Lumix cameras and playback quality / 100% magnification of RAW files

[starbase218]

I have a Nikon D750 and an RX100, and I think both cameras offer the ability in image playback mode, to punch in to 100% magnification immediately, meaning 1 pixel in the photo is 1 pixel on the monitor. I use this quite often "in the field" to confirm critical focus and image sharpness in general.

I recently purchased a used Lumix GX80, and I like it, except that there is a scratch on the sensor - so it's going back, but I might buy another Lumix MFT body. However I noticed two things about image playback mode: firstly there doesn't seem to be a way to get to 100% magnification. And secondly, as confirmed in this topic, when photographing in RAW (which is what I normally do), the image playback is based on an embedded low-resolution JPEG inside the RAW file. In other words, it's actually unusable to use it as I would like. Before I realised this was the case, I was even questioning the quality of this camera. But it turns out it is actually where I would expect it to be, as a 16MP camera.

My question is, is there any workaround, like maybe a firmware hack for Lumix cameras? After all, my Nikon and Sony cameras can do it. I'm not sure if that is because they have full-res JPEGs embedded in the RAW files, or because they just convert the RAW file to a JPEG instantly when viewing. Also, does the GX9 (which I might want to get instead of the GX80) have the same behaviour? Or has this maybe been addressed in later Lumix models?

I have realised that shooting RAW + fine JPEG means the JPEG is used for viewing, which does at least solve this part of the problem. But maybe the other part can be addressed as well?

Thanks.

 

[Hexlord79]

I have a Nikon D750 and an RX100, and I think both cameras offer the ability in image playback mode, to punch in to 100% magnification immediately, meaning 1 pixel in the photo is 1 pixel on the monitor. I use this quite often "in the field" to confirm critical focus and image sharpness in general.

I recently purchased a used Lumix GX80, and I like it, except that there is a scratch on the sensor - so it's going back, but I might buy another Lumix MFT body. However I noticed two things about image playback mode: firstly there doesn't seem to be a way to get to 100% magnification. And secondly, as confirmed in this topic, when photographing in RAW (which is what I normally do), the image playback is based on an embedded low-resolution JPEG inside the RAW file. In other words, it's actually unusable to use it as I would like. Before I realised this was the case, I was even questioning the quality of this camera. But it turns out it is actually where I would expect it to be, as a 16MP camera.

My question is, is there any workaround, like maybe a firmware hack for Lumix cameras? After all, my Nikon and Sony cameras can do it. I'm not sure if that is because they have full-res JPEGs embedded in the RAW files, or because they just convert the RAW file to a JPEG instantly when viewing. Also, does the GX9 (which I might want to get instead of the GX80) have the same behaviour? Or has this maybe been addressed in later Lumix models?

I have realised that shooting RAW + fine JPEG means the JPEG is used for viewing, which does at least solve this part of the problem. But maybe the other part can be addressed as well?

Thanks.

Raw + Jpeg is the only workaround for the low res embedded viewing issue, so you can't go full Raw unless you skip the chimping aspect.

As for the 100% zoom playback, I did highlight this issue to a Lumix content creator (met one recently) and he just shrugs and says he zoom in manually using his fingers on the LCD display.

PS. I have a GX85/G9ii, and have tried the S1Rii recently. Same dice at least for the zoom playback part.

 

[alcelc]

I have a Nikon D750 and an RX100, and I think both cameras offer the ability in image playback mode, to punch in to 100% magnification immediately, meaning 1 pixel in the photo is 1 pixel on the monitor. I use this quite often "in the field" to confirm critical focus and image sharpness in general.

It is not found on GX85/GX9 or other models I know (the G85 or G95) or the entry class GX850 (GF9) /880 (GF10). So we have to enlarge the image on step basis.

I recently purchased a used Lumix GX80, and I like it, except that there is a scratch on the sensor - so it's going back, but I might buy another Lumix MFT body. However I noticed two things about image playback mode: firstly there doesn't seem to be a way to get to 100% magnification. And secondly, as confirmed in this topic, when photographing in RAW (which is what I normally do), the image playback is based on an embedded low-resolution JPEG inside the RAW file. In other words, it's actually unusable to use it as I would like. Before I realised this was the case, I was even questioning the quality of this camera. But it turns out it is actually where I would expect it to be, as a 16MP camera.

My question is, is there any workaround, like maybe a firmware hack for Lumix cameras? After all, my Nikon and Sony cameras can do it.

Really?

AFAIK the free Faststone can read RAW of many brand by using the embedded JPG (before conversion into JPG by a generic converter). Therefore if Faststone can display the RAW, it would mean there is an embedded JPG to such RAW file. Try it to see does your Nikon or Sony would display the RAW itself on camera playback or just like Panny, use the embedded JPG instead.

A step further, we can use SAVE AS to save a RAW to JPG. Doing so we can check the size (resolution) of the embedded JPG if there will be one.

I'm not sure if that is because they have full-res JPEGs embedded in the RAW files, or because they just convert the RAW file to a JPEG instantly when viewing. Also, does the GX9 (which I might want to get instead of the GX80) have the same behaviour? Or has this maybe been addressed in later Lumix models?

I have realised that shooting RAW + fine JPEG means the JPEG is used for viewing, which does at least solve this part of the problem.

The solution generally recommended here.

But maybe the other part can be addressed as well?

Thanks.

 

[starbase218]

I have a Nikon D750 and an RX100, and I think both cameras offer the ability in image playback mode, to punch in to 100% magnification immediately, meaning 1 pixel in the photo is 1 pixel on the monitor. I use this quite often "in the field" to confirm critical focus and image sharpness in general.

It is not found on GX85/GX9 or other models I know (the G85 or G95) or the entry class GX850 (GF9) /880 (GF10). So we have to enlarge the image on step basis.

I guess if I go to 8x, it should be at least 100%. Though the nerd in me wants to calculate exactly what magnification factor is needed.

I recently purchased a used Lumix GX80, and I like it, except that there is a scratch on the sensor - so it's going back, but I might buy another Lumix MFT body. However I noticed two things about image playback mode: firstly there doesn't seem to be a way to get to 100% magnification. And secondly, as confirmed in this topic, when photographing in RAW (which is what I normally do), the image playback is based on an embedded low-resolution JPEG inside the RAW file. In other words, it's actually unusable to use it as I would like. Before I realised this was the case, I was even questioning the quality of this camera. But it turns out it is actually where I would expect it to be, as a 16MP camera.

My question is, is there any workaround, like maybe a firmware hack for Lumix cameras? After all, my Nikon and Sony cameras can do it.

Really?

AFAIK the free Faststone can read RAW of many brand by using the embedded JPG (before conversion into JPG by a generic converter). Therefore if Faststone can display the RAW, it would mean there is an embedded JPG to such RAW file. Try it to see does your Nikon or Sony would display the RAW itself on camera playback or just like Panny, use the embedded JPG instead.

Let's say it this way: I can't see any difference at 100%. As I said, maybe the embedded JPEG is full-res with Nikon and Sony. Or maybe it renders a JPEG on the fly. Given that that is also what is happening when shooting bursts, and given that the overhead for most cameras is minimal (typically a camera can shoot JPEGs faster than it can shoot RAWs), I think that's actually not unlikely.

The reason I said "I think" is that the Nikon D750 actually shows a scale with a marker for 100%. But the Sony doesn't, and the manual isn't entirely clear either. But I have set it such that one twist on the T/W lever makes it jump very far into the image. So I think it's 100%.

A step further, we can use SAVE AS to save a RAW to JPG. Doing so we can check the size (resolution) of the embedded JPG if there will be one.

Thanks, but then I'd rather shoot RAW+JPEG. It's just a bit of a pain when importing in Capture One (I think).

 

[Boo]

Thanks, but then I'd rather shoot RAW+JPEG. It's just a bit of a pain when importing in Capture One (I think).

I have my own way of managing/arranging image files and don't use software to create databases, it just doesn't suit me. What I do is shoot RAW+JPEG at best quality and download them from the camera into different directories and I give them a slightly different filename. The main directory is the JPEGs, I then create a sub-directory for the RAW files, then another inside that for anything developed from the RAW.

That way, when I open any directory in any image application, I'm always going to be looking at the same file type - so JPEGs developed from a RAW file aren't mixed in with the OOC JPEGs - and have a slightly different name too. I mainly use the JPEGs for viewing, checking and selecting files to work on further, then open the RAW directory in Photolab or whatever to work on the RAW files. The software isn't confused then by having JPEGs mixed in with RAW files.

I know that some people here shoot RAW+JPEG to use in-camera options as you've described (and in-camera JPEG settings can influence exposure), but don't even download the JPEGs, just use the RAWs.

I'd noticed this informally without actually quantifying it, so I've just checked properly. I have several cameras by both Olympus and Panasonic, of various MP resolutions. The Olympus cameras I have all embed a 7.68MP JPEG with the RAW, even where the main image res is different. Same thing with Panasonic - they all embed a 2.76MP (1920x1440) image with the RAW.

So with Panny cameras, you're already viewing a much smaller image in-camera if you're only shooting RAW - so zooming in to check sharpness is going to be of limited value. So shooting +JPEG would be beneficial, even if you only use them in-camera for viewing purposes.

 

[John Bean (UK)]

Thanks, but then I'd rather shoot RAW+JPEG. It's just a bit of a pain when importing in Capture One (I think).

I know that some people here shoot RAW+JPEG to use in-camera options as you've described (and in-camera JPEG settings can influence exposure), but don't even download the JPEGs, just use the RAWs.

That's me. I started doing this when I had (still have!) a Panasonic LX1 that gave you no raw-only option as its raw files have no embedded preview of any kind. I started using an import script to copy only what I needed and still do the same today. Old habits die hard.

I'd noticed this informally without actually quantifying it, so I've just checked properly. I have several cameras by both Olympus and Panasonic, of various MP resolutions. The Olympus cameras I have all embed a 7.68MP JPEG with the RAW, even where the main image res is different. Same thing with Panasonic - they all embed a 2.76MP (1920x1440) image with the RAW.

So with Panny cameras, you're already viewing a much smaller image in-camera if you're only shooting RAW - so zooming in to check sharpness is going to be of limited value. So shooting +JPEG would be beneficial, even if you only use them in-camera for viewing purposes.

Yes, the Panasonic embedded jpegs are pretty useless, but Olympus are ok for all but the most critical uses. I have a little Canon GX5X II that I settled on as a pocket camera and of course set raw+jpeg without checking, but after reading this thread I checked - and the embedded jpegs are full size. It's now the only camera I use that's set to raw-only

--
John Bean [GMT]
RIP Elliott Erwitt 26 July 1928 - 29 November 2023

 

[Boo]

Thanks, but then I'd rather shoot RAW+JPEG. It's just a bit of a pain when importing in Capture One (I think).

I know that some people here shoot RAW+JPEG to use in-camera options as you've described (and in-camera JPEG settings can influence exposure), but don't even download the JPEGs, just use the RAWs.

That's me. I started doing this when I had (still have!) a Panasonic LX1 that gave you no raw-only option as its raw files have no embedded preview of any kind. I started using an import script to copy only what I needed and still do the same today. Old habits die hard.

I had a feeling that you were one of the ones I'd remembered saying that - others have said it too.

I'd noticed this informally without actually quantifying it, so I've just checked properly. I have several cameras by both Olympus and Panasonic, of various MP resolutions. The Olympus cameras I have all embed a 7.68MP JPEG with the RAW, even where the main image res is different. Same thing with Panasonic - they all embed a 2.76MP (1920x1440) image with the RAW.

So with Panny cameras, you're already viewing a much smaller image in-camera if you're only shooting RAW - so zooming in to check sharpness is going to be of limited value. So shooting +JPEG would be beneficial, even if you only use them in-camera for viewing purposes.

Yes, the Panasonic embedded jpegs are pretty useless, but Olympus are ok for all but the most critical uses. I have a little Canon GX5X II that I settled on as a pocket camera and of course set raw+jpeg without checking, but after reading this thread I checked - and the embedded jpegs are full size. It's now the only camera I use that's set to raw-only

I almost posted a comment on a similar point. I seem to remember that one of my early cameras - very likely a Canon or Fuji - had a full size JPEG embedded and I used software to extract them as separate files, so I didn't have to always develop the RAWs. I couldn't remember enough details to be sure, but it was niggling in the corners of memory - so maybe I am remembering correctly.