DVD-Software.info

[AK]

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

[AK]

Oops - should say 3000 x 2008, not 300 x 2008

"AK" <a.kolnik@delete-123-nospam.verizon.net> wrote in message
news:_dLpd.31$M57.6@trnddc01...

[AK]

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...

[Aerticeus]

S'OK AK - we all do it from time to time but I think everyone knows what you
meant

You've really answered the question you asked

If you are happy and pleased with in camera processing - well, JPEG is fine

If you want to tweak images on PC rather than rely on incamera processing =
go RAW

If you do go RAW it may be wise to invest in a dual processor 'pooter

Both MAC and PC variants show a marked performance while image processing
using duals (or quad) pumped cpu units (IMHO)

So, there you go. No absolute best answer as it depends upon what you want
to do with the kit and the files it produces :-)

Aerticeus

"AK" <a.kolnik@delete-123-nospam.verizon.net> wrote in message
news:YoMpd.970$%C6.935@trnddc02...

[Aerticeus]

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

[Rita Ä Berkowitz]

Aerticeus wrote:

[Wright]

[Aerticeus]

I think you have answered the question yourself Rita

6 seconds for a RAW file is quite good, less than 1 second to start
applications is also very good

The extra umph of a dual cpu setup supported by fast SCSI and I daresay a
sizeable chunk of RAM helps

However, to go to the original message, there is a lot of functionality
built into cameras and almost, it seems, a guilt factor about not using
parts of that functionality because the user - well to put it bluntly - sees
no difference.

It really is OK to use the camera in the best way for an individual user
without using all the bells and whistles if the end user does not want to

It really is OK

For example, how many 7-seater vehicles are there that are fully occupied
100% of driving time with 7 people? (at a guess I'd estimate zero, zilch,
nada)

Same with cameras - because the feature is there does not mean it has to be
used 100% of the time

Aerticeus

"Rita Ä Berkowitz" <ritaberk2O04@aol.com> wrote in message
news:10qfk81j8981h07@news.supernews.com...

[AK]

Chuck:

You definitely have a good point there about dealing with poor exposed
shots - even though the D70's metering is superb, it's not always what you
want or expect, specially if you forget to adapt it to the special
circumstances of a difficult shot - e.g., using full matrix metering when
spot would be better, or changing the white balance.

One of the reasons for my interest is simply that one can fit so many more
JPEG images on a storage card or drive than NEF, which is useful when
traveling, for example, or taking sports shots (also, with the JPEGs, the
camera keeps up with continuous mode shooting better since it stores 9
actual pictures in its buffer (in NEF+Basic, it stores only 4 - one for the
NEF and one for the same basic JPEG) and empties the buffer faster, so you
are ready to shoot another sequence sooner. Since the difference seems so
negligible, I may stay with JPEGs except for shots where I really want to be
able to fine tune the exposure.

The other reasons for going with JPEGs are that storing the NEFs chews up a
lot of disk space quite fast, and bringing them into the computer and then
uploading to PS is much slower, as Rita pointed out elsewhere in this
thread, though that bothers me less as I am not a professional concerned
with the speed of my workflow.

Thanks

Alan



"Wright" <nojunk_wright9@nojunk_mac.com> wrote in message
news:BDCD4E4E.E68A%nojunk_wright9@nojunk_mac.com...

[LarryLOOK]

"AK" <a.kolnik@delete-123-nospam.verizon.net> wrote in message
news:xY%pd.434$dv5.349@trnddc07...

[Roger Lake]

AK wrote:

[Roger Lake]

LarryLOOK wrote:

[Aerticeus]

Hi Roger

whoa - slow down, everyone doesn't have the same range of experience and may
be quite new to JPEG - RAW

6 months ago I didn't know that JPEGs had different levels of compression
now I realise that

To go back to the automobile example I gave earlier - it is a function there
to be used No law against using it - No law about having to use it

Aerticeus

"Roger Lake" <rl72@comcast.spamcatcher.net> wrote in message
news:YdqdnYtoCJ_sbzXcRVn-1A@comcast.com...

[AK]

Just to add fuel to the flames .... without ignoring the issue of being able
to manipulate the NEF file better in the event of exposure problems.

I've added another test shot D70 NEF vs. JPEG. The JPEG here is the "Basic"
JPEG, file size 749 KB, that the D70 stores along with the NEF file (so you
can easily view an image in Windows Explorer). This is highly compressed vs.
the 5 MB NEF file. Images at 72 pixels/inch in PS Elements, set to "View
Actual Pixels" . See
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2914965&size=lg

Image is of my daughter's right eye, using a Sigma 70-300 APO, the D70
on-camera flash, macro mode. USM of 100-20-1 applied, no other changes,
which actually seems to slightly emphasize the quality difference in favor
of the NEF. You can easily see, in both images, the rim of her contact lens,
and you can see that the NEF is marginally sharper (look, e.g., at the flash
highlight in the center of the pupil, and some of the eyelashes). 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.)


"Roger Lake" <rl72@comcast.spamcatcher.net> wrote in message
news:YdqdnYtoCJ_sbzXcRVn-1A@comcast.com...

[Tom Scales]

"Roger Lake" <rl72@comcast.spamcatcher.net> wrote in message
news:YdqdnYhoCJ_sbzXcRVn-1A@comcast.com...