Re: Camera JPEG engines
On 18/11/2012 23:33, Alfred Molon wrote:
> I'd be curious about your opinion/experience with the JPEG output of
> today's cameras. Do you only shoot RAW and postprocess everything, or
> RAW+JPEG and only postprocess selectively, or do you only shoot JPEG?
> My personal experience is that the JPEG output of modern cameras is not
> bad, sometimes surprisingly good, and -if the camera is set up properly-
> only a certain percentage of images need RAW processing.
There never was much wrong with the JPEG engines in cameras from the
outset. There were often cruder than ideal approximations for in camera
Bayer demosaic to cope with the very limited DSP vs power consumption.
JPEG encoders have always been pretty decent. The problem way back when
was that flash memory was still very expensive and the encoders were set
up to use rather aggressive quantisation tables. Kodaks original "Best"
setting was roughly equal to IJG Q=85 whereas these days the "High
quality" setting is more like IJG Q=95 to 98 depending on brand.
One maker for some models actually uses IJG Q=100 - very wasteful
(ie the quantisation tables are all identically 1)
It is debatable whether pushing Q past 95 gains anything meaningful on
real noisy photographic images - just makes a much larger file.
|All times are GMT. The time now is 01:58 AM.|
Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2013, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.