its scary how good a low res jpeg out of a micro 4/3 camera can be ....

JasonTheBirder said:

I'll do you one better:



it's a 400 pixel red square. Should be good enough to print billboard size.

Hahaha, just joking. Honestly, 1 megapixel is still on the order of 1000x1000. Pretty sufficient for many applications, especially for shots with not much fine detail (like feathers).

Click to expand...

--
Dr. Rupert Bullfinch

Jason -

you know what they say

" when it comes to digital cameras - the first megapixel is the best"

--
Dr. Rupert Bullfinch

off topic :

what does it mean to be " pekored" ?

Very close to the same as "Dr. Rupert Bullfinch"

you got me so good

Almost everything is relative.

Of course it can look Ok, everything can look Ok in isolation. A 3 mpx file can look ok on a cellphone screen or 8x12 print.

It is scary how good a low res jpeg out of a FF camera can look on a 16x24 print compared to the same print from a low res jpeg micro 4/3.

Dr Bullfinch said:

ok so there were alot of complaints

Click to expand...

I haven't seen any complaints. What I've seen is valid adverse criticism.

Dr Bullfinch said:

so I went back - lowered sharpness and set the camera all the way to the lowest MP size image with is 5 Mp

I then cropped it down to the 1 mp image here

so it truly is the worst of the worst of the worst

Click to expand...

No it isn't. How many people have to tell you that there are many cameras with much smaller - and therefore worse performing - sensors before it sinks in?

JasonTheBirder said:

I'm actually kind of impressed how camera manufacturers and smartphone manufacturers have made algorithms to make images look good when viewed at a very small scale, but when viewed at larger zoom levels, they look horrible.

Click to expand...

In the digital era folk have become obsessed with acutance which can be pushed right over the top at small viewing sizes.

This was an issue in the pre digital days too, but I think we had a more balanced view of it. Some folk used to prefer "high acutance" developers, for example, which increased edge contrast chemically, but just as many preferred "soft" developers. In those days "sharp" simply meant the image was in focus and not blurred.

As per the original of your posted image, it is a 14Mp resolution image (so, you had actually cropped 30% cropped off from the SOOC image), then compressed the 14Mp image to a file size of around 1MB.

Dr Bullfinch said:

ok so there were alot of complaints

so I went back - lowered sharpness and set the camera all the way to the lowest MP size image with is 5 Mp

I then cropped it down to the 1 mp image here

Click to expand...

You might have confused the file size which is expressed in Megabyte, not the resolution which is expressed in terms of Million Pixels. The posted image has a file size of 1.03MB as being reported by FastStone, and it has a resolution of 4724 x 2952 = 14Mp.

I supposed you meant the "lowest MP size... 5Mp" should be 5MB in file size before compression, but still has the same 14Mp resolution.

I guessed you might might apply a 70~80%(?) compression to compress a 5MB file to 1MB?

Dr Bullfinch said:

so it truly is the worst of the worst of the worst

Click to expand...

If view on not larger than 1:1 (i.e., no enlargement been made), IME usually a 40~95% Quality saved image (5%~60% compression) might show very limited compression artifact (if any). Basically the difference on IQ vs no compression could not be very noticeable.

Therefore, it might not always = worst of worst...

The following was a SOOC jpg from GX7, shot on full 16Mp resolution. I tried to compress them by Quality = 80% and another one by 50% as below. IMHO as long as view them not larger than 1:1, basically no major detoritation on IQ.

Original SOOC jpg: 16Mp resolution, 5.4MB in size:



Used Saved As to save the above using Quality = 80% (compression), Resolution = 16Mp, File size had been reduced to 0.9MB.



Saved the SOOC JPG by Quality = 50%, Resolution = 16Mp, file size had been reduced to 0.5MB.

Dr Bullfinch said:

you love it ?

in my estimation 20 X 24 print - tack sharp and vibrant

Click to expand...

I suppose you would print it at 200dpi? (will likely produce a 24"[i.e., 4724/200] x 14.8" [2952/200] hard copy.)

Dr Bullfinch said:

big poster - no good

Click to expand...

Could depend on the resolution of the printing?

G9 can produce an image of 5184 x 3888:

• By 300dpi, it could produce 17.3" x 13".
• By 200dpi, it is 25.9" x 19.4".
• By 150dpi, it is 34.5" x 25.9".
• By 100dpi, it is 51.8" x 38.8".
• By 72dpi (IMHO it could be the lowest IQ?), it is 72" x 54".

Therefore, really a matter on the printed quality and the intended viewing distance of the output. Of course, the more pixel the larger and higher quality of print out.

Dr Bullfinch said:

click to see original jpeg

Click to expand...

Not bad, but likely IMHO the noise should be more than expected @ISO200, also is looking more grainy and hard than other Panny I owed.


Cropped the above to 360 x 360, roughly 1:1 view on any monitor.

The noise condition I expect from recent Pannys (the following is from GX7, which is a few generation older model indeed :-( ) @ISIO200 as below:



As per the histogram under FastStone of the posted sample, it suggested that the shot should have been shot with proper exposure.



Therefore I guessed that it could be an issue on the NR and sharpening of Capture One...

How about SOOC jpg of G9? Would it produce a less noise / more smooth noise image than the processed one?

--
Albert
** Please feel free to download the original image I posted here and edit it as you like **

alcelc said:

As per the original of your posted image, it is a 14Mp resolution image (so, you had actually cropped 30% cropped off from the SOOC image), then compressed the 14Mp image to a file size of around 1MB.

Click to expand...

The image size is 4050x4724=19.132mp

alcelc said:

As per the original of your posted image, it is a 14Mp resolution image (so, you had actually cropped 30% cropped off from the SOOC image), then compressed the 14Mp image to a file size of around 1MB.

Dr Bullfinch said:

ok so there were alot of complaints

so I went back - lowered sharpness and set the camera all the way to the lowest MP size image with is 5 Mp

I then cropped it down to the 1 mp image here

Click to expand...

You might have confused the file size which is expressed in Megabyte, not the resolution which is expressed in terms of Million Pixels. The posted image has a file size of 1.03MB as being reported by FastStone, and it has a resolution of 4724 x 2952 = 14Mp.

I supposed you meant the "lowest MP size... 5Mp" should be 5MB in file size before compression, but still has the same 14Mp resolution.

I guessed you might might apply a 70~80%(?) compression to compress a 5MB file to 1MB?

alcelc said:

so it truly is the worst of the worst of the worst

Click to expand...

If view on not larger than 1:1 (i.e., no enlargement been made), IME usually a 40~95% Quality saved image (5%~60% compression) might show very limited compression artifact (if any). Basically the difference on IQ vs no compression could not be very noticeable.

Therefore, it might not always = worst of worst...

The following was a SOOC jpg from GX7, shot on full 16Mp resolution. I tried to compress them by Quality = 80% and another one by 50% as below. IMHO as long as view them not larger than 1:1, basically no major detoritation on IQ.

Original SOOC jpg: 16Mp resolution, 5.4MB in size:



Used Saved As to save the above using Quality = 80% (compression), Resolution = 16Mp, File size had been reduced to 0.9MB.



Saved the SOOC JPG by Quality = 50%, Resolution = 16Mp, file size had been reduced to 0.5MB.

alcelc said:

you love it ?

in my estimation 20 X 24 print - tack sharp and vibrant

Click to expand...

I suppose you would print it at 200dpi? (will likely produce a 24"[i.e., 4724/200] x 14.8" [2952/200] hard copy.)

alcelc said:

big poster - no good

Click to expand...

Could depend on the resolution of the printing?

G9 can produce an image of 5184 x 3888:

• By 300dpi, it could produce 17.3" x 13".
• By 200dpi, it is 25.9" x 19.4".
• By 150dpi, it is 34.5" x 25.9".
• By 100dpi, it is 51.8" x 38.8".
• By 72dpi (IMHO it could be the lowest IQ?), it is 72" x 54".

Therefore, really a matter on the printed quality and the intended viewing distance of the output. Of course, the more pixel the larger and higher quality of print out.

alcelc said:

click to see original jpeg

Click to expand...

Not bad, but likely IMHO the noise should be more than expected @ISO200, also is looking more grainy and hard than other Panny I owed.


Cropped the above to 360 x 360, roughly 1:1 view on any monitor.

The noise condition I expect from recent Pannys (the following is from GX7, which is a few generation older model indeed :-( ) @ISIO200 as below:



As per the histogram under FastStone of the posted sample, it suggested that the shot should have been shot with proper exposure.



Therefore I guessed that it could be an issue on the NR and sharpening of Capture One...

How about SOOC jpg of G9? Would it produce a less noise / more smooth noise image than the processed one?

Click to expand...

here is a jpeg version f- out of camera for comparison

Capture one has many settings for sharpening which I will need to dig into including halo reduction sliders



--
Dr. Rupert Bullfinch

Next time you want to awe the peepers re the abilities of say an older camera or 1" sensor, try a blind test.

Post up a 100% crop and let them guess the size of the sensor and density of pixels. No equivalence; just whether a competent photography with a tool they know how to use can produce a good result.

But it would be sorta pointless, since know people do that all the time. Probably even the pixel peepers. I'm sure we've all stumbled back in amongst the digital dust bunnies of our old photo catalogs and found images that stood the test of time and pixel wars.

robgendreau said:

Next time you want to awe the peepers re the abilities of say an older camera or 1" sensor, try a blind test.

Post up a 100% crop and let them guess the size of the sensor and density of pixels. No equivalence; just whether a competent photography with a tool they know how to use can produce a good result.

But it would be sorta pointless, since know people do that all the time. Probably even the pixel peepers. I'm sure we've all stumbled back in amongst the digital dust bunnies of our old photo catalogs and found images that stood the test of time and pixel wars.

Click to expand...

that would be an interesting test

Every camera (like most equipment of any kind) has a performance range. The makers want the top end of the range to be as good as possible, within the constraints set by budget, hoped-for market and so on. However it is decide, the top end of the range is what it turns out to be.

With cameras, many people don't want the absolute highest quality all the time so the makers allow for this by allowing the quality to be tuned back. However, people also often post their photos on social media, hosting websites or whatever. If the quality is tuned too far back a lot of inferior photos will be posted; potential buyers seeing these will think the camera is inferior and buy something else instead.

The makers protect themselves against this by limiting the amount of tuning back so that even the lowest quality they offer is still pretty good. That's what you are seeing; it's simple common sense for the makers to work that way.

So what you are really saying is that it's common sense that you find scary.

tbcass said:

alcelc said:

As per the original of your posted image, it is a 14Mp resolution image (so, you had actually cropped 30% cropped off from the SOOC image), then compressed the 14Mp image to a file size of around 1MB.

Click to expand...

The image size is 4050x4724=19.132mp

Click to expand...

Might be we were looking at different posted samples?

--
Albert
** Please feel free to download the original image I posted here and edit it as you like **

Different photo. I was looking at the first photo of the guy with the cigar. When you said "original of your posted image" I took it literally as the first image in the first post so it was my mistake.

> is when someone posts a pic they're proud of, for whatever reason, someone has to nitpick it to death, just to show how knowledgeable they are. :-(

Smaug01 said:

> is when someone posts a pic they're proud of, for whatever reason, someone has to nitpick it to death, just to show how knowledgeable they are. :-(

Click to expand...

I agree, but this post wasn’t presented as such, it was posted in the form of a technical statement. Unfortunately the statement included a couple of errors which substantially undermined the statement and which the OP was slow to take on board as the thread progressed.

Every day’s a school day, and the OP now knows where the in camera sharpening settings are and how to set them a little more subtly, the difference between the jpg quality and resolution settings and that micro 4/3s isn’t the smallest sensor size.

Smaug01 said:

> is when someone posts a pic they're proud of, for whatever reason, someone has to nitpick it to death, just to show how knowledgeable they are. :-(

Click to expand...

That's a sweeping statement I personally disagree with. On all the forums I contribute to the vast majority of comments on posted photos are complimentary and constructive.

And as others have pointed out, in the context the OP presented his images all the comments made are quite appropriate.

Look at it another way - do you think it would have been right for us all to ignore the fact that the images concerned are over processed? What would the OP have learned from that?

Smaug01 said:

> is when someone posts a pic they're proud of, for whatever reason, someone has to nitpick it to death, just to show how knowledgeable they are. :-(

Click to expand...

I disagree with that in this case and the photo was so bad that criticism was not nit picking. The OP thought the photo was good but it wasn't. After several of us pointed out the flaws the OP corrected the problem and produced excellent samples. If we had not pointed out the problems with the photo the OP would not have learned how to improve the results.

--
Tom

As per the EXIF, you had applied Expressive filter effect. Since the filter might not really reflect what your camera can do, and sometimes it might overdo easily...

If you are looking for a more vibrant SOOC jpg output, might worth to try the Vivid Photo Style. Its extra contrast, saturation and sharpness could produce pleasant looking SOOC image. Excellent for non portrait shot (no good for skin editing).

Shooting RAW could forget the above. But please concentrate on optimal exposure, use a compatible RAW converter, and prepare to devote time on conversion to squeeze out the best. Lacking any of the above, SOOC jpg might produce something similar, if not better, as the auto conversion by a compatible RAW converter will produce.

Finally, had noticed that 1/800", f/8 and ISO200 was used.

First of all, f/8 is not necessary the best for M43 lenses. Usually M43 lenses would either stop down a stop or so for their sweetest spot, or some (most consumer grade f/3.5ish zoom lenses) even best on wild open.

Regarding your Olympus 45 f/1.2 Pro, as per OpticalLimits, the sweetest spot of this lens should be @f/2.8, and f/2 be the 2nd best. f/8 is already entering the weaker zone of this lens. Might consider to use f/3.5~f/4 in case you need a deeper DoF. I won't stop down further for that shot.

My 2 cents.