Reading mode: Light Dark

GH2, ETC v CROP mini test.

Go to last post
Don't know if your ? is for Tony only, but, i have post the RAW shot that was Taken in the test at the same time and it clearly isn't as good as the ETC shot, blown highlights and not as sharp, even after running it through LR3 RAW to JPG output.

Mark.
jvanmil said:
Tony Rogers said:
jvanmil said:
Cool i found it! So let me get this straight:
  • ETC only works when not shooting raw, right?
I have two settings, medium and small:
  • Medium is a magnification of 2x (6mp of 12mp total; 45-200 @ 200mm would become an 400mm)?
  • Small is a magnifcation of 4x (3mp of 12mp total; 45-200 @ 200 would become a 800)?
Is this right?

--
Jan

'In Wildness is the Preservation of the World'

Panasonic G2, 14-42, 45-200 & Canon S95
Click to expand...
No, not quite. It's based on the length of the image side rather than total pixels. So, 6mp is approx 1.45x and 3mp is approx 2x.
Click to expand...
Thanks Tony,

In the end it is more or less the same as cropping from raw, right? Or what are the benefits from shooting with ETC in contrast to cropping raw-files?

--
Jan

'In Wildness is the Preservation of the World'

Panasonic G2, 14-42, 45-200 & Canon S95
Click to expand...
--
Mark.
 
Thanks Mark,

My ? is defenitely not for Tony only. I hoped you would reply though, since you posted the comparison! As normally i shoot only in RAW but i also really like the ETC functionality, i am trying to findout if jpg-only works for me!

Just to check with you, the settings of medium and small (on the G2) with etc give a magnification of 1.4 and 2.0 respectively, right? How is this compared to the GH2?
mark1000 said:
Don't know if your ? is for Tony only, but, i have post the RAW shot that was Taken in the test at the same time and it clearly isn't as good as the ETC shot, blown highlights and not as sharp, even after running it through LR3 RAW to JPG output.

Mark.
jvanmil said:
Tony Rogers said:
jvanmil said:
Cool i found it! So let me get this straight:
  • ETC only works when not shooting raw, right?
I have two settings, medium and small:
  • Medium is a magnification of 2x (6mp of 12mp total; 45-200 @ 200mm would become an 400mm)?
  • Small is a magnifcation of 4x (3mp of 12mp total; 45-200 @ 200 would become a 800)?
Is this right?

--
Jan

'In Wildness is the Preservation of the World'

Panasonic G2, 14-42, 45-200 & Canon S95
Click to expand...
No, not quite. It's based on the length of the image side rather than total pixels. So, 6mp is approx 1.45x and 3mp is approx 2x.
Click to expand...
Thanks Tony,

In the end it is more or less the same as cropping from raw, right? Or what are the benefits from shooting with ETC in contrast to cropping raw-files?

--
Jan

'In Wildness is the Preservation of the World'

Panasonic G2, 14-42, 45-200 & Canon S95
Click to expand...
--
Mark.
Click to expand...
--
Jan

'In Wildness is the Preservation of the World'

Panasonic G2, 14-42, 45-200 & Canon S95
 
mark1000 said:
After my ETC GH2 birds thread yesterday, questions were asked about the benefits of using ETC over a crop, so i did a simple test today.

Subject is a lock on my garden shed, its about 25ft away, GH2 was on a tripod and i used the timer, i used the 100-300mm lens as that was the lens used in my bird thread.

The pics are OOC, shot in P mode, untouched other than the crop of the second shot.

First up is the ETC JPG shot @300mm/1400mm EFL.
Second is a cropped JPG shot, shot in normal L mode @ 300mm/600mm EFL.

For me, i see that the metering in the ETC is better than the cropped image, also the ETC has faster shutter speed, which would be a benefit if the subject had been a little bird, i also think the focus is better in the ETC shot.

Anyway, have a look and post your opinion.

ETC.





Crop.





--
Mark.
Click to expand...
Just a quick note. IMHO the main difference between the ETC image and the cropped JPEG is in image sharpness and contrast, and there doesn't appear to be any detail difference. I suspect that when ETC function is used that enhancements are applied to the JPEG parameters to compensate for the cropping. However, in practice this probably does make the ETC function useful, because applying your own subseqent adjustments to a cropped JPEG would perhaps not be so successful. This is because the full resolution JPEG has already had one set of paraments applied to it, and subsequent adjustment of JPEGs always results in some degradation of the image. Whilst you could probably mimic the effects with a cropped RAW file it does mean a lot of work in trying to find the right recipe for the RAW converter to mimic this. So if the ETC function works okay it's probably much simpler to use this and be satisfied it works well. So it's a useful comparison.
 
Great experiment, thanks very much for taking the time to do that.
 
The only issue I have with that statement is that, in this case, you are taking an image of a very bright object with a dark background. The ETC is weighing the bright object more and lowering the exposure...much like spot metering or strong center weighted averaging. The full RAW is affected strongly by the dark background.

If you used spot metering or center weighted, this would no longer be an advantage of ETC I suspect. ETC only gave you a faster exposure because of this effect. If it was a dark bird against a bright background with matrix metering, you'd have the opposite effect (underexposed bird and faster shutter in RAW, blown out skies in ETC). Again, correct metering would negate this difference.

RAW certainly does not inherently blow out highlights...quite the opposite! More data will be preserved in RAW then JPG.

To me, the only reasons to use ETC vs RAW are smaller file sizes, more magnified viewfinder and if the JPGs are "good enough". It's great they have that option, since these can be significant for some people.

But with correct metering technique, the ETC images can never be inherently better than RAW, since they are based on the RAW sensor output at the lowest level. The JPG processing throws out some of the data...maybe 80-90% of the time you agree with what it throws out, but there will be some times when you don't.

Ideally, it would be cool if they provided a RAW ETC output, which would give the smaller files and magnified viewfinder, but still allow all the data to be retained.

Thanks for the interesting comparison!
mark1000 said:
Don't know if your ? is for Tony only, but, i have post the RAW shot that was Taken in the test at the same time and it clearly isn't as good as the ETC shot, blown highlights and not as sharp, even after running it through LR3 RAW to JPG output.
Click to expand...
--
Rick Krejci
http://www.ricksastro.com
 
I'm certainly not advocating the use of JPG over RAW, just pointing out how useful the ETC mode is, your right, if we could have RAW and ETC together that would be great.

Mark.
RicksAstro said:
The only issue I have with that statement is that, in this case, you are taking an image of a very bright object with a dark background. The ETC is weighing the bright object more and lowering the exposure...much like spot metering or strong center weighted averaging. The full RAW is affected strongly by the dark background.

If you used spot metering or center weighted, this would no longer be an advantage of ETC I suspect. ETC only gave you a faster exposure because of this effect. If it was a dark bird against a bright background with matrix metering, you'd have the opposite effect (underexposed bird and faster shutter in RAW, blown out skies in ETC). Again, correct metering would negate this difference.

RAW certainly does not inherently blow out highlights...quite the opposite! More data will be preserved in RAW then JPG.

To me, the only reasons to use ETC vs RAW are smaller file sizes, more magnified viewfinder and if the JPGs are "good enough". It's great they have that option, since these can be significant for some people.

But with correct metering technique, the ETC images can never be inherently better than RAW, since they are based on the RAW sensor output at the lowest level. The JPG processing throws out some of the data...maybe 80-90% of the time you agree with what it throws out, but there will be some times when you don't.

Ideally, it would be cool if they provided a RAW ETC output, which would give the smaller files and magnified viewfinder, but still allow all the data to be retained.

Thanks for the interesting comparison!
mark1000 said:
Don't know if your ? is for Tony only, but, i have post the RAW shot that was Taken in the test at the same time and it clearly isn't as good as the ETC shot, blown highlights and not as sharp, even after running it through LR3 RAW to JPG output.
Click to expand...
--
Rick Krejci
http://www.ricksastro.com
Click to expand...
--
Mark.
 
I don't think its a case of making a choice between whether you use JPG over RAW, personally i'll be using RAW where i can, but i'm pointing out that IF you need to use ETC for that extra reach i think the metering and focus is better than cropping.

Don't know what the mag X is in the G2 ( it must be in the manual ) @ M and S, but you are in the ball park with 1.4 and 2.0, i use the GH2 and S ETC where the EFL is different from the G2 ( i think ) also the aspect ratio's

Mark.

changes the FL too.
jvanmil said:
My ? is defenitely not for Tony only. I hoped you would reply though, since you posted the comparison! As normally i shoot only in RAW but i also really like the ETC functionality, i am trying to findout if jpg-only works for me!

Just to check with you, the settings of medium and small (on the G2) with etc give a magnification of 1.4 and 2.0 respectively, right? How is this compared to the GH2?
mark1000 said:
Don't know if your ? is for Tony only, but, i have post the RAW shot that was Taken in the test at the same time and it clearly isn't as good as the ETC shot, blown highlights and not as sharp, even after running it through LR3 RAW to JPG output.

Mark.
jvanmil said:
Tony Rogers said:
jvanmil said:
Cool i found it! So let me get this straight:
  • ETC only works when not shooting raw, right?
I have two settings, medium and small:
  • Medium is a magnification of 2x (6mp of 12mp total; 45-200 @ 200mm would become an 400mm)?
  • Small is a magnifcation of 4x (3mp of 12mp total; 45-200 @ 200 would become a 800)?
Is this right?

--
Jan

'In Wildness is the Preservation of the World'

Panasonic G2, 14-42, 45-200 & Canon S95
Click to expand...
No, not quite. It's based on the length of the image side rather than total pixels. So, 6mp is approx 1.45x and 3mp is approx 2x.
Click to expand...
Thanks Tony,

In the end it is more or less the same as cropping from raw, right? Or what are the benefits from shooting with ETC in contrast to cropping raw-files?

--
Jan

'In Wildness is the Preservation of the World'

Panasonic G2, 14-42, 45-200 & Canon S95
Click to expand...
--
Mark.
Click to expand...
--
Jan

'In Wildness is the Preservation of the World'

Panasonic G2, 14-42, 45-200 & Canon S95
Click to expand...
--
Mark.
 
mark1000 said:
Hi Tony, the RAW shot i post is the same image as the JPG in my first post, I shot with RAW+JPG and used the JPG as my L mode test shot,so the focus point is the same, the GH2 JPG has in camera processing with +1 sharpening, the RAW file sharpening is from the default LR3 RAW output conversion.

So, my point is the RAW and JPG shots i used weren't shot with different focus points or at different times, but are identical, its just the difference between the in camera JPG output v LR3 for the RAW file output.

Mark.
Click to expand...
Ah, got your drift. I was being thick.

Isn't sharpening wonderful!
 
Thanks Mark,

I have to check on the magnification levels for the G2 and i will try it very soon.

Thanks again for you explainations!!!

Jan
mark1000 said:
I don't think its a case of making a choice between whether you use JPG over RAW, personally i'll be using RAW where i can, but i'm pointing out that IF you need to use ETC for that extra reach i think the metering and focus is better than cropping.

Don't know what the mag X is in the G2 ( it must be in the manual ) @ M and S, but you are in the ball park with 1.4 and 2.0, i use the GH2 and S ETC where the EFL is different from the G2 ( i think ) also the aspect ratio's

Mark.

changes the FL too.
jvanmil said:
My ? is defenitely not for Tony only. I hoped you would reply though, since you posted the comparison! As normally i shoot only in RAW but i also really like the ETC functionality, i am trying to findout if jpg-only works for me!

Just to check with you, the settings of medium and small (on the G2) with etc give a magnification of 1.4 and 2.0 respectively, right? How is this compared to the GH2?
mark1000 said:
Don't know if your ? is for Tony only, but, i have post the RAW shot that was Taken in the test at the same time and it clearly isn't as good as the ETC shot, blown highlights and not as sharp, even after running it through LR3 RAW to JPG output.

Mark.
jvanmil said:
Tony Rogers said:
jvanmil said:
Cool i found it! So let me get this straight:
  • ETC only works when not shooting raw, right?
I have two settings, medium and small:
  • Medium is a magnification of 2x (6mp of 12mp total; 45-200 @ 200mm would become an 400mm)?
  • Small is a magnifcation of 4x (3mp of 12mp total; 45-200 @ 200 would become a 800)?
Is this right?

--
Jan

'In Wildness is the Preservation of the World'

Panasonic G2, 14-42, 45-200 & Canon S95
Click to expand...
No, not quite. It's based on the length of the image side rather than total pixels. So, 6mp is approx 1.45x and 3mp is approx 2x.
Click to expand...
Thanks Tony,

In the end it is more or less the same as cropping from raw, right? Or what are the benefits from shooting with ETC in contrast to cropping raw-files?

--
Jan

'In Wildness is the Preservation of the World'

Panasonic G2, 14-42, 45-200 & Canon S95
Click to expand...
--
Mark.
Click to expand...
--
Jan

'In Wildness is the Preservation of the World'

Panasonic G2, 14-42, 45-200 & Canon S95
Click to expand...
--
Mark.
Click to expand...
--
Jan

'In Wildness is the Preservation of the World'

Panasonic G2, 14-42, 45-200 & Canon S95
 
I still don't fully understand how ETC is better?

You can shoot in RAW in 'normal' modes, giving you more flexibility in processing

You can crop full res down to ETC size giving similar 'zoom' equivalent

You can selectively crop anywhere in the frame on a full res photo (ETC only zooms the centre). This may be very useful for shooting BIF etc which may be difficult to keep in the centre of the frame.

So full res, cropped should give you more processing choices, more cropping/composition choices and the same zoom?

Not sure about the metering, but as someone previously mentioned, dark shed with bright lock might affect the metering of the full image VS ETC perhaps metering only on the zoomed portion - so spot metering might achieve the same effect in full res photos.

Is there something basic I'm missing?
 
I was just playing with the ETC mode for video on G2 and I think that is where it could really shine.

I agree with you that for still photo it isn't really much work to shoot at high resolution and crop as wish later on. But imagine you want to shoot something that is small and at full resolution it just be occupying a tiny portion of your shots, AND you need to shoot many many photo of it. Then the approach to crop all the full resolution photos down will soon get tiresome and it's better just shoot with the right composition using ETC.

Extrapolate it a bit for video, there is simply no easy way to "crop" a clip of HD movie. Also for ETC mode on movie you are actually using a real 2M area of the sensor so it's said the quality of the video is still HD while allowed you to have more reach.

The crop mode can also be considered as a pseudo "macro" mode if you will. For example the 14-42 lens on it's 42mm end can only focus at about 20mm distance. But with the ETC mode on video you will be shooting an object like using a macro lens. Your video will be like "macro" video of things.

This is what I have learned hope it make sense. I will upload on youtube video using the ET mode to demonstrate.
 
You're going to have to simplify it more than that for me.

You say it's a crop of a sensor, then you say it's extended optical zoom.

Cropping the image off the sensor is digital - so naturally you have less pixels. You're not doing anything with lenses. It's just a crop.

Your differences in detail can easily be due to having a faster shutter - so less shake, and better exposure.

If you really want to compare. Use the lock up function (it can affect this still) and expose identically.
mark1000 said:
In simple terms its a crop of the sensor giving you extended optical zoom ( not digital )at a lower pixel count, so cropping the 16m pixel sensor down to 4mp.

Mark.
Click to expand...
 
I really don't see any good reason to use this for still images, unless you're desperately short of card space. The metering in the test is better because the camera only metered on the crop area, but you could do the same thing by using spot metering or exposure compensation. Obviously the downside to ETC is that you throw away most of the image and lose the ability to adjust the framing after the fact.

OTOH, it's great for video because you aren't throwing away any pixels.
 
I think it has it's use, for stills.

I've been using this feature for years, on other Panasonic camera's (FZ line)

It helps with metering, though you can use spot metering, as you mentioned.
It allows you to compose the shot, before you shoot (typical practice)

The results are really good, to.
No degradation to the image, as digital zoom is.

I choose 8MP ETC , on my GH2 . Still enough resolution, for most folk, me thinks:







Last one was cropped a bit, after.

I think it's a good option to have.....just with we could use it , shooting RAW :(

ANAYV
amtberg said:
I really don't see any good reason to use this for still images, unless you're desperately short of card space. The metering in the test is better because the camera only metered on the crop area, but you could do the same thing by using spot metering or exposure compensation. Obviously the downside to ETC is that you throw away most of the image and lose the ability to adjust the framing after the fact.

OTOH, it's great for video because you aren't throwing away any pixels.
Click to expand...
 
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