Reading mode: Light Dark

Sony IDC as good as in camera jpeg?

Go to last post
E

Eleson

Veteran Member
Messages
1,200
Reaction score
49
Location
Gothenburg, SE
Ok, this will be like cursing in the church, but I think the question is worth debating:

Why do we shoot raw?

Look at this:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/ima...=1&x=0.6536927321850339&y=0.07974710252911542

No color artefacts in the in camera conversion.


If the in camera jpeg conversion is better that than the standalone tools, why do we bother with raw?

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/ima...1&x=-0.4738808098089535&y=0.29737088013474305

I'd say all details are still left in the jpeg image, but the noise levels are way lower in the (Sony) jpeg image.

Yes, I know! Raw have more data and should be better. But I can't really see it.


Do we really need raw? Does Sony IDC do jpeg conversion as good as the camera does?
 
Many reasons for both formats: speed, file size, fps, final IQ, flexibility in post, convenience.

I'd stay well clear of IDC, it's clunky and while colour is good, nothing else is.

LR or ACR or one of the better others like DxO or C1.

Anything difficult like poor lighting, exposure being hard to get right in-camera, and anything important to you, RAW. I'm not BS'ing you, I would never rely on an 8 bit, sRGB, compressed jpeg for anything more than snapshots.

Jpeg is a final output format, like TIFFs - everything is baked in, sharpening, space, wb, all of it. The files are small and fragile in post. You lose all potential to rework the file. Pros often need jpegs for speed, fps etc. but AA shooters can do much better than that base level IQ. Shoot RAW + Jpeg maybe..
 
philip pj said:
... I'm not BS'ing you, I would never rely on an 8 bit, sRGB, compressed jpeg for anything more than snapshots.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is the norm. Thing is, I don't see that value in the test shots.

(One could also argue that you statement implies that you are not giving it a real chance :) )

I can see one area where raw is indispensible; -Handling of WB issues.
OTOH, in camera jpegs handle lens anomalies automagically. Not 3rd party of course.

But generally, in the studio comparison tool, Sony raw images look noisier without really bringing more details to the table.
Nikon's mushy jpegs OTOH, is another story...

I do look forward to comparisons (preferably in the studio comparison tool) that clearly show the RAW benefits!
NB. I don't mind if RAW is superior. I just like to challenge the tradition and norm to see if it still holds value.
Especially since the tests images don't support the norm.
 
I think you're missing the point with RAW.

The camera always shoots a RAW image, and then produces one of the myriad possible JPEGs from it. It obviously does the best job it can in the tenth of the second it has to do this.

Depending on your preferences, it will then save the JPEG, the RAW (including a low res embedded JPEG), or both, on the card. If it saves a RAW, you have the opportunity to generate your own taste of JPEG from the RAW. It won't contain any more data than the camera's JPEG, but may have better colour balance or exposure or more detail in the shadows and highlights. Or it may not. The point is that you may be able to produce a JPEG you like better as you have all the raw material to work from. And with the extra horsepower of a powerful PC, you may also be able to reduce noise better. But there's no guarantee that any JPEG produced from a RAW file will necessarily be better than an OOC JPEG.

So it's not that the camera's JPEGs contain less detail than the JPEG you might produce from the RAW; it's that you're not limited to just that single interpretation of the raw data.
 
Digital Nigel said:
I think you're missing the point with RAW.
Click to expand...
Hopefully , I'm not. :)
Digital Nigel said:
The camera always shoots a RAW image, and then produces one of the myriad possible JPEGs from it. It obviously does the best job it can in the tenth of the second it has to do this.
Depending on your preferences, it will then save the JPEG, the RAW (including a low res embedded JPEG), or both, on the card.

If it saves a RAW, you have the opportunity to generate your own taste of JPEG from the RAW. It won't contain any more data than the camera's JPEG, but may have better colour balance or exposure or more detail in the shadows and highlights. Or it may not. The point is that you may be able to produce a JPEG you like better as you have all the raw material to work from.
Click to expand...
True. My reasoning is that "... that you may be able ... " doesn't materialize in the test images in the studio comparison tool. And if doesn't materialize, then why bother?

To paraphrase, Yes, I can build my own car, and get it as I want it. But in reality, all ready made cars will be better than mine.
Digital Nigel said:
And with the extra horsepower of a powerful PC, you may also be able to reduce noise better.
Click to expand...
I thought so to, but test images show otherwise.
Digital Nigel said:
But there's no guarantee that any JPEG produced from a RAW file will necessarily be better than an OOC JPEG.

So it's not that the camera's JPEGs contain less detail than the JPEG you might produce from the RAW; it's that you're not limited to just that single interpretation of the raw data.
Click to expand...
True and understand it.

And there was a time when the raw images where concistently better than the jpeg images in the comparison tool. But for the a6000 the advantages of RAW doesn't materialize.
Not that the raws are bad.
 
Eleson said:
Digital Nigel said:
I think you're missing the point with RAW.
Click to expand...
Hopefully , I'm not. :)
Eleson said:
The camera always shoots a RAW image, and then produces one of the myriad possible JPEGs from it. It obviously does the best job it can in the tenth of the second it has to do this.
Depending on your preferences, it will then save the JPEG, the RAW (including a low res embedded JPEG), or both, on the card.

If it saves a RAW, you have the opportunity to generate your own taste of JPEG from the RAW. It won't contain any more data than the camera's JPEG, but may have better colour balance or exposure or more detail in the shadows and highlights. Or it may not. The point is that you may be able to produce a JPEG you like better as you have all the raw material to work from.
Click to expand...
True. My reasoning is that "... that you may be able ... " doesn't materialize in the test images in the studio comparison tool. And if doesn't materialize, then why bother?

To paraphrase, Yes, I can build my own car, and get it as I want it. But in reality, all ready made cars will be better than mine.
Click to expand...
No, a JPEG is like a car that's only available in one spec: one engine, one colour, one gearbox, one body style. RAW is like being able to choose the colour, options, body style you want.
Eleson said:
Eleson said:
And with the extra horsepower of a powerful PC, you may also be able to reduce noise better.
Click to expand...
I thought so to, but test images show otherwise.
Click to expand...
Try images with DxO's PRIME NR. They'll beat anything in high ISO JPEGs or other RAW converters. They take minutes to process on a powerful PC, using computationally intense algorithms that couldn't be executed in the fraction of a second available in the camera's tiny, battery-powered CPU.
Eleson said:
Eleson said:
But there's no guarantee that any JPEG produced from a RAW file will necessarily be better than an OOC JPEG.

So it's not that the camera's JPEGs contain less detail than the JPEG you might produce from the RAW; it's that you're not limited to just that single interpretation of the raw data.
Click to expand...
True and understand it.

And there was a time when the raw images where concistently better than the jpeg images in the comparison tool. But for the a6000 the advantages of RAW doesn't materialize.
Not that the raws are bad.
Click to expand...
Maybe the Adobe RAW converter hasn't yet been optimised for the new camera? That may be true of other RAW converters, too. For example, DxO has only just added support for the A6000, and maybe there will be some improvements over time.
 
Last edited:
Eleson said:
philip pj said:
... I'm not BS'ing you, I would never rely on an 8 bit, sRGB, compressed jpeg for anything more than snapshots.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is the norm. Thing is, I don't see that value in the test shots.
Click to expand...
And what on Earth makes you think you would or should see them in that kind of shot? It's not meant to be the prettiest picture ever, those raws probably receive very little to no human oversight in the conversion, it's basically there to show what the noise profile of the camera looks without any processing.

It's a static scene with never-changing lightning conditions that requires a fraction of the DR the sensor is capable of. It requires ZERO flexibility, so of course something whose major benefits are flexibility and ability to better utilize DR doesn't exactly shine there.
 
Eleson said:
Does Sony IDC do jpeg conversion as good as the camera does?
Click to expand...
No, it does not. The OOC JPEG from NEX-3N appears much sharper:



Top: IDC saved with highest quality, everything at default. Bottom: OOC JPEG from Dpreview
Top: IDC saved with highest quality, everything at default. Bottom: OOC JPEG from Dpreview
 
joe6pack said:
No, it does not. The OOC JPEG from NEX-3N appears much sharper:

Top: IDC saved with highest quality, everything at default. Bottom: OOC JPEG from Dpreview
Top: IDC saved with highest quality, everything at default. Bottom: OOC JPEG from Dpreview
Click to expand...

Thanks!
As I suspected and expected.
Looking at the a6000, I'd say it's a challenge to produce equally good jpegs as the camera does.
In terms of noise and sharpness/detail.

Yes, I also understand that almost all of the studio comparison image is a constant 17% grey image, and not pushing the dynamic capabilities at all, so there is more to it.

--
Cheers
Erland
 
The thing to keep in mind is that RAW images have little or no sharpening applied, where jpegs have quite a bit more sharpening inherent in the processing engine. It is somewhat unfair to compare the sharpness of a RAW image (or even a converted RAW image with no adjustments applied) to a jpeg. The assumption that image processing software engineers make is that the user will apply sharpening to the images as a normal part of the RAW image processing workflow.
 
CameraCarl said:
The thing to keep in mind is that RAW images have little or no sharpening applied, where jpegs have quite a bit more sharpening inherent in the processing engine. It is somewhat unfair to compare the sharpness of a RAW image (or even a converted RAW image with no adjustments applied) to a jpeg. The assumption that image processing software engineers make is that the user will apply sharpening to the images as a normal part of the RAW image processing workflow.
Click to expand...
It depends on the RAW software you use. Olympus's Viewer keeps track of in-camera sharpening setting and apply sharpening "As-Shot". The final image is almost identical to OOC JPEG. Such is not the case with IDC. It left you guessing what settings you should use.

In fact, the lack of sharpness in the sample I posted is not due to sharpening, but due to Noise Reduction. If I disable noise reduction, the image looks significantly sharper in IDC. Simply put, "Auto" in IDC does not look like camera's Auto at all.

Even after factoring in NR and sharpening, color still look different. There is some magic happening inside the camera's jpeg engine that is simply not reproduced by IDC.
 
I've always seen sharpness and NR as communcating barrels.
That's why I wanted the discussion around this;
- a6000 jpegs look both sharper and cleaner, which surprised and amazed me.
 
Eleson said:
Ok, this will be like cursing in the church, but I think the question is worth debating:

Why do we shoot raw?

Look at this:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/ima...=1&x=0.6536927321850339&y=0.07974710252911542

No color artefacts in the in camera conversion.

If the in camera jpeg conversion is better that than the standalone tools, why do we bother with raw?

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/ima...1&x=-0.4738808098089535&y=0.29737088013474305

I'd say all details are still left in the jpeg image, but the noise levels are way lower in the (Sony) jpeg image.

Yes, I know! Raw have more data and should be better. But I can't really see it.

Do we really need raw? Does Sony IDC do jpeg conversion as good as the camera does?

--
Cheers
Erland
Click to expand...
I've been shooting in RAW + JPEG, but sometimes I shoot JPEG only. Some of my greatest compositions ended up just in JPEG format and required just a little retouching, but it was only minor retouching so doing it in the JPEG was fine. Others, especially where there is a lot of both shade/dark-shadows and bright light/sun/water together in the same scene, required me to bring out the highlights. This took a white blown out backdrop right back into the scene. In the JPEG, some of it could have been brought back, but not as much detail as in the RAW.

Out of all of the shots that I shoot RAW _ JPEG, I wold say 1 in 100 has a JPEG version that looks so good that I can't replicate or match quality in my RAW processing. The others, I can beat the quality of the JPEG version pretty easily. For comparative sakes, I've tried adjusting both the RAW and JPEG versions of the same images and have demonstrated how much further the RAW files go.

HDR JPEG shots of architecture on the other hand in JPEG consistently give me better quality than a single RAW file. But, it's hard for 1 exposure to compete against 3 to 5 exposures making up a single image.

Processing RAW is time consuming, so if I felt that my JPEGs were as good as my RAW files, I would just shoot JPEG. I have a lot of fun with my RAW photos :)
 
Euell said:
More than that cameras are not as good as our eyes and have far less dynamic range and may interpret color differently. For those and other reasons it is often desirable to make adjustments in PP. The RAW file contains more color information than the 24-bit JPEGs. I believe the Sony RAW files are basically 36-bit with a small compression loss. Have you ever wondered why RAw files are so much bigger than JPEG files out of the same camera? The greater c-olor information in RAW files makes for more subtle color and provides greater latitude in PP to avoid posterization. If cameras were as good as our eyes, there would be little need for PP. But, that is not the case.
Click to expand...
The dynamic range of our eyes isn't all that hot for a single shot. It's actually in the same ballpark as modern cameras, maybe even less. The huge DR we "see" is a result of postprocessing, brain does HDR with multiple exposures.

Clearly, even the eyes are shot RAW and it's being utilized to the full effect. Too bad lightroom still has a long way to go before it's as capable.
 
dotborg said:
...is that you said "we" when you really meant "I".
Click to expand...
If my question was "Why do I shot raw?" I don't think the answer can be provided by anyone else than me.
 
Eleson said:
Ok, this will be like cursing in the church, but I think the question is worth debating:

Why do we shoot raw?

Look at this:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/ima...=1&x=0.6536927321850339&y=0.07974710252911542

No color artefacts in the in camera conversion.

If the in camera jpeg conversion is better that than the standalone tools, why do we bother with raw?

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/ima...1&x=-0.4738808098089535&y=0.29737088013474305

I'd say all details are still left in the jpeg image, but the noise levels are way lower in the (Sony) jpeg image.

Yes, I know! Raw have more data and should be better. But I can't really see it.
Click to expand...
I personally use RAW not because it is better or not, but because I want to be able to adjust it to create final look like I want. Can't do that with jpeg.
Eleson said:
Do we really need raw? Does Sony IDC do jpeg conversion as good as the camera does?
Click to expand...
It may very well do as good conversion, BUT again after conversion is done, I won't be able to fiddle with image (to that extend as I can with RAW) to adjust it as I want. However, in those rare cases when you nailed everything just as you wanted (which is rarely so with me), you can use jpeg with no problem. That's all there is.

P.S. BTW I still see color shift in jpeg in your comparison tool and that leaves me wondering if IDC is that good?
 
Last edited:
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