Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: RAW vs. JPG: Fidelity vs. Convenience

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: RAW vs. JPG: Fidelity vs. Convenience

 
 
NameHere
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-24-2009
On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 02:04:55 -0800 (PST), DanP <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>On Dec 24, 9:18*am, Martin Brown <|||(E-Mail Removed)>
>wrote:
>> NameHere wrote:
>> > On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 14:18:59 -0800 (PST), eNo <(E-Mail Removed)>
>> > wrote:

>>
>> >> Here's an article that applies Kevin Maney's "Fidelity vs.
>> >> Convenience" guide to the RAW vs. JPG question to show why and how
>> >> each approach is successful.

>>
>> >>http://esfotoclix.com/blog1/?p=917

>>
>> > There's a couple glaring errors in your blog.

>>
>> Another outing of the P&S troll.
>>
>>
>>
>> > First off, many cameras provide the full dynamic range from the sensor's
>> > RAW data in their JPG files. RAW only became popularized by dSLR owners who

>>
>> ISTR the early Kodak DC-120 P&S (about £1000 in 199 was the first
>> nominally 1Mpixel digital camera to offer true raw sensor data as well
>> as encapsulated JPGs in its proprietory .KDC image file format. It gave
>> it a niche market in the scientific imaging community for a while at
>> least. Its JPEG algorithm was OK, although it did sometimes encode JPEG
>> files that nothing could decode (about 1:10000 shots). The quality
>> settings were optimistic and only the highest one was acceptable.
>>
>> > were complaining that their cameras weren't doing the RAW > JPG conversion
>> > properly. And many dSLR cameras sold even today still don't do it properly.

>>
>> This is utter *******s. The JPEG encoding algorithm is extremely well
>> understood. You might haggle about problems with autowhite balance, and
>> gamma correction but not with the JPEG encoding. Several DSLRs use JPEG
>> settings that lose only tiny fractions of detail mostly inside the high
>> frequency sensor noise envelope. P&S cameras tend to be slightly more
>> aggressive in their choice of compression settings.
>>
>> > You know which cameras those are because their owners are always espousing
>> > the benefits of RAW. Whereas, many P&S cameras with RAW capability, you'd
>> > be hard pressed to better the JPG image that comes right from the camera by
>> > trying to manipulate the original RAW data to equal the JPG image. For
>> > those cameras which do it right the first time, there really is no need for
>> > RAW. This of course also depends on the talents of the photographer too. If
>> > they don't know how to expose an image properly in the first place they are
>> > always looking for that RAW crutch to back up their lame photography
>> > skills.

>>
>> RAW is useful when you need to have the option of handling 12 or 14bit
>> linear dynamic range. Scientific imaging wants that, and bridal
>> photography needs it since the cameras internal algorithms struggle in
>> wedding photography to get the brides white dress and the grooms black
>> suit both correctly exposed at once. And if the JPEG has burned out
>> highlights or lost shadow detail you are completely stuffed. RAW is more
>> flexible for difficult subject material.
>>
>>
>>
>> > Secondly, only MOST editors will degrade a JPG image after editing,
>> > resaving, reloading, reediting, resaving, et.al. But not ALL editors will
>> > degrade JPG images during edits and resaves. Photoline does truly lossless

>>
>> THIS IS COMPLETE AND UTTER *******S.
>>
>> > JPG editing. Not just lossless rotations. Which it also manages to do
>> > better by keeping any uneven 8x8 block-counts on edges intact. Many
>> > lossless rotations in other editors truncate images to even multiples of
>> > 8x8 pixel dimensions. I know of no other editors that can make and back-up
>> > this lossless JPG editing claim. When using Photoline the only pixels that
>> > get changed when resaving a JPG file are the ones you specifically choose
>> > to change. No further JPG artifacts are introduced into the resulting
>> > image. Unless you specifically choose a JPG compression much lower than the
>> > original file's compression, thereby intentionally forcing Photoline to put
>> > your image through the JPG algorithm again.

>>
>> Any global change like contrast or luminance adjustment forces a
>> re-encoding of the data and some second generation losses. Fear of this
>> tiny additional loss is greatly overplayed in the amateur field.
>>
>> There is no way to losslessly rotate an image which is not a horizontal
>> multiple of 8 pixels. The defect is in the JPEG standard itself. If an
>> application appears to do this it either cannot be lossless or it is
>> displaying some extra "image" which isn't part of the original.
>>
>>
>>
>> > As to what I prefer, JPG or RAW? I prefer to do my homework and make sure
>> > that I am buying a camera that will do the JPG conversion from its sensor's
>> > RAW data correctly the first time. Then I don't have to muck about and
>> > waste my time trying to fix what the camera maker failed to do properly in
>> > the first place. My photography skills are also good enough that I don't
>> > have to try to repair badly exposed images by relying on RAW data later.

>>
>> There are high dynamic range scenes where RAW will win. But FWIW I
>> normally shoot in JPEG for convenience unless I can see that the subject
>> material will cause problems because of intrinsic high contrast, or if I
>> need to do quantitative measurements on the image data later.
>>
>> > Those who claim otherwise for their photography ... well, that's exactly
>> > what they are claiming otherwise. They're your typical non-talented
>> > snapshooter in dire need of any crutch that they can lean on to save them
>> > from their perpetual crap-shots.

>>
>> > If only they could buy a dSLR with a point and shoot talent-mode built in
>> > too, they'd be all over it in a heartbeat.

>>
>> The main advantage of a dSLR is that you can change the lens. Or attache
>> the camera to a telescope or microscope. And if you already have a
>> collection of specialist lenses and adapters this is an important
>> factor. The advent of 10x superzoom has made it a lot easier for would
>> be nature photographers to choose a more compact P&S camera.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Martin Brown

>
>You will never win if you play his game.
>He feeds on the long replies he gets.
>
>DanP


No, Martin Brown never win simply because he's DEAD ****ING WRONG.

ANYONE can download the free demo version of Photoline that will prove
through their OWN TESTS, that this Martin Brown is a complete and utter
****ING IDIOT AND MORON, who should have never been born and only wastes
the valuable time of people far more intelligent than he'll ever be.
Wasting their valuable time in having to constantly correct his stupidity.

MARTIN BROWN IS A ****ING USELESS PIECE OF **** WASTE OF HUMAN FLESH.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
NameHere
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-24-2009
On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 02:04:55 -0800 (PST), DanP <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>On Dec 24, 9:18*am, Martin Brown <|||(E-Mail Removed)>
>wrote:
>> NameHere wrote:
>> > On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 14:18:59 -0800 (PST), eNo <(E-Mail Removed)>
>> > wrote:

>>
>> >> Here's an article that applies Kevin Maney's "Fidelity vs.
>> >> Convenience" guide to the RAW vs. JPG question to show why and how
>> >> each approach is successful.

>>
>> >>http://esfotoclix.com/blog1/?p=917

>>
>> > There's a couple glaring errors in your blog.

>>
>> Another outing of the P&S troll.
>>
>>
>>
>> > First off, many cameras provide the full dynamic range from the sensor's
>> > RAW data in their JPG files. RAW only became popularized by dSLR owners who

>>
>> ISTR the early Kodak DC-120 P&S (about £1000 in 199 was the first
>> nominally 1Mpixel digital camera to offer true raw sensor data as well
>> as encapsulated JPGs in its proprietory .KDC image file format. It gave
>> it a niche market in the scientific imaging community for a while at
>> least. Its JPEG algorithm was OK, although it did sometimes encode JPEG
>> files that nothing could decode (about 1:10000 shots). The quality
>> settings were optimistic and only the highest one was acceptable.
>>
>> > were complaining that their cameras weren't doing the RAW > JPG conversion
>> > properly. And many dSLR cameras sold even today still don't do it properly.

>>
>> This is utter *******s. The JPEG encoding algorithm is extremely well
>> understood. You might haggle about problems with autowhite balance, and
>> gamma correction but not with the JPEG encoding. Several DSLRs use JPEG
>> settings that lose only tiny fractions of detail mostly inside the high
>> frequency sensor noise envelope. P&S cameras tend to be slightly more
>> aggressive in their choice of compression settings.
>>
>> > You know which cameras those are because their owners are always espousing
>> > the benefits of RAW. Whereas, many P&S cameras with RAW capability, you'd
>> > be hard pressed to better the JPG image that comes right from the camera by
>> > trying to manipulate the original RAW data to equal the JPG image. For
>> > those cameras which do it right the first time, there really is no need for
>> > RAW. This of course also depends on the talents of the photographer too. If
>> > they don't know how to expose an image properly in the first place they are
>> > always looking for that RAW crutch to back up their lame photography
>> > skills.

>>
>> RAW is useful when you need to have the option of handling 12 or 14bit
>> linear dynamic range. Scientific imaging wants that, and bridal
>> photography needs it since the cameras internal algorithms struggle in
>> wedding photography to get the brides white dress and the grooms black
>> suit both correctly exposed at once. And if the JPEG has burned out
>> highlights or lost shadow detail you are completely stuffed. RAW is more
>> flexible for difficult subject material.
>>
>>
>>
>> > Secondly, only MOST editors will degrade a JPG image after editing,
>> > resaving, reloading, reediting, resaving, et.al. But not ALL editors will
>> > degrade JPG images during edits and resaves. Photoline does truly lossless

>>
>> THIS IS COMPLETE AND UTTER *******S.
>>
>> > JPG editing. Not just lossless rotations. Which it also manages to do
>> > better by keeping any uneven 8x8 block-counts on edges intact. Many
>> > lossless rotations in other editors truncate images to even multiples of
>> > 8x8 pixel dimensions. I know of no other editors that can make and back-up
>> > this lossless JPG editing claim. When using Photoline the only pixels that
>> > get changed when resaving a JPG file are the ones you specifically choose
>> > to change. No further JPG artifacts are introduced into the resulting
>> > image. Unless you specifically choose a JPG compression much lower than the
>> > original file's compression, thereby intentionally forcing Photoline to put
>> > your image through the JPG algorithm again.

>>
>> Any global change like contrast or luminance adjustment forces a
>> re-encoding of the data and some second generation losses. Fear of this
>> tiny additional loss is greatly overplayed in the amateur field.
>>
>> There is no way to losslessly rotate an image which is not a horizontal
>> multiple of 8 pixels. The defect is in the JPEG standard itself. If an
>> application appears to do this it either cannot be lossless or it is
>> displaying some extra "image" which isn't part of the original.
>>
>>
>>
>> > As to what I prefer, JPG or RAW? I prefer to do my homework and make sure
>> > that I am buying a camera that will do the JPG conversion from its sensor's
>> > RAW data correctly the first time. Then I don't have to muck about and
>> > waste my time trying to fix what the camera maker failed to do properly in
>> > the first place. My photography skills are also good enough that I don't
>> > have to try to repair badly exposed images by relying on RAW data later.

>>
>> There are high dynamic range scenes where RAW will win. But FWIW I
>> normally shoot in JPEG for convenience unless I can see that the subject
>> material will cause problems because of intrinsic high contrast, or if I
>> need to do quantitative measurements on the image data later.
>>
>> > Those who claim otherwise for their photography ... well, that's exactly
>> > what they are claiming otherwise. They're your typical non-talented
>> > snapshooter in dire need of any crutch that they can lean on to save them
>> > from their perpetual crap-shots.

>>
>> > If only they could buy a dSLR with a point and shoot talent-mode built in
>> > too, they'd be all over it in a heartbeat.

>>
>> The main advantage of a dSLR is that you can change the lens. Or attache
>> the camera to a telescope or microscope. And if you already have a
>> collection of specialist lenses and adapters this is an important
>> factor. The advent of 10x superzoom has made it a lot easier for would
>> be nature photographers to choose a more compact P&S camera.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Martin Brown

>
>You will never win if you play his game.
>He feeds on the long replies he gets.
>
>DanP


No, Martin Brown will never win simply because he's DEAD ****ING
WRONG--AGAIN! On ALL COUNTS.

ANYONE can download the free demo version of Photoline that will prove
through their OWN TESTS, that this Martin Brown is a complete and utter
****ING IDIOT AND MORON, who should have never been born and only wastes
the valuable time of people far more intelligent than he'll ever be.
Wasting their valuable time in having to constantly correct his stupidity.

MARTIN BROWN IS A ****ING USELESS PIECE OF **** WASTE OF HUMAN FLESH.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
John A.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-24-2009
On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 00:59:20 -0600, LOL! <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 12:04:59 +0900, "David J. Littleboy" <(E-Mail Removed)>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>"John A." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 16:37:57 -0800 (PST), DanP <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Dec 24, 12:25 am, NameHere <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 16:20:31 -0800, "nsbm" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>> >I do not know of any camera ever made that has a satisfactory jpeg
>>>>> >algorithm.
>>>>> >The "good enough" mentality would favor a Yugo over a Mercedes.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's what comes from people who don't know how to do their homework,
>>>>> nor
>>>>> even know how to begin to do their own homework.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for proving that your kind exists--everywhere.
>>>>
>>>>You are an idiot. Ever heard it before?
>>>
>>> Actually, he's the infamous "P&S Troll". He only sounds like an idiot
>>> because he wants to.

>>
>>He's quite convincing, though. I'm quite sure he really is one.

>
>And this is all that you useless and lousy DSLR-Trolls have, to try to
>refute everything he said?
>
>LOL!!!!!!!!!!


To say that you're a troll and consistently & deliberately wrong
pretty much covers everything.
 
Reply With Quote
 
John A.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-24-2009
On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 09:18:48 +0000, Martin Brown
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>NameHere wrote:

[...]
>>
>> Secondly, only MOST editors will degrade a JPG image after editing,
>> resaving, reloading, reediting, resaving, et.al. But not ALL editors will
>> degrade JPG images during edits and resaves. Photoline does truly lossless

>
>THIS IS COMPLETE AND UTTER *******S.


Well...

>> JPG editing. Not just lossless rotations. Which it also manages to do
>> better by keeping any uneven 8x8 block-counts on edges intact. Many
>> lossless rotations in other editors truncate images to even multiples of
>> 8x8 pixel dimensions. I know of no other editors that can make and back-up
>> this lossless JPG editing claim. When using Photoline the only pixels that
>> get changed when resaving a JPG file are the ones you specifically choose
>> to change. No further JPG artifacts are introduced into the resulting
>> image. Unless you specifically choose a JPG compression much lower than the
>> original file's compression, thereby intentionally forcing Photoline to put
>> your image through the JPG algorithm again.

>
>Any global change like contrast or luminance adjustment forces a
>re-encoding of the data and some second generation losses. Fear of this
>tiny additional loss is greatly overplayed in the amateur field.


Actually, IIRC, JPEG Wizard has been able to do this for years now.
Apparently it remembers the wavelets or whatever when loading and
seeks to reuse them whenever possible. As a result, you can add a
caption, remove a blemish, etc. and only the squares that have been
edited will be recompressed differently. IIRC it can do some global
color adjustments with the same wavelets too.

I'm not familiar with Photoline.

>There is no way to losslessly rotate an image which is not a horizontal
>multiple of 8 pixels. The defect is in the JPEG standard itself. If an
>application appears to do this it either cannot be lossless or it is
>displaying some extra "image" which isn't part of the original.


Or it crops the image. I believe that is the common practice.
 
Reply With Quote
 
John A.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-24-2009
On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 08:02:10 -0500, John A. <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 00:59:20 -0600, LOL! <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 12:04:59 +0900, "David J. Littleboy" <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"John A." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 16:37:57 -0800 (PST), DanP <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Dec 24, 12:25 am, NameHere <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 16:20:31 -0800, "nsbm" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>> >I do not know of any camera ever made that has a satisfactory jpeg
>>>>>> >algorithm.
>>>>>> >The "good enough" mentality would favor a Yugo over a Mercedes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's what comes from people who don't know how to do their homework,
>>>>>> nor
>>>>>> even know how to begin to do their own homework.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for proving that your kind exists--everywhere.
>>>>>
>>>>>You are an idiot. Ever heard it before?
>>>>
>>>> Actually, he's the infamous "P&S Troll". He only sounds like an idiot
>>>> because he wants to.
>>>
>>>He's quite convincing, though. I'm quite sure he really is one.

>>
>>And this is all that you useless and lousy DSLR-Trolls have, to try to
>>refute everything he said?
>>
>>LOL!!!!!!!!!!

>
>To say that you're a troll and consistently & deliberately wrong
>pretty much covers everything.


Except, of course, when you throw in a piece of correct, if often
misinterpreted, information you Googled up for the purpose.
 
Reply With Quote
 
BD
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-24-2009

> And this is all that you useless and lousy DSLR-Trolls have, to try to
> refute everything he said?


That's just it - He hasn't *said* anything! Except that he knows more
than everyone else.!

LOL yerself...
 
Reply With Quote
 
BD
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-24-2009
On Dec 23, 11:12*pm, LOL! <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 22:02:18 -0800 (PST), BD <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >On Dec 23, 4:25*pm, NameHere <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 16:20:31 -0800, "nsbm" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >> >I do not know of any camera ever made that has a satisfactory jpeg
> >> >algorithm.
> >> >The "good enough" mentality would favor a Yugo over a Mercedes.

>
> >> That's what comes from people who don't know how to do their homework, nor
> >> even know how to begin to do their own homework.

>
> >> Thanks for proving that your kind exists--everywhere.

>
> >So? Gonna put your mouth where your mouth is?

>
> So? What part of "do your OWN ****ING HOMEWORK" is it that you useless and
> highly annoying DSLR-Trolls fail to understand?
>
> You couldn't afford to pay me enough to tell you what I worked so hard to
> find out on my own. Be extremely grateful that I already share for free the
> little bit I care to share with useless ****s like you. You're not even
> worth giving the time of day to if you asked.
>
> LOL!!!!!!!!


Mmmmmm..... You're my hero..... (really - true story)
 
Reply With Quote
 
NameHere
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-24-2009
On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 13:51:45 +0000, bugbear
<bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:

>
>Go on - offer something other than assertions, and we'll take you seriously.


Nothing more than "assertions" are needed, you ****ing moron. NOTHING that
I will post here will ever convince anyone of anything. Especially all of
you useless resident pretend-photographer trolls who aren't even educated
enough to know who is and is not telling the truth. That is why they HAVE
TO test it for themselves. Only then will they find out what an utter idiot
and lying moron and fool that Martin Brown truly is. What's the matter? You
don't want to find out that the one you call "the troll" is correct and
that some idiot who posts things that look like "facts" is in total error?
Fine by me! Join his ranks too of being an utterly ignorant idiot.

You're ALL ****ING MORON TROLLS.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-25-2009
bugbear <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
[the slime is ****ed]

> All that knowledge, detail and analysus, compared to your repetition
> of "do your own homework" making you look bad?


The slime cannot but hide it's sources and proof: it hasn't
got any.

> Go on - offer something other than assertions, and we'll take you seriously.


No chance --- not in this life or the next. The slime is
truly discredited.

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
John McWilliams
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-25-2009
NameHere wrote:

> You're ALL ****ING MORON TROLLS.
>


Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Why not take a few minutes and tell us why you're so ****ed off. It'll
be empowering for you. Won't break your anonymity, but will start to get
you less ****ed off.

But it will take a bit of cajones to start the process.

--
john mcwilliams
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
RAW vs. JPG: Fidelity vs. Convenience eNo Digital Photography 1 12-25-2009 06:18 AM
VR-Fidelity USB Speakerphone @ ThinkComputers.org Silverstrand Front Page News 0 01-02-2006 02:38 AM
Better Wi-Fidelity dwacôn Computer Support 9 09-28-2005 01:30 AM
High Fidelity problem Poisonmail DVD Video 9 12-27-2003 11:19 PM
"High Fidelity" oddness Berndt Jobst DVD Video 1 07-05-2003 01:37 PM



Advertisments