If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Confusing review about noise and detail in RAW vs. best JPEG
Hi,
I recently read an extensive and comprehensive review of the Canon S-120 on line, and one of his conclusions puzzles me. He stated that , in this camera, RAW gives more noise and less detail than the best quality setting of JPEG. That is at odds with everything that I have read about the superiority of RAW over even the best quality setting of JPEG. Any comments or explanations would be appreciated. Thank you, Mort Linder |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Confusing review about noise and detail in RAW vs. best JPEG
On 2015-09-17 02:38:59 +0000, Mort said:
Hi, I recently read an extensive and comprehensive review of the Canon S-120 on line, and one of his conclusions puzzles me. He stated that , in this camera, RAW gives more noise and less detail than the best quality setting of JPEG. That is at odds with everything that I have read about the superiority of RAW over even the best quality setting of JPEG. Any comments or explanations would be appreciated. Not being familiar with the Canon S-120 the only thing which comes to mind is NR and sharpening applied to JPEGs in the camera. I have a Canon G11 which seems to over-apply in-camera NR for JPEGs. That camera also shoots RAW CR2s. They are not processed in the camera and NR and sharpening is done with post processing, and the final results were always better than the JPEG which always seemed too soft to me. I suspect that the S-120 does a similar thing, over applying NR and sharpening to JPEGs especially if used with high ISO NR, all leading to that false impression. Overall that sounds like a comment from an anti-RAW school of reviewer. So making the comparison of a JPEG with in-camera NR and sharpening applied against its unprocessed RAW/CR2 twin the JPEG will always appear to to be less noisy and sharper, but that is a false impression. If you are not concerned about RAW post processing and are happy with in-camera JPEG processing then go ahead and use the JPEG, but ultimately you will get better results if you take the trouble to process the RAW files. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Confusing review about noise and detail in RAW vs. best JPEG
In article , Mort wrote:
Hi, I recently read an extensive and comprehensive review of the Canon S-120 on line, and one of his conclusions puzzles me. He stated that , in this camera, RAW gives more noise and less detail than the best quality setting of JPEG. That is at odds with everything that I have read about the superiority of RAW over even the best quality setting of JPEG. Care to give us a link? Whatever... A processed file can seem to cary more information than an raw file. That's why they are called raws. Like an unsharpened file appears to have more information and detail than an unsharpened one. Of course the haven't. But the guy, or gal that wrote the algorithm for the processing in camera might be better at that job than you are at doing the same with your computer... -- teleportation kills |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Confusing review about noise and detail in RAW vs. best JPEG
In article , android
wrote: I recently read an extensive and comprehensive review of the Canon S-120 on line, and one of his conclusions puzzles me. He stated that , in this camera, RAW gives more noise and less detail than the best quality setting of JPEG. That is at odds with everything that I have read about the superiority of RAW over even the best quality setting of JPEG. Care to give us a link? Whatever... A processed file can seem to cary more information than an raw file. That's why they are called raws. other way around. a processed file never has as much information as the raw file does. Like an unsharpened file appears to have more information and detail than an unsharpened one. Of course the haven't. But the guy, or gal that wrote the algorithm for the processing in camera might be better at that job than you are at doing the same with your computer... or maybe not. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Confusing review about noise and detail in RAW vs. best JPEG
In article ,
nospam wrote: In article , android wrote: I recently read an extensive and comprehensive review of the Canon S-120 on line, and one of his conclusions puzzles me. He stated that , in this camera, RAW gives more noise and less detail than the best quality setting of JPEG. That is at odds with everything that I have read about the superiority of RAW over even the best quality setting of JPEG. Care to give us a link? Whatever... A processed file can seem to cary more information than an raw file. That's why they are called raws. other way around. a processed file never has as much information as the raw file does. And that was that that I wrote! Like an unsharpened file appears to have more information and detail than an unsharpened one. Of course the haven't. But the guy, or gal that wrote the algorithm for the processing in camera might be better at that job than you are at doing the same with your computer... or maybe not. What is it with the word "might" that you dont understand? -- teleportation kills |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Confusing review about noise and detail in RAW vs. best JPEG
In article , android
wrote: Whatever... A processed file can seem to cary more information than an raw file. That's why they are called raws. other way around. a processed file never has as much information as the raw file does. And that was that that I wrote! you said "A processed file can seem to cary more information" now you agree that it does not. make up your mind. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Confusing review about noise and detail in RAW vs. best JPEG
In article ,
nospam wrote: In article , android wrote: Whatever... A processed file can seem to cary more information than an raw file. That's why they are called raws. other way around. a processed file never has as much information as the raw file does. And that was that that I wrote! you said "A processed file can seem to cary more information" "verb (used without object) 1. to appear to be, feel, do, etc" http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/seem now you agree that it does not. make up your mind. -- teleportation kills |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Confusing review about noise and detail in RAW vs. best JPEG
On 9/16/15 PDT 10:06 PM, android wrote:
In article , nospam wrote: In article , android wrote: Whatever... A processed file can seem to cary more information than an raw file. That's why they are called raws. other way around. a processed file never has as much information as the raw file does. And that was that that I wrote! you said "A processed file can seem to cary more information" "verb (used without object) 1. to appear to be, feel, do, etc" http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/seem now you agree that it does not. make up your mind. Mr. "android" had it right. Except that it's "RAW", not lowercase. (Cue AB for dissenting opinion) |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Confusing review about noise and detail in RAW vs. best JPEG
In article ,
John McWilliams wrote: On 9/16/15 PDT 10:06 PM, android wrote: In article , nospam wrote: In article , android wrote: Whatever... A processed file can seem to cary more information than an raw file. That's why they are called raws. other way around. a processed file never has as much information as the raw file does. And that was that that I wrote! you said "A processed file can seem to cary more information" "verb (used without object) 1. to appear to be, feel, do, etc" http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/seem now you agree that it does not. make up your mind. Mr. "android" had it right. Except that it's "RAW", not lowercase. (Cue AB for dissenting opinion) Well... It's not WRONG to call raw RAW, even though nospam probably wouldn't, but the meaning of RAW is raw. Like sushi, packed but not altered. ;-) -- teleportation kills |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Confusing review about noise and detail in RAW vs. best JPEG
In article , android
wrote: Well... It's not WRONG to call raw RAW, even though nospam probably wouldn't, but the meaning of RAW is raw. Like sushi, packed but not altered. ;-) raw is not an acronym and therefore should not be capitalized. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Confusing camera product names and series | [email protected] | Other Photographic Equipment | 12 | May 7th 07 05:49 AM |
Magazine review of noise control systems | RichA | Digital SLR Cameras | 4 | September 25th 06 10:42 PM |
Confusing Reviews | measekite | Digital ZLR Cameras | 5 | January 14th 06 12:24 AM |
RAW mode showing more noise than JPEG... | GoogleSher | Digital Photography | 12 | January 8th 05 01:52 AM |
Minolta Numbering System: Confusing For a Beginner | [email protected] | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | January 4th 05 07:51 AM |