ZS60. DPR Samples Gallery is Up. Comments?

John McCormack · Mar 4, 2016

What do you think of the samples posted by DPR today? I did a quick and dirty conversion of a RAW file with LightZone. The RAW images seem to be pretty good to my eye.

The colors in my conversion are not spot on; I just wanted to see if LZ could handle it.

1/125; f/6.4; -.3EV; ISO 400; 720mm Equiv. zoom;

Jon_T · Mar 4, 2016

From some the OCC & ACR images can see that PP RAW images can produce better details and reduce the "watercolor" appearance; especially with landscape/ foliage shots.

View attachment 1039048
DPR's images: Left: PP RAW/ ACR --- Right OOC JPG

At least on my display all DPR's RAW ACR PP images have a "gritty-grain" appearance.

Below are couple quick RAW images PP with PSE14 and NeatImage; resized 50%.

cainn24 · Mar 5, 2016

Jon_T said:
From some the OCC & ACR images can see that PP RAW images can produce better details and reduce the "watercolor" appearance; especially with landscape/ foliage shots.

Had a bit of a play with this one myself as it's a really good test. DxO, PhotoNinja, then downsampled to 2160p:

cainn24 · Mar 6, 2016

cainn24 said:
Jon_T said:

From some the OCC & ACR images can see that PP RAW images can produce better details and reduce the "watercolor" appearance; especially with landscape/ foliage shots.

Click to expand...

Had a bit of a play with this one myself as it's a really good test. DxO, PhotoNinja, then downsampled to 2160p:

Not sure about that one any more. There's some ugly processing artifacts in the water and the detail enhancement seems too coarse (and almost painterly). Here's another version, this time with some deconvolution sharpening performed using ~~RawDigger~~ RawTherapee:

The sharpening methods that work best for architecture generally aren't the sharpening methods that work best for foliage, so it's all about finding a decent balance I guess.

Some people might feel that both versions are over-sharpened, and that's fine. I'm pushing the limits on purpose here.

cainn24 · Mar 6, 2016

cainn24 said:
Not sure about that one any more. There's some ugly processing artifacts in the water and the detail enhancement seems too coarse (and almost painterly). Here's another version, this time with some deconvolution sharpening performed using ~~RawDigger~~ RawTherapee:

The sharpening methods that work best for architecture generally aren't the sharpening methods that work best for foliage, so it's all about finding a decent balance I guess.

Some people might feel that both versions are over-sharpened, and that's fine. I'm pushing the limits on purpose here.

Needed to get rid of as much of that "ghostly" detail smearing as possible, which is a side-effect of certain noise reduction techniques, which are probably largely unnecessary for images like this anyway. So no DxO this time, just a straight PhotoNinja render with no luminance NR followed by a run through NeatImage before downsampling:

ANAYV · Mar 6, 2016

Jon_T said:
From some the OCC & ACR images can see that PP RAW images can produce better details and reduce the "watercolor" appearance; especially with landscape/ foliage shots.

View attachment 1039048
DPR's images: Left: PP RAW/ ACR --- Right OOC JPG

Wow, I clearly see a difference in this first shot, Jon. What ISO ?

The in camera processing is smudging and smearing away the detail !

Perhaps I will do my own tests to see if lowering the NR to -5 will preserve most of the detail.

Then again, I could just shoot RAW and avoid it altogether

ANAYV

Jon_T · Mar 6, 2016

cainn24 said:
Jon_T said:

From some the OCC & ACR images can see that PP RAW images can produce better details and reduce the "watercolor" appearance; especially with landscape/ foliage shots.

Click to expand...

Had a bit of a play with this one myself as it's a really good test. DxO, PhotoNinja, then downsampled to 2160p:

If you PP the ZS60 RAW file in DxO, did you change the RAW file info that it was a ZS40 RAW file to PP in DxO?

Thanks
Jon

Jon_T · Mar 6, 2016

ANAYV said:
Jon_T said:

From some the OCC & ACR images can see that PP RAW images can produce better details and reduce the "watercolor" appearance; especially with landscape/ foliage shots.

View attachment 1039048
DPR's images: Left: PP RAW/ ACR --- Right OOC JPG

Click to expand...

Wow, I clearly see a difference in this first shot, Jon. What ISO ?

80 ISO. In the DPR ZS60 Gallery, image #47 OOC JPG, and #48 is the RAW PP with ACR.

ANAYV said:
The in camera processing is smudging and smearing away the detail !

Yup!

ANAYV said:
Perhaps I will do my own tests to see if lowering the NR to -5 will preserve most of the detail.

As I know you're well aware the Pany in-camera JPG NR even at the in-camera NR setting at lowest setting still smears fine details (worsens as ISO increases) and unfortunately unable to completely disable NR.

ANAYV said:
Then again, I could just shoot RAW and avoid it altogether

That's what I've been doing. Would not bought even the Open Box ZS50 if ZS50 did not support RAW.

Below the #48 RAW PP with PSE/ ACR, NeatImage, resized to 50%. In case you may be interested in PP the RAW file yourself with PSE/ ACR, and Topaz DeNoise.

Cheers,
Jon

cainn24 · Mar 6, 2016

Jon_T said:
If you PP the ZS60 RAW file in DxO, did you change the RAW file info that it was a ZS40 RAW file to PP in DxO?

Indeed

axlotl · Mar 6, 2016

cainn24 said:
cainn24 said:

Not sure about that one any more. There's some ugly processing artifacts in the water and the detail enhancement seems too coarse (and almost painterly). Here's another version, this time with some deconvolution sharpening performed using ~~RawDigger~~ RawTherapee:

The sharpening methods that work best for architecture generally aren't the sharpening methods that work best for foliage, so it's all about finding a decent balance I guess.

Some people might feel that both versions are over-sharpened, and that's fine. I'm pushing the limits on purpose here.

Click to expand...

Needed to get rid of as much of that "ghostly" detail smearing as possible, which is a side-effect of certain noise reduction techniques, which are probably largely unnecessary for images like this anyway. So no DxO this time, just a straight PhotoNinja render with no luminance NR followed by a run through NeatImage before downsampling:

Thank you for doing the work and posting. Yes you are pushing the limit but that limit appears to be surprisingly high particularly in the mid part of the zoom range as here. Based on your work and others reporting on this forum, I will get a TZ80 when it becomes available in Australia.

Andrew

cainn24 · Mar 6, 2016

axlotl said:
cainn24 said:

cainn24 said:

Not sure about that one any more. There's some ugly processing artifacts in the water and the detail enhancement seems too coarse (and almost painterly). Here's another version, this time with some deconvolution sharpening performed using ~~RawDigger~~ RawTherapee:

The sharpening methods that work best for architecture generally aren't the sharpening methods that work best for foliage, so it's all about finding a decent balance I guess.

Some people might feel that both versions are over-sharpened, and that's fine. I'm pushing the limits on purpose here.

Click to expand...

Needed to get rid of as much of that "ghostly" detail smearing as possible, which is a side-effect of certain noise reduction techniques, which are probably largely unnecessary for images like this anyway. So no DxO this time, just a straight PhotoNinja render with no luminance NR followed by a run through NeatImage before downsampling:

Click to expand...

Thank you for doing the work and posting. Yes you are pushing the limit but that limit appears to be surprisingly high particularly in the mid part of the zoom range as here. Based on your work and others reporting on this forum, I will get a TZ80 when it becomes available in Australia.

It's for myself as much as anyone else. Not only do I enjoy playing around, I might end up with a TZ80 myself

These sorts of cameras are lots of fun I think. I even enjoy the underdog aspect of the whole endeavour.

theranman · Mar 6, 2016

Newsflash: Fewer than one out of a thousand who buy this camera will be doing any kind of PP'ing on it. They're concerned with SOOC jpg. The bottom line is whether the images stand on their own without processing.

cainn24 · Mar 7, 2016

theranman said:
Newsflash: Fewer than one out of a thousand who buy this camera will be doing any kind of PP'ing on it. They're concerned with SOOC jpg. The bottom line is whether the images stand on their own without processing.

Newsflash: this thread was started by someone who was (and is) interested in what could be done with the RAW output produced by this camera. And subsequent participants in the discussion were (and are) interested in the very same thing.

So the bottom line here, unless you want to be off-topic, is how good the images can look with a bit of processing.

ANAYV · Mar 7, 2016

theranman said:
Newsflash: Fewer than one out of a thousand who buy this camera will be doing any kind of PP'ing on it. They're concerned with SOOC jpg. The bottom line is whether the images stand on their own without processing.

New Newsflash...1 out of 5 folks here will be processing the images from this camera.

Oh, BTW, this camera has RAW, so Panasonic also thinks there will be plenty folk,processing their images.

ANAYV

Steen Bay · Mar 7, 2016

cainn24 said:
cainn24 said:

Not sure about that one any more. There's some ugly processing artifacts in the water and the detail enhancement seems too coarse (and almost painterly). Here's another version, this time with some deconvolution sharpening performed using ~~RawDigger~~ RawTherapee:

The sharpening methods that work best for architecture generally aren't the sharpening methods that work best for foliage, so it's all about finding a decent balance I guess.

Some people might feel that both versions are over-sharpened, and that's fine. I'm pushing the limits on purpose here.

Click to expand...

Needed to get rid of as much of that "ghostly" detail smearing as possible, which is a side-effect of certain noise reduction techniques, which are probably largely unnecessary for images like this anyway. So no DxO this time, just a straight PhotoNinja render with no luminance NR followed by a run through NeatImage before downsampling:

Looks good, even when viewed at 150% magnification in IE11! ;-) Quite impressive what such a small sensor is capable of.

bill hansen · Mar 7, 2016

This is an interesting thread. I saw the TZ60 gallery a few days ago and was surprised at how much noise was present, even in processed RAW files. Your work shows that the TZ60 is a few better camera than the gallery implies.

As for what percentage of users will want to process images, I'm more in the camp that thinks it's one out of five users, ~20% of them.

Still thinking about the TZ60, but after an hour's photo shoot with my FZ1000 yesterday, it's going to be almost impossible to match what the FZ1000 can do - and I doubt very much that the TZ60 will slide into and out of my pants pockets.

Jon_T · Mar 7, 2016

theranman said:
Newsflash: Fewer than one out of a thousand who buy this camera will be doing any kind of PP'ing on it. They're concerned with SOOC jpg. The bottom line is whether the images stand on their own without processing.

You need to get better sources for your news. ;-)

IMHO doubt many of the novice/ casual types would pay the $$$ for TZ60/ TZ80 -- would most likely get one of the less expensive pocketable long zooms; e.g., Powershot SX610.

B&H Photo User Reviews

At this time only one ZS60 review posted; noted noted themselves as "Casual".

For the ZS50 Total Reviews at this time: 69

21 Noted themselves as "Pro" or "Semi-Pro"
29 Noted themselves as "Enthusiast"

Remaining 19 reviewers noted themselves as "Casual", or left blank.

Besides DPR, PhotographyBlog.com and Imaging-Resource.com reviews for ZS/50 TZ70 and TZ60/ TZ80 RAW have sample RAW images to be downloaded.

Jon_T · Mar 7, 2016

bill hansen said:
This is an interesting thread. I saw the TZ60 gallery a few days ago and was surprised at how much noise was present, even in processed RAW files....

Need to note the "reviewer's note" RAW ARC PP "to taste". Based upon my use of PSE/ ACR the reviewer likes to use the ACR with "Details" setting higher than myself (and others) and appears not to be using any other noise reduction.

As I noted in my post above "At least on my display all DPR's RAW ACR PP images have a "gritty-grain" appearance."

Hence what perked my curiosity as the the "gritty-grain" appearance" of the 80 ISO RAW PP images, compare to my ZS50 80 ISO RAW PP images.

Cheers,
Jon

ANAYV · Mar 7, 2016

cainn24 said:
cainn24 said:

Jon_T said:

From some the OCC & ACR images can see that PP RAW images can produce better details and reduce the "watercolor" appearance; especially with landscape/ foliage shots.

Click to expand...

Had a bit of a play with this one myself as it's a really good test. DxO, PhotoNinja, then downsampled to 2160p:

Click to expand...

Not sure about that one any more. There's some ugly processing artifacts in the water and the detail enhancement seems too coarse (and almost painterly). Here's another version, this time with some deconvolution sharpening performed using ~~RawDigger~~ RawTherapee:

The sharpening methods that work best for architecture generally aren't the sharpening methods that work best for foliage, so it's all about finding a decent balance I guess.

Some people might feel that both versions are over-sharpened, and that's fine. I'm pushing the limits on purpose here.

I like them, Cainn. Impressive detail, IMHO.

Good job on your end.

ANAYV

theranman · Mar 7, 2016

cainn24 said:
theranman said:

Newsflash: Fewer than one out of a thousand who buy this camera will be doing any kind of PP'ing on it. They're concerned with SOOC jpg. The bottom line is whether the images stand on their own without processing.

Click to expand...

Newsflash: this thread was started by someone who was (and is) interested in what could be done with the RAW output produced by this camera. And subsequent participants in the discussion were (and are) interested in the very same thing.

So the bottom line here, unless you want to be off-topic, is how good the images can look with a bit of processing.

You're right. Apologies for being off topic. Enjoy your pp'ing!

ZS60. DPR Samples Gallery is Up. Comments?

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Attachments

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Attachments

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts