LX3 'Fine' and 'Standard' Quality modes. Huh?

I'm wondering exactly what this is. I've taken shots in both modes and am unable to see a shred of difference in terms of sharpness, noise, color, or anything else. I notice that the Fine mode produces a filesize twice as large with no increase in pixel count and no discernable improvement in quality to my eyes. Even with pixel-peeping. The same is true with my FX07. Is there a simple test I could do that would justify using the Fine mode? I've already tried low-light shots, macro, zoom, 3MP, 10MP, etc.

What you observe is true: There's very little difference, and it's often impossible to distinguish. Personally I prefer the smaller file size to chasing the ghost of possible image degradation. (For some reason Panasonic cameras produce large JPEG files, so it's a no brainer for me to cut them in half.) The only difference going on here, to my knowledge, is the amount of JPEG compression being applied to the output file. That's why the resolution is identical.

I don't have a specific example of the differences with my Panasonic camera, but with my D40 I believe it has 3 settings, and the only real difference I see is when I'm trying to boost shadows. With the lowest quality setting, when I add fill light via Picasa or via in-camera software, the compression artifacts (large squares of similar color) become more noticeable. So I sometimes use the medium setting with my D40 to avoid this singular problem.

WRS said:

I'm wondering exactly what this is. I've taken shots in both modes
and am unable to see a shred of difference in terms of sharpness,
noise, color, or anything else. I notice that the Fine mode produces
a filesize twice as large with no increase in pixel count and no
discernable improvement in quality to my eyes. Even with
pixel-peeping. The same is true with my FX07. Is there a simple
test I could do that would justify using the Fine mode? I've already
tried low-light shots, macro, zoom, 3MP, 10MP, etc.

Click to expand...

Another benefit of going with Standard mode, at least on my FX30, is that it increases the number of shots you can take in a burst.

Your camera gives you a choice but I prefer the larger file. Memory cards and hard drive space are cheap

--
Greg Gebhardt in
Jacksonville, Florida

2-gig cards are cheaper than lunch.

If the file sizes are cut in half, it's only because there's some substantial compression going on. Personally, I sure prefer to get the highest JPEG quality I can possibly get....
--
Tom Hoots
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tomhoots/

JPG images are optimized for gradual tone changes, so you'll see the largest effect in areas of sharp high contrast. Take a picture of some large black text and focus on the black/white interfaces.

Sherm

You're not alone; most people can't tell the difference viewing it closely at 100%, and even less so it they're printed.

Where you would be most likely to run into the effects of higher compression are if you're shooting under really adverse conditions, where you have to do some extreme editing; Also if you resave it as a jpg multiple times (with changes) you'll get deterioration more quickly, because you started at a lower level with the more-compressed file. For that situation, you can just be careful to not resave too often, or save in a non-lossy format like tiff or psd, etc.

I've always opted for the highest quality for jpgs, but in reality most of the time it won't make any difference...though it might make those who shoot exclusively in RAW format cringe...8^)

And to be fair, you don't get something for nothing. In a smaller file with the same number of pixels and using a lossy compression, there definitely is less accurate photo information, it's just not generally enough for you to see.
--
Gary
Photo albums: http://www.pbase.com/roberthouse

Thanks, folks. Looks like I'll be using the 'Standard' quality mode most of the time.

--Additionally ... you might detect a loss in quality if you are making a large size print ... then I would think you would want as much data available as possible.

Other issues:

• The size of your hard drive
• The size of hard drive backups
• The performance of the camera (burst capabilities, possibly shot-to-shot times)
• The speed of file transfers
• The performance of your computer during editing

Large file sizes are a nuisance no matter which way you look at it. Cutting them in half while losing zero quality makes perfect sense.

The "Large Prints" argument:

Even the best digital cameras are not intended for large prints. The resolution from a camera like the LX3 is so far below the resolution of a medium or large-format film camera (the appropriate cameras for large prints) that it makes the quality difference between JPEG compression settings laughable.

People are so worried about the possibility that 15 years down the road they are going to wish they had that little .05% extra resolution in their photos. If you are worried about this you shouldn't be shooting digital in the first place!

WRS said:

Is there a simple
test I could do that would justify using the Fine mode?

Click to expand...

In theory yes, in practice no. The problem is that you cannot take exactly the same picture twice, even on tripod.

But you can experiment doing tests on your PC starting possibly from a TIFF and saving it multiple times in JPEG with different quality settings. Then you can compare the various pictures overlaying them as layers in a photo editor. First try to see the difference turning on and off the upper layer. The sudden change of an identical subject makes the difference more obvious than looking side by side at two pictures.

If that's not enough change the blend mode of the upper layer to "difference": the picture will go apparently black. Flatten the image and use the levels palette to move the whitepoint so that the diferences are put in evidence. Now you'll see where and how the picture changes. You'll see difference in detail, but mostly in localized color shifts. If you push the compression level, artifacts will start to be visible along with blocks of nearly flat color and posterization on smooth gradients (clear sky, for example).

The above experiment may help you to understand how these things change and give you some hints about where to look for the differences. If you want to test the camera files try to apply generous amounts of unsharp mask or to make radical corrections with levels or curves or recompress them after some editing. The more compressed images will fall apart sooner.
--
Maki

we like it or not a 24x36mm slide is of equivalent resolution of 6MP. That means that a 6x7 medium format slide is about 21MP and a 4x5" is about 85MP. Ii is also a fact that the first 24x36 sensor in a camera (Canon D1s) outperformed the best slide commercially available in all IQ factors by somewhat more than serious, allowing practically a loseless interpolation of 1,4 (double size), and that about 5-6 years ago.

The improvement on the sensors nowadays in top quality sensors allow even 16 times bigger sizes.

Now, if u don't believe that, just think why all the printing industry required at least 4x6cm slides for a fair picture reproduction in the pages of just a popular magazine, and please don't try to think what was the cost of equipment and the man hours to reproduce a top quality picture from a 24x36 slide in mags like National Geographic... the money was huge.

as for the quality in jpeg standard and high it has to do with the ability to post process your image, in a standard quality u can't do as much as in the same pic taken in a fine mode. That simple!

J1000 wrote:
...

J1000 said:

The "Large Prints" argument:

Even the best digital cameras are not intended for large prints. The
resolution from a camera like the LX3 is so far below the resolution
of a medium or large-format film camera (the appropriate cameras for
large prints) that it makes the quality difference between JPEG
compression settings laughable.

People are so worried about the possibility that 15 years down the
road they are going to wish they had that little .05% extra
resolution in their photos. If you are worried about this you
shouldn't be shooting digital in the first place!

Click to expand...

People often make this sort of argument when talking about compacts or even 6MP DSLRs. 'If you wanted large prints you shouldn't be shooting with a compact'. Or, 'if you wanted high ISO shots, you should have been using a FF DSLR.' Or, 'You're wasting your time - use MF film'.

It's like saying, if you wanted to drive long distances in comfort, you should have bought a Bentley.

People buy what they can afford, and then want to get the best result. What's wrong with that?

--
tim

nothing wrong, but I think that at least they should know

aris14 said:

we like it or not a 24x36mm slide is of equivalent resolution of 6MP.

Click to expand...

A few years ago I projected a slide, nothing stellar, simple Sensia 100. Going close to the screen I could read a small writing on a road signal. I scanned the slide with my LS-30 (by memory roughly the same resolution of a 10MP camera) and the writing turned out to be 3 or 4 pixel high. With your 6MP "equivalent" camera it would have been 2 or 3 pixels, half of which are actually made up by some demosaicing engine. I would hardly call it "equivalent".

Film and sensors work in a very different way, there is no equivalency.
--
Maki

...you paid a lot of money for a better camera that even has raw so you can get the most out of it and want to shoot high compression jpegs with it? That is like buying a Porsche and putting 40 dollar tires on it. Sure you can do it, but why would you? If you do not print large enough to see the difference why did you buy it?

If you want to see the difference take a highest quality shot and compress it to the same size as the standard jpeg in your software of choice and then pixel peep at 100 percent. Then assume you need to make some adjustments and do the same adjustments to both of them and save them and and sharpen them compare them again. If you see no difference that you care about go for it. If you always print small or just publish to the web consider selling the LX-3 and buying something without its limitations that are there because Panasonic was trying to produce a camera with really good image quality. You could have one of those fun superzooms and not notice the difference in image quality the way you use it. Why not?

--
I advise you to read this article by Ken Rockwell:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/why-we-love-film.htm

Mike

... I can argue with every point in the article u suggest, but I think it's pointless.

I am not saying that film was something bad or anything, I am just saying that evolution is unevitable and still produces better products every year no matter if they r the same convenient as something pre-existed used to deliver. And believe me , it's hugely cheaper too...

timo said:

timo said:

The "Large Prints" argument:

Even the best digital cameras are not intended for large prints. The
resolution from a camera like the LX3 is so far below the resolution
of a medium or large-format film camera (the appropriate cameras for
large prints) that it makes the quality difference between JPEG
compression settings laughable.

People are so worried about the possibility that 15 years down the
road they are going to wish they had that little .05% extra
resolution in their photos. If you are worried about this you
shouldn't be shooting digital in the first place!

Click to expand...

People often make this sort of argument when talking about compacts
or even 6MP DSLRs. 'If you wanted large prints you shouldn't be
shooting with a compact'. Or, 'if you wanted high ISO shots, you
should have been using a FF DSLR.' Or, 'You're wasting your time -
use MF film'.

It's like saying, if you wanted to drive long distances in comfort,
you should have bought a Bentley.

People buy what they can afford, and then want to get the best
result. What's wrong with that?

Click to expand...

I think a better analogy would be putting high-octane gas in your Geo Metro.