Reading mode: Light Dark

Is this true about the H9?

Go to last post
S

Schneidas

Active member
Messages
89
Reaction score
0
Location
DE
I've read in an online user-review that the compression is lower when shooting in 5MP mode.
(4 bits / pixel in 5MP vs 3 bits / pixel in 8 MP mode).

So, does that mean than shooting in 5MP would give better pics?
 
From what I have read anything above 2 BPP is considered "lossless" jpeg compression so no you should not get better pictures.

From a capture stand point for cropping and other issues IMO it is always best to use the highest MP setting of the camera.
--
http://digitalman.smugmug.com/
http://www.D1Pics.US/
Canon 5D, 17-40 L, 24-105 L, 100-400 L
Sony R1
Sony H5
 
Apparently, anything lower than 8MP uses 4bpp.

For comparison, the guy said that previous H models used 8 bits per pixel
 
... is 2 BPP but delivers stunning images and is considered by many to be one of the best 5mp's made. I wouldn't worry about it. It's definitely best to shoot at 8mp though.
Many of the images posted here from the H9 have superb detail.
--
Rgds, Dave.
Have fun - take lotsa pix.
http://www.pixplanet.biz
http://pixplanet.fotki.com
 
... Why they did this. Having lower BPP also enables faster processing time so you can get a higher FPS rate. As Steve mentioned anything above 2 BPP is 'lossless'. Basically, this means you would never see any difference between 2, 3, 4, 8, etc.
--
Rgds, Dave.
Have fun - take lotsa pix.
http://www.pixplanet.biz
http://pixplanet.fotki.com
 
Thanks man - that's great to know.

Let me ask something more here, so that I understand. If compression (8bpp, 4bpp, 3bpp, 2bpp etc.) don't matter that much, why would we still want a Standard/Fine setting from an firmware update?
 
An option to chose the amount of NR (varying from "off" in about 3 to 5 steps to "maximum") would be of much more benefit IMHO.
 
Every time you save a file in JPEG format, you lose some quality. JPEG is just "lossy", that's its nature. The key is to get files that are "Visually Lossless", in other words, pictures that a reasonable viewer cannot distinguish from the original.

But if, each time you save, you keep losing more, eventually, it won't be visually lossless any more.

I am not particularly worried about image quality out of the camera. I am, however, concerned down the road when I might need to go through a couple more cumulative iterations of post-processing.
Schneidas said:
Thanks man - that's great to know.

Let me ask something more here, so that I understand. If
compression (8bpp, 4bpp, 3bpp, 2bpp etc.) don't matter that much,
why would we still want a Standard/Fine setting from an firmware
update?
Click to expand...
--
=~ AAK - http://www.aakatz.com
=~ Author of The White Paper
=~ http://www.aakatz.com/whitepaper
 
... To be honest I don't really know the answer but, maybe, we (collectively) just don't understand if there really is a need for it.

I think some folk are unhappy that the pre-release literature stated fine/standard setting and it's not on the camera.

I'm basing my appraisal of the H9 on images I'm seeing posted by those who know what they're doing such as AAK.
You can read 10,000 opinions but in the end the proof is in the images.

--
Rgds, Dave.
Have fun - take lotsa pix.
http://www.pixplanet.biz
http://pixplanet.fotki.com
 
AAK said:
But if, each time you save, you keep losing more, eventually, it
won't be visually lossless any more.

I am not particularly worried about image quality out of the
camera. I am, however, concerned down the road when I might need to
go through a couple more cumulative iterations of post-processing.
Click to expand...
That's the reason why any subsequent iteration should be saved as TIFF (lzw compressed if necessary) and which is really lossless.
JJ.
 
Very true. I don't have a H9 myself yet. I desperately want to buy one (and put my current W1 to retirement) since the minute I saw its specs. But after going through many pics, I'm not so sure anymore. There are some pics that 'bother' me very much to the extent that I think that even my old W1 could do better.

Take this pic for example. Watch it at it's original size:
http://www.pbase.com/kattslackey/image/77798774

There's so much noise and artefacts and blurriness going on. I mean, I know I'm watching that pic at 100% it looks sub par IMO...

Granted, If you watch it at screen size its good, yet there's much green and red stuff (I think that is what everybody calls noise') - especially in the darker areas (see first guy's shirt - the one which we can only see his ear and some hair)...

What do you think?
Lloydy said:
I'm basing my appraisal of the H9 on images I'm seeing posted by
those who know what they're doing such as AAK.
You can read 10,000 opinions but in the end the proof is in the
images.
Click to expand...
 
... I have seen a bit of over aggressive NR in some images. Reminds me of the 20D I used to have.
Would be good if it could be throttled back. I prefer to do my NR in PS.

But, then again, if NR was less we'd have a hundred posts here about what a lousy job Mr. Sony did with a noisy CCD.

--
Rgds, Dave.
Have fun - take lotsa pix.
http://www.pixplanet.biz
http://pixplanet.fotki.com
 
Looking at this image at its posted everything looks fine. But looking at the original shows a number of problems.

http://www.pbase.com/kattslackey/image/77798774

There are green fringes in many areas of the picture -- Starting at the bottom of the picture, there's a fringe on the upper edge of the girl's plate and the sketch paper. Continuing up, there's some fringing on the highlights on the chairs. The two men in the background have green outlines, varying in thickness depending on the color of what's behind them. There is also some fringing in other parts of the picture if you look for it.

Note: I don't consider this as "pixel peeping." It's looking at the output of a camera to see the quality of the images it produces.

It's true that this type of fringing can be removed in the postprocessing, but it's not as simple as it looks. (Try it on this image and see if you can remove the fringing without affecting the other parts of the picture.) But why have to bother fixing an image fault that shouldn't be there in the first place?

There's also some noise under the girl's chin, but this is what you will find on this camera at ISO 400.
--
My web site: http://timuseum.com
 
Schneidas said:
Let me ask something more here, so that I understand. If
compression (8bpp, 4bpp, 3bpp, 2bpp etc.) don't matter that much,
why would we still want a Standard/Fine setting from an firmware
update?
Click to expand...
Compression does matter, it's just that it's not only about bits per pixel. Still, what would you rather have: 3bpp (8 colors available/pixel), 4bpp (16 colors available/pixel), 5bpp (32 colors available/pixel)...?

3bpp can be ok but not all cameras apply compression to those pixels in the same way. The F717's internal compression table typically applies much higher quality values to those 2bpp than the H9's does to its 3bpp. The F717 also has a higher quality lens and a bigger sensor, so in the end 2bpp may be sufficient for that camera in order for the output to appear clean.

But when talking about smaller sensors, lesser optics, lower-quality compression tables, the difference between 3bpp output and 4bpp output or more might become pretty evident. It's not as black & white as some think.
--
Martin ( http://www.jpgmag.com/people/mschf )
Gear: reverse...
 
... Very good point about the CA but it can be fixed - if needs be. Dependent on technique, it can take a few minutes or, maybe, 10.

But, my point here is to put it in some sort of perspective - the H9 really has this under control pretty well. Full marks to the Zeiss lens.

Just to give you a comparison look at the 100% crop below from a 1DS Mk II with a 16-35 mm L piece of glass. This was a RAW shot on a tripod in excellent light.

A very expensive combo which I (maybe all of us) would expect better from. By my reckoning, I can live with, and fix, the H9 CA easier than I can this.

Incidentally, this is not a one off shot. All shots made with this lens and the 80-200 L exhibit CA to similar degrees. If the reddy-orange colour were purple, we would call it PF and scream blue murder - or is that purple ??

I'm not trying to bag DSLR's but I am trying to point out that the Zeiss fitted Sony's are darn good in their class.

By the way, f you pix-peep any of the shots from most lenses you will always find CA.



--
Rgds, Dave.
Have fun - take lotsa pix.
http://www.pixplanet.biz
http://pixplanet.fotki.com
 
That's not really a problem, save the initial file in a lossless format after downloading it from the cam, that way you won't loose anything while editing, saving, editing, saving....

Keep the lossless file arround incase you want to Post Process the already Post Processed file again, it's not like storage is that expensive anyway these days
--
See my concert pictures, blog and development stuff!
http://www.kefren.be
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top