Ricoh GR Preview in RAW mode vs Jpeg can someone explain please

Started May 25, 2013 | Discussions
Jorge Ledesma
Jorge Ledesma Regular Member • Posts: 261
Ricoh GR Preview in RAW mode vs Jpeg can someone explain please

Guys, I just realized that when you switch the mode from the jpeg to raw, the image preview sucks big time. But while in jpeg mode one can easily zoom in and check focus clearly. Is this  a Ricoh GR limitation on the RAW image itself or is this fixable in a firmware updates.

Chime in please.

 Jorge Ledesma's gear list:Jorge Ledesma's gear list
Ricoh GR Fujifilm X-T1 Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 35mm F2 R WR
VladimirV Senior Member • Posts: 2,659
Re: Ricoh GR Preview in RAW mode vs Jpeg can someone explain please

Jorge, this is  something I have brought up with Ricoh before, the review uses he JPG or if no available the embedded JPG in the DNG. Now Ricoh only saves a very low resolution JPG in the DNG so it's pretty much useless for review, in other words shoot JPG and RAW at all times if you want to review your pictures.

Ricoh did not even allow to save only RAW files until people for some strange reason kept complaining an wanted to shoot only RAW so they did enable RAW only but never bothered to change the embedded JPG.

The upside of this is that the RAW files are very small and not insanely large like the Fuji X100s which come in at over 35MB from what I saw.

Tom Caldwell Forum Pro • Posts: 31,640
Re: Ricoh GR Preview in RAW mode vs Jpeg can someone explain please

VladimirV wrote:

Jorge, this is  something I have brought up with Ricoh before, the review uses he JPG or if no available the embedded JPG in the DNG. Now Ricoh only saves a very low resolution JPG in the DNG so it's pretty much useless for review, in other words shoot JPG and RAW at all times if you want to review your pictures.

Ricoh did not even allow to save only RAW files until people for some strange reason kept complaining an wanted to shoot only RAW so they did enable RAW only but never bothered to change the embedded JPG.

The upside of this is that the RAW files are very small and not insanely large like the Fuji X100s which come in at over 35MB from what I saw.

Ditto Samsung NX raw files - huge.  So we might wonder why we need a big jpg saved inside a raw file if we can save raw+jpg separately?  Seems that this solution would make a possibly larger combined raw+jpg which would take longer to save than a standard raw + tiny embedded jpg. Worse there would be even larger raw files cluttering up hard drives with not option to delete the unecessary from-camera jpg.  I like it the way Ricoh now gives the user many choices.  However I still find it strange how raw-only people spit marbles at having to wear a jpg save as well.  Perhpas lack of understanding that the alternative is to have a full size jpg permanently stored inside the raw file?

There is a solution - tiny jpg inside dng - low res playback or no jpg at all.  No jpg would result in slow in-camera playback as the camera converts each and every raw file back into jpg to be shown on the lcd screen.  I would have thought that those "only doing raw" would be the most particular about checking their playback closely.

But of course processing your own raw files fixes everything and little attention is necessary to camera settings at time of capture, why raw even fixes focus problems as well as out of gamut ...

This is a perennial "Aunt Sally" ready to be set up and knocked down by each and every person in the expert business of photography.  It is sure to bring up some interesting debate:

For the purpose of the exercise - my understanding is that the raw file allows all the capture data to be saved and later manipulated by the user.  We all agree on that and the images can be enhanced - sometimes a lot if the image was not perfectly caught in the first place.  It is great way to recover train wrecks or to polish prize winning captures.  However the camera always have their own inbuilt raw processing software and gaily provide the jpg version based on the camera settings used by the user.  The more correct those settings the more likely the jpg will be right first hit and the less final manipulation necessary.  But raw might also allow the personal touch to make improvement to taste.  Now the first hack the software raw processing will do is to take the raw file and the metadata exported by the camera and try and reconstruct the jpg that your camera has just made all by itself.  If it does something different then you get one of these much lamented "reds" problems.  The messenger gets blamed even though "the messenger" has shown a correct image caught right up there on the lcd from the playback jpg - but "cameras are hopeless at processing raw images" of course.  We are regaled at some length with the crazy notion that somehow the camera has made a colour mistake in it's raw file exported whilst at the same time upholding the quite contradictory notion that the raw file is the "digital negative" and therefore the answer to all imaging prayers.

Anyway, supposing the raw post processing software gets it right it is still only trying to copy what the camera does "for free" with no effort at all.  At that point the user can play and use their own skills to improve the raw image that you have in front of you already replicated as a "would be" jpg conversion.

So having a raw file pits your personal skills against the cameras ability to do the same thing.  No bad thing.

But for some it seems that to process raw is to take less care with the camera at capture time and fix everything in raw - fine if that is what you want, but hardly the hallowed process that it is sometimes said to be.

Interesting to see that the Ricoh GR is allowing the user to adjust their own raw-file processing in-camera.  No one has talked about this as much as the focus assist ability also seems to be a closed book.  If the basic raw file adjustments become available in-camera and are properly useful then perhaps the need to rage at Adobe over its "profiles" will disappear and we will all save quite a lot of money in buying raw processing software and time in front of a "hot computer" tweaking our raw files.  They will be fixable in the field in a spare moment, perhaps on a sunny park bench or in a cafe with a cup of coffee to hand?

As noted elsewhere, after the first rush of sample images and pictures of the camera itself someone is bound to open up the menus and find out what really makes this camera "tick".  Can't wait until the island trader sails into Sydney harbour with its crate of GR cameras as supercargo.  We had a bad storm a few days ago - I hope it did not sink.

-- hide signature --

Tom Caldwell

Jorge Ledesma
OP Jorge Ledesma Regular Member • Posts: 261
Re: Ricoh GR Preview in RAW mode vs Jpeg can someone explain please

Tom Caldwell wrote:

VladimirV wrote:

Jorge, this is  something I have brought up with Ricoh before, the review uses he JPG or if no available the embedded JPG in the DNG. Now Ricoh only saves a very low resolution JPG in the DNG so it's pretty much useless for review, in other words shoot JPG and RAW at all times if you want to review your pictures.

Ricoh did not even allow to save only RAW files until people for some strange reason kept complaining an wanted to shoot only RAW so they did enable RAW only but never bothered to change the embedded JPG.

The upside of this is that the RAW files are very small and not insanely large like the Fuji X100s which come in at over 35MB from what I saw.

Ditto Samsung NX raw files - huge.  So we might wonder why we need a big jpg saved inside a raw file if we can save raw+jpg separately?  Seems that this solution would make a possibly larger combined raw+jpg which would take longer to save than a standard raw + tiny embedded jpg. Worse there would be even larger raw files cluttering up hard drives with not option to delete the unecessary from-camera jpg.  I like it the way Ricoh now gives the user many choices.  However I still find it strange how raw-only people spit marbles at having to wear a jpg save as well.  Perhpas lack of understanding that the alternative is to have a full size jpg permanently stored inside the raw file?

There is a solution - tiny jpg inside dng - low res playback or no jpg at all.  No jpg would result in slow in-camera playback as the camera converts each and every raw file back into jpg to be shown on the lcd screen.  I would have thought that those "only doing raw" would be the most particular about checking their playback closely.

But of course processing your own raw files fixes everything and little attention is necessary to camera settings at time of capture, why raw even fixes focus problems as well as out of gamut ...

This is a perennial "Aunt Sally" ready to be set up and knocked down by each and every person in the expert business of photography.  It is sure to bring up some interesting debate:

For the purpose of the exercise - my understanding is that the raw file allows all the capture data to be saved and later manipulated by the user.  We all agree on that and the images can be enhanced - sometimes a lot if the image was not perfectly caught in the first place.  It is great way to recover train wrecks or to polish prize winning captures.  However the camera always have their own inbuilt raw processing software and gaily provide the jpg version based on the camera settings used by the user.  The more correct those settings the more likely the jpg will be right first hit and the less final manipulation necessary.  But raw might also allow the personal touch to make improvement to taste.  Now the first hack the software raw processing will do is to take the raw file and the metadata exported by the camera and try and reconstruct the jpg that your camera has just made all by itself.  If it does something different then you get one of these much lamented "reds" problems.  The messenger gets blamed even though "the messenger" has shown a correct image caught right up there on the lcd from the playback jpg - but "cameras are hopeless at processing raw images" of course.  We are regaled at some length with the crazy notion that somehow the camera has made a colour mistake in it's raw file exported whilst at the same time upholding the quite contradictory notion that the raw file is the "digital negative" and therefore the answer to all imaging prayers.

Anyway, supposing the raw post processing software gets it right it is still only trying to copy what the camera does "for free" with no effort at all.  At that point the user can play and use their own skills to improve the raw image that you have in front of you already replicated as a "would be" jpg conversion.

So having a raw file pits your personal skills against the cameras ability to do the same thing.  No bad thing.

But for some it seems that to process raw is to take less care with the camera at capture time and fix everything in raw - fine if that is what you want, but hardly the hallowed process that it is sometimes said to be.

Interesting to see that the Ricoh GR is allowing the user to adjust their own raw-file processing in-camera.  No one has talked about this as much as the focus assist ability also seems to be a closed book.  If the basic raw file adjustments become available in-camera and are properly useful then perhaps the need to rage at Adobe over its "profiles" will disappear and we will all save quite a lot of money in buying raw processing software and time in front of a "hot computer" tweaking our raw files.  They will be fixable in the field in a spare moment, perhaps on a sunny park bench or in a cafe with a cup of coffee to hand?

As noted elsewhere, after the first rush of sample images and pictures of the camera itself someone is bound to open up the menus and find out what really makes this camera "tick".  Can't wait until the island trader sails into Sydney harbour with its crate of GR cameras as supercargo.  We had a bad storm a few days ago - I hope it did not sink.

-- hide signature --

Tom Caldwell

Thanks Tom. My vote goes towards a larger RAW file, checking critical focus is almost impossible at its current stage.

 Jorge Ledesma's gear list:Jorge Ledesma's gear list
Ricoh GR Fujifilm X-T1 Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 35mm F2 R WR
Jorge Ledesma
OP Jorge Ledesma Regular Member • Posts: 261
Re: Ricoh GR Preview in RAW mode vs Jpeg can someone explain please

If the GR is going to have a glorious aps-c sensor, then it should have this, I mean all Nikon and Canon dslr have these great previews and now that we get this baby, I can't even check focus, grrrr this just ticks me off so much. You know how it goes, if its not one thing, its another.

 Jorge Ledesma's gear list:Jorge Ledesma's gear list
Ricoh GR Fujifilm X-T1 Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 35mm F2 R WR
photoreddi Veteran Member • Posts: 7,729
Re: Ricoh GR Preview in RAW mode vs Jpeg can someone explain please

Jorge Ledesma wrote:

If the GR is going to have a glorious aps-c sensor, then it should have this, I mean all Nikon and Canon dslr have these great previews and now that we get this baby, I can't even check focus, grrrr this just ticks me off so much. You know how it goes, if its not one thing, its another.

As far as I'm aware, all RAW files include embedded JPEGs and they are also stored at less than the maximum possible quality. Nikon for instance includes full resolution Basic JPEGs. Basic just means that the embedded JPEGs are highly compressed, in order to save space, but the full resolution lets you see the images on the LCD in very high magnification, greater than 100%. That is, a single image pixel occupies 4 LCD pixels at the highest magnification, and when viewed on a computer, the embedded JPEG is the same high resolution as the camera's sensor, so my 12mp D300 produces 12mp embedded jpges. My Canon and Fuji P&S cameras' RAW files includ lower resolution embedded JPEGs, so (I may be off slightly) the embedded JPEGs are about 2mp or 3mp from the cameras that have 10mp and 12mp sensors.

So my Nikon P&S cameras can zoom in to a greater degree in playback than my Canon and Fuji P&S cameras because their RAW embedded JPEGs are also full resolution, just like the embedded JPEGs from my Nikon DSLRs. The workaround is to set the camera to produce RAW+JPEG instead of just RAW files. You should then be able to get high magnification from your previews.

My GR IV (I don't have the new GR) should work similar to the GR. RAW only lets me zoom in to x3.4, which is the same magnification it allows when shooting RAW + VGA JPEG. Both RAW + Normal JPEG and RAW + Fine JPEG allow zooming in to x16. It seems a little odd that both of these have the same x16 limit but what's even stranger is that this when shooting JPEG only, the GR IV allows x16 zooming for 10mp, 9mp, 8mp, 7mp, 5mp and 3mp JPEGs, drops to x6.7 for 1mp JPEGs and x3.4 for VGA JPEGs. So I think that it's safe to say that if Ricoh had allowed RAW files to have 3mp embedded JPEGs the cameras would have been able to zoom all the way to x16 when shooting RAW only.

FWIW, for each of the resolutions that I tried, I only tested it using one aspect ratio, so it's possible that there might be some magnification inconsistencies for specific resolutions when some other aspect ratios are chosen.

Jorge Ledesma
OP Jorge Ledesma Regular Member • Posts: 261
Re: Ricoh GR Preview in RAW mode vs Jpeg can someone explain please

photoreddi wrote:

Jorge Ledesma wrote:

If the GR is going to have a glorious aps-c sensor, then it should have this, I mean all Nikon and Canon dslr have these great previews and now that we get this baby, I can't even check focus, grrrr this just ticks me off so much. You know how it goes, if its not one thing, its another.

As far as I'm aware, all RAW files include embedded JPEGs and they are also stored at less than the maximum possible quality. Nikon for instance includes full resolution Basic JPEGs. Basic just means that the embedded JPEGs are highly compressed, in order to save space, but the full resolution lets you see the images on the LCD in very high magnification, greater than 100%. That is, a single image pixel occupies 4 LCD pixels at the highest magnification, and when viewed on a computer, the embedded JPEG is the same high resolution as the camera's sensor, so my 12mp D300 produces 12mp embedded jpges. My Canon and Fuji P&S cameras' RAW files includ lower resolution embedded JPEGs, so (I may be off slightly) the embedded JPEGs are about 2mp or 3mp from the cameras that have 10mp and 12mp sensors.

So my Nikon P&S cameras can zoom in to a greater degree in playback than my Canon and Fuji P&S cameras because their RAW embedded JPEGs are also full resolution, just like the embedded JPEGs from my Nikon DSLRs. The workaround is to set the camera to produce RAW+JPEG instead of just RAW files. You should then be able to get high magnification from your previews.

My GR IV (I don't have the new GR) should work similar to the GR. RAW only lets me zoom in to x3.4, which is the same magnification it allows when shooting RAW + VGA JPEG. Both RAW + Normal JPEG and RAW + Fine JPEG allow zooming in to x16. It seems a little odd that both of these have the same x16 limit but what's even stranger is that this when shooting JPEG only, the GR IV allows x16 zooming for 10mp, 9mp, 8mp, 7mp, 5mp and 3mp JPEGs, drops to x6.7 for 1mp JPEGs and x3.4 for VGA JPEGs. So I think that it's safe to say that if Ricoh had allowed RAW files to have 3mp embedded JPEGs the cameras would have been able to zoom all the way to x16 when shooting RAW only.

FWIW, for each of the resolutions that I tried, I only tested it using one aspect ratio, so it's possible that there might be some magnification inconsistencies for specific resolutions when some other aspect ratios are chosen.

Thanks so much for the explanation, now I wonder if the Coolpix A is like all Nikon you explained. That's important in my opinion. Although, I'm happy the output of the GR, this bothers me like crazy, not a deal breaker, well it never will be, but nonetheless Ricoh should address it ridiculous that we can zoom in to check our files properly if we take the better digital format of RAW.

C'mon Ricoh fix, this is totally a firmware fix here !!!! I wonder how much support this forum can rally.

 Jorge Ledesma's gear list:Jorge Ledesma's gear list
Ricoh GR Fujifilm X-T1 Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 35mm F2 R WR
Tom Caldwell Forum Pro • Posts: 31,640
Re: Ricoh GR Preview in RAW mode vs Jpeg can someone explain please

photoreddi wrote:

Jorge Ledesma wrote:

If the GR is going to have a glorious aps-c sensor, then it should have this, I mean all Nikon and Canon dslr have these great previews and now that we get this baby, I can't even check focus, grrrr this just ticks me off so much. You know how it goes, if its not one thing, its another.

As far as I'm aware, all RAW files include embedded JPEGs and they are also stored at less than the maximum possible quality. Nikon for instance includes full resolution Basic JPEGs. Basic just means that the embedded JPEGs are highly compressed, in order to save space, but the full resolution lets you see the images on the LCD in very high magnification, greater than 100%. That is, a single image pixel occupies 4 LCD pixels at the highest magnification, and when viewed on a computer, the embedded JPEG is the same high resolution as the camera's sensor, so my 12mp D300 produces 12mp embedded jpges. My Canon and Fuji P&S cameras' RAW files includ lower resolution embedded JPEGs, so (I may be off slightly) the embedded JPEGs are about 2mp or 3mp from the cameras that have 10mp and 12mp sensors.

So my Nikon P&S cameras can zoom in to a greater degree in playback than my Canon and Fuji P&S cameras because their RAW embedded JPEGs are also full resolution, just like the embedded JPEGs from my Nikon DSLRs. The workaround is to set the camera to produce RAW+JPEG instead of just RAW files. You should then be able to get high magnification from your previews.

My GR IV (I don't have the new GR) should work similar to the GR. RAW only lets me zoom in to x3.4, which is the same magnification it allows when shooting RAW + VGA JPEG. Both RAW + Normal JPEG and RAW + Fine JPEG allow zooming in to x16. It seems a little odd that both of these have the same x16 limit but what's even stranger is that this when shooting JPEG only, the GR IV allows x16 zooming for 10mp, 9mp, 8mp, 7mp, 5mp and 3mp JPEGs, drops to x6.7 for 1mp JPEGs and x3.4 for VGA JPEGs. So I think that it's safe to say that if Ricoh had allowed RAW files to have 3mp embedded JPEGs the cameras would have been able to zoom all the way to x16 when shooting RAW only.

FWIW, for each of the resolutions that I tried, I only tested it using one aspect ratio, so it's possible that there might be some magnification inconsistencies for specific resolutions when some other aspect ratios are chosen.

Thanks  a good advice on an alternative way of looking at it.

I nearly always capture raw+fine jpg - the big hit storage, but I use 32gb 95mb/s category 10 SD cards and I have not really been compromised by storage capacity or file recording speed.  I get the 16x playback magnification of a fine jpg which must be fairly close to what the raw file has on board. I draw down the files on computer and I have set the menu to sort by type and consequently it is pretty easy to draw the dng and jpg files into separate directories where I can delete all or selectively the jpg's and similarly the dng files if I wish.  I don't find having both copies any real bother and anyone wishing to dump their jpg captures merely has to delete the whole jpg directory in one sweep.  Seems like not too much trouble to me.  On the other hand I would not like my raw files to be 100% bloated by carrying a full size jpg embedded as well.

The other times are when I am taking something light and don't with to be bothered with the raw file baggage or trying an effect where raw capture is not allowed.  I think that the camera sorts this out automatically anyway by not saving a raw where it is inappropriate.  Must check that again.

Its all about mix and match and choices and not being hamstrung by what the camera manufacturer insists that you must do.

-- hide signature --

Tom Caldwell

aleksanderpolo
aleksanderpolo Regular Member • Posts: 433
Re: Ricoh GR Preview in RAW mode vs Jpeg can someone explain please

Is there any reason why you can't shoot raw + jpeg all the time? I think it comes down to this:

Ricoh decided to include only a smaller jpeg in raw for preview, if you need high res preview, you can choose to shoot raw + jpeg.

Others decide to include higher res jpeg in raw, but at the expense of bigger raw (is that general statement correct? I notice the Ricoh's raw is much smaller than say, Fuji's).

Tom Caldwell Forum Pro • Posts: 31,640
Re: Ricoh GR Preview in RAW mode vs Jpeg can someone explain please

Jorge Ledesma wrote:

photoreddi wrote:

Jorge Ledesma wrote:

If the GR is going to have a glorious aps-c sensor, then it should have this, I mean all Nikon and Canon dslr have these great previews and now that we get this baby, I can't even check focus, grrrr this just ticks me off so much. You know how it goes, if its not one thing, its another.

As far as I'm aware, all RAW files include embedded JPEGs and they are also stored at less than the maximum possible quality. Nikon for instance includes full resolution Basic JPEGs. Basic just means that the embedded JPEGs are highly compressed, in order to save space, but the full resolution lets you see the images on the LCD in very high magnification, greater than 100%. That is, a single image pixel occupies 4 LCD pixels at the highest magnification, and when viewed on a computer, the embedded JPEG is the same high resolution as the camera's sensor, so my 12mp D300 produces 12mp embedded jpges. My Canon and Fuji P&S cameras' RAW files includ lower resolution embedded JPEGs, so (I may be off slightly) the embedded JPEGs are about 2mp or 3mp from the cameras that have 10mp and 12mp sensors.

So my Nikon P&S cameras can zoom in to a greater degree in playback than my Canon and Fuji P&S cameras because their RAW embedded JPEGs are also full resolution, just like the embedded JPEGs from my Nikon DSLRs. The workaround is to set the camera to produce RAW+JPEG instead of just RAW files. You should then be able to get high magnification from your previews.

My GR IV (I don't have the new GR) should work similar to the GR. RAW only lets me zoom in to x3.4, which is the same magnification it allows when shooting RAW + VGA JPEG. Both RAW + Normal JPEG and RAW + Fine JPEG allow zooming in to x16. It seems a little odd that both of these have the same x16 limit but what's even stranger is that this when shooting JPEG only, the GR IV allows x16 zooming for 10mp, 9mp, 8mp, 7mp, 5mp and 3mp JPEGs, drops to x6.7 for 1mp JPEGs and x3.4 for VGA JPEGs. So I think that it's safe to say that if Ricoh had allowed RAW files to have 3mp embedded JPEGs the cameras would have been able to zoom all the way to x16 when shooting RAW only.

FWIW, for each of the resolutions that I tried, I only tested it using one aspect ratio, so it's possible that there might be some magnification inconsistencies for specific resolutions when some other aspect ratios are chosen.

Thanks so much for the explanation, now I wonder if the Coolpix A is like all Nikon you explained. That's important in my opinion. Although, I'm happy the output of the GR, this bothers me like crazy, not a deal breaker, well it never will be, but nonetheless Ricoh should address it ridiculous that we can zoom in to check our files properly if we take the better digital format of RAW.

C'mon Ricoh fix, this is totally a firmware fix here !!!! I wonder how much support this forum can rally.

None from me, all that you want is there already in a sidecar jpg and as photoreddi explains you don't have to have the largest jpg to do what you wish to do.

All you are really seeming to ask for is that Ricoh saves a full size jpg inside the raw file making it quite huge, slowing down the processing (anyway) and making it non-delete unless there is a way to remove a jpg embedded image from within a raw file.  Probably there is.  But surely it is much easier to just download all your jpgs from camera into a separate directory and delete it and all your jpg versions in one simple click of the mouse.  The camera manages raw+jpg in pairs inside the camera automatically.

So save raw+jpg, get everything you want and have the flexibility of deleting the jpg files that you don't need without having to carry that (playback only) jpg baggage inside the raw file after the files are off camera.  I guess your hard drive is groaning as much as mine under the weight of downloaded files, surely it is good that the raw files would be smaller.

-- hide signature --

Tom Caldwell

Tom Caldwell Forum Pro • Posts: 31,640
Re: Ricoh GR Preview in RAW mode vs Jpeg can someone explain please

aleksanderpolo wrote:

Is there any reason why you can't shoot raw + jpeg all the time? I think it comes down to this:

Ricoh decided to include only a smaller jpeg in raw for preview, if you need high res preview, you can choose to shoot raw + jpeg.

Others decide to include higher res jpeg in raw, but at the expense of bigger raw (is that general statement correct? I notice the Ricoh's raw is much smaller than say, Fuji's).

Aleksander

+1 for common sense

-1 to Jorge for complaining because some function is not the same as other cameras have and thereby wanting it simply because although Ricoh seems to provide the most common sense solution it does not provide the same huge raw files as some others do

-- hide signature --

Tom Caldwell

aleksanderpolo
aleksanderpolo Regular Member • Posts: 433
Re: Ricoh GR Preview in RAW mode vs Jpeg can someone explain please

I wouldn't be as strong as saying -1

One more advantage for raw+jpeg: When I copy raw files to my drive, I have no idea what they are because my windows does not preview the raw, so I have to rely on the jpeg to know which raw correspond to what.

So, I would rather not have a firmware update to increase the raw size so to cater to raw only shooters. You choose to live dangerously shooting raw only.

IMHO, of course.

photoreddi Veteran Member • Posts: 7,729
Re: Ricoh GR Preview in RAW mode vs Jpeg can someone explain please

Tom Caldwell wrote:

...

Thanks so much for the explanation, now I wonder if the Coolpix A is like all Nikon you explained. That's important in my opinion. Although, I'm happy the output of the GR, this bothers me like crazy, not a deal breaker, well it never will be, but nonetheless Ricoh should address it ridiculous that we can zoom in to check our files properly if we take the better digital format of RAW.

C'mon Ricoh fix, this is totally a firmware fix here !!!! I wonder how much support this forum can rally.

None from me, all that you want is there already in a sidecar jpg and as photoreddi explains you don't have to have the largest jpg to do what you wish to do.

All you are really seeming to ask for is that Ricoh saves a full size jpg inside the raw file making it quite huge, slowing down the processing (anyway) and making it non-delete unless there is a way to remove a jpg embedded image from within a raw file.  Probably there is.  But surely it is much easier to just download all your jpgs from camera into a separate directory and delete it and all your jpg versions in one simple click of the mouse.  The camera manages raw+jpg in pairs inside the camera automatically.

I took some different sized photos and got these results :

> RAW only : 15,356kb
> RAW + VGA JPEG : 15,357kb + 223kb
> 10mb Fine JPEG : 3,658kb
> 10mb Normal JPEG : 2,108kb
> 3mb JPEG : 1,441kb
> VGA JPEG : 226kb
>
> 15,356 + 3,658 == 19,014kb : RAW + 10mb Fine JPEG (+24%)
> 15,356 + 2,108 == 17,464kb : RAW + 10mb Normal JPEG (+14%)
> 15,356 + 1,441 == 16,797kb : RAW + 3mb JPEG (+9.4%)
> ================= 15,356kb : RAW only

Ricoh doesn't specify whether the 3mb JPEGs are Fine or Normal but from the larger than expected size based on the 10mb JPEG sizes it's probably Fine. I chose these JPEG sizes because they all allow x16 playback magnification so all of them are "full size" for all practical viewing purposes even though the resolutions aren't all the same. If the RAW embedded JPEGs increased from VGA to 3mb the size of the RAW files would increase by about 7.9%. This is less than the 9.4% increase shown above since that includes both of the JPEGs (VGA + 3mb) in the calculation and I subtracted 226kb from 1,441kb to get the JPEG size because it's inconceivable that two JPEGs would ever be embedded in the same RAW file, at least intentionally.

Increasing the RAW files by 7.9% (from 15,356kb to 16,571kb, approx.) seems like a reasonable compromise since it's a fairly small increase while still allowing maximum playback magnification.

Tom Caldwell Forum Pro • Posts: 31,640
Re: Ricoh GR Preview in RAW mode vs Jpeg can someone explain please

photoreddi wrote:

Tom Caldwell wrote:

...

Thanks so much for the explanation, now I wonder if the Coolpix A is like all Nikon you explained. That's important in my opinion. Although, I'm happy the output of the GR, this bothers me like crazy, not a deal breaker, well it never will be, but nonetheless Ricoh should address it ridiculous that we can zoom in to check our files properly if we take the better digital format of RAW.

C'mon Ricoh fix, this is totally a firmware fix here !!!! I wonder how much support this forum can rally.

None from me, all that you want is there already in a sidecar jpg and as photoreddi explains you don't have to have the largest jpg to do what you wish to do.

All you are really seeming to ask for is that Ricoh saves a full size jpg inside the raw file making it quite huge, slowing down the processing (anyway) and making it non-delete unless there is a way to remove a jpg embedded image from within a raw file.  Probably there is.  But surely it is much easier to just download all your jpgs from camera into a separate directory and delete it and all your jpg versions in one simple click of the mouse.  The camera manages raw+jpg in pairs inside the camera automatically.

I took some different sized photos and got these results :

> RAW only : 15,356kb
> RAW + VGA JPEG : 15,357kb + 223kb
> 10mb Fine JPEG : 3,658kb
> 10mb Normal JPEG : 2,108kb
> 3mb JPEG : 1,441kb
> VGA JPEG : 226kb
>
> 15,356 + 3,658 == 19,014kb : RAW + 10mb Fine JPEG (+24%)
> 15,356 + 2,108 == 17,464kb : RAW + 10mb Normal JPEG (+14%)
> 15,356 + 1,441 == 16,797kb : RAW + 3mb JPEG (+9.4%)
> ================= 15,356kb : RAW only

Ricoh doesn't specify whether the 3mb JPEGs are Fine or Normal but from the larger than expected size based on the 10mb JPEG sizes it's probably Fine. I chose these JPEG sizes because they all allow x16 playback magnification so all of them are "full size" for all practical viewing purposes even though the resolutions aren't all the same. If the RAW embedded JPEGs increased from VGA to 3mb the size of the RAW files would increase by about 7.9%. This is less than the 9.4% increase shown above since that includes both of the JPEGs (VGA + 3mb) in the calculation and I subtracted 226kb from 1,441kb to get the JPEG size because it's inconceivable that two JPEGs would ever be embedded in the same RAW file, at least intentionally.

Increasing the RAW files by 7.9% (from 15,356kb to 16,571kb, approx.) seems like a reasonable compromise since it's a fairly small increase while still allowing maximum playback magnification.

Thanks for that work.

I guess if I can get MY way I don't really object to other's getting THEIR way (grin)

As long as I can get my minimal size raw files and a jpg that I can choose to keep or delete I don't really care.  It must be said that it is hardly any wonder that a 226kb jpg does not magnify terribly well.  Nobody should have any objection to throwing a few pixels of storage at it.

However there are points:  all smaller jpg files must loose some quality in compression.  Therefore to an extent they will never be a "best capture" version in jpg and always "thowaway" but once they are embedded in raw I am not so sure that they can be effectively thrown away - the camera user is stuck with them porking up their hard drive uselessly.  Not only this but the previews in playback are not the  best representation that the jpg engine can do and therefore and bound hand and foot to the need to process raw.  Even when a well presented jpg might be good enough for any particular purpose.

So if people want to keep raw files only, although I see this as some sort of craziness (no hurt intended) I have no problem if the raw-only file option has a slider setting for the size of the jpg that is embedded into it.  Canon used to have something like this but since I shoot raw only with my Canon cameras (crazy as I am) then I no longer know.

So that I can understand better.  Please explain why it is so necessary to have large jpg files embedded in the raw files so that a separate jpg file is not needed other than for playback and then the embedded jpg inside necessarily larger sized raw file is kept forever when a separate (even) fine sized jpg can simply be thrown away when it is no longer needed.  I am truly puzzled as it seems like hitting your head with a hammer when a comb would make a neater parting. The only advantage I can see is that there are less files out of the camera to handle initially.

-- hide signature --

Tom Caldwell

Jorge Ledesma
OP Jorge Ledesma Regular Member • Posts: 261
Re: Ricoh GR Preview in RAW mode vs Jpeg can someone explain please

Guys, throw me a freaking bone over here I think my request is very valid. Also thanks for working out the %'s. 7.9% is nothing to add to a RAW file. Now, if nothing comes out of this, I suppose I can shoot RAW + the smallest jpeg, my interest is just checking FOCUS c'mon I would think that people care about this basic checks and balances, not for only this camera system but ANY.

I would think that anybody that shoots RAW would want this!

Cheers.

 Jorge Ledesma's gear list:Jorge Ledesma's gear list
Ricoh GR Fujifilm X-T1 Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 35mm F2 R WR
henning kraggerud Regular Member • Posts: 384
maybe other solutions

For those who for some reason do not want to shoot Raw + Jpg maybe there could be firmware solutions, that when you hit maximum resolution in embedded jpg if you continue to zoom in you could program camera to convert a full res jpeg at this time(not for storage).

It seems a bad solution to force everyone to have a maximum resolution jpeg in every raw if they do not want it.

But maybe even better, maybe it is possible to choose a firmware upgrade to your liking? RAW with full res for those who want,as is for the rest.

I always shoot Raw pluss full res JPG on all my cameras, as it is handy to have the jpeg for quick use.

-- hide signature --

lowlight macro ir

photoreddi Veteran Member • Posts: 7,729
Re: Ricoh GR Preview in RAW mode vs Jpeg can someone explain please

Tom Caldwell wrote:

...

I took some different sized photos and got these results :

> RAW only : 15,356kb
> RAW + VGA JPEG : 15,357kb + 223kb
> 10mb Fine JPEG : 3,658kb
> 10mb Normal JPEG : 2,108kb
> 3mb JPEG : 1,441kb
> VGA JPEG : 226kb
>
> 15,356 + 3,658 == 19,014kb : RAW + 10mb Fine JPEG (+24%)
> 15,356 + 2,108 == 17,464kb : RAW + 10mb Normal JPEG (+14%)
> 15,356 + 1,441 == 16,797kb : RAW + 3mb JPEG (+9.4%)
> ================= 15,356kb : RAW only

...

Increasing the RAW files by 7.9% (from 15,356kb to 16,571kb, approx.) seems like a reasonable compromise since it's a fairly small increase while still allowing maximum playback magnification.

Thanks for that work.

I guess if I can get MY way I don't really object to other's getting THEIR way (grin)

As long as I can get my minimal size raw files and a jpg that I can choose to keep or delete I don't really care.  It must be said that it is hardly any wonder that a 226kb jpg does not magnify terribly well.  Nobody should have any objection to throwing a few pixels of storage at it.

However there are points:  all smaller jpg files must loose some quality in compression.  Therefore to an extent they will never be a "best capture" version in jpg and always "thowaway" but once they are embedded in raw I am not so sure that they can be effectively thrown away - the camera user is stuck with them porking up their hard drive uselessly.  Not only this but the previews in playback are not the  best representation that the jpg engine can do and therefore and bound hand and foot to the need to process raw.  Even when a well presented jpg might be good enough for any particular purpose.

I'm sure that software exists that can edit RAWs, replacing the embedded JPGs, but I wouldn't ever consider doing that because it's risking future problems with some software editors. How can you explain this inconsistency - you wouldn't be satisfed with an embedded 3mb JPEG that allows x16 magnification because it 'porks up' hard drives and still doesn't allow the best previews? I agree. Comparing 10mb Fine and 3mb Fine JPEGs, it's very easy to see that the 3mb versions show much less detail. So you have a choice, either shoot RAW only and get even worse, smaller images in the GR's LCD, or shoot RAW + Fine JPEGs to get good review image quality, but "porking up" the hard drives to an even greater degree!

In my opinion, a 3mb embedded JPEG would be good enough most of the time so you could shoot RAW only most of the time, switching to RAW + 10mb Fine JPEGs whenever it's important to be able to pixel peep on the GR's LCD. I also think that while you may consider 3mb embedded JPEGs to unnecessarily 'pork up' hard drives, in my opinion most people wouldn't if they realize this. As I showed, shooting RAW with embedded 3mb JPEGs would require approximately 8% more hard drive space. So if the files that could be archived on a 750GB hard drive were to suddenly increase by 8%, the hard drive would need to be 8% larger. That is, it would need to have a capacity of 810GB or more. That's going to be enough storage space to archive several years worth of RAW files for most people. Based on 16mb per RAW, my little external 2TB USB3 hard drives (about the size of a GR) could hold 125,000 files. A little extra pork is a problem? Not for me. On the other hand, it's the GR IV that needs 16mb per RAW, so anyone that worries about a little extra pork should think twice about getting a higher resolution GR V.

So if people want to keep raw files only, although I see this as some sort of craziness (no hurt intended) I have no problem if the raw-only file option has a slider setting for the size of the jpg that is embedded into it.  Canon used to have something like this but since I shoot raw only with my Canon cameras (crazy as I am) then I no longer know.

That would be a good option to have, and if any manufacturer would add it, I'd think that Ricoh would be the most likely. That doesn't mean that I'd hold my breath though.

So that I can understand better.  Please explain why it is so necessary to have large jpg files embedded in the raw files so that a separate jpg file is not needed other than for playback and then the embedded jpg inside necessarily larger sized raw file is kept forever when a separate (even) fine sized jpg can simply be thrown away when it is no longer needed.  I am truly puzzled as it seems like hitting your head with a hammer when a comb would make a neater parting. The only advantage I can see is that there are less files out of the camera to handle initially.

It's not fair to phrase your question that way, using the loaded words "so necessary" that pre-assumes the answer that you want to hear. As any reasonable person understands, very little is really necessary even if it's highly desirable. Is adding a new GR to my GR IV necessary? Of course not, even if many people would find it desirable to own one. Is it worth worrying about file sizes? That depends. If I had a GR IV when I bought my first hard drive, it would only be able to hold one RAW file since two would exceed its 20MB capacity. With today's hard drives this shouldn't be a much of a concern for anyone that's able to afford a GR or CP A. But there are other reasons why having larger embedded JPG files would be desirable even if not absolutely necessary. One is that it may be easy for you to throw away extra JPEGs, but from reading forum posts, there seem to be a lot of photographers that wouldn't be able to do this while retaining the RAW files since they have very little understanding of computers, their OSs, file utilities and the software supplied by the camera manufacturers that transfers photos to their computers.

Another already discussed reason is that it would allow much greater preview magnification for those that don't want to 'pork out' their camera's memory cards with extra JPEG files - they might require larger memory cards and unfortunately, more often than not that incurs a performance penalty. Larger memory cards usually aren't quite as fast as smaller cards, and that's when all files saved on both cards are the same size, so it's not even taking into account any additional extra time needed to save the extra, larger JPEGs.

Even worse than "so necessary" is your characterization that what someone else may prefer is so silly that you see it as "like hitting your head with a hammer when a comb would make a neater parting." To me this looks like you're just trying to find ways to convince people of the superiority of your personal, inflexible preferences by employing ridicule. I think that I'll bow out of this discussion before it devolves further, an unfortunate tendency of life in DPR's forums.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads