a comparison of v-lux RAW and JPG formats

I have posted a comparison of v-lux RAW and JPG formats
http://www.pbase.com/heicha/image/72123033
along with the full-frame view
http://www.pbase.com/heicha/image/72124611

The image was taken in RAW and v-lux automatically saved a JPG as well. I was therefore able to compare the two formats of the same exposure. The image size of the two formats was adjusted to 720 dpi and 10 x 5.625 inch.

In the past few days, I shot about 150 frames with my v-lux, all in RAW format. I cannot say that the RAW is always better than the JPG, which is a surprise because the NEF of my Nikon Ds has always been better than the Nkon JPG. In my opinion the v-lux RAW is noisier than that of Nikon Ds, even at ISO100, which is expected because of v-lux’s smaller sensor size. What is unexpected, at least for me, is that v-lux JPG does such a good job at suppressing noise and with minimal loss of details (or sharpness). The posted example shows that detail is indeed lost in the JPG, but it is hardly noted when viewed from the normal distance. On the other hand, the noise in RAW is often (not always) visible from the same distance. In other words, the JPG often appears better than the post-processed RAW (on screen). This makes me wondering if I should use RAW regularly.

compared both jpegs and RAW images. Under good lighting and lower ISOs, I prefer shooting in jpeg.

--
Greg Gebhardt in
Jacksonville, Florida
D Two Xs
G Seven

the appropriate noise reduction program

RAW was never meant to rival the in-camera jpeg without a lot of effort.

One advantage of RAW is that it potentially gives you more dynamic range.

RAW also has an advantage at high ISOs because the panasonic/leica jpeg processing engine, Venus III, applies too much NR and smears details. (Yes, I know it is less on the leica, but it is still "too much" at high ISOs.)

Since no NR is applied to the RAW file when it leaves the camera (unlike the carefully processed jpegs) it must have some NR applied afterwards, from third-party software like Neat Image, if you want an acceptable image.

As many people have said, the detail smearing is not really noticeable on small prints and at smaller screen sizes.

Greg Gebhardt said:

compared both jpegs and RAW images. Under good lighting and lower
ISOs, I prefer shooting in jpeg.

Click to expand...

It sure saves a lot of work!
--
Regards

Trevor Ginaus

http://trevorg.smugmug.com

but for what I use the V-Lux 1 for, RAW is not really much use here.

--
Greg Gebhardt in
Jacksonville, Florida
D Two Xs
G Seven

Greg Gebhardt said:

but for what I use the V-Lux 1 for, RAW is not really much use here.

Click to expand...

And by the time I finished I wasn't going to undo it all.

I think the OP is a bit confused about it, since he talks about noise as if he expects RAW itself (or the RAW processing software) to deal with it. Doesn't work that way...

Thanks anyway - sorry for the confusion.

--
Regards

Trevor Ginaus

http://trevorg.smugmug.com

Do you know if you had the NR set to the lowest level on the JPG?

Hi Greg,

My RAW-pics are so much better then the Jpg-files of the V-Lux.. In spite of the larger Canon-sensor of my 350D, the V-Lux pics are more detailed and at 100 Iso I don't see any noise.

This was my best buy in 2006 !

Best regards,

Ad

( Holland)

I simply bias the EV to -2/3 and the bracket my exposures. Could not be more happy with the exposures.

--
Greg Gebhardt in
Jacksonville, Florida
D Two Xs
G Seven

Ad Zwiers said:

Hi Greg,

My RAW-pics are so much better then the Jpg-files of the V-Lux.. In
spite of the larger Canon-sensor of my 350D, the V-Lux pics are
more detailed and at 100 Iso I don't see any noise.

Click to expand...

That's encouraging to read. Which lens did you have in the Canon when you compared results?

All the best,
Enrique

Ad Zwiers said:

This was my best buy in 2006 !

Best regards,

Ad

( Holland)

Click to expand...

Thanks, Greg, for your comment. After some more tests, I incline to still shoot with

RAW, simply because I can also get a copy of jpg (but not the other way around). I noticed that sometimes the RAW is better, but I cannot predict when. I do agree with you that with v lux, the RAW advantage is not obvious, especially under the conditions you mentioned. Most of my experience with RAW came from using Nikon D1(X), where the RAW has a clear advantage over the jpgs, and the noise is not as much an issue as with v lux. Do you agree?

Happy New Year!

H

Greg Gebhardt said:

compared both jpegs and RAW images. Under good lighting and lower
ISOs, I prefer shooting in jpeg.

--
Greg Gebhardt in
Jacksonville, Florida
D Two Xs
G Seven

Click to expand...

Thanks Trevor, for the clarification. I do not have much experience dealing with noise in RAW, which was not a problem (mostly) with my Nikon D1. I choose RAW mainly because I prefer to work with unmodified image, which removes a "black-box" in the image handling process.

Happy New Year!

H

Trevor G said:

RAW was never meant to rival the in-camera jpeg without a lot of
effort.

One advantage of RAW is that it potentially gives you more dynamic
range.

RAW also has an advantage at high ISOs because the panasonic/leica
jpeg processing engine, Venus III, applies too much NR and smears
details. (Yes, I know it is less on the leica, but it is still "too
much" at high ISOs.)

Since no NR is applied to the RAW file when it leaves the camera
(unlike the carefully processed jpegs) it must have some NR applied
afterwards, from third-party software like Neat Image, if you want
an acceptable image.

As many people have said, the detail smearing is not really
noticeable on small prints and at smaller screen sizes.

Greg Gebhardt said:

compared both jpegs and RAW images. Under good lighting and lower
ISOs, I prefer shooting in jpeg.

Click to expand...

It sure saves a lot of work!
--
Regards

Trevor Ginaus

http://trevorg.smugmug.com

Click to expand...

TeddyP, No I left everything at "Default". Since I was shooting in RAW, I did not expect a jpg file would also be saved (I am still learning the v-lux way of doing things). And the reason I choose RAW is because I want to work with the most original (untouched) file.
Happy New Year.
H

TeddyP said:

Do you know if you had the NR set to the lowest level on the JPG?

Click to expand...

Ad, I agree with you that the details of v lux pictures are amazing. I attribute this to the Leica lens.
Happy New Year!
H

Ad Zwiers said:

Hi Greg,

My RAW-pics are so much better then the Jpg-files of the V-Lux.. In
spite of the larger Canon-sensor of my 350D, the V-Lux pics are
more detailed and at 100 Iso I don't see any noise.

This was my best buy in 2006 !

Best regards,

Ad

( Holland)

Click to expand...

I shoot nothing but RAW with my D2Xs. I agree with you on getting better images out of my Nikon using RAW.

Enjoy your V-Lux !

Have a good New Year!

--
Greg Gebhardt in
Jacksonville, Florida
D Two Xs
G Seven