DNG has less detail than JPG for A4000 - page 3 - General Discussion and Assistance - CHDK Forum

DNG has less detail than JPG for A4000

  • 52 Replies
  • 16635 Views
Re: DNG has less detail than JPG for A4000
« Reply #20 on: 20 / June / 2013, 09:46:30 »
Advertisements
Nice thread here - philmoz's last comment is a good summary. In my humble opinion, and having been using mostly dslr's now, shooting in raw is definitely better should you need and like to develop an image.

You get a lot more data on file shooting in raw which allows you to properly develop photos, whereas JPEG's are essentially images developed in camera using algorithms/presets that camera manufacturers build in order to fulfill what most the users need, which is to see a nice image right after being shot.

I find that this article (edit: with DSLRs!) explains this relatively well:
http://www.slrlounge.com/raw-vs-jpeg-jpg-the-ultimate-visual-guide


Using one of mine as an example, this shot below would be impossible to get using just JPEG (this was taken with a panasonic compact). I was actually shooting JPEG up to when I got to the park, and remembered to switch to raw just in time before the sun was completely set. Earlier shots (few minutes before) in JPEG are practically all black, with almost no blues or clouds on the sky  to recover when developing.




« Last Edit: 20 / June / 2013, 19:38:24 by acseven »

Re: DNG has less detail than JPG for A4000
« Reply #21 on: 20 / June / 2013, 14:21:32 »
Using one of mine as an example, this shot below would be impossible to get using just JPEG

For an essentially static scene like that I would just use high-speed exposure bracketing.

(I was testing a new SDM version of that feature earlier this week.)

The images are then exposure-merged (not HDR).


David

Re: DNG has less detail than JPG for A4000
« Reply #22 on: 20 / June / 2013, 14:58:29 »
HDR is definitely a possibility, but it's harder to develop a shot with realism in mind, without all those crazy contrasts you see most of the time. Anyway, even for hdr I prefer to use RAW, because the processing software will have more data to work with.

On the other hand there's always something moving in this kind of landscape and that will cause some errors, most pertinent if you need detail and perfection.

My image is not the case, as it's not that good in the first place, too much distortion, etc etc, but I needed the long exposure for the look I wanted: blurry water, blurry clouds. And that you couldn't get easily with HDR, and at all with high shutter speed.
« Last Edit: 20 / June / 2013, 15:00:12 by acseven »

Re: DNG has less detail than JPG for A4000
« Reply #23 on: 20 / June / 2013, 16:00:47 »
I find that this article explains this relatively well:
http://www.slrlounge.com/raw-vs-jpeg-jpg-the-ultimate-visual-guide


Just one point, that is taken with a Canon 5D Mk II DSLR, not a small sensor point-and-shoot !


Re: DNG has less detail than JPG for A4000
« Reply #24 on: 20 / June / 2013, 16:08:46 »
Forgot to mention that, it definitely matters when reading but I guess most of the concepts apply.

Re: DNG has less detail than JPG for A4000
« Reply #25 on: 20 / June / 2013, 16:56:38 »
Just one point, that is taken with a Canon 5D Mk II DSLR, not a small sensor point-and-shoot !

Yeah, rub it in.  :P

The noise levels are definitely lower and the optics better than for my A4000.  I guess you get what you pay for.

Re: DNG has less detail than JPG for A4000
« Reply #26 on: 20 / June / 2013, 19:37:42 »
Just one point, that is taken with a Canon 5D Mk II DSLR, not a small sensor point-and-shoot !

Yeah, rub it in.  :P

The noise levels are definitely lower and the optics better than for my A4000.  I guess you get what you pay for.

:)

Re: DNG has less detail than JPG for A4000
« Reply #27 on: 20 / June / 2013, 23:56:44 »
For an essentially static scene like that I would just use high-speed exposure bracketing.
Sorry - can't quite buy that as a valid arguement against using RAW.   Doing what you suggest assumes you know in advance,  every time,  that you will need to use bracketing.  Or that you shoot in a bracketing mode every time.    What philmoz proved (with a subject that was likely to move) is that shooting in RAW leaves you with options in post processing,  which you may not realize you need until you are looking at your shots on your PC.
Ported :   A1200    SD940   G10    Powershot N    G16


Re: DNG has less detail than JPG for A4000
« Reply #28 on: 21 / June / 2013, 01:47:52 »
Some idea came to my mind. If Cannon built-in software can better sharpen an image and get more details than other raw-processing software, it would be possible to make a software, that uses Cannon JPEG for RAW processing, to find details in RAW.

I don't think about any particular algorithm, but this is in general possible. Of course there would be other problem - like disortion in RAW, which should be previously corrected in the same manner that Cannon does.
if (2*b || !2*b) {
    cout<<question
}

Compile error: poor Yorick

Re: DNG has less detail than JPG for A4000
« Reply #29 on: 21 / June / 2013, 05:11:17 »
Some idea came to my mind. If Cannon built-in software can better sharpen an image and get more details than other raw-processing software, it would be possible to make a software, that uses Cannon JPEG for RAW processing, to find details in RAW.

I really can't say that canon's algorithm's can "better" sharpen an image, because at some point that's up to the photographer to decide whether to go more fine or coarse in detail with the developed shot. E.g.  with photo editing software like Photoshop, you have several filters with several parameters to sharpen an image. That would make sense - for someone that in some kind of situation, after calibrating a given setup, would find useful to programatically sharpen the image to a given set of parameters ... But probably to save only JPGs in camera I guess.


On the RAW topic:  I once attended a workshop by an excellent photographer, a truly fine dude, and retained several photography concepts which I later found to be very useful and true. One of his concepts was that RAW photography is somewhat like having your film roll negatives back in the day. With those you would use several different techniques in the laboratory to get shots with the feel you wanted. A JPEG is like having your printed photo scanned and then trying to fine tune it again, it will not have the same amount of color and pixel information as the RAW image.


 

Related Topics