fz 150 raw images in silk pix bad picture quality

Started Oct 10, 2011 | Discussions thread
Detail Man
Detail Man Forum Pro • Posts: 16,683
Re: fz 150 raw images in silk pix bad picture quality

canuck dave wrote:

I only 'converted' or evolved to RAW a couple of years ago after I saw (for myself) that there were distinct advantages to be gained. I think many onboard JPG processors are far underated.

Any specific examples in mind ? I am always interested in what in-camera JPG "engines" in what camera models people perceive as doing a good job. Do you personally like the FZ150's JPGs ?

It may be that the FZ150 has somewhat hit a wall with their RAWs, and that the near-optimum is achieved (without any fuss, and little or any loss) with the great results Panasonic engineers have tweaked from their onboard computers!

The fact that the FZ150 JPGs look nice to a viewer(s) does not imply that the FZ150 RW2s should appear to be so marginal on image-detail (particularly in the case of a number of RAW processors):

See: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1033&message=39969771

My original thoughts wandered into the possibility that Panasonic may be performing some silent RW2-level NR in the FZ150 (which might well not be sent along to the in-camera JPG "engine").

However, (in terms of line-resolution, anyway), it (may) be harder to advance that theory due to:

Resolution [in LPH] as a function of ISO Sensitivity Gain (JPG and RW2) :

FZ150 :

From: http://www.photoreview.com.au/reviews/advanced/panasonic-lumix-dmcfz150.aspx

.. since it appears that FZ150 RW2s have a higher RW2/JPG ratio of line-resolution than the FZ100:

FZ100 :

From: http://www.photoreview.com.au/reviews/advanced/panasonic-lumix-dmcfz100.aspx

... and I recall a number of posters stating that FZ100 RW2s could be made to look significantly better than FZ100 OOC JPGs ... so something(s) is/are (perhaps) not "adding up" here ? ...

Your posting of the what appeared to be a dramatically more "sharp" rendition of your FZ150 RW2 image in FastStone (as compared to the Lightroom 3.x view that you also posted in the same post) points very clearly to the distinct possibility that the particular de-mosaicing algorithm that FastStone uses for FZ150 RW2s (happens) to yield (significantly) better results than the particular de-mosaicing algorithm that Adobe chose to use in LR-3.x/CR-6.x. Ditto where it comes to Silkypix.

The fact that the FZ150 RW2s appear (to me) to be even more "soft and mushy" in Silkypix SE 3.x does not surprise me a bit - as Silkypix has (always) done a crappy job of de-mosaicing (as well as other elements of the internal architecture that affect the rendering of image-detail) - with a recent Silkypix processing of a G3 RW2 being the sole exception to the (otherwise) universally rather mediocre results found (as seen when processing FZ50 RAWs, FZ28 RW2s, and LX3 RW2s).

In my previous post, I asked you if you had tried using the various options of the de-mosaicing algorithm used in the RAW Therapee 4.x that you included in your list of RAW processors that you had tried to use in order to process FZ150 RW2s. Have you (then or now) tried those possibilities ?


Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow