attached Images
 
slipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 10, 2005, 4:56 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
rduve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,504
Default

Guess what? The second (bottom one) is the one in Standard (high compression) mode. You can tell that when you right click and look up the image properties that it is only half the size of the first. Are you sure you didn't get them reversed, Slipe?
rduve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 10, 2005, 5:02 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
rduve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,504
Default

Ian48Harry wrote:
Quote:
rduve wrote:
Quote:
and the other one....
Is in my opinion the better one. I decided BEFORE looking at the EXIF. The EXIF data in the posted shots does not give the original mode info (well I could not see it). The two were taken under slightly different conditions but ... still the second is "better".

Ian

They were actually taken under the exact same conditions, seconds apart. Interesting that you find the more compressed one as being better. I guess if they are that hard to tell apart, I might as well stick with the "standard" mode.
rduve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 10, 2005, 6:25 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
tiger98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 2,696
Default

Rduve I'd have to say the second picture was taken in the "fine" setting. Jim
tiger98 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 10, 2005, 8:14 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
rduve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,504
Default

tiger98 wrote:
Quote:
Rduve I'd have to say the second picture was taken in the "fine" setting. Jim
No, actually it's the other way round. The first is "fine", the second "standard."



Rainer
rduve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 10, 2005, 8:24 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Indian Rocks Beach, FL
Posts: 4,036
Default

rduve wrote:
Quote:
Guess what? The second (bottom one) is the one in Standard (high compression) mode. You can tell that when you right click and look up the image properties that it is only half the size of the first. Are you sure you didn't get them reversed, Slipe?
I did it again and labeled the images while I could still see the leaf that reached the edge on the top and the one that didn't on the bottom. Then pulled the crops into a file and processed them. The results were about the same.

I tried the same thing with a fine and normal shot from my FZ10 and the results were the opposite, with the lower quality image picking up more artifacts with processing and a cycle of quality 4 JPG saves.

I have no idea why your better quality image picked up more artifacts.


slipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 10, 2005, 8:48 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
rduve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,504
Default

Very very strange. Somewhere they must have been mixed up. I triple checked to make sure I don't have it backward and I don't. And again, proof is that the second image is only half the sizeof the first....strange.

But regardless, of course further processing and repeated saving (compression) will result in visible quality loss. It's just that at the level at which the camera compresses, there is no visible loss. And I figure if I do my processing in PS as new layers and save the finalimage as a new file while saving the original, it should not lead to any visible deterioration.

But for most pictures, which do not need PP, 1.5 MB per pic is a much more comfortable storage size than 3 MP I find.
rduve 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 1:53 PM.