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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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)

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

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.