Digital Nigel
Veteran Member
Ah, so that can be used for the initial review in playback, with the full JPEG or instant JPEG from RAW used when you zoom in.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
What your lens actually produces at 24mm
- Thread starter Digital Nigel
- Start date
sybersitizen
Veteran Member
My Nikon V2 and V3 do it. I assume it's the norm rather than the exception. Any cameras that don't do it would be pretty dismal when chimping RAW files to check focus accuracy.
Last edited:
Digital Nigel
Veteran Member
I'm pretty sure that most don't, and that's why so many people assume that Sony doesn't, either.
sybersitizen
Veteran Member
Actually, I was going to correct my post. The Nikons (and probably most other manufacturers) embed full resolution JPEGs in their RAW files, not the reduced resolution JPEGs that Sony uses. That's the difference, and that's the only reason why Sony cameras have to generate full resolution versions for chimping.
Last edited:
Digital Nigel
Veteran Member
I have cameras from two other manufacturers that don't.
It seems like this isn't a subject one can generalise on.
Horacecoker
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 4,130
- Solutions
- 5
- Reaction score
- 2,285
But if you think about it logically, it would be ridiculous not to be able to zoom in and check focus when shooting RAW-only. All camera manufacturers must allow this one way or the other with a full-res jpeg.
Dak on cam
Veteran Member
I said DSC-R1. That one has an EVF with 235000 pixels. The LCD resolution is probably half of that. Preview image sizes tend to be what the camera can make use of. While I agree that the JPEG here will have its main part decoded except when in the camera's directory view... Uh, there is not much of a use pontificating about what this camera does with the raw files, actually. It writes them and never looks at them again. Any subsequent image manipulations (like rotating/extraction) are done on the JPEG and leave the RAW alone. Remove the JPEG, and the camera does not display anything anymore at all, I think. You can only save JPEG, or JPEG+RAW. Not raw on its own.
Since it's the only camera writing raw from Sony I have, it's up to someone else to extract the previews and check their size on newer models. For the DSC-R1, the raw file previews would be the right size for in-camera full-scale view, but I don't think it even looks in the raw.
Dak on cam
Veteran Member
The camera obviously has no problem converting raw image information to JPEG at high speed. It has to do it all the time. The problem is not the conversion but rather drawing the much larger files off the memory card. JPEG files require quite more, not less processing to display than raw files. But since they take less space on the card, they are loaded faster. And if the camera can do one thing efficiently, it is decoding and encoding JPEG files.
Digital Nigel
Veteran Member
Yes, but it only has to do that when you zoom in. There is a tiny delay, but it's almost too short to notice.
Why would that be?
True, but the difference is a small fraction of a second.
Digital Nigel
Veteran Member
I agree.
I don't think it's worth using the ancient R1 as a guide to anything Sony does these days. It might be of historical interest, but no more. Modern Sony cameras are descendants of Minolta cameras from that era, not the R1.
Horacecoker
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 4,130
- Solutions
- 5
- Reaction score
- 2,285
Please do a little experiment with your Canon and Panasonic like I did to satisfy myself I was viewing a full-res jpeg when zooming in on the screen in play mode when shooting RAW-only., Set the cameras to shoot one RAW-only and then one jpeg-only on the same subject. Check the images in play mode zoomed in. If the 'RAW'-only shots look anyway inferior to the jpeg-only shots, I will be astonished.
sybersitizen
Veteran Member
They don't what? They don't offer any kind of full resolution view, at all, for use when chimping RAW files? If so, that's truly sad.
I'll generalize enough to say such a limitation would be a serious oversight. The important thing is that it be done regardless of which way it's done.
Last edited:
Digital Nigel
Veteran Member
Canon and Panasonic don't embed full-res JPEGs in RAW files. It looks like Nikon still does.
But does that mean that when you shoot RAW+JPEG you're actually storing two full-size JPEGs? That sounds very wasteful.
Last time I checked, they don't allow full res zoom in when you shoot RAW-only. However, they do embed a larger preview than Sony does, so you can zoom in a bit before the image gets pixellated.
sybersitizen
Veteran Member
It is, kind of ... especially if you have a reasonably convenient way to extract the one from the RAW file if you want it. However, the usual retort I've seen to this kind of thing is memory is cheap, so I guess a lot of people don't care.
Last edited:
Dak on cam
Veteran Member
Raw files require demosaicing. JPEG files require converting Huffman decoding of DCT transform data, doing an inverse DCT, interpolating the chroma subsampling of the format, converting from the color space used in the JPEG to RGB.
There is a reason JPEG compresses typical photographic material well, and that reason involves a lot of math.
Guy Parsons
Veteran Member
For sure Olympus uses the embedded jpeg in the models I have, indeed it is a 3200x2400 embedded jpeg but seems to be highly compressed, so that's exactly why I use the raw+jpeg habit to get a better detail review. The Olympus can do raw conversions on command in camera, but it certainly does not do them for review. Maybe the very latest models with better processing power have done that?
For me (only?) the jury is still out on the RX100M6 as I have seen differences in an early test that made me believe that it was using the embedded jpeg for review, even at zoom. Need to do more careful shots and using a tripod on some high resolution target to (dis) prove what I thought I saw.
Horacecoker
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 4,130
- Solutions
- 5
- Reaction score
- 2,285
See what I mean folks. He still doesn't believe us!
Guy Parsons
Veteran Member
I believe what I test for myself as there has always been lots of wrong information spread on these forums for the 17 years that I've been here on DPReview.
I'll report back with what I find when I have time to do the tests that satisfy my own curiosity.
So basically yes, I don't believe anybody, especially the dogmatic ones.
Digital Nigel
Veteran Member
Tests? It takes <10 seconds with one RAW shot containing some detail (eg, a magazine or newspaper page). It's trivially easy to do. I have eight Sony cameras and they all work the same way.
Oh well, you won't believe what I've just said then.
sybersitizen
Veteran Member
RAW files normally require more than just demosaicing in order to be displayed by a camera. They also receive some treatment related to color space/gamma/tone curve at the minimum. I've seen lots of my own RAW files that seem to have received nothing but demosaicing, and they look pretty drab.
Aren't we talking about the time required to load and display something, presumably from the moment the request is initiated? If you're separating data transfer time from data processing time, then you may have a point; but in the end, both things contribute to the time required to load and display an image.
It clearly takes longer for any computer-based viewer/converter I use to load and display a RAW file than it does to load and display a corresponding JPEG file. Are you saying what's true of computers in this case is not true of cameras?
Last edited:
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum