What goes into the X1 JPEG algorithm?

[phancj]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Amazing. Such different views!

 

When I open both the DNGs and JPGs in Lightroom side by side I can't find a single JPG that looks better than the DNG. The JPGs all look dull, flat, cool (most) and oversharpened. And they fall apart rapidly when you touch them.

 

Various good (tech) reviews also clearly show how much more resolution and dynamic range is in the X1 DNGs so I couldn't think of a reason why I would use the JPGs. Especially as programs like Lightroom make working with RAW just as easy as JPGs too.

 

 

Just out of curiosity, we all are looking at good quality screens that are calibrated I take it?...

 

 

A (very) crude and simple one from DPreview. If you can't see all the different patches below CLEARLY you're in big trouble.

 

 

 

If in doubt, have a look at the various test screens here to get a idea how your screen does.

 

LCD monitor test images

 

Richard.

 

Hi Richard,

 

One thing I always do- reduce sharpening for the in-camera settings. That would make the jpegs a whole lot better and give more leeway for sharpening if necessary. Works for me, Nikon cameras too.

[ravinj]

Also, in most cases DNG files upon importation are quite horrendous, mostly over-exposed. Dun think there is much co-operation between Adobe and Leica. Colors can be way off too. compared to the jpeg, I would say most shots upon importation to LR sucks, but upon tweaking can be amazing, or at least I hope!

 

+1. After reviewing hundreds of X1 DNGs in LR, they are all look washed out and very soft. OOC jpgs look very good. Yes, I can make the DNGs look like the jpgs (or maybe slightly better) after careful PP, but I just don't see the point of wasting time. The only benefit from DNG I have seen is recovering detail from shadows in poorly exposed shots.

 

I had a LR session with a pro photog friend of mine who uses Nikon D700 , Canon 5D MK II amongst other equipment (check out his work: http://www.dansouthphoto.com/Travel/France/11789273_DdNEf#832679199_XKgea and http://www.dansouthphoto.com/). He was generous enough to share a few LR tips. First thing he observed about X1 DNGs was the washed out look, then in camera calibration, the only options were "embedded" and Adobe Standard. In case of 5D Mk II he gets many more options in LR camera caliberation like Portrait, Landscape, etc. After tweaking my sample DNG in LR, he was able to make it look slightly better than the OOC jpg. That difference was observable only in 100% zoom (blues and reds were a bit better). Sharpness was however the same. It seems that the X1 jpgs are very well optimized and this brings up the question: what exactly is the point of X1's DNG?

[h00ligan]

I agree as well. I really do like the jpgs most of the time - I just really wish there was a preset in lightroom to use them as a starting point for the raw files - in the case of missed awb or as mentioned recovering detail. The latter is very important to me with skies in arizona. I like the color treatment the jpgs get too - it seems very lifelike.

 

So, can we by any chance focus in on perhaps using group trial to find the settings that could be used on import to replicate the jpgs?

 

Glad I'm not alone!

[ravinj]

So, can we by any chance focus in on perhaps using group trial to find the settings that could be used on import to replicate the jpgs?

!

 

 

That would be great. If we can share LR custom presets that work well for X1 DNGs, it would go a long way. I will start by uploading a couple of them that I used on a few landscape shots.

[davidhunternyc]

I would like to see examples of what everyone is talking about? It would be great to see a DNG and JPEG of the exact same photo unprocessed in Lightroom. Also, since some people here have reported more positive results using Aperture, it would be great to see DNG and JPEG's using this software as well.

[h00ligan]

So what would we use to convert the dng to jpg/etc for viewing? I'm happy to upload a couple of shots untreated, but the raw has to be rendered by something.

[h00ligan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Here's a shot that was brought into lightroom, nothing was done but resize on export.

 

jpg then raw converted from default.. not as drastic as the second set i'll post.

 

 

[h00ligan]

again, jpg then raw. Straightened a slight bit but that's it. these are obviously not works of art, I think I took them in the first few days I had the x1 just to get used to it.. but particularly in the greens, and the sky we see a huge difference.. otherwise the color is toned down - as is exposure it seems. The sharpening is also pretty evident when we look at the palm fronds. Looks like the jpg has much lower brightness a bit more contrast.. some desaturation of selective channels.. anyone else seeing what's going on?

 

 

 

Michael's recommendations (below).. made the brightness and fringing changes - the double sharpened - which looks too sharpened can be seen here (forum limitations),

 

and then the 200% / .3 sharpen - which looks like a good sharpen. I think to even begin to get close we would have to reduce the exposure a bit - and the brightness more.

 

 

Here is a screen capture (works ok) of a 100% crop comparing the dng and jpg straight out of the camera.. look at the deck and color differences. (i do know this is not the way to get the best quality, but it illustrates the point). Sorry to confuse things - jpg is on the right in this capture.

 

[davidhunternyc]

Edward, This is what I expected. The JPEG (flower) looks far more natural. It is hard for me to imagine that the DNG file is what the X1 is capturing. As others have noted, I wonder if the problem isn't the X1's DNG setting but the problem is in Lightroom. Either that or there is something wrong with the DNG conversion. Interesting problem indeed. I should be getting my X1 next week though. Exciting.

 

Oh, Edward, you're killing me. I'm locked in my cramped, hot NYC apartment. That pool looks heavenly!

[msbel]

DP's RAW work-flow in their X1 review below. I use it, and becomes pretty apparent the jpegs are quite inferior and lack life.

 

I use ACR (is that the same converter LR builds on?)

 

Disable sharpening in ACR all together ("preview only").

Bring down Brightness to (+30)

Lens Correction: (-20) Red/Cyan Fringe; Defringe drop down select "Highlight Edges"

 

Covert using consistent color space (Adobe RGB in camera setting for me..)

 

Two sharpening layers in PS:

 

Amount 50, Radius 5, Threshold 0

Amount 200, Radius 0.3, Threshold 0

 

If it seems over-sharpened (as with low light/night captures) just use the latter.

 

The seemingly "overexposure" is extended HR in highlights in my experience. Just bring it back a little, and all detail is revealed once sharpened. If I blow the shot myself, I don't try to over-correct b/c it screws up what I saw in the first place.

 

I'll try and post a comparison at some point. It is quite startling in some cases.

[h00ligan]

Edward, This is what I expected. The JPEG (flower) looks far more natural. It is hard for me to imagine that the DNG file is what the X1 is capturing. As others have noted, I wonder if the problem isn't the X1's DNG setting but the problem is in Lightroom. Either that or there is something wrong with the DNG conversion. Interesting problem indeed. I should be getting my X1 next week though. Exciting.

 

Oh, Edward, you're killing me. I'm locked in my cramped, hot NYC apartment. That pool looks heavenly!

 

Ahh david, it's been 113-115 and humid here.. I moved back from NYC and I want to go back there immediately.. Phoenix is a nice visit, not a place to live imho. I just checked your weather, we were at 92 deg and 41% humidity at 7am! We need the pools!

 

Msbel - thank you for posting that, i'll give it a shot too!

[RichardM8]

It seems that the X1 jpgs are very well optimized and this brings up the question: what exactly is the point of X1's DNG?

 

I too have thousands of files on my PC including 30D, 40D, 5D2, D700 and I don't see or experience any of the above. The 5D2 doesn't shoot DNG files btw.

 

If you want to understand the point(s) of RAW vs JPG this is good reading. There is a little more to it than putting a RAW and JPG on a screen side by side.

 

Understanding RAW Files Explained

 

Tutorials - The RAW File Format

[h00ligan]

I've added 2 shots per Micheal's settings to my other post.

 

Richard - putting them side by side is necessary to discuss the disparity - and particularly how one can start closer to where the jpg is, while retaining the benefits of raw. The goal here is to clearly analyze the difference with the hopes of creating a more optimized profile as a starting point in the raw workflow.

 

In some cases the differences are gigantic, in some cases they are minor.

[cpclee]

The 3rd pool shot looks great. Very neutral colors. Reminded me of Kodak E100G (my favorite slide film). But I'm a little lost as to what exactly you did to get this.

 

Michael's recommendations (below).. made the brightness and fringing changes - the double sharpened - which looks too sharpened can be seen here (forum limitations),

 

and then the 200% / .3 sharpen - which looks like a good sharpen. I think to even begin to get close we would have to reduce the exposure a bit - and the brightness more.

 

[RichardM8]

Richard - putting them side by side is necessary to discuss the disparity - and particularly how one can start closer to where the jpg is, while retaining the benefits of raw. The goal here is to clearly analyze the difference with the hopes of creating a more optimized profile as a starting point in the raw workflow.

 

Edward - I know, I quoted another sentence in the context of my reaction.

[RichardM8]

Another very important variable in this interesting discussion.

 

A 12 or 14 bit RAW (DNG) file contains much more colors and color-info than a squeezed flat 8 bit JPG. During JPG conversion a huge amount of (color)data is thrown away. I think (hope) that is clear for everybody. 'Fortunately' in most cases we don't see this on the computer screen due to the simple fact that 95% of the monitors are not able to display those colors in the first place. Calibrated or not.

 

Even the - relatively small - sRGB colorspace is much bigger than the vast majority of monitors can handle. Only very expensive dedicated wide gamut graphics monitors come close® to display full sRGB. The picture below shows the sRGB colorspace compared to the colorspace of my ThinkPad LCD. While this doesn't look that good, it's brand new, calibrated and it's a pretty good LCD for a laptop (or standard desktop LCDs). Note this has nothing to do with resolution. The LCDs from the 'famous' MacBook Pros do only a little better on color but less on highlights.

 

 

 

 

So when you are 'evaluating' and editing images you're only looking at a part of picture. Literally. The RAW file - and even some JPGs - contain much more information than you'll ever see on screen. In fact, you're editing images to look good in the limited colorspace of your monitor...

Edward posted the example of the two red flowers. The posterized/clipped looking reds in the RAW are likely the result of the monitor(s) not able to display the reds properly.

 

Is this a bad thing? No. BUT.... When you shoot JPG only, all the information the camera records in a RAW file is thrown away. For ever... No way of getting it back. Over time monitors get better, image software gets better etc. Rapidly. From RAW files you will always be able to get the best results when technology improves because the data is there. Maybe no big deal for 90% of the occasional snaps but it certainly is for me for my most cherished images. The new RAW engine in Lightroom 3 is a good example. The improved results I get from old RAW files is amazing.

 

And the DNG format has the additional advantage over proprietary RAW formats that it's a device independent (camera make, model etc.) format.

[h00ligan]

Richard, Thanks for that interesting read. Much appreciated.

 

I am at present only judging from the screen - and it even bothers me that what I see in raw can't be matched with jpg (maybe I should use png?). I am just about ready to buy my first real photo printer - and will definitely solicit choices in the appropriate forum here.. so definitely what I am talking about is what I see on the screen.

 

This thread has been helpful.

[phancj]

Yup, Richard, your point on future-proofing photos make a lot of sense....

[h00ligan]

cpclee - the settings are listed about..

 

Basically reduce the brightness to +30 and deal with the chroma - then sharpen twice in photoshop with the recommended settings.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[jaapv]

On sharpening - the important point is the capture sharpening - you'll find that that affects the whole futher postprocessing. One essential is to determine the type of subject. If it has a lot of fine detail (like a landscape), use a radius of between 0.5 and 0.8, if it has average detail, around 1.0 and if it is not very detailed ( a soft portrait) between 1.2 and 1.5. Don't forget the new masking tool either. And balance it with noise reduction. The amounts you will have to eyeball at 100%. If you get it wrong in the beginning there is no saving the file. So no blanket presets, i fear.

That is capture sharpening in RAW conversion. For output at the end it is quite different.