X10 LR4 RAW to JPEG comparisons (New sensor, firmware 2.0)

Started Nov 23, 2012 | Discussions
eltocliousus Regular Member • Posts: 143
X10 LR4 RAW to JPEG comparisons (New sensor, firmware 2.0)

All comparisons are done with RAW on the left, JPEG on the right.

I made a thread a month or so back asking if if the X10 is the right street camera for me, as I process all my pictures in RAW and would find it difficult to use JPEGs. The response was that the camera really doesn't belong in RAW, and there was a thread demonstrating this, aswell as Dpreview's review, showing that sharpness/detail is quite a lot worse in RAW exported to JPEG, compared to a JPEG straight from camera.

So I ended up getting the X10 anyway, a brand new one from Fuji UK with the new sensor and firmware 2.0 natively installed, and decided to do a comparison using the most up-to-date version of Lightroom 4, and to my surprise, RAWs are near-identical to out of camera JPEGs minus the processing that happens to the JPEGs which you can't avoid on any camera, I'm quite pleased with this as now I can shoot in RAW knowing I'm not losing any detail.

The comparisons were done in Aperture priority, F11, ISO 100 with a shutter speed of 1.2 seconds, the camera was tripod mounted, I then shot the camera in identical settings at JPEG and RAW, these RAWs (.RAF) have been loaded into Lightroom then exported, full resolution, no editing done whatsoever other than when I demonstrate RAWs capability in a few of the later images, the JPEG settings were fully default, DR100, all settings on "0", standard film simulation.

I first noticed that the JPEGs were slightly wider, you simply get more in frame which is strange as I'd expect the opposite, the RAW looks to have been slightly stretched with the sides cut off, I'm not sure which is more accurate, but you can see here, that the JPEG has just a bit more room on the edge of the frame (the left side of the frame is the edge):

I noticed two other things when comparing RAWs to JPEGs, JPEGs tended to be slightly colder with brighter highlights, and had  a little less noise, most likely due noise reduction (which was set to 0, this is the default "standard" setting), here's an example of the slightly less pattern noise, and colder/brighter highlights:

My main concern with wanting to shoot RAW is the lack of detail compared to JPEG, it looked as though RAWs just weren't handled well, and I'm not sure what changed this, whether it was the newer Lightroom 4, the new sensor (doubtful), or firmware 2.0, however you can see here that neither have more detail, again the JPEG has a colder colour to it, here's a ridiculous zoom:

Now, I wanted to see how the JPEGs handled editing and bringing out detail in the shadows/highlights, as this is the main reason that I use RAW, along with better temperature adjustment and other such things, here I put both the RAW and JPEG into Lightroom 4, increased shadows +80, you can see the RAW handles this much, much better, extremely well in-fact I was very surprised, the RAW simply has much more detail, the JPEG has much less detail, with colour noise just about everywhere at the same setting:

So there we go, it seems the only benefit to JPEG is the noise, which you can quickly re-create in Lightroom by doing a little bit of noise reduction yourself, other than that RAWs seem to work perfectly as of now, and I feel happier knowing that I'm not losing fine detail when I shoot RAW, and yet I'm still able to get that lovely editing transparency that JPEG just simply can't offer.

Fujifilm X10
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
wymjym Veteran Member • Posts: 5,492
Re: X10 LR4 RAW to JPEG comparisons (New sensor, firmware 2.0)
1

well, if you're happy with your conclusion that's fine.

the raw/jpg discussion has been going on since the 1st x10 was shot....the complexity of the discussions is extreme and when its all said and told, depending on your weighing of what makes a high IQ image, jpg or raw have their benefits.

Generally I found that shooting jpg+raw and only pulling on the raw when not satisfied with the jpg was a more useful way to spend my minutes, YMMV.

wj

-- hide signature --

nikonfujiandricoh

Trevor G Veteran Member • Posts: 6,576
Re: X10 LR4 RAW to JPEG comparisons (New sensor, firmware 2.0)

Good enough testing!

You didn't say, but it looks as if you must have shot M size?

Depending on image detail L size RAW is usually noticeably inferior.

-- hide signature --

Cheers
Trevor G
Silkypix tutorials at: http://photo.computerwyse.com

OP eltocliousus Regular Member • Posts: 143
Re: X10 LR4 RAW to JPEG comparisons (New sensor, firmware 2.0)

Trevor G wrote:

Good enough testing!

You didn't say, but it looks as if you must have shot M size?

Depending on image detail L size RAW is usually noticeably inferior.

-- hide signature --

Cheers
Trevor G
Silkypix tutorials at: http://photo.computerwyse.com

It was shot on L, I found no image detail differences between both RAW and JPEG using Lightroom 4.

OP eltocliousus Regular Member • Posts: 143
Re: X10 LR4 RAW to JPEG comparisons (New sensor, firmware 2.0)

Bump

Tom Schum
Tom Schum Veteran Member • Posts: 7,304
Re: X10 LR4 RAW to JPEG comparisons (New sensor, firmware 2.0)

The last shot is especially telling, to me at least.

Lately I have been shooting my X10 (original sensor, firmware 2.0) with noise reduction set low, and minimum sharpness. The JPGs are more workable in post-processing that way (I haven't been using RAW).

With minimum sharpness I can sharpen later without haloes in Photoshop Elements. With noise reduction set to low I can preserve more detail, and I don't mind the grain as much as loss of detail.

With sharpness set to zero (normal middle of the range setting) I cannot sharpen in post processing without seeing haloes.

-- hide signature --

Tom Schum

 Tom Schum's gear list:Tom Schum's gear list
Sigma DP3 Merrill Sigma DP2 Sigma dp0 Quattro Fujifilm X30 Sigma sd Quattro +9 more
misolo Contributing Member • Posts: 945
Diffraction at f/11

A f/11 setting is equivalent to about f/44 in 35mm format. The equivalence applies to total light gathering, depth of field, and diffraction. There's going to be a very substantial amount of diffraction softening at that point, which is likely to drown out any differences in sharpness between the two ways of processing. If I have my numbers right (which I may not...), at that aperture the resolution of any image is physically limited to be that of an image with roughly 2 megapixels.

Have you tested at, say, f/2.8?

 misolo's gear list:misolo's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark III Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1 Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Sigma 24mm F1.4 DG HSM Art +13 more
misolo Contributing Member • Posts: 945
Stretched images in RAW

eltocliousus wrote:

(...)

I first noticed that the JPEGs were slightly wider, you simply get more in frame which is strange as I'd expect the opposite, the RAW looks to have been slightly stretched with the sides cut off, I'm not sure which is more accurate, but you can see here, that the JPEG has just a bit more room on the edge of the frame (the left side of the frame is the edge):

(...)

If I remember correctly, people have complained that the X10 images don't come out with a ratio of exactly 1:1 (slightly compressed on the horizontal axis, I think). What you're seeing may be the RAW converter fixing this by cropping a bit on the sides.

 misolo's gear list:misolo's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark III Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1 Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Sigma 24mm F1.4 DG HSM Art +13 more
max metz Senior Member • Posts: 2,644
Re: X10 LR4 RAW to JPEG comparisons (New sensor, firmware 2.0)

You might find that by setting the noise reduction to its lowest on the x10 you will get the same result, or better, that that using Lightroom and raw - with less effort.

The x10 has a very powerful image processor inbuilt just to be able to handle the exr sensor in a timely fashion - a mini Fuji-lab if you like.

With my old Fuji S3 Pro DSLR I learnt that it was hard to beat the inbuilt processor by processing RAW, so with that camera at least I was content with the out of camera jpeg's with the noise reduction turned right down.

I do the same with my little x10.

evoprox
evoprox Senior Member • Posts: 1,469
Re: X10 LR4 RAW to JPEG comparisons (New sensor, firmware 2.0)

Have you tried the studio shot [RAW] from DPRs review ? It contains some critical structures, especially the fine lines on those Martini bottle gold medals.

 evoprox's gear list:evoprox's gear list
Fujifilm X10 Sony Alpha NEX-7 Fujifilm X-Pro1 Sony Alpha a7 II
Kim Letkeman
Kim Letkeman Forum Pro • Posts: 33,428
hmmm ... not particularly good images ....

... for this comparison.

Try it outside and shoot branches against the sky ... then shoot people with actual hair ... then let's see how much fun you have with LR ...

 Kim Letkeman's gear list:Kim Letkeman's gear list
Nikon Coolpix 990 Fujifilm FinePix F770EXR Nikon D600 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 Nikon D7200 +17 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads