GH6 Standard vs HHHR vs HR examples

HHHR

Standard

glassoholic wrote:

Interceptor121 wrote:

Thanks for that. It's hard to judge here on DPR and on a phone. But I see they are the same resolution and megabytes?? Either way, the GH6 seems to handle contrasty stuff like this very well.

I scaled them to 25 megapixels so that you can look at 100% and see the SNR benefit. As we know pixel shift has not a lot of impact on resolution itself in pure terms

Doesn't look like a night and day difference to me.

Mike

mikero wrote:

Doesn't look like a night and day difference to me.

Mike

No it is very small from what I can see and only in the really deep shadows

Interceptor121 wrote:

mikero wrote:

Doesn't look like a night and day difference to me.

Mike

No it is very small from what I can see and only in the really deep shadows

I'm puzzled as to why these latest two look almost the same from a contrast perspective, but your original samples showed a massive difference in contrast between standard and high res.  Any idea?

Mike

BackToNature1 wrote: shooting in standard mode for these types of shots, are you manually assuring critical focus for things you might want more in focus?

The last examples are all handheld and yes everything is in focus at f/5.6 the images are quite flat

mikero wrote:

Interceptor121 wrote:

mikero wrote:

Doesn't look like a night and day difference to me.

Mike

No it is very small from what I can see and only in the really deep shadows

I'm puzzled as to why these latest two look almost the same from a contrast perspective, but your original samples showed a massive difference in contrast between standard and high res. Any idea?

Mike

The images I posted today have been processed with lightroom the previous ones with siklypix

When I look at the same images in adobe they look almost identical so I guess silkypix is adding something to the mix or adobe is flattening the differences

Interceptor121 wrote:

HHHR

Standard

interesting, there is very small increase in sharpness/detail in the HHHR, but only because I tried really hard to look for it.  I cant see any DR improvement but maybe you need to push shadows to see it.

this is a little disappointing and not inline with my expectations.

Richandhiscat wrote:

Interceptor121 wrote:

Richandhiscat wrote:

Interceptor121 wrote:

Maybe the higher bit depth of the raw files helps with tonality

I always thought 12 bits was a bit busy

So the RAW files are 14 bit ?

16 bits

We've had demands in the past on here for a 14 bit sensor, then we get one with an even higher bit rate and nobody even mentions it....

If it was from Olympus and not Panasonic, some people would have wet themselves

there no point in a 14 bit file if the 13/14th bit is full of noise. When M4/3 can reach 15ev of tonal range, then maybe it will be useful.

Right now, I cant see where those extra bits are being useful.

pdelux wrote:

Interceptor121 wrote:

HHHR

Standard

interesting, there is very small increase in sharpness/detail in the HHHR, but only because I tried really hard to look for it. I cant see any DR improvement but maybe you need to push shadows to see it.

this is a little disappointing and not inline with my expectations.

But if the standard image was scaled up to match the HR image you would easily spot the difference.

20-25mp really is enough for 95% of usage. The other 5% either print enormous sizes or crop a lot!

NB: the above percentages are a guesstimate

Adrian Harris wrote:

pdelux wrote:

Interceptor121 wrote:

HHHR

Standard

interesting, there is very small increase in sharpness/detail in the HHHR, but only because I tried really hard to look for it. I cant see any DR improvement but maybe you need to push shadows to see it.

this is a little disappointing and not inline with my expectations.

But if the standard image was scaled up to match the HR image you would easily spot the difference.

20-25mp really is enough for 95% of usage. The other 5% either print enormous sizes or crop a lot!

NB: the above percentages are a guesstimate

I think something may be going on with lightroom as the images in silkypix look better see original thread you could see a difference in a 2 Megapixel file

Richandhiscat wrote:

there no point in a 14 bit file if the 13/14th bit is full of noise. When M4/3 can reach 15ev of tonal range, then maybe it will be useful.

Right now, I cant see where those extra bits are being useful.

Why should the 13th/14th bit be full of noise, and the other 12 aren't?

Haha very funny in effect most of the read noise will be in the shadows so actually in the least significant bits!

In general terms more bits are a good thing as one noise source is quantisation noise so the argument of your opponent is flawed by definition as read and shot noise are always there regardless and quantisation noise increases as bit depth reduces

In general higher bit depth bigger files but if you have a set value and you convert it to 12 bit precision you don't have less noise than if you converted to 14 bits precision in fact the opposite as you reach the bottom or top of the scale

Interceptor121 wrote:

Adrian Harris wrote:

pdelux wrote:

Interceptor121 wrote:

interesting, there is very small increase in sharpness/detail in the HHHR, but only because I tried really hard to look for it. I cant see any DR improvement but maybe you need to push shadows to see it.

this is a little disappointing and not inline with my expectations.

But if the standard image was scaled up to match the HR image you would easily spot the difference.

20-25mp really is enough for 95% of usage. The other 5% either print enormous sizes or crop a lot!

NB: the above percentages are a guesstimate

I think something may be going on with lightroom as the images in silkypix look better see original thread you could see a difference in a 2 Megapixel file

Even in the original images - its hard to see any gains in detail in high res.

The high res shadows look lifted so perhaps there is cleaner data there.

As Adrian suggested -- i wonder if you blow up the standard shot to the High res image size -- we should see a more notable difference.

Richandhiscat wrote:

there no point in a 14 bit file if the 13/14th bit is full of noise. When M4/3 can reach 15ev of tonal range, then maybe it will be useful.

Right now, I cant see where those extra bits are being useful.

Why should the 13th/14th bit be full of noise, and the other 12 aren't?

please see this article

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/4653441881/bit-depth-is-about-dynamic-range-not-the-number-of-colors-you-get-to-capture

"In other words, 12-bits provides enough room to encode roughly 12 stops of dynamic range, while 14 bits gives the extra space to retain up to around 14EV. Or to look at it from the opposite perspective: if your camera is overwhelmed by noise before you get to 12 stops of DR, you don’t benefit from more bit depth: all you’d be doing is capturing the shadow noise in your image in greater detail."

Even on FF - you will be hard pressed to see any IQ improvement from 12 to 14. By ISO 400 on FF there is almost no advantage at all. In M4/3 terms with current sensor = thats like ISO 100.