| Author |
Message |
andre
Guest
|
 Posted:
Sun Nov 28, 2004 6:17 am Post subject:
Re: NEF vs JPEG fine, large on D70 - benefits? |
|
|
AK wrote:
| Quote: | I have been running some (admittedly simple) tests with my D70, trying to
see if there is any significant difference visible in pictures taken with
the NEF vs. JPEG, fine, large setting (both are 300 x 2008 pixels - the NEF
is stored in a 5,4MB file, the JPEG in a +/- 2.4MB file). Obviously, the
JPEG has a compressed version of the picture.
In practice, the difference are so small that I can barely see them -
literally at the level of one or two pixels brighter or darker in an area-
and it may even be a matter of taste which is "better". (I use PS elements,
and transfer the images from the camera to my computer using
PictureProject). What really surprised me was that the much more compressed
JPEG that the D70 provides to allow you to view images in IE and to store
EXIF information, even though only about 750KB vs. 2.4MB for the fine, large
JPEG, was also barely distinguishable form the other formats!!
So - is the difference really simply that the NEF format is lossless and
allows you, if you wish, to adjust exposure and white balance when importing
to PS, and keep saving in lossless format? (I understand that repeated
saving images in JPEG format loses information, and, of course, the JPEG
could always be saved in TIF or PSD format).
And, importantly, if you blow these up to a large print size, such as 13" x
19", is there likely to be any quality difference visible between the NEF
and JPEG image, assume both go through the same PS processing steps, or are
not postprocessed in PS at all?
I put up a couple of screen shots showing the comparisons at
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2911793&size=lg and
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2911790&size=lg . The images
have had no PS post processing (no levels, sharpening etc. - just as they
were transferred from the camera to PS. And, of course, you're viewing them
at the resolution your screen can give of a screen shot off my screen, but
they seem reasonably representative of what I view in PS.
Alan
The RAW file stores 12bit monochrome per pixel. The color information is |
retrieved by beyer interpolation (check online).
The JPG is a processed (by the cameras processor) image.
Since anti aliasing is a step of the processing, you need to sharpen the
raw image to make comparisons.
The benefit of raw is, that you can do the processing (developing of the
digital negitve) yourself. In order to preserve the 12 bit information
you can use 16 bit TIF instead of 8 bit JPG and thus have a greater
dynamic range to do image processing on (image processing almost always
leads to clipping and therefore loss of information).
On the raw you can also change white balance and other settings, that
have been fixed during JPG processing.
The bottom line is you gain much greater flexibility but have to do much
more work to take advantage of it.
It takes a lot of experience though, but if you are willing to spend the
time you will get better results.
If you are not planning on doing postprocessing, JPG will be good since
you don't need to spend a lot of time on it.
Andre
--
----------------------------------
http://www.aguntherphotography.com
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Hunt
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Nov 28, 2004 6:17 am Post subject:
Re: NEF vs JPEG fine, large on D70 - benefits? |
|
|
In article <atMpd.987$%C6.886@trnddc02>, a.kolnik@delete-123-nospam.verizon.
net says...
| Quote: |
Well, I guess my question is - what is the visible difference? Are there any
examples out there of significant differences visible?
E.g., if I printed the same picture a large blow-up, would I notice a
difference between the image captured as a NEF vs. the image captured as a
JPEG (on the D70) - same number of pixels in each case - just that the D70
has compressed and possibly tweaked the image data using an in-camera
algorithm in the JPEG format?
"Aerticeus" <spoofed@spooked.com> wrote in message
news:y1Mpd.442$9%4.255@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
In general there is a great deal of difference between RAW and JPEG
If you can't notice it, don't worry or be anxious about it and save with
the format that meets and addresses your needs
Aerticeus
"AK" <a.kolnik@delete-123-nospam.verizon.net> wrote in message
news:_dLpd.31$M57.6@trnddc01...
I have been running some (admittedly simple) tests with my D70, trying to
|
The best example(s) that you could find would be to shoot the same scene in
both modes, bring into your image program and then use the Magnifying Glass
Tool to take them up many times. compare the images. If you don't find any
problems with the JPG, then use it. If you find artifacts (no offense Arty),
then you need to decide if they are objectionable, and is the RAW method worth
the HDD real estate. As Arty stated, it's really up to you.
Hunt |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cynicor
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Nov 28, 2004 6:17 am Post subject:
Re: NEF vs JPEG fine, large on D70 - benefits? |
|
|
"Hunt" <noone@hunt.com> wrote:
| Quote: | The best example(s) that you could find would be to shoot the same scene
in
both modes, bring into your image program and then use the Magnifying
Glass
Tool to take them up many times. compare the images. If you don't find any
problems with the JPG, then use it. If you find artifacts (no offense
Arty),
then you need to decide if they are objectionable, and is the RAW method
worth
the HDD real estate. As Arty stated, it's really up to you.
|
I just screwed up some pix tonight. I had the camera set to custom white
balance at a hockey rink, and was shooting NEF+JPG. Then I took it inside to
a post-game party for the team and swapped it over to JPG only, but took a
bunch of pix before remembering to reset the white balance. Everyone looks
like they need to be treated for exposure. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David J Taylor
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Nov 28, 2004 12:13 pm Post subject:
Re: NEF vs JPEG fine, large on D70 - benefits? |
|
|
AK wrote:
[]
| Quote: | I've added another test shot D70 NEF vs. JPEG.
[]
But the difference is
remarkably small, even at this level of compression, and if I had
shot it as a "large, fine" JPEG, would have been impossible to
detect, I believe. (The D70's "large/fine" setting creates JPEGs of 2
MB i.e., compressed much less than the "Basic" image I've shown
here.)
|
A most interesting comparison! My own tests on both a Nikon 990 and 5700
of the different JPEG levels have lead me to use Basic for most of my
work. Of course, it also depends on your exact viewing conditions as to
what level is required.
Where I have recently found the Basic level to be not quite good enough is
in areas of slightly-saturated colour - and slate roof that is just
off-grey, or a very pale blue sky (not an intense blue), and perhaps areas
of grass. There can be a slight "muddiness" in these areas - the colour
is not well-defined and the pixels sort of blur into each other, and
perhaps there is a blockiness of the JPEG 8 x 8 or 16 x 16 cell size.
You can't see this by looking at the full image on a CRT display, though,
you need to zoom in to a level equivalent to looking at a print with a
magnifying glass. So depending on your use of the pictures, the better
quality of Fine versus Basic JPEG, or NEF versus JPEG /may/ be worth the
extra file size or processing time.
Cheers,
David |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rita Ä Berkowitz
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Nov 28, 2004 6:08 pm Post subject:
Re: NEF vs JPEG fine, large on D70 - benefits? |
|
|
AK wrote:
| Quote: |
I have also begun to consider whether the software used to view and
process the images isn't a major component - since each software
package has its own way, I imagine, of reading, decompressing and
displaying a JPEG, NEF (or RAW) file, that could introduce
variations. (I refer only to perceived "sharpness" or "quality" - of
course, the entire postprocessing workflow, down to and including the
printer and driver etc. will affect the final print).
|
This I can agree with. From my limited experience using Nikon Capture 4 and
Irfanview, I can see the differences in the final picture. I don't have PSP
9 so I can't compare it to the others when working with NEF. What I'm
finding, though, is that there are too many variables between camera and
printer. I only shoot in RAW since storage really isn't a problem and I am
afforded some more leeway for in camera mistakes that I make.
Rita
--
http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2003/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David J Taylor
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Nov 28, 2004 6:08 pm Post subject:
Re: NEF vs JPEG fine, large on D70 - benefits? |
|
|
Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:
[]
| Quote: | What I'm finding, though, is that there are too many variables between
camera and printer.
[]
Rita
|
One alternative - which probably wouldn't suit you - is to shoot in JPEG
and plug the memory card straight into the printer. Almost no variables,
a quite remarkably good quality with today's printers.....
<G>
David |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David J Taylor
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Nov 28, 2004 6:09 pm Post subject:
Re: NEF vs JPEG fine, large on D70 - benefits? |
|
|
AK wrote:
| Quote: | To your point, I found that taking a picture that included a very
vividly blue sky, the NEF rendered it "properly" (i.e., the image
seemed to match the actual color I perceived in the sky) while the
Basic was a rather murky grey blue.
I have also begun to consider whether the software used to view and
process the images isn't a major component - since each software
package has its own way, I imagine, of reading, decompressing and
displaying a JPEG, NEF (or RAW) file, that could introduce
variations. (I refer only to perceived "sharpness" or "quality" - of
course, the entire postprocessing workflow, down to and including the
printer and driver etc. will affect the final print).
|
Well, in that sense the NEF doesn't contain any rendering at all - just
the raw sensor values - so yes, the rendering will be dependant on the
software used to convert from sensor values to RGB.
Sensor to RGB conversion will depend either on the camera firmware (for
the JPEG or TIFF images from the camera) or on the program used to read
the file (for the NEF file to RGB conversion). There isn't one "right"
result, and different methods will produce different results that
different viewers may find differently pleasing. "JPEG from the camera"
users have none of these problems to worry about!
RGB converted to JPEG and then back to RGB for processing will have small
errors in each of the RGB components. How RGB is encoded to JPEG depends
on the quality level set (which the user can control) plus some data
tables and colour sampling methods which will be chosen by the
manufacturer. It is an art rather than a science to make the best choices
for a particular camera. Decoding JPEG to RGB should be a completely
deterministic process, though - i.e. all software should do it in exactly
the same way as it is mathematically defined.
Cheers,
David |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aerticeus
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Nov 28, 2004 11:59 pm Post subject:
Re: NEF vs JPEG fine, large on D70 - benefits? |
|
|
LOL - if anyone sees any sock orbiting close by please send them back - they
will probably be mine
(The flew of with laughter)
Hi Cynicor - welcome to the real world of digital image processing. I am
sure everyone goes through exactly the same - erm - learning experience
This is the equivalent of having the one and only copy of a "crucial" file
on floppy disk only to discover that the floppy has died 3 seconds before
you need the "crucial" file in public
Marh the experience well...
Aerticeus
ps - hot toddies for the exposure?
A
"Cynicor" <jtru-whydoipost-pin@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:---dnQGSg4BKoDTcRVn-vA@speakeasy.net...
| Quote: |
"Hunt" <noone@hunt.com> wrote:
The best example(s) that you could find would be to shoot the same scene
in
both modes, bring into your image program and then use the Magnifying
Glass
Tool to take them up many times. compare the images. If you don't find
any
problems with the JPG, then use it. If you find artifacts (no offense
Arty),
then you need to decide if they are objectionable, and is the RAW method
worth
the HDD real estate. As Arty stated, it's really up to you.
I just screwed up some pix tonight. I had the camera set to custom white
balance at a hockey rink, and was shooting NEF+JPG. Then I took it inside
to a post-game party for the team and swapped it over to JPG only, but
took a bunch of pix before remembering to reset the white balance.
Everyone looks like they need to be treated for exposure.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rita Ä Berkowitz
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Nov 29, 2004 12:17 am Post subject:
Re: NEF vs JPEG fine, large on D70 - benefits? |
|
|
David J Taylor wrote:
| Quote: |
One alternative - which probably wouldn't suit you - is to shoot in
JPEG and plug the memory card straight into the printer. Almost no
variables, a quite remarkably good quality with today's printers.....
|
Thanks; I'll have to try that. I can set the file save to NEF+JPG before
shooting and print the much smaller JPG for an experiment.
Rita
--
http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2003/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Nov 29, 2004 12:13 pm Post subject:
Re: NEF vs JPEG fine, large on D70 - benefits? |
|
|
David J Taylor <david-taylor@invalid.com> wrote:
| Quote: | AK wrote:
To your point, I found that taking a picture that included a very
vividly blue sky, the NEF rendered it "properly" (i.e., the image
seemed to match the actual color I perceived in the sky) while the
Basic was a rather murky grey blue.
|
Somehow, the rendering software in the camera must move the blue into
gamut. It can either do that by reducing saturation or luminance --
or, usually, a combination of the two.
| Quote: | I have also begun to consider whether the software used to view and
process the images isn't a major component - since each software
package has its own way, I imagine, of reading, decompressing and
displaying a JPEG, NEF (or RAW) file, that could introduce
variations.
|
Indeed. Your computer monitor can only display a small part of the
colour gamut a camera can record.
| Quote: | (I refer only to perceived "sharpness" or "quality" - of course,
the entire postprocessing workflow, down to and including the
printer and driver etc. will affect the final print).
Well, in that sense the NEF doesn't contain any rendering at all - just
the raw sensor values - so yes, the rendering will be dependant on the
software used to convert from sensor values to RGB.
|
Right. Digital sensors can have a huge gamut, and rendering that to
some working space in camera will inevitably lead to something being
lost. I wonder, do any cameras have a wide gamut working space? I've
not seen anything wider than Adobe1988.
Andrew. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in