I need some pro advice--Superfine vs. Fine JPEG

I'm brand new to the forum so I apologize if this question is redundant, but I've had difficulty following all the fragmented threads on the issue. Essentially, I'm looking to buy the new sx20 to augment my simple wide-angle DSLR set-up that I use for landscapes (I can't afford more glass). It will be used for my kids sports shots and I love using the macro feature (I have the old S3 IS). I was just about to buy one when I read on this forum that it didn't have the Superfine setting--stopped me dead in my tracks.

Given all the high-end limitations of the small sensor, etc., is there a perceptible loss of detail produced by the sx20 by it not having the "Superfine" JPEG setting? If so, would I be better off with the sx10?

I also read on the specs page of this website that the sx20 provided RAW, but that claim is not supported on the manufacturer's spec sheet. What gives? That feature would solve a lot of issues I'm sure if true?

Lastly, I've seen mention of third-party "RAW" hacks or programs, but are they stable and safe for the camera? Would they cause more headache?

Thank you in advance for your advice, I really appreciate it everyone.

See here:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=32730656

--

SLRLance said:

I'm brand new to the forum so I apologize if this question is redundant, but I've had difficulty following all the fragmented threads on the issue. Essentially, I'm looking to buy the new sx20 to augment my simple wide-angle DSLR set-up that I use for landscapes (I can't afford more glass). It will be used for my kids sports shots and I love using the macro feature (I have the old S3 IS).

Click to expand...

Are you sure you can't afford more glass? What kind of SLR do you have?

SLRLance said:

I was just about to buy one when I read on this forum that it didn't have the Superfine setting--stopped me dead in my tracks.

Click to expand...

Opinions apparently differ, but I think it's a non-issue.

SLRLance said:

Given all the high-end limitations of the small sensor, etc., is there a perceptible loss of detail produced by the sx20 by it not having the "Superfine" JPEG setting? If so, would I be better off with the sx10?

Click to expand...

There's probably very little difference in image quality between them.

SLRLance said:

Lastly, I've seen mention of third-party "RAW" hacks or programs, but are they stable and safe for the camera?

Click to expand...

CHDK - yes and yes.

SLRLance said:

Would they cause more headache?

Click to expand...

A bit, but you get a lot of nice features too.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

When I learned that my G9 made a "fine" jpg when shooting in RAW +JPEG mode, I immediately compared that "fine" jpg to a "superfine" jpg. I could not tell the difference. That said, the "fine" jpg is a smaller file than the "superfine" so there is less data in the "fine" file. In Photoshop, I subtracted one file from the other to illustrate the difference but the result was almost a blank image. This is probably why Canon choose to drop the superfine option.

Of course, there is no hard and fast definition for fine or superfine (I think not anyway) -- these are probably just Canon's terms for the lossy compression algorithm used to make the final JPEG file from the original.

On the other hand, whatever the camera, I always shoot in the mode that generates the largest file size because that mode saves the most detail.

--
Gordon
http://hornerbuck.com
http://lightdescription.blogspot.com

First of all, thank you all for your advice and experience with this issue. I've been convinced to give the sx20 a try since no one has detected a loss of detail with the "fine" setting--and for me that's the bottom line. Again, thanks for the advice and I'll give the RAW program a go when it's available and I figure it out. Cheers.

SLRLance said:

First of all, thank you all for your advice and experience with this issue. I've been convinced to give the sx20 a try since no one has detected a loss of detail with the "fine" setting--and for me that's the bottom line. Again, thanks for the advice and I'll give the RAW program a go when it's available and I figure it out.

Click to expand...

This will be a benefit to the rest of us, to have an early-adopter spend the money to buy an almost entirely untested camera. If you make a mistake in doing this, maybe some of the rest of us can avoid it. I'll have to say that the few photos I've seen from the SX20 so far, didn't suffer from not having Superfine encoding.

A sharper image from the sensor and processor would be necessary to benefit from more encoding bits. To think that the picture quality of the SX10 will be improved in the SX20, by stacking 20% more pixels on a small CCD, is a stretch of the imagination. With a lot of luck, the SX20 photos might be as good.
--
Steve McDonald
http://www.flickr.com/photos/22121562@N00/
http://www.vimeo.com/user458315/videos



http://video.yahoo.com/people/4019627

SLRLance said:

I'm brand new to the forum so I apologize if this question is redundant, but I've had difficulty following all the fragmented threads on the issue. Essentially, I'm looking to buy the new sx20 to augment my simple wide-angle DSLR set-up that I use for landscapes (I can't afford more glass). It will be used for my kids sports shots and I love using the macro feature (I have the old S3 IS). I was just about to buy one when I read on this forum that it didn't have the Superfine setting--stopped me dead in my tracks.

Given all the high-end limitations of the small sensor, etc., is there a perceptible loss of detail produced by the sx20 by it not having the "Superfine" JPEG setting? If so, would I be better off with the sx10?

Thank you in advance for your advice, I really appreciate it everyone.

Click to expand...

I had to laugh when I read the thread title....

I need some pro advice" --Superfine vs. Fine JPEG

I thought, well he has certainly come to the wrong place.

This topic of Fine versus Super Fine really does make the DPR pixel peeping anoraks come crawling out of their little holes - recently the utter hogwash that has been written here on this topic defies description, especially since most do not actually own the cameras they are referring to.

Let me put it this way....Canon is in competition to sell cameras of the best quality versus price against a number of rivals. The Fine / Superfine setting is just a software change that will have no effect on their manufacturing cost, so why did they delete the superfine setting?

Hmm, lets see - well maybe since Canon are a little more expert than any "pros" on these boards I think it is fairly sensible to assume that in the question of how it affects picture quality, dear old Auntie Canon probably decided it makes zero difference, and lets face it they are the ones who should know best.

I must say that it is an astonishing pleasure to see that the respondents on this thread so far have seem to be of the non-anorak variety, and most of them actually own the camera. A pleasant change indeed.

BTW, this sarcasm is in no way aimed at the OP, it's a fair question that has been answered well. Thankfully the anorak brigade don't seem to have found this thread yet.

But they will.....beware!!

you can bet your boots that the SX20's "FIne" is better quality with less artifacts than Superfine of a few years back (G6, A620 etc), Algorithms improve all the time and lets face it, with a 12Mp sensor of that size, pixel peeping isn't going to be pretty, I'd be more worried about NR and noise issues than any slight difference in JPG quality .....

Ben saw far larger files between the SX10's Superfine and the SX20's Fine - a number of things can contribute to that including JPG compression efficiency, heavier noise reduction etc..

Who knows why Canon left off "Superfine" but I doubt many outside these forums will care, they'll just take their Holiday snaps and process them as usual and be grateful of the increased number of shots per card (without the worry that they're losing out by not using a card wasting superfine setting) - those who want better can wrestle with RAW.

--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist

Say what you like but I want Superfine back. My PC has a monster hard drive and I want to fill it up. I don't fancy the idea of RAW and that's all I will say on that.

AdamT said:

....I'd be more worried about NR and noise issues than any slight difference in JPG quality....

Click to expand...

In the whole Superfine/Fine situation, we're talking about file sizes on the order of "half the size" in Fine quality vs. Superfine. There's just no getting around the fact that there is less data in a smaller file.

Adam-T said:

Who knows why Canon left off "Superfine" but I doubt many outside these forums will care....

Click to expand...

And it's a simple fact that people in this forum do care. Why even bother with amazing-new-super-high-quality-breakthrough-sensors and such when the camera tosses most of the data out of the files it produces?

Adam-T said:

....those who want better can wrestle with RAW.

Click to expand...

Exactly. So, why would Canon make a decision to force buyers of its top-of-the-line "enthusiast" cameras to resort to "wrestling with RAW" in order to get the kind of image quality that they used to get with Superfine quality in their previous Canon cameras?

Personally, I say "hogwash!" to any sentiment that "most people probably won't notice any difference." What has always attracted me to the best of Canon's line-up has been its JPEG image quality. I want to start from the very best JPEG quality I can get, and I'll go ahead and spend the extra ten bucks to get a big enough memory card to hold all of the big files I can capture.

Eliminating Superfine from low-line stuff like the SD series might make some sense. But doing the same from its "enthusiast" cameras is just ridiculous. Good grief -- "Why??" If anyone doesn't want to use Superfine, "let them change the setting." Eliminating the choice for a less-compressed Superfine quality within its enthusiast cameras just makes no sense whatsoever.

Tom Hoots
http://thoots.zenfolio.com

Tom Hoots said:

Eliminating Superfine from low-line stuff like the SD series might make some sense. But doing the same from its "enthusiast" cameras is just ridiculous. Good grief -- "Why??" If anyone doesn't want to use Superfine, "let them change the setting." Eliminating the choice for a less-compressed Superfine quality within its enthusiast cameras just makes no sense whatsoever.

Click to expand...

My older compacts had a "TIFF" option. That was eliminated. Was that an equally foolish choice?

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

S3IS, fine (2.07MB) versus superfine (3.31MB). These are 100% crops.



--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

ljfinger said:

S3IS, fine (2.07MB) versus superfine (3.31MB). These are 100% crops.

Click to expand...

Bear in mind that S3IS is 6 megapixels. S90 will have 10 megapixels squeezed down to virtually the same "fine" file size. Compression is compression.

Tom Hoots
http://thoots.zenfolio.com

Tom Hoots said:

ljfinger said:

S3IS, fine (2.07MB) versus superfine (3.31MB). These are 100% crops.

Click to expand...

Bear in mind that S3IS is 6 megapixels. S90 will have 10 megapixels squeezed down to virtually the same "fine" file size. Compression is compression.

Click to expand...

Sorry, incorrect.

Canon's estimate for the size of a Large-Fine JPEG is 1620KB for the S3 (Advanced User Guide Page 152) and 3195KB for the SX20 (User Guide page 71 - 2000MB/626 images). In other words, about the same compression ratio for the two cameras with different pixel counts.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

ljfinger said:

Tom Hoots said:

Bear in mind that S3IS is 6 megapixels. S90 will have 10 megapixels squeezed down to virtually the same "fine" file size. Compression is compression.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Lee Jay said:

Canon's estimate for the size of a Large-Fine JPEG is 1620KB for the S3 (Advanced User Guide Page 152) and 3195KB for the SX20 (User Guide page 71 - 2000MB/626 images). In other words, about the same compression ratio for the two cameras with different pixel counts.

Click to expand...

Well, note above how I mentioned the S90, which is what I've always got ingrained in my mind, so that's a different pixel count altogether.

Though, your analysis lays to rest any notion that "the new Fine" is some lesser compression than "the old Fine." What we're seeing is the elimination of Superfine, and no movement of "Fine" upwards towards lesser compression.

Tom Hoots
http://thoots.zenfolio.com

Tom Hoots said:

ljfinger said:

Tom Hoots said:

Bear in mind that S3IS is 6 megapixels. S90 will have 10 megapixels squeezed down to virtually the same "fine" file size. Compression is compression.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Tom Hoots said:

Canon's estimate for the size of a Large-Fine JPEG is 1620KB for the S3 (Advanced User Guide Page 152) and 3195KB for the SX20 (User Guide page 71 - 2000MB/626 images). In other words, about the same compression ratio for the two cameras with different pixel counts.

Click to expand...

Well, note above how I mentioned the S90, which is what I've always got ingrained in my mind, so that's a different pixel count altogether.

Click to expand...

Since that manual isn't available that I can find, I can't verify that it's the same. But I'd bet it is.

Tom Hoots said:

Though, your analysis lays to rest any notion that "the new Fine" is some lesser compression than "the old Fine." What we're seeing is the elimination of Superfine, and no movement of "Fine" upwards towards lesser compression.

Click to expand...

Since superfine provides no significant image quality improvement, no great loss.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

ljfinger said:

Since superfine provides no significant image quality improvement, no great loss.

Click to expand...

But that's the attitude I just can't live with. I expect that Superfine does offer some image quality improvement, "significant" or not, and every single prospective customer like me who has been whining about it JUST WANTS CANON'S SUPERFINE JPEG QUALITY, period. I'm not buying one of Canon's top-of-the-line cameras because they've compromised on image quality -- I'm buying it because it allegedly produces "improved" image quality.

I mean ---- Good grief!! ---- They go to such expense to give it a top-quality sensor. And such expense to give it a top-quality processor. And such expense to give it a top-quality lens. And then they pick one thing that costs them ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to provide, and they skimp on the image quality there. It is just absolutely the most nonsensical decision ever made in the entire history of digital camera manufacturing.

Tom Hoots
http://thoots.zenfolio.com

Tom Hoots said:

ljfinger said:

Since superfine provides no significant image quality improvement, no great loss.

Click to expand...

But that's the attitude I just can't live with. I expect that Superfine does offer some image quality improvement, "significant" or not,...

Click to expand...

Please provide some valid evidence of this assumption.

Tom Hoots said:

... and every single prospective customer like me who has been whining about it JUST WANTS CANON'S SUPERFINE JPEG QUALITY, period. I'm not buying one of Canon's top-of-the-line cameras because they've compromised on image quality -- I'm buying it because it allegedly produces "improved" image quality.

Click to expand...

No compact-camera is "top-of-the-line". They're all compromises on image quality to provide a very low cost. Remember the Pro 1 was $1000.

Tom Hoots said:

I mean ---- Good grief!! ---- They go to such expense to give it a top-quality sensor.

Click to expand...

Probably under $50.

Tom Hoots said:

And such expense to give it a top-quality processor. And such expense to give it a top-quality lens. And then they pick one thing that costs them ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to provide, and they skimp on the image quality there. It is just absolutely the most nonsensical decision ever made in the entire history of digital camera manufacturing.

Click to expand...

Like I said before, they gave up "TIFF" (uncompressed) as a format a long time ago. Was that a bad decision for the same reason?

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

ljfinger said:

S3IS, fine (2.07MB) versus superfine (3.31MB). These are 100% crops.



--

Click to expand...

Thanks for providing visual evidence to disprove your point. Even on these small and compressed versions of the images, there is a significant increase in sharpness on the Superfine photo. The fact that you didn't see this, shows why some of us won't miss Superfine or notice the difference between it and Fine encoding, while some of us do notice and are very displeased by this limitation on new models. Only if CHDK provides Superfine, would I consider any of the new Canon cameras.
--
Steve McDonald
http://www.flickr.com/photos/22121562@N00/
http://www.vimeo.com/user458315/videos



http://video.yahoo.com/people/4019627

Stephen McDonald said:

Thanks for providing visual evidence to disprove your point. Even on these small and compressed versions of the images, there is a significant increase in sharpness on the Superfine photo. The fact that you didn't see this, shows why some of us won't miss Superfine or notice the difference between it and Fine encoding, while some of us do notice and are very displeased by this limitation on new models. Only if CHDK provides Superfine, would I consider any of the new Canon cameras.

Click to expand...

Flip the images top-for-bottom. I thought so too, but contrast changes depending on viewing angle on LCDs. When I flipped them, the bottom one always appeared very slightly sharper.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)