Reading mode: Light Dark

Raw file jaggies

Go to last post
T

tameside

Senior Member
Messages
2,679
Reaction score
0
Location
UK
Has anybody downloaded and checked the dng raw files, the first set I looked at were only 1.5Mpix, anyway I resampled the image and zoomed in and all the letters sharp lines have jaggies?

Anybody else seeing this?

Also, if I'm honest you can't really zoom in on any of the jpeg files before they start going strange/artifacty.

I wondered if it was some sort of interlacing artifact?

Comments?

There's still a few bugs/firmware issues on this cam for sure
 
I found the same with zooming... I can zoom my FZ5 pics in about 200% and they look normal... whereas 110% with the F1, and things start to look....weird.
Kind of watercoloury, and motion blurry.

Without having much knowlege, Im guessing its to do with the lens system... there is no physical cutoff of light, its done digitally, and perhaps this hasnt been perfected yet? Might also explain why some pics have a 'video camera' look to them.
There is no SNAP with the pictures, its just a frame from a continuous stream.
--
Heading out for band photography and capturing everything in-between.
 
Would this be the difference between an electronic shutter and a physical shutter? Or is this merely an issue of picking out a single frame from frames that have been streamed? Would the IQ improve if you only took one picture and one picture only with this camera instead of "pre-buffering" pictures?

Dj
 
tameside said:
Has anybody downloaded and checked the dng raw files, the first set I
looked at were only 1.5Mpix, anyway I resampled the image and zoomed
in and all the letters sharp lines have jaggies?
Click to expand...
Erm?

I haven't looked at these raw filkes but, if it's 1.5 megapixels then surely it's not a raw file!

Then you've resampled it - to what you don't say - and then see jaggies if you zoom in. Well, I'm not surprised.
 
What are you all using to see those dng files? Are you using a proper raw converter or your favorite image viewer???

I haven't looked inside any of the F1 DNG files yet, but like all raw formats the thumbnail can be of any size and use any compression level since its just a jpeg image embedded along with the raw sensor data.

My bet is Casio chose to embed a lower resolution image with the DNG file.

--
IraqiGeek
http://www.iraqigeek.com
 
Looks as if Thomas has shot all of those jpegs as raw files, they are the same pics and converted them to jpeg?

Draw your own conclusions, I'll open the files tonight in acr, can't at the moment on my work laptop, just have infranview, which is't accurate I supposse, but there is some weird things on the edges of these pics!

Note overall though, ignoring that they do look very clean, virtually noise free in raw>
 
If that is the case .....no wonder the photos look poor.......Raw can be a useful tool but it needs to be understood .........IMHO, I think the photos should be posted in the best possible jpeg size.

Raw or DNG conversion should be an individual choice, most of us want to see what the camera can do, and not adobes version of the photo.
altis said:
tameside said:
Has anybody downloaded and checked the dng raw files, the first set I
looked at were only 1.5Mpix, anyway I resampled the image and zoomed
in and all the letters sharp lines have jaggies?
Click to expand...
Erm?

I haven't looked at these raw filkes but, if it's 1.5 megapixels then
surely it's not a raw file!

Then you've resampled it - to what you don't say - and then see
jaggies if you zoom in. Well, I'm not surprised.
Click to expand...
--
Gene from Western Pa

http://imageevent.com/grc6
http://grc225.zenfolio.com/
FZ10....20 and 30 and FZ18

D50 ....D80 - 18 to 200VR- 50mm 1.8 - 80 to 400 OS



Just trying to learn and it's slow going!
 
genece said:
Raw or DNG conversion should be an individual choice, most of us want
to see what the camera can do, and not adobes version of the photo.
Click to expand...
You don't have to use any adobe product to see the DNG images. True adobe is the one who developed the DNG format, but its an open standard much like PDF.

You can use pretty much any RAW converter you want.

--
IraqiGeek
http://www.iraqigeek.com
 
OK,

In acr, they are visible but only at 200%, and even more so(obviously at 300%) normal viewing at upto 100%pixel-peepers genrally very good. Compared to raw on my km 5d little worse. Detail really is well very very good.

Just resampled the raw upto 24Mpix on the shot11dof, and well excellent. I'll look to post somewhere so you can trash it?
 
genece said:
If that is the case .....no wonder the photos look poor.......Raw can
be a useful tool but it needs to be understood .........IMHO, I think
the photos should be posted in the best possible jpeg size.
Click to expand...
I agree, but I'm having a devil of a time finding more than a few samples to look at. You'd think it would be simple to post some nice JPEG samples -- basically this is a camera with some new bells and whistles. I want to see what sort of image quality this new 6MP CMOS sensor is capable of.

To emphasize what you apparently know, with raw the viewer is at the mercy of a person's choice of raw converter (they're all different), the type of monitor they use (CRT or LCD), the expertise with which they calibrate their monitor (color temperature, gamma, etc), and even their personal whims.

With JPEGs, we can see the manufacturer's standard, which is usually an excellent point of reference.

Too many people think raw confers some sort of magic on an image. Rarely true IMO.

--
Darrell
 
Agreed,

Simple fact is Thomas has produced the main bulk of stills we have seen from raw, so not a lot we can do at the moment.

RAW is very good as hopefully demonstrated by an upsampled 24Mpix jpg, there's alot of detail in those raw shots, a lot, it's equal to my much larger sensor km 5d and the colour out of the cam is actually very pleasing.

Std jpg's would be good to see, but I still think some of the japense shots on flickr are very impressive also.

Overall, depending on the speed of the raw write, I'd probably shoot raw when possible with this cam anyway, it's so simple to extract and the raw file is a great reference for future manipulation.
 
I seem to be playing the devils advocate and that is not at all my intention.....

I thought I downloaded and viewed all the photos I am aware of, as I really want to like this camera......

But can you link me to the file that has more detail than a dslr.....all I have seen have almost no detail at all.......Certainly nowhere near my FZ30 or D50 & 80.

I felt that because the files were dng, none of the in camera settings were applied but editting them in PSCS3 does very little for the ones I tried.
I am not sure how I have such a different opinion of the quality.
I have no problem with the color or the noise.......But detail seems very poor.
tameside said:
RAW is very good as hopefully demonstrated by an upsampled 24Mpix
jpg, there's alot of detail in those raw shots, a lot, it's equal to
my much larger sensor km 5d and the colour out of the cam is actually
very pleasing.
Click to expand...
--
Gene from Western Pa

http://imageevent.com/grc6
http://grc225.zenfolio.com/
FZ10....20 and 30 and FZ18

D50 ....D80 - 18 to 200VR- 50mm 1.8 - 80 to 400 OS



Just trying to learn and it's slow going!
 
The last ex-f1 raw files I downloaded were 9.6mg per picture so I am not surprised the 1.5 one has issues.
 
tameside said:
Simple fact is Thomas has produced the main bulk of stills we have
seen from raw, so not a lot we can do at the moment.
Click to expand...
No! ;)

The EX-F1 simple store both from the same shot: a raw file (.dng) and a jpeg in the compression (fine, normal, eco) what you have configured in the setup.

The stored jpeg is used to display the picture by the camara in play mode.

All my posted picture an direct from the sd-card, no modification has made.

--
Greets from Hannover
Thomas

P.S.: Sorry for my bad english...
 
Thomas,

Many dslr's produce raw+jpg, but I know that when this is done usually the jpeg is of a lower setting than is usually just achived with jpg fine, try it? I think you will see a difference.

I'm seeing lots more detail from the dng file than jpg and I don't really know what people are complaining about.

Which raw converter are you using and have you compared the in-camera jpeg with the dng file?

Can you try switching the raw setting off and just shooting jpg at it's highest quality, be great if you could.
 
tameside said:
Thomas,

Many dslr's produce raw+jpg, but I know that when this is done
usually the jpeg is of a lower setting than is usually just achived
with jpg fine, try it? I think you will see a difference.

I'm seeing lots more detail from the dng file than jpg and I don't
really know what people are complaining about.

Which raw converter are you using and have you compared the in-camera
jpeg with the dng file?

Can you try switching the raw setting off and just shooting jpg at
it's highest quality, be great if you could.
Click to expand...
to answer that: the cam allways shot in jpg so u have to activate the raw feature, then the f1 will store both as thomas stated. the dng is leaved in an extra folder on sd card, while jpg is saved normaly in dcim 100casio folder
 
Fanatastic,

OK, great, any reason why we can't have camera raw at 400/800/1600?

Also, everybody take a look at the Nikon D50 samples on this website dp review camera reviews, are you ll saying that the Casio isn't as good as that, if you are I need my eyes testing because they most certianly are as easily as good, maybe even better;

Well they are going to be better, 35-432mm is lense for a starter, how much will nikon charge for that range, hmm
 
Is it possible Casio is trying to cover up noise by not allowing you to see the real photo at high ISO's? I assume the jpeg settings don't allow NR to be completely turned off do they?

Also, I'm assuming DNG is compressed, and high-ISO pictures are harder to compress, so maybe their processing engine has a hard time processing raw fast enough at higher ISO, or Casio felt the file size was too big.
I dunno, just throwing out some ideas.
--

3oD, Fifty f/one.eight, twenty8-1o5 f/three.five-four.five, Seventy-2hundred f/fourL
 
Obviously has a 5 bladed aperture. A few more would have made for smoother highlights. Other than that though the bokeh isn't half bad.

What settings did you use for the shot? Was it wide open? DoF seems narrow, but usually the aperture shape isn't so visible on wide open shots. What was the zoom and ISO? I couldn't get the Exif from it.

Seems rather noisy at 100% zoom (splotchy I guess I'd say. Not really pixel to pixel noise.) At screen resolution it smooths out nicely though.
--

3oD, Fifty f/one.eight, twenty8-1o5 f/three.five-four.five, Seventy-2hundred f/fourL
 
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