ScottW's "test' results.

On Mar 29, 9:30 am, "michelo" wrote:
"JimKramer" wrote in message

oups.com...





On Mar 28, 7:57 am, "michelo" wrote:
"Annika1980" wrote in message

roups.com...

On Mar 27, 6:38 pm, D-Mac wrote:
Get it right in the camera and shooting (uncompressed) jpeg produces
pictures no different from RAW pictures that have undergone
manipulation
during development.

Hey, old Ryadia is back! Spewing his tired old "JPG is equivalent to
RAW" nonsense.

Hey, D-Mac, here's a pic I made today just for you.
It's actually two versions of the same RAW file.
The pic on the left is a straight JPG extraction from the RAW file.
The one on the right has undergone some Photoshop processing.
Both shots were cropped to square and re-sized for the comparison.

http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/76285735/original

I'll let you decide which version you prefer.
Perhaps this explains why your pics look the way they do.

Bret, I don't know if you have one already done, but could you show us an
example from a raw and jpg where you show how much more information there
is
in the highlight and shadow. But to be a valid example, they must have
the
same exposure and they should go thru the same Photoshop manipulation to
emphasize the lost information.

Thank you,

Michel- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

This is about 4.5 MB
http://jlkramer.net/Pictures/JPEGvRAW/IMG_3067-01.swf

It is a flash animation to prevent cheating.
There are three images in the animation. All from the same "capture"
on a 20D
F/14 @ 1/250s flash ISO 400 cropped to the pixel dimensions on your
screen, 714X938.
After you get done loading and waiting for 5-6 minutes ;-) Hit the
stop (right click for a menu if you are unfamiliar with flash) Hit
back until you are at the first image. This is image 1, the next 2,
and the final one 3.
Tell me what you like/don't like image quality wise from each of the
three images and then I will tell you about the three images.

Anybody want to guess?

Jim

The first one is fade a bit. The second one has more saturation, but maybe
more than real life. The last one looks the best. It seems like a mix of the
first two. The saturation on the bee and flower gives a 3d effect.

First is RAW, second is JPG and last is modified RAW?

Michel

The first is RAW converted with RSP at the default settings.
The second is RAW converted with RSP with my settings as close to
"real life" as I could adjust it.
The third is Canon's default, middle of the road, straight out of the
camera Jpeg.

Look at the loss of dark details on the fly's body in the third
image. That's the main reason I shoot RAW. I'm comfortable with the
camera and I'm not likely to miss-expose the image; unless I really
mess it up and then RAW isn't going to help. The Jpeg settings tend to
clip information at the extreme ends of the darks and lights that RAW
will let you keep.

Jim

"JimKramer" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Mar 29, 9:30 am, "michelo" wrote:
"JimKramer" wrote in message

oups.com...





On Mar 28, 7:57 am, "michelo" wrote:
"Annika1980" wrote in message

roups.com...

On Mar 27, 6:38 pm, D-Mac wrote:
Get it right in the camera and shooting (uncompressed) jpeg
produces
pictures no different from RAW pictures that have undergone
manipulation
during development.

Hey, old Ryadia is back! Spewing his tired old "JPG is equivalent
to
RAW" nonsense.

Hey, D-Mac, here's a pic I made today just for you.
It's actually two versions of the same RAW file.
The pic on the left is a straight JPG extraction from the RAW file.
The one on the right has undergone some Photoshop processing.
Both shots were cropped to square and re-sized for the comparison.

http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/76285735/original

I'll let you decide which version you prefer.
Perhaps this explains why your pics look the way they do.

Bret, I don't know if you have one already done, but could you show us
an
example from a raw and jpg where you show how much more information
there
is
in the highlight and shadow. But to be a valid example, they must have
the
same exposure and they should go thru the same Photoshop manipulation
to
emphasize the lost information.

Thank you,

Michel- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

This is about 4.5 MB
http://jlkramer.net/Pictures/JPEGvRAW/IMG_3067-01.swf

It is a flash animation to prevent cheating.
There are three images in the animation. All from the same "capture"
on a 20D
F/14 @ 1/250s flash ISO 400 cropped to the pixel dimensions on your
screen, 714X938.
After you get done loading and waiting for 5-6 minutes ;-) Hit the
stop (right click for a menu if you are unfamiliar with flash) Hit
back until you are at the first image. This is image 1, the next 2,
and the final one 3.
Tell me what you like/don't like image quality wise from each of the
three images and then I will tell you about the three images.

Anybody want to guess?

Jim

The first one is fade a bit. The second one has more saturation, but
maybe
more than real life. The last one looks the best. It seems like a mix of
the
first two. The saturation on the bee and flower gives a 3d effect.

First is RAW, second is JPG and last is modified RAW?

Michel

The first is RAW converted with RSP at the default settings.
The second is RAW converted with RSP with my settings as close to
"real life" as I could adjust it.
The third is Canon's default, middle of the road, straight out of the
camera Jpeg.


I gave the worst possible answer. I just gave ammunition to Douglas. I
presume JPG is perfect for me then.

It must be an Australian monitor. Let me check. No, it's made in Mexico.


Look at the loss of dark details on the fly's body in the third
image. That's the main reason I shoot RAW. I'm comfortable with the
camera and I'm not likely to miss-expose the image; unless I really
mess it up and then RAW isn't going to help. The Jpeg settings tend to
clip information at the extreme ends of the darks and lights that RAW
will let you keep.

Jim



Tell me if I'm wrong (again), but isn't there less details visible on fly's
body in the third picture simply because it is darker?

Michel

On Mar 29, 10:35 am, "michelo" wrote:
"JimKramer" wrote in message

oups.com...





On Mar 29, 9:30 am, "michelo" wrote:
"JimKramer" wrote in message

groups.com...

On Mar 28, 7:57 am, "michelo" wrote:
"Annika1980" wrote in message

roups.com...

On Mar 27, 6:38 pm, D-Mac wrote:
Get it right in the camera and shooting (uncompressed) jpeg
produces
pictures no different from RAW pictures that have undergone
manipulation
during development.

Hey, old Ryadia is back! Spewing his tired old "JPG is equivalent
to
RAW" nonsense.

Hey, D-Mac, here's a pic I made today just for you.
It's actually two versions of the same RAW file.
The pic on the left is a straight JPG extraction from the RAW file.
The one on the right has undergone some Photoshop processing.
Both shots were cropped to square and re-sized for the comparison.

http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/76285735/original

I'll let you decide which version you prefer.
Perhaps this explains why your pics look the way they do.

Bret, I don't know if you have one already done, but could you show us
an
example from a raw and jpg where you show how much more information
there
is
in the highlight and shadow. But to be a valid example, they must have
the
same exposure and they should go thru the same Photoshop manipulation
to
emphasize the lost information.

Thank you,

Michel- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

This is about 4.5 MB
http://jlkramer.net/Pictures/JPEGvRAW/IMG_3067-01.swf

It is a flash animation to prevent cheating.
There are three images in the animation. All from the same "capture"
on a 20D
F/14 @ 1/250s flash ISO 400 cropped to the pixel dimensions on your
screen, 714X938.
After you get done loading and waiting for 5-6 minutes ;-) Hit the
stop (right click for a menu if you are unfamiliar with flash) Hit
back until you are at the first image. This is image 1, the next 2,
and the final one 3.
Tell me what you like/don't like image quality wise from each of the
three images and then I will tell you about the three images.

Anybody want to guess?

Jim

The first one is fade a bit. The second one has more saturation, but
maybe
more than real life. The last one looks the best. It seems like a mix of
the
first two. The saturation on the bee and flower gives a 3d effect.

First is RAW, second is JPG and last is modified RAW?

Michel

The first is RAW converted with RSP at the default settings.
The second is RAW converted with RSP with my settings as close to
"real life" as I could adjust it.
The third is Canon's default, middle of the road, straight out of the
camera Jpeg.

I gave the worst possible answer. I just gave ammunition to Douglas. I
presume JPG is perfect for me then.

Let Douglas worry about Douglas :-)

It must be an Australian monitor. Let me check. No, it's made in Mexico.

Look at the loss of dark details on the fly's body in the third
image. That's the main reason I shoot RAW. I'm comfortable with the
camera and I'm not likely to miss-expose the image; unless I really
mess it up and then RAW isn't going to help. The Jpeg settings tend to
clip information at the extreme ends of the darks and lights that RAW
will let you keep.

Jim

Tell me if I'm wrong (again), but isn't there less details visible on fly's
body in the third picture simply because it is darker?

First, there is nothing wrong with being wrong, everyone is ignorant
about something. Stupid on the other hand is incurable and afflicts
far too many... :-)

That is mostly correct; the camera upped the contrast and threw away
the info at the bottom of that tonal range. It is gone; there is no
way to get that detail back. With RAW you decide what you keep or
discard, you have the choice, not just the camera.

Michel

On Mar 29, 2:30 am, Tony Polson wrote:
"Scott W" wrote:
On Mar 29, 12:22 am, Tony Polson wrote:

Given that what you are discussing is entirely about digital
photography, why are you posting it to a FILM newsgroup?

There are plenty of newsgroups dedicated to digital photography, all
of which are available to anyone who subscribes to this FILM
newsgroup.

So why are you posting here about digital?

Why are you not directing that question to D-Mac, he started this
thread out of the blue after all.

More smoke and mirrors! Just answer the question:

"So why are you posting here about digital?"

... in which "here" means a FILM news group.

Well here is my take on it, the people who where shooting with 35mm
film SLRs are buy and large switching over to DSLRs. It is still
pretty much the same gear it just captures the image with a different
media. A MF camera with a digital back does not stop being a MF
camera does it? So how is it different with a DSLR that uses the same
lenses and the same metering and focusing methods that my old film SLR
used?

I know you don't believe a DSLR counts as a 35mm camera, but you are
not the new group police, much as you might want to be.

If you exclude people who use DSLRs from this group it is going to get
far thinner far faster then it already is. Like it or not the move to
digital continues at a fast pace.

Scott

Scott W wrote:
On Mar 29, 1:38 am, "michelo" wrote:

Thanks Scott, that's a great example. It's exactly what I wanted to
see. My A95 offers three level of JPG but no RAW.

Raw really only seems to work well with DSLRs, the point and shoots
that I have seen that had raw were so slow in writing the raw file
that it made the camera almost worthless. I have a Sony F828 and
whereas its raw files offer a much better image much of the time it
takes well over 10 seconds to write the raw file. I am not sure how
much better newer point and shoot cameras are but the last I looked
they were still pretty slow.


I just completed a test with the Panasonic Lumix LX1 (8MP),
Sandisk Ultra II 2GB card, raw format:

Auto-focus shots of a clock face with discrete-jump sweep-second hand,
10 in 55 seconds, 5.5 seconds per shot

Manual-focus shots of the same clock,
16 in 61 seconds, 3.8 seconds per shot

Saving in TIFF was a bit faster than in raw; with raw you get a
siamesed JPEG even if you don't want it.

Saving in best-quality JPEG was less than a second per shot.

The camera would not fire while the little red "writing" symbol was
displayed; I squeezed the button when the symbol disappeared.

My subjective judgement is the four longer-than-five-second auto-focus
shots and the three longer-than-four-second manual-focus shots were
the result of operator-reflex deterioration. I believe a quick,
consistent operator could average a bit less than five seconds with
auto-focus, a bit under 3.5 seconds manual-focus.

Noise-wise, this camera would be far less desirable if it were without
raw format. Except for the lack of an optical viewfinder (blech),
that's the only real drawback as a representative of the "P&S"
/genre/.

For what it's worth.


--
Frank ess
Diligent contributor-to and valuer-of
Universal dash-reserves draw-down.

On Mar 29, 7:35 am, "Frank ess" wrote:
Scott W wrote:
On Mar 29, 1:38 am, "michelo" wrote:

Thanks Scott, that's a great example. It's exactly what I wanted to
see. My A95 offers three level of JPG but no RAW.

Raw really only seems to work well with DSLRs, the point and shoots
that I have seen that had raw were so slow in writing the raw file
that it made the camera almost worthless. I have a Sony F828 and
whereas its raw files offer a much better image much of the time it
takes well over 10 seconds to write the raw file. I am not sure how
much better newer point and shoot cameras are but the last I looked
they were still pretty slow.

I just completed a test with the Panasonic Lumix LX1 (8MP),
Sandisk Ultra II 2GB card, raw format:

Auto-focus shots of a clock face with discrete-jump sweep-second hand,
10 in 55 seconds, 5.5 seconds per shot

Manual-focus shots of the same clock,
16 in 61 seconds, 3.8 seconds per shot

Saving in TIFF was a bit faster than in raw; with raw you get a
siamesed JPEG even if you don't want it.

Saving in best-quality JPEG was less than a second per shot.

The camera would not fire while the little red "writing" symbol was
displayed; I squeezed the button when the symbol disappeared.

My subjective judgement is the four longer-than-five-second auto-focus
shots and the three longer-than-four-second manual-focus shots were
the result of operator-reflex deterioration. I believe a quick,
consistent operator could average a bit less than five seconds with
auto-focus, a bit under 3.5 seconds manual-focus.

Noise-wise, this camera would be far less desirable if it were without
raw format. Except for the lack of an optical viewfinder (blech),
that's the only real drawback as a representative of the "P&S"
/genre/.

For what it's worth.

3.5 seconds is way more useful then the 12 seconds or so it took the
F828 to save a raw image, during which time the camera was locked up.
So it is getting better, but not as good as it could be. With the 20D
you can shoot just about as fast as you can push the shutter button,
until the buffer fills, then it is something like one shot a second,
the 350D is a bit slower at about 3 frames/second until the buffer
fills and then about 1 shot /second. I would have hoped that by now
point and shoot cameras would be able to store raw images at a rate
closer to 1 / second.

What really killed me with the F828 was when I left it in raw mode and
forgot, then when to take a number of photos only to have the camera
lockup until it got the first shot saved.

Scott

In article .com,
"Scott W" wrote:

On Mar 29, 2:30 am, Tony Polson wrote:
"Scott W" wrote:
On Mar 29, 12:22 am, Tony Polson wrote:

Given that what you are discussing is entirely about digital
photography, why are you posting it to a FILM newsgroup?

There are plenty of newsgroups dedicated to digital photography, all
of which are available to anyone who subscribes to this FILM
newsgroup.

So why are you posting here about digital?

Why are you not directing that question to D-Mac, he started this
thread out of the blue after all.

More smoke and mirrors! Just answer the question:

"So why are you posting here about digital?"

... in which "here" means a FILM news group.

Well here is my take on it, the people who where shooting with 35mm
film SLRs are buy and large switching over to DSLRs. It is still
pretty much the same gear it just captures the image with a different
media. A MF camera with a digital back does not stop being a MF
camera does it? So how is it different with a DSLR that uses the same
lenses and the same metering and focusing methods that my old film SLR
used?

I know you don't believe a DSLR counts as a 35mm camera, but you are
not the new group police, much as you might want to be.

If you exclude people who use DSLRs from this group it is going to get
far thinner far faster then it already is. Like it or not the move to
digital continues at a fast pace.

Scott

It's also true that the semiconductor (lithography) industry is moving
toward a standard 26 mm x 33 mm field size.

Assuming favorable yields, one can anticipate a single-chip sensor
geometry that's very close to a standard 35-mm film frame.

HFL

--
Change hlockwood to hflockwood in email address

On Mar 29, 8:46 am, Harry Lockwood wrote:
In article .com,
"Scott W" wrote:





On Mar 29, 2:30 am, Tony Polson wrote:
"Scott W" wrote:
On Mar 29, 12:22 am, Tony Polson wrote:

Given that what you are discussing is entirely about digital
photography, why are you posting it to a FILM newsgroup?

There are plenty of newsgroups dedicated to digital photography, all
of which are available to anyone who subscribes to this FILM
newsgroup.

So why are you posting here about digital?

Why are you not directing that question to D-Mac, he started this
thread out of the blue after all.

More smoke and mirrors! Just answer the question:

"So why are you posting here about digital?"

... in which "here" means a FILM news group.

Well here is my take on it, the people who where shooting with 35mm
film SLRs are buy and large switching over to DSLRs. It is still
pretty much the same gear it just captures the image with a different
media. A MF camera with a digital back does not stop being a MF
camera does it? So how is it different with a DSLR that uses the same
lenses and the same metering and focusing methods that my old film SLR
used?

I know you don't believe a DSLR counts as a 35mm camera, but you are
not the new group police, much as you might want to be.

If you exclude people who use DSLRs from this group it is going to get
far thinner far faster then it already is. Like it or not the move to
digital continues at a fast pace.

Scott

It's also true that the semiconductor (lithography) industry is moving
toward a standard 26 mm x 33 mm field size.

Assuming favorable yields, one can anticipate a single-chip sensor
geometry that's very close to a standard 35-mm film frame.

I had not heard that, that is good news. I could live with a 33 x
22mm sensor.

Scott

On Mar 28, 6:41 pm, "D-Mac" wrote:
Jesus Scott... Can you ever get anything clear?
If you want to talk about Canon cameras, specify that.
Olympus for one. Panasonic for another both create RAW files at least 50%
larger for the same Megapixel density as you say with a blanket "should
never be".

**** mate... Last time I looked at the share registers, Olympus was doing
pretty well out of digital technology. I suppose because they were smart
enough to forget the North American market with their best digital cameras,
they don't exist?

Just because there is no reason for a raw file to go over 12 MB does
not mean that some idea camera company won't manage to do it. My Sony
F828 generates raw files that are just over 16MB is size, how do they
do it, simply just use two bytes for each 12 bit of data, a real waste
of card space if you ask me. But this does not change the fact that
if you pack two 12 bit words into three bytes a 8 MP raw image will
take 12 MB of storage, assuming no compression. But there is some
lossless compresion that can be done so the real number ends up being
closer to 9 - 10 MB.

Take an image with a lot of sky and that number can drop down to less
then 7 MB. Take an image with a lot of texture and the number can get
a lot closer to 12 MB.

Scott

On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 05:42:20 -0700, Annika1980 wrote:

On Mar 29, 12:41 am, "D-Mac" wrote:
He has also missed the fact that a raw file only needs to store 12 bit
for each pixel whereas the converted image need at least 24 (8 bit /
color). Even if you did not do lossless compression a raw file from a
8 MP camera should never be more then 12 MB.

Scott
-------------
Jesus Scott... Can you ever get anything clear? If you want to talk
about Canon cameras, specify that. Olympus for one. Panasonic for
another both create RAW files at least 50% larger for the same
Megapixel density as you say with a blanket "should never be".

And I'll bet you don't know why.
Two minutes on the "Goggle" answered that Q. for me. The RAW files from
the Panasonic (oops, I meant "Leica") that you own are 20MB because they
contain additional info like a very large embedded JPG. So this isn't
really a true RAW file, but is actually RAW+JPG.

Kind of a waste of space if you ask me, not unlike yourself.

What???
You actually didn't know?
****... Chattanooga's biggest know-it-all smart-arse didn't know
something as basic as this yet in a post a little earlier you tried to
preach to me about file knowledge... What a **** wit.