M8 high contrast sharpening issues with JPEG

[adan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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?

 

Geoff

 

Well, among other things, the DMR allows one to turn the electronic anti-moire filter on or off for jpegs. With the M8, it is ON for jpegs and OFF for .dngs, with no other control possible that I can see. Perhaps Leica did a study and found out 90% of jpeg users always used the filtering, so they decided to quite making it optional.

 

The jpeg noise-reduction seems different at higher ISOs, too. As I've mentioned on other threads, it seems almost like a bit of noise is added to mid- and light tones, and then reduced along with the natural shadow noise, so that the results are more even and silver-like, rather than the smoothed light tones and noisy shadows that look like underexposed C41 "B&W" films, which is the more usual effect in digital shots.

 

A plus in some ways, but a minus in that it smudges out crispness (along with the unavoidable moire filtering) that often can't be recovered by any amount of sharpening, either in-camera or in PS.

 

I'd like to see optional control of moire-filtering and NR made available again in the menus in some future firmware upgrade, just as it is now for sharpening and contrast and such.

 

As a newspaper designer and occasional photojournalist I can attest that jpegs are the news-industry standard, for a whole host of reasons - transmission speed, compatability with pagination systems, archiving capacity and compatability, and speed of handling. If the M8 is ever going to recover even a little of the "photojournalism" cachet that the film M's had, even as recently as 4 years ago when my paper finally left film behind, the jpeg processing and speed have got to be top-notch.

 

At least 4 of the staff shooters at my paper (out of 15) have "mothballed" M systems that they did, in fact, use for certain assignments up until film went away here. Anything from executive portraits to long-term photo-essays.

[martinb]

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

 

You don't buy that? There are people shooting JPEG's, believe it or not. And many of them are pro's. There are and will be many PJ's and documentary photographers that will work with the M8, and some will want to use JPEG or have to do so. Most newspapers don't allow RAW.

[jaapv]

Well, among other things, the DMR allows one to turn the electronic anti-moire filter on or off for jpegs. With the M8, it is ON for jpegs and OFF for .dngs, with no other control possible that I can see. Perhaps Leica did a study and found out 90% of jpeg users always used the filtering, so they decided to quite making it optional.

 

The jpeg noise-reduction seems different at higher ISOs, too. As I've mentioned on other threads, it seems almost like a bit of noise is added to mid- and light tones, and then reduced along with the natural shadow noise, so that the results are more even and silver-like, rather than the smoothed light tones and noisy shadows that look like underexposed C41 "B&W" films, which is the more usual effect in digital shots.

 

A plus in some ways, but a minus in that it smudges out crispness (along with the unavoidable moire filtering) that often can't be recovered by any amount of sharpening, either in-camera or in PS.

 

I'd like to see optional control of moire-filtering and NR made available again in the menus in some future firmware upgrade, just as it is now for sharpening and contrast and such.

 

As a newspaper designer and occasional photojournalist I can attest that jpegs are the news-industry standard, for a whole host of reasons - transmission speed, compatability with pagination systems, archiving capacity and compatability, and speed of handling. If the M8 is ever going to recover even a little of the "photojournalism" cachet that the film M's had, even as recently as 4 years ago when my paper finally left film behind, the jpeg processing and speed have got to be top-notch.

 

At least 4 of the staff shooters at my paper (out of 15) have "mothballed" M systems that they did, in fact, use for certain assignments up until film went away here. Anything from executive portraits to long-term photo-essays.

C1 is so fast - it can output to Jpeg- Dont PJ's own laptops? Converting, cropping and outputting in C1 is as fast as just cropping in PS. And it will help their chances in World Press Photo is they can produce a file that prints well for exhibition.

[martinb]

C1 is so fast - it can output to Jpeg- Dont PJ's own laptops? Converting, cropping and outputting in C1 is as fast as just cropping in PS. And it will help their chances in World Press Photo is they can produce a file that prints well for exhibition.

 

It's not just about processing, it's also about storage. + A RAW file is never going to be processed as fast a JPEG.

[jaapv]

It's not just about processing, it's also about storage. + A RAW file is never going to be processed as fast a JPEG.

 

True, but storage is no prblem. A few 4 Gb cards will go a long way. And as for speed, I don't think one or two seconds slower will make much of a difference for the scramble in the scrum. If I were a Pj -which I am not and correct me if I am wrong - I would want to have a small file for immediate transfer to my editor and a large one to sell to magazines and exhibit if it turnes out to be top stuff.

[martinb]

Jaap,

I'm not talking about storage on SD cards, I'm talking about storage on hard drives.

The thing is that JPEG is good enough, if they are good JPEG's that is.

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Jaap,

I'm not talking about storage on SD cards, I'm talking about storage on hard drives.

The thing is that JPEG is good enough, if they are good JPEG's that is.

 

Martin,

My el-cheapo laptop has 80 Gb. And my Xsdrive as well. Let the real PJ's tell us, I'm just speculating. My mindset is: "Good enough" means "should be improved" . But then I would probably make a lousy reporter

[marknorton]

I have to confess, I've been lulled into a false sense of security after using my D2x which not only has WB sorted but also produces excellent JPEGs. I use the largest size and the lowest compression, of course, I have rarely felt the need to do NEF for images which are correctly exposed.

 

After Martin's heads-up, I went and had a look at my own M8 JPEGs and I see all kinds of nasties, even with just the lowest level of sharpening. I always shoot DNG + JPEG fine but I agree that there's a lot of work still to do on JPEGs.

 

I think Leica should quickly abandon the idea that "JPEGs don't matter", some users will want to use JPEGs for all kinds of reasons and some may not want to bother with C1. The practices seen here are very much at the enthusiast end of the spectrum.

 

Question is, have Leica built enough processing power into the M8 to do the job properly?

[jaapv]

My mindset is: "Good enough" means "should be improved"

And that, Mark, goes for Jpegs too and we can all agree that the M8 does not make the grade in that repect. I suspect that your speculation about computing power may be well near the real reason. Strangely enough the Digilux2 managed to output excellent Jpegs, so it is not that the thing is impossible for Leica.

[macusque]

C1 is so quick and simple, that I only use Jpeg when shooting B&W DNG+jpg basic, to get the LCD in B&W mode.

 

I noticed that if you set the jpeg preview to B&W when you shoot in DNG+Jpeg, and then you set DNG only, the preview will still be in B&W and you can see it in colors when zooming.

[mjh]

Strangely enough the Digilux2 managed to output excellent Jpegs, so it is not that the thing is impossible for Leica.

Probably because it was done by Panasonic. Neither Imacon (DMR) nor Jenoptik (M8) have the kind of experience with JPEG and in-camera processing that Panasonic has.

[mjh]

I'm not talking about storage on SD cards, I'm talking about storage on hard drives.

Well, that’s even less of a problem. Storage space on hard drives comes cheap these days.

[martinb]

If a newspaper shoots JPEG only instead of RAW they will need only 1/3 or 1/4 of the disk space. This will save them money, space and time. That's also the reason that most newspapers only allow JPEG. + In print no one will see the difference and they usually print small and on very low quality paper.

Disk space for a Leica M8 amateur or pro might not be an issue, but for a newspaper that maybe have several employed photographers and might shoot at least 10 000 frames a day it's an issue.

[marknorton]

Probably because it was done by Panasonic. Neither Imacon (DMR) nor Jenoptik (M8) have the kind of experience with JPEG and in-camera processing that Panasonic has.

 

I think that hits the nail on the head. Panasonic will have a huge R&D budget and accumulated experience either developed in house or bought in. Leica, by comparison are starting a long way back. I think you could even say that, right now, the M8 does not produce as good JPEGs as the D2.

[jaapv]

If a newspaper shoots JPEG only instead of RAW they will need only 1/3 or 1/4 of the disk space. This will save them money, space and time. That's also the reason that most newspapers only allow JPEG. + In print no one will see the difference and they usually print small and on very low quality paper.

Disk space for a Leica M8 amateur or pro might not be an issue, but for a newspaper that maybe have several employed photographers and might shoot at least 10 000 frames a day it's an issue.

That is true Although, 10.000 a day? One would need a host of photo-editors to just look at them, let alone judge which to use, But it is not the case for the individual photographer in the field.

[john_r_smith]

Just a personal observation -

 

We on this Forum, and Leica Camera AG, have to deal with the world as it is, not how we would wish it to be. All newspapers and many other fast-run publications do use JPEG, not TIF and certainly not RAW. They aren't going to change just because we think they would get better quality. Here at the County Council, all of our colour photography is shot in JPEG and archived to computer storage as JPEG. Our staff have neither the time nor the skills to mess around with RAW. They expect the process to be as intuitive and hassle-free as it was when we shot colour slide or negative films and sent them away for processing.

 

If Leica want to sell their cameras to professional users who are not professional photographers (an important distinction, this) such as ourselves here in local government, local press and TV, manufacturing industry, higher education and so forth, they need to sort out their JPEGs fast. Because that's what we all use.

 

John

[martinb]

That is true Although, 10.000 a day? One would need a host of photo-editors to just look at them, let alone judge which to use, But it is not the case for the individual photographer in the field.

 

I'm talking about big newspapers that may have at least 10 hired photographers.

But like John said, JPEG is the reality and preference for many working photographers so Leica's got to do something.

All people don't take pictures of their pets or landscapes in RAW and process them and proudly sits back and look how sharp their lenses are.

[mjh]

All newspapers and many other fast-run publications do use JPEG, not TIF and certainly not RAW. They aren't going to change just because we think they would get better quality.

Sure, but then, did anyone suggest to use DNG as the delivery format? Strictly speaking, a DNG fine isn’t even an image file (containing complete RGB data), but just raw sensor data. Naturally, you wouldn’t want to a sell DNG files, but only “developed” images. For this reason, I think the customers-want-JPEGs-argument is a red herring: shoot DNG, but deliver JPEG or whatever the customer wants.

 

Having said that, JPEG quality still leaves a lot to be desired, only I don’t think it is such a big issue. If you you just browse through your shots and do a batch raw conversion of the worthwhile ones, you would get better JPEG quality than directly out of the camera, in next to no time.

[john_r_smith]

Michael

 

I think you may have missed the drift of what I was saying. No-one here in my workplace, for example, where we shoot many hundreds of photographs a week, would wish to do any more than take the SD card out of the camera and download the pictures onto their PC. Those JPEGs ARE the pictures, as far as they are concerned. They don't expect to have to do anything more, full stop.

 

John

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[jaapv]

But if they work like that the V-lux1 is surely the tool of choice? Not the M8.