Bob Ross Posted January 14, 2007 Share #41 Posted January 14, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Didn't use an IR filter but I don't think that this has to do with that.The JPEG's seems to be heavily compressed. Files are around 2-2.5 mb large. My 5mp E-1 was around 3-3.5 mb large and my 6mp Fuji S3 about the same. Hi Martin, JPG Fine should be around 3.6MB and JPG Basic around 2.6MB. I use an E-1, too, and was surprised at the JPEG compression on the M8. Bob Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 14, 2007 Posted January 14, 2007 Hi Bob Ross, Take a look here M8 high contrast sharpening issues with JPEG. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
rvaubel Posted January 14, 2007 Share #42 Posted January 14, 2007 Jaap,That's not what I'm saying. I know that a RAW image will always be better. But JPEG's should definetely be better than this. Jaap Martin's right, the JPEGs should be better. Even though I almost always shoot RAW, there are people who need to shoot JPEGs or want to shoot JPEGs. When Leica squares away the issues that effect RAW files, maybe they can address the JPEG issues, the first one being flakey white balance. At least the JPEG issues can be solved by software upgrades. Rex Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted January 14, 2007 Share #43 Posted January 14, 2007 Okay, found your thread. A quick heads-up on this issue: - it is not sharpening-related - it is not JPG only. I have a raw with exactly this problem. I have seen it just once in all my shots though. I am not sure what it is. I don't like it, that's for sure, but I do think that 1) it doesn't happen often (for me), and 2) Leica is sure to fix it, if we provide them with the necessary images. I will send mine to them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
larry Posted January 14, 2007 Share #44 Posted January 14, 2007 Martin, The fine JPEGs out of my camera are approximately 3.6 megs, so I wonder if your camera has a firmware problem? Maybe the shooting parameter menu isn't working properly. Are you using your shutter button or the Set button to exit the menu? Larry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
martinb Posted January 14, 2007 Author Share #45 Posted January 14, 2007 Martin, The fine JPEGs out of my camera are approximately 3.6 megs, so I wonder if your camera has a firmware problem? Maybe the shooting parameter menu isn't working properly. Are you using your shutter button or the Set button to exit the menu? Larry Larry, I use the shutter button. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 14, 2007 Share #46 Posted January 14, 2007 But tha Jpegs I get out of my Raw conversion are still between 7 and 8 Mp. The camera does apply some pretty strong compression, even in JPG fine. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted January 14, 2007 Share #47 Posted January 14, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Looking at my JPEGs, they are anywhere between 1.9 and 9.3 Mb, highly image content dependent. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted January 14, 2007 Share #48 Posted January 14, 2007 I just came back to my computer and wanted to extract the DNG when I realised that it was a JPG after all! Sorry about the noise. I recall now that I shot the first few pictures in JPG after I got the camera back from Solms, by mistake. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted January 14, 2007 Share #49 Posted January 14, 2007 Sharpening is always done badly in jpegs. It ends up being "edge sharpening", which makes the highlights go "video" and hard while leaving textures mushy. Unless one is shooting strictly for automated 4x6 prints and wants some snap, it should always be set as low as possible, with any sharpening done in post-processing where the sharpening can be controlled far more delicately. The "Smart sharpening" filter can take 15 seconds to run on my G5 iMac, so it's obvious that in-camera sharpening with a much smaller processor can not be done well with any reasonable shooting speed. The good news about the M8 is - at least it has a real "OFF" setting for jpeg sharpening. I went through my jpeg pictures and couldn't find any that came close to the contrast situation Martin showed (and most were ISO 1250 or 2500 and B&W, which introduce noise reduction effects that softened edges so that they were also not comparable) - so I shot this setup this morning as a close approximation - at 2 isos, and with 4 sharpening regimes. (second image with just two frames shows jpeg vs. .dng from the same exposure - note that Photoshop sharpening of the dng makes the wall texture sharper, yet the highlights don't get that hard-edged video-frame-grab look. A better balance of sharpness overall.) It's obvious that even the LOW setting is significantly different from OFF, and is already introducing artifacts. If one must shoot jpegs for space or speed reasons and wants the best possible starting image for post-processing, one should shoot "poor-man's RAW" - set sharpening as low as possible (OFF in the case of the M8), and contrast and saturation no higher than a notch below "standard", and ideally, WB manually off a gray card. Such files will not look their best straight from the camera, but they will allow the most leeway, usually, for creative adjustments afterwards. Data point - my in-camera color jpegs run about 2.5 Mbytes in fine. And the camera info readout confirms they are fine and not basic, so it's not a slipup in the menus. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/13401-m8-high-contrast-sharpening-issues-with-jpeg/?do=findComment&comment=142045'>More sharing options...
larry Posted January 14, 2007 Share #50 Posted January 14, 2007 Andy, Thanks for taking the time to shoot and post these comparisons. I found them to be very helpful and hope other will, too. Larry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bap Posted January 14, 2007 Share #51 Posted January 14, 2007 I could be wrong (and I'm sure I am) but I thought the idea of spending $7,000.00 for a camera and lens was to have great shots. Jpeg's are never great shots they all have issues. I have owned a Canon 1d and still own a Nikon d2x and D200 I also own a Nikon D70 I also have a Nikon compact point and shoot someplace but if all I wanted to do was shoot jpeg's I would go fine the point and shoot. I always assumed (and i'm probably wrong) that the reason Canon, Nikon, or Leica gave you the option to shoot in both raw and jpeg at the same time was to be able to use the jpeg as a quick view to see if you even wanted the shot and if you did go to the raw and take the time to open it and adjust. The jpeg only option... for the shots you don't care about. I have not noticed the problem but in fairness I only use jpeg's as a reference. As I said in a prior thread I am new to Leica and maybe not as critical as all of you who have been using leica for years but I have been using digital for years and this is the best feeling, looking and performing camera I ever used. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted January 14, 2007 Share #52 Posted January 14, 2007 Sure, me too, but there *are* people who use JPGs only for various reasons, such as press photographers who need to send the pictures to editors over slow connections right away, and secondly, one might expect an expensive camera to do at least as good with the JPGs as much cheaper cameras. On the other hand, I also only use raw, and I am sure Leica will fix it with time. There is a firmware update promised for the February/March timeframe. Let's see what it does. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
martinb Posted January 14, 2007 Author Share #53 Posted January 14, 2007 Thanks Andy! Great comparison! Also did a quick comparison today and it seems that OFF is way better than LOW after all. Still I think there's way too much compression going on in the files. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterv Posted January 14, 2007 Share #54 Posted January 14, 2007 Andy, thanks for taking the time to produce this clear and elaborate explanation! I knew this in theory, but seeing the test you made, makes everything very obvious to the eye... After all, seeing is what photography is about Cheers, Peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Ross Posted January 14, 2007 Share #55 Posted January 14, 2007 Andy, Thanks for taking the time to shoot and post these comparisons. I found them to be very helpful and hope other will, too. Larry I'll second Larry's "thank you", Andy. Another JPEG anomoly is that it will smear grass and fine foliage in some landscapes. Jono first pointed this out and I could easily repoduce it. I found that increasing midtone contrast would bring the detail back, idicating that the JPEG tone curve isn't quite right. The color profile for JPEG's presets are qite good, though exposure sensitive. My workflow usually involves tri-tone contrast adjustments which introduce sharpening and reduce the need for as much final USM or other sharpening routines. Thanks again. Bob Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted January 14, 2007 Share #56 Posted January 14, 2007 Bob, with all that work, wouldn't it be better to just use DNGs and be done with it? JPEGs stand or fall on whether you can use them straight out of the camera and a project I did last year involving thousands of them on a D2x was fine. Andy's examples do show that the M8 sharpening is completely overdone - up to now, I've used low sharpening and contrast turned down a notch but who in the world is going to use maximum sharpening? DNGs are clearly superior and as Martin's first image seems to show, a high contrast shooting situation just makes the JPEGs worse. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffreyg Posted January 15, 2007 Share #57 Posted January 15, 2007 I'll second Larry's "thank you", Andy. As a long term Leica buff, but also fussy owner, I've noticed some issues in JPG's also. I don't seem to recall this with the DMR setup, altho perhaps its time to check. Is it possible the loss of Imacon had some impacts on the M8 software? JPGs on the M8 just don't seem as nice as ones from the DMR, even tho the DMR ones were shot with a zoom (21/35 or 35/70) and the M8 with the new 28 2.8 lens. The color rendition and the convenient size of the M8 is still amazingly compelling, and yes, the camera has some quirks. Its a specialized camera for a small set of users - those who like the mechanical engagement of the RF, with manual focus and setup, but want the speed and convenience of digital. I for one find myself smack-dab in the middle of that group, and am delighted with the strengths of the camera. But like any complex small volume product (see autos, hi-fi, custom architecture, etc.) it has its issues. Hopefully the strengths outweigh those. Anyone who expects all areas of Leica performance to exceed Nikon/Canon isn't quite being fair. Please consider the math, run the numbers and figure that while everyone at Leica must be brilliant, the converse is not true: those engineers at the other companies are no fools, and with bigger budgets, they are doing something right too. Canon has nailed high ISO, autofocus and JPG's pretty well. Hopefully, with a bit of time, Leica will bring up the M8 performance in those areas. still delighted, but with open eyes, Geoff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Ross Posted January 15, 2007 Share #58 Posted January 15, 2007 Bob, with all that work, wouldn't it be better to just use DNGs and be done with it? JPEGs stand or fall on whether you can use them straight out of the camera and a project I did last year involving thousands of them on a D2x was fine. Andy's examples do show that the M8 sharpening is completely overdone - up to now, I've used low sharpening and contrast turned down a notch but who in the world is going to use maximum sharpening? DNGs are clearly superior and as Martin's first image seems to show, a high contrast shooting situation just makes the JPEGs worse. Hi Mark, You are probably right, though I als do "the work" with a DNG>Tiff conversion, but have a better starting point. I am a bit spoiled by the E-1, because SQH JPEGs are a match for raw conversions. The E-1 has more on-board processing power than the M8. Playing with the JPEG files does give me some valuable "image feel" that carries over to DNG conversions. The other side of this discussion is the print making and how each file format stands up to what today's inkjets do to an image and if you have yesterday's inkjet, like I do, it is more fun. Bob Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrc Posted January 15, 2007 Share #59 Posted January 15, 2007 I'd agree that the jpg software should probably be redone, or upgraded, but -- I'm not trying to sound harsh here -- it seems odd to have a $5,000 camera with a ~$2000+ lens, and then use jpgs to try to save space because you only have one $50 memory card. You need another memory card, or two. I wouldn't swear to it, because I can't yet read Leica's mind, but I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't let the jpg software slide a bit, because they didn't think many people would use it. Again, why would you buy an exquisitely sharp $5,000 camera that uses exquisitely sharp and expensive lenses, and then shoot jpgs? I admit that some people do, but it seems passing strange, unless they do it for quick review in post-processing, in which artifacts wouldn't matter, but high compression would. I don't buy that photojournalism stuff (that they need to transmit quickly over slow lines) because I spent most of my working life around photojournalists, and many of them admired Leica and would have loved to have had one, if they could have afforded it, for their personal use, but never would have used a rangefinder professionally. You just can't get in the scrum around some politician or footballer in the middle of a rainstorm and stick a rangefinder a foot overhead and let autofocus and motordrive take over...And once you have the photos, you still have to run them through a computer to get them on a phone line, and if you're going to so that...why not use RAW shots that can be better done? That guy from the LA Times who got caught Photoshopping his Iraq pictures certainly did that... There are a lot of SLR users who seem to have a problem coming to grips with the whole idea of a Leica; the small mechanical/optical/eyeball aspects. I think the use of jpgs from an M8 is more a symptom of that problem than anything...while I still agree that Leica should probably do something about the jpg software, which I personally will never use. 8-) JC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rvaubel Posted January 15, 2007 Share #60 Posted January 15, 2007 jrc I don't think anyone is seriously complaining about the shortfall that the M8 has with regards JPEGs. But still, this should be a minor problem for Leica to address at least with regards the sharpening. However, it would be nice if Leica could get the white balance thing a little more stable. Remember that theoretically, us RAW shooters don't give a damn about white balance But, if so, why do we whine ? Rex Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.