Lousy embedded JPEGs in RAW files from OM-D E-M1 (and possibly also E-M5?)

[rungabic]

I shoot RAW + Jpg, and I use Irfanview too. If I open an ORF file from windows explorer, Irfanview displays the image instantly, but it is a smaller size (3200px on the long end) than the true size of the image. Its image quality seems indistinguishable compared to opening the full size jpg.

If you are getting very poor results in only a few cases rather than all the time, it sounds more to me like a bug in the camera writing the Raw file. Perhaps you took the image in a burst sequence and Olympus has a bug that sometimes doesn't handle that well when writing fast, and causes this problem.

I was just about to chime back in and get this thread back on track, asking the very same question. So far, I happen to know that the pictures that have had horrible embedded JPEGs have *not* been part of burst sequences. And I'm also using a 95MB/sec card. And while some of them were of "busy" scenes (foliage), where I might expect bad compression to come into play, others (like the example I posted in this thread) were not -- hair and a face, with dramatically bad artifacts.

So I've been wondering whether this is some sort of bug (in the E-M1 specifically or maybe in related cameras as well). I'd hate to think that my particular camera is defective, but so far it hasn't happened enough times for me to suspect that, and it's kind of impossible to test out.

Now several people in this thread have lamented that Olympus is notorious for poor embedded JPEGs, yet I haven't heard from anyone who has specifically corroborated the issue of generally ok embeds, with occasional instances of disastrous blotchiness.

The question is, am I alone, or is it the case that the only people who would run across this are "RAW-only" shooters (not RAW+JPEG), and then of those, it would only be seen when chimping the shot or when examining shots in software that displays the embedded JPEG. And then maybe we're talking about a low percentage of total shots that exhibit the problem. So the overall chance to see this is small, relative to the whole of Olympus shooters.

I suppose I either need to soldier on with RAW-only, and keep an eye out to see how big a problem it really is...or else reluctantly switch to RAW+JPEG, which from my limited tests sidesteps the issue entirely.

 

[biggles266]

Keep shooting Raw only your usual way and get more data how often it happens. See if you can see a pattern. Camera hot at the time, burst mode, humid day, whatever. But I wouldn't change things yet.

 

[micksh6]

The embedded JPEGs are not 3200x2400, they must be 640x480 at most. I'm not sure what program that extracts embedded JPEG does, but I wouldn't trust it much. It might just resample the images.

The reason I'm saying that is that when I had corrupted raw files with my E-P3, Picasa viewer could show only embedded JPEG, and that surely didn't seem to have more than 640x480 resolution, could be 320x240 as well.

Also corruted raw files were displayed fine in camera without zoom (on about 640x480 display). They couldn't be displayed at any zoom level though - camera would show error starting at 2x zoom.

And if you open web browser when connected to E-M1 through Wi-Fi you you will see only 320x240 thumbnails for raw files.

I don't see any problem here. Why would you want high quality JPEGs embedded in raw? High quality JPEGs significantly increase file size and require more processing time. I wouldn't want to waste space, time and battery life.

If you want to browse JPEGs quickly - shoot RAW + JPEGs. And chimping in camera is not an issue. I shoot raw only with Olympus and I always can review shots for critical sharpness at 14x magnification. That gives very good indication of how sharp would look on PC at 1:1, I can always see if I misfocused or not.

I understand that Olympus develops raw files in camera when you zoom images on camera display and you can see full 16MP. Fully usable and way better than Panasonic which can only display about 1440x1920 images in camera when you shoot raw only.

 

[micksh6]

And if you open web browser when connected to E-M1 through Wi-Fi you you will see only 320x240 thumbnails for raw files.

OK, the thumbnails in browser are 160x120 actually, at least with firmware 1.1 on E-M1. (On Android Firefox works but Dolphin doesn't, type oishare in address bar when connected to E-M1 network).

Looks like camera renders smaller thumbnails for raw files and this may be unrelated to embedded JPEGs. But other my points should be valid.

I don't see any problem here.

 

[Mark Chan]

Basically,

shoot RAW and JPEG, then JPEG shows up in play on camera.

Shoot RAW only if that's what you want; I don't think they have an option for RAW + JPEG and read RAW.

However, do note you can adjust the JPEG (I think at least this is the same jpeg referred to); you can choose the resolution quality of the JPEG - choose SF and L for JPEG.

Read the manual to see where it is located as I am too lazy to read it up at the mo.

 

[Timur Born]

I shoot RAW + Jpg, and I use Irfanview too. If I open an ORF file from windows explorer, Irfanview displays the image instantly, but it is a smaller size (3200px on the long end) than the true size of the image. Its image quality seems indistinguishable compared to opening the full size jpg.

The 3200 px size image is the embedded JPG. You need to change IrfanView's (and Faststone's) default options to make it create either a half-size raw image (faster) or a full-size image. RTFM.

 

[Timur Born]

The embedded JPEGs are not 3200x2400, they must be 640x480 at most. I'm not sure what program that extracts embedded JPEG does, but I wouldn't trust it much. It might just resample the images.

This is the embedded JPG out of an E-M5's raw file extraced via Faststone Image Viewer. Use the "View Original" button, else DPR only shows a recompressed version (including the 100% view).



--
Red flash eyes save lives and eye-sight!

Retinoblastoma - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Timur Born]

I was just about to chime back in and get this thread back on track, asking the very same question. So far, I happen to know that the pictures that have had horrible embedded JPEGs have *not* been part of burst sequences. And I'm also using a 95MB/sec card. And while some of them were of "busy" scenes (foliage), where I might expect bad compression to come into play, others (like the example I posted in this thread) were not -- hair and a face, with dramatically bad artifacts.

I may also be a thing of the E-M1 that did not happen (as obvious) with earlier cameras. Never could complain about preview quality all the way through x14 (I think x7 corresponds to 1:1 view, or close to that). Now on the E-M1 I saw some strange previews, but didn't pay enough attention, because I am still checking the camera out.

 

[Guy Parsons]

The embedded JPEGs are not 3200x2400, they must be 640x480 at most. I'm not sure what program that extracts embedded JPEG does, but I wouldn't trust it much. It might just resample the images.

I'm trusting FastStone Viewer here when they say in the Settings that I can use the embedded jpeg for the thumbnail and also for the conversion....



When I do that I see a 3200x2400 7.68MP image and it made an output jpeg of 1.33 MBytes size at 90% quality, which I have to assume is the same quality as the embedded jpeg. It looks damn good on my screen so that 640x480 must be another embedded optional thumbnail that is used by the camera or the Oly software in some conditions, maybe when the main embedded jpeg is corrupted.

The reason I'm saying that is that when I had corrupted raw files with my E-P3, Picasa viewer could show only embedded JPEG, and that surely didn't seem to have more than 640x480 resolution, could be 320x240 as well.

See above.

Also corruted raw files were displayed fine in camera without zoom (on about 640x480 display). They couldn't be displayed at any zoom level though - camera would show error starting at 2x zoom.

See above.

And if you open web browser when connected to E-M1 through Wi-Fi you you will see only 320x240 thumbnails for raw files.

I don't see any problem here. Why would you want high quality JPEGs embedded in raw? High quality JPEGs significantly increase file size and require more processing time. I wouldn't want to waste space, time and battery life.

The high quality embedded jpeg makes it easy for the camera as it does not have to recompute the jpeg every time you access the RAW file in the camera.

If you want to browse JPEGs quickly - shoot RAW + JPEGs. And chimping in camera is not an issue. I shoot raw only with Olympus and I always can review shots for critical sharpness at 14x magnification. That gives very good indication of how sharp would look on PC at 1:1, I can always see if I misfocused or not.

Yup, I use RAW+Large Basic jpegs, just for the ease of detailed review.

I understand that Olympus develops raw files in camera when you zoom images on camera display and you can see full 16MP. Fully usable and way better than Panasonic which can only display about 1440x1920 images in camera when you shoot raw only.

I do not think that Oly develops the RAW in camera, it only uses that 3200x2400 image which is usually good enough. If you develop the RAW in camera edit to create a new jpeg then that of course follows the jpeg settings and can be full resolution.

Before I post this I notice that it's been answered already, but what heck, I'll add another voice.

Regards.... Guy

 

[Sergey Borachev]

... . . . . . ..

In practice, I can work around this in post, if I'm willing to sacrifice browsing/loading speed, by setting my software to display the original RAW files at all times, rather than showing the embedded JPEGs. Not great, but I'll do it if I have to.

However, in the field, this poses a very serious problem if you need to chimp a shot to check critical focus, because you might well end up trying to view an embedded JPEG that is absolutely unusable for any purpose, despite the fact that the RAW file itself is fine. And ultimately, you simply won't be able to check that shot in-camera. To me, whether this is a "bug" or not, this seems like a major failing that deserves high-priority correction by Olympus.

Can anyone comment on or verify this?

I see, your E-M1 is still working and taking good photos. This is an annoyance and inconvenience, when you cannot check your shot critically in very fine details until you get home or carry a laptop or tablet in the field. It will be fixed in the firmware of the next model, probably the replacement model for E-M5 and for the the E-PL5. Don't bother waiting for a E-M1 firmware update because improvements or enhancement to features (in this case the preview checking) are not considered something Olympus would do to support its camera buyers. The camera is still functioning fine and not broken. This is Olympus, which never release firmware update unless absolutely necessary to fix a serious problem, not to address inconveniences or annoyances of features or enhance them. So, no fix. ;-);-)

 

[micksh6]

The embedded JPEGs are not 3200x2400, they must be 640x480 at most. I'm not sure what program that extracts embedded JPEG does, but I wouldn't trust it much. It might just resample the images.

I'm trusting FastStone Viewer here when they say in the Settings that I can use the embedded jpeg for the thumbnail and also for the conversion....



When I do that I see a 3200x2400 7.68MP image and it made an output jpeg of 1.33 MBytes size at 90% quality, which I have to assume is the same quality as the embedded jpeg. It looks damn good on my screen so that 640x480 must be another embedded optional thumbnail that is used by the camera or the Oly software in some conditions, maybe when the main embedded jpeg is corrupted.

You are probably right. There may be another tiny thumbnail. I might be reviewing 3200x2400 JPEGs all the time, but this doesn't change the main point - these images are good enough for all practical purposes (at least have been for me all the time).

RAW file can be processed better than high quality JPEG anyway (in particular, can be made sharper). So, I really don't see why embedded JPEGs should have higher quality.

1.3-1.5MB extra per image is too big already, higher quality JPEG would be larger. And finally, what RAW+JPEG option is for? Better embedded JPEG would be duplication of this option.

 

[Pixnat2]

The free Olympus viewer can be a kind of solution : to export jpegs, jus click "export" on the RAW file whan you are on the browser. You can choose the quality and the size you want.

The good thing of that software is that it simulates exactly in camera processing, so you can see the effects of changing the settings. The bad side is that it's dog slow.

Or you can use Fast Stone Viewer, it's much faster but exports a 3200*2400 jpeg

--
Cheers,
Frederic
http://azurphoto.com/blog/

 

[horsth]

I checked it again. You are right, the CRWs are the lightening-fast ones. Sorry. But for all practical purposes the ORFs are read fast enough for me. By the way, Faststone is not only a reader, but builds a library of the thumbs.

 

[letsgofishing]

No such problem when reviewing RAW's on the EM-5.....

 

[joeletx]

I don't really know what are you talking about! I shoot RAW+JPG but use the JPG just to view and make my selections. I have never experienced any artifacts on any viewer (Windows, Adobe, Photoshop, Paint Shop, Fast Stone, ect...). 99% of the time I just used Windows viewer to view Olympus JPG's. This go back to the E-500 in 2006.

 

[rungabic]

I don't really know what are you talking about! I shoot RAW+JPG but use the JPG just to view and make my selections. I have never experienced any artifacts on any viewer (Windows, Adobe, Photoshop, Paint Shop, Fast Stone, ect...). 99% of the time I just used Windows viewer to view Olympus JPG's. This go back to the E-500 in 2006.

Thanks for replying, but you didn't read the details carefully -- this discussion is about the embedded JPEGs contained within the RAW files....not the standalone JPEGs you're shooting alongside the RAW files.

 

[Big Ga]

I checked it again. You are right,

Its a curse. After all these years, I've grown to accept its usually the case ;-)

the CRWs are the lightening-fast ones. Sorry. But for all practical purposes the ORFs are read fast enough for me.

Trouble is, for all practical purposes for me, they aren't. In fact, they are almost unusable because I'm often using faststone to quickly scan though multiple shoots, maybe hundreds or thousands of images, and I want to be able to click on a directory, and fairly instantly see what's there. All my other cameras let me do this. Oly files don't. They are so sluggish as to be untrue. Its a shame, because I love faststone, its just such a great piece of software in most other ways!!

 

[Iskender]

I was just about to chime back in and get this thread back on track, asking the very same question. So far, I happen to know that the pictures that have had horrible embedded JPEGs have *not* been part of burst sequences. And I'm also using a 95MB/sec card. And while some of them were of "busy" scenes (foliage), where I might expect bad compression to come into play, others (like the example I posted in this thread) were not -- hair and a face, with dramatically bad artifacts.

So I've been wondering whether this is some sort of bug (in the E-M1 specifically or maybe in related cameras as well). I'd hate to think that my particular camera is defective, but so far it hasn't happened enough times for me to suspect that, and it's kind of impossible to test out.

Hair is commonly used as a high-resolution test target et cetera. It's full of detail, and your picture has an exceptional amount of it. The wall behind your subject looks like white noise, it's not easily compressed either. The shirt has a really fine pattern, too. The only low detail part of the image is (presumably) the face.

I see the problem with the embedded JPEGs you're talking about, and while it's new to me, it most certainly appears to be a problem in some situations. However, I don't think you need to worry about any malfunction: your example picture simply contained more detail than you realised.

On the topic of work-arounds: you mentioned dealing with bad cases in the field. Do you know that the camera supports RAW conversion? You can use it to always get a good JPEG on demand. I'm mentioning this in case you thought you'd have to use a laptop just to fix a single image. The embedded JPEG is probably the only case of bad JPEG functionality on Olympus.

It's true this embedded JPEG feature is not working on the level of the competitors. However, I think it's important to remember that this is how cameras work: something is always lacking, be it auto-ISO in M mode, pixel mapping, video quality or portability, or one of a million other things. Olympus did a bad job on this feature, but it doesn't mean that Olympus is somehow uniquely bad, like some (not you) in this thread seem to imply.

 

[Ulfric M Douglas]

...

Welcome to Olympus.

...

... -- so I guess you're saying my assessment is on-target? Then why hasn't there been an outcry over this? ...

I'm sure you're right, in your experience but ...

I've never had any trouble or seen any weirdly compressed embedded Jpegs.

I think there hasn't been an outcry because ... it's not a universal problem?

If the viewer (FastStone etc) writers can be made aware of their sluggish performance with ORF previews things might improve. It's probably badly written code there.

 

[greendave]

I mentioned this before: Faststone loading ORF files slowly is more a limitation of the software, not necessarily the ORF files. Other applications can read the same ORF files a lot faster

Oddly enough Adobe Lightroom is also 50% slower processing ORFs compared to RW2s (or NEFs or CR2). Maybe that's not Olympus's fault either, but I'm sensing a trend here.