Sony f7x7 and trees/scenery jpeg vs tiff

I have been trying to improve pictures of trees at a distance. I have noticed that this is one of the hardest challenges for a digital camera. I realize the depth and range of contrast is not as great in digital (excluding pro stuff); however I want to optimize my shots. When viewing even most of the sony pics "at 100%" I have noticed that the tress lack a depth of contrast and even can have a pixelation look to them. I am not trying to draw fire from those who would defend their wonderful sony pictures. My question are specific to compression. I spoke to an olympus rep the other day that said that this was much improved with raw and tiff. He said that the jpeg compression didn't seem to handle trees very well, but that these other modes did much better. I am considering a sony f7x7, because I feel it has the best resolution right now. But, it only has jpeg and tiff. The tiff is very limited because of it's slower processing and limits on the 128mb memory stick. This still may not discourage me. Sony seems to be better than some others and has a certain dedication right now to jpeg. I have not been able to compare sony's best jpeg setting or it's tiff difference. I am wondering what your experiences are. Does tiff seem to be significantly better for these type pics? Also, how about fine jpeg?

Thanks
Steve J.

I like the simple questions.

There is very, very little difference between Fine JPEG and TIFF on Sony cameras.

I personally believe any trouble digicams have reproducing trees is due more to noise reduction and the interpolation intrinsic with mosaic CCDs.

sej1001 said:

sej1001 wrote:
I have been trying to improve pictures of trees at a distance. I
have noticed that this is one of the hardest challenges for a
digital camera. I realize the depth and range of contrast is not as
great in digital (excluding pro stuff); however I want to optimize
my shots. When viewing even most of the sony pics "at 100%" I have
noticed that the tress lack a depth of contrast and even can have a
pixelation look to them. I am not trying to draw fire from those
who would defend their wonderful sony pictures. My question are
specific to compression. I spoke to an olympus rep the other day
that said that this was much improved with raw and tiff. He said
that the jpeg compression didn't seem to handle trees very well,
but that these other modes did much better. I am considering a sony
f7x7, because I feel it has the best resolution right now. But, it
only has jpeg and tiff. The tiff is very limited because of it's
slower processing and limits on the 128mb memory stick. This still
may not discourage me. Sony seems to be better than some others and
has a certain dedication right now to jpeg. I have not been able to
compare sony's best jpeg setting or it's tiff difference. I am
wondering what your experiences are. Does tiff seem to be
significantly better for these type pics? Also, how about fine jpeg?

Thanks
Steve J.

Click to expand...

--
TurboTed

(It's easier just being insane than acting insane)

is your judgment based on comparison of real film based photos and real printouts from digital, or your research based on cyberperception of what you see on your monitor?. There is big difference. Try to print any well done landscapes using a good Epson or HP photo series printer and you'll see that they are unbeatable(I'm talking about 3+ Mp cameras with good lenses). In terms of details 707/717 could be the best you can achive with in this range of digitals...? Well, there are few cameras that you can consider as well, all depends on what you wanted to see and what you get in real world. BTW there is not so much difference between jpg and tiff to be discussed...
chrs
halievski

sej1001 said:

I have been trying to improve pictures of trees at a distance. I
have noticed that this is one of the hardest challenges for a
digital camera. I realize the depth and range of contrast is not as
great in digital (excluding pro stuff); however I want to optimize
my shots. When viewing even most of the sony pics "at 100%" I have
noticed that the tress lack a depth of contrast and even can have a
pixelation look to them. I am not trying to draw fire from those
who would defend their wonderful sony pictures. My question are
specific to compression. I spoke to an olympus rep the other day
that said that this was much improved with raw and tiff. He said
that the jpeg compression didn't seem to handle trees very well,
but that these other modes did much better. I am considering a sony
f7x7, because I feel it has the best resolution right now. But, it
only has jpeg and tiff. The tiff is very limited because of it's
slower processing and limits on the 128mb memory stick. This still
may not discourage me. Sony seems to be better than some others and
has a certain dedication right now to jpeg. I have not been able to
compare sony's best jpeg setting or it's tiff difference. I am
wondering what your experiences are. Does tiff seem to be
significantly better for these type pics? Also, how about fine jpeg?

Thanks
Steve J.

Click to expand...

They look just fine when printed out on an 8x10. However, I am looking at a good digital monitor. I do not believe what I am seeing is an artifact of my monitor. I realize there is not as much dynamic range in a five mp as in 35mm, what I am talking about is relative. I rarely have a chance to print at 100percent; however, I want to know what my quality is at 100percent size. The sony does seem to do as well as any other camera in it's class with scenery. This is not the issue. I just am trying to determine how much difference others have seen between jpeg and tiff. I have just spoken to a couple of Canon people that say that they almost always shoot these type of scenes in RAW, for just this reason. They explained that the jpeg compression has a difficult time with trees, because it averages information to determine what is most important to retain. The repetitious detail in leaves at a distance is sometimes a victim of their compression alogrithyms. But, you point is well taken, I need to consider how my monitor is handling different kinds of compression.

Thanks

halievski said:

sej1001 said:

I have been trying to improve pictures of trees at a distance. I
have noticed that this is one of the hardest challenges for a
digital camera. I realize the depth and range of contrast is not as
great in digital (excluding pro stuff); however I want to optimize
my shots. When viewing even most of the sony pics "at 100%" I have
noticed that the tress lack a depth of contrast and even can have a
pixelation look to them. I am not trying to draw fire from those
who would defend their wonderful sony pictures. My question are
specific to compression. I spoke to an olympus rep the other day
that said that this was much improved with raw and tiff. He said
that the jpeg compression didn't seem to handle trees very well,
but that these other modes did much better. I am considering a sony
f7x7, because I feel it has the best resolution right now. But, it
only has jpeg and tiff. The tiff is very limited because of it's
slower processing and limits on the 128mb memory stick. This still
may not discourage me. Sony seems to be better than some others and
has a certain dedication right now to jpeg. I have not been able to
compare sony's best jpeg setting or it's tiff difference. I am
wondering what your experiences are. Does tiff seem to be
significantly better for these type pics? Also, how about fine jpeg?

Thanks
Steve J.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Hello steve David writes

not a lot with the 717 yet but great with the 707 looking at A4 size pictures in both jpeg and tiff I find the difference is almost unnoticable in the printed picture quality you almost need a magnifying glass to pick the difference, I try always to use a high f stop to give the better depth and find this to work well, you can fix contrast in Photoshop, I take a lot of scenery and am very impressed with the results with the Sony compared with other 5 mp cameras that appear flat and lack the resolution of the Sony
David

sej1001 said:

I have been trying to improve pictures of trees at a distance. I
have noticed that this is one of the hardest challenges for a
digital camera. I realize the depth and range of contrast is not as
great in digital (excluding pro stuff); however I want to optimize
my shots. When viewing even most of the sony pics "at 100%" I have
noticed that the tress lack a depth of contrast and even can have a
pixelation look to them. I am not trying to draw fire from those
who would defend their wonderful sony pictures. My question are
specific to compression. I spoke to an olympus rep the other day
that said that this was much improved with raw and tiff. He said
that the jpeg compression didn't seem to handle trees very well,
but that these other modes did much better. I am considering a sony
f7x7, because I feel it has the best resolution right now. But, it
only has jpeg and tiff. The tiff is very limited because of it's
slower processing and limits on the 128mb memory stick. This still
may not discourage me. Sony seems to be better than some others and
has a certain dedication right now to jpeg. I have not been able to
compare sony's best jpeg setting or it's tiff difference. I am
wondering what your experiences are. Does tiff seem to be
significantly better for these type pics? Also, how about fine jpeg?

Thanks
Steve J.

Click to expand...

I have a 717 and it is far away the best Digital camera I have owned when it comes to landscape shots. Probably the sharpest lens out there. And that helps a bunch on leaves. But, I still don't think it has enough Megapixels to get the job done well enough yet. Not compared to film. But I have seen shots taken with the new Canon 1Ns that may get the job done. So I guess it is going to take upwards of 11MP to make happen what you want, and a ton of money right now to by the Canon lol. There is a ton of data that needs to be captured to see leaves well for sure.

I am no expert on Raw and Tiff, but the advantage is that there is no post prossesing done in the camera with both. So what you took is what is there. A true Digital Negitive. Raw more so. So you can change white balance, and sharping, and colors, without the added effects the camera does. And there is a little more detail to be had, because it not compressed like jpeg files are. But Like I said above, 5MP is still not enough for true landscape work. It takes a ton of horsepower to make that happen. But film is a pain in the butt, and expensive, and scanning is horibble, no fun at all lol. I am afraid we will both have to either win the lotto to buy the new Canon, or the new Kodak, or wait a year or two untill the 11MP procomsumer cameras come out to make it really happen. I hope this adds some insight to your question.

Don

sej1001 said:

Thanks

halievski said:

sej1001 said:

I have been trying to improve pictures of trees at a distance. I
have noticed that this is one of the hardest challenges for a
digital camera. I realize the depth and range of contrast is not as
great in digital (excluding pro stuff); however I want to optimize
my shots. When viewing even most of the sony pics "at 100%" I have
noticed that the tress lack a depth of contrast and even can have a
pixelation look to them. I am not trying to draw fire from those
who would defend their wonderful sony pictures. My question are
specific to compression. I spoke to an olympus rep the other day
that said that this was much improved with raw and tiff. He said
that the jpeg compression didn't seem to handle trees very well,
but that these other modes did much better. I am considering a sony
f7x7, because I feel it has the best resolution right now. But, it
only has jpeg and tiff. The tiff is very limited because of it's
slower processing and limits on the 128mb memory stick. This still
may not discourage me. Sony seems to be better than some others and
has a certain dedication right now to jpeg. I have not been able to
compare sony's best jpeg setting or it's tiff difference. I am
wondering what your experiences are. Does tiff seem to be
significantly better for these type pics? Also, how about fine jpeg?

Thanks
Steve J.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

hi Steve,

it´s well known, that digital cameras do NOT have the dynamic range film cameras have.
but you can dramatically improve the dynamic range by stacking.
read this article, it will explain it:
http://www.vincentbockaert.com/Tutorials/ImagesFramePST_08_PS.htm

this technique helps much more than all .jpg, TIFF or RAW tricks, because of course you cannot see what NOT IS THERE in the foto - and that´s the lack of wider dynamic range of all fotos taken by digital.

--
Johann
http://www.pbase.com/johann
F707, FD97, P31
== greetings from Paraguay

sej1001 said:

I have been trying to improve pictures of trees at a distance. I
have noticed that this is one of the hardest challenges for a
digital camera. I realize the depth and range of contrast is not as
great in digital (excluding pro stuff); however I want to optimize
my shots. When viewing even most of the sony pics "at 100%" I have
noticed that the tress lack a depth of contrast and even can have a
pixelation look to them. I am not trying to draw fire from those
who would defend their wonderful sony pictures. My question are
specific to compression. I spoke to an olympus rep the other day
that said that this was much improved with raw and tiff. He said
that the jpeg compression didn't seem to handle trees very well,
but that these other modes did much better. I am considering a sony
f7x7, because I feel it has the best resolution right now. But, it
only has jpeg and tiff. The tiff is very limited because of it's
slower processing and limits on the 128mb memory stick. This still
may not discourage me. Sony seems to be better than some others and
has a certain dedication right now to jpeg. I have not been able to
compare sony's best jpeg setting or it's tiff difference. I am
wondering what your experiences are. Does tiff seem to be
significantly better for these type pics? Also, how about fine jpeg?

Click to expand...

Steve, seems like I get flack from all the 'experts' every time I post images trying to show something, but here are some for you anyway. They are 100% sections from a Sony F707 in Standard, Fine, and TIFF of the only scene I have shot in all 3 formats that might fit your description.

They were shot on a tripod, using self-timer, 16.4mm, f5.6, 1/1000 sec, manual focus at infinity, incamera sharpening +2 and sharpened further using High Pass sharpening.

Standard



Fine



TIFF



I've done this test several times on several subjects and can never see any difference in detail between the different compression formats or TIF, so maybe Olympus compression has greater losses, but it is extremely rare that I shoot TIF with the Sony.

Gordon
--

Ive also noticed the same thing in sony pics. the 717 uses too much jpeg compression and it shows in its images, especially in the reds. Hopefully another recall is in the works to fix this.

sej1001 said:

I have been trying to improve pictures of trees at a distance. I
have noticed that this is one of the hardest challenges for a
digital camera. I realize the depth and range of contrast is not as
great in digital (excluding pro stuff); however I want to optimize
my shots. When viewing even most of the sony pics "at 100%" I have
noticed that the tress lack a depth of contrast and even can have a
pixelation look to them. I am not trying to draw fire from those
who would defend their wonderful sony pictures. My question are
specific to compression. I spoke to an olympus rep the other day
that said that this was much improved with raw and tiff. He said
that the jpeg compression didn't seem to handle trees very well,
but that these other modes did much better. I am considering a sony
f7x7, because I feel it has the best resolution right now. But, it
only has jpeg and tiff. The tiff is very limited because of it's
slower processing and limits on the 128mb memory stick. This still
may not discourage me. Sony seems to be better than some others and
has a certain dedication right now to jpeg. I have not been able to
compare sony's best jpeg setting or it's tiff difference. I am
wondering what your experiences are. Does tiff seem to be
significantly better for these type pics? Also, how about fine jpeg?

Thanks
Steve J.

Click to expand...

Steve, to give you a feel for the scale of the 100% images in my preceding post, this is a scaled down file of the full-size image.



FWIW,
Gordon
--

Here are some test shots of grass (lots of fine detail) comparing TIFF, SHQ jjpeg and HQ jpeg. I have magnified and cropped an identical region of the grass so the pixels can be easily compared. What the jpeg compressions seem to do is cause a given pixel's color to be somewhat contaminated by the colors of adjacent pixels. The pixels are still there, they're just (in some cases) not the right color. These tests were made with an Olympus E100rs camera (I don't have a Sony yet), but I think they're informative.

The central image shows the full scene captured. Click on the right-most 3-section image to enlarge it.

http://www.pbase.com/russ/tests

halievski said:

sej1001 said:

I have been trying to improve pictures of trees at a distance. I
have noticed that this is one of the hardest challenges for a
digital camera. I realize the depth and range of contrast is not as
great in digital (excluding pro stuff); however I want to optimize
my shots. When viewing even most of the sony pics "at 100%" I have
noticed that the tress lack a depth of contrast and even can have a
pixelation look to them. I am not trying to draw fire from those
who would defend their wonderful sony pictures. My question are
specific to compression. I spoke to an olympus rep the other day
that said that this was much improved with raw and tiff. He said
that the jpeg compression didn't seem to handle trees very well,
but that these other modes did much better. I am considering a sony
f7x7, because I feel it has the best resolution right now. But, it
only has jpeg and tiff. The tiff is very limited because of it's
slower processing and limits on the 128mb memory stick. This still
may not discourage me. Sony seems to be better than some others and
has a certain dedication right now to jpeg. I have not been able to
compare sony's best jpeg setting or it's tiff difference. I am
wondering what your experiences are. Does tiff seem to be
significantly better for these type pics? Also, how about fine jpeg?

Thanks
Steve J.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Russell

Anyone have any theory about how much of the lack of detail is caused by the interpolation method that most cameras use to generate the images?

Take a look at these shots that Phil posted using the new Sigma camera that has the Foveon chip, which creates images without any interpolation:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1027&message=3722296

Herb

sej1001 said:

I have been trying to improve pictures of trees at a distance. I
have noticed that this is one of the hardest challenges for a
digital camera. I realize the depth and range of contrast is not as
great in digital (excluding pro stuff); however I want to optimize
my shots. When viewing even most of the sony pics "at 100%" I have
noticed that the tress lack a depth of contrast and even can have a
pixelation look to them. I am not trying to draw fire from those
who would defend their wonderful sony pictures. My question are
specific to compression. I spoke to an olympus rep the other day
that said that this was much improved with raw and tiff. He said
that the jpeg compression didn't seem to handle trees very well,
but that these other modes did much better. I am considering a sony
f7x7, because I feel it has the best resolution right now. But, it
only has jpeg and tiff. The tiff is very limited because of it's
slower processing and limits on the 128mb memory stick. This still
may not discourage me. Sony seems to be better than some others and
has a certain dedication right now to jpeg. I have not been able to
compare sony's best jpeg setting or it's tiff difference. I am
wondering what your experiences are. Does tiff seem to be
significantly better for these type pics? Also, how about fine jpeg?

Thanks
Steve J.

Click to expand...