danhefner Posted February 4, 2015 Share #1 Posted February 4, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Can anyone explain the difference between the T's two JPG file format modes: "Fine" vis-a-vis 'Super Fine?" I don't find the technical information in the manual all that helpful. Both modes allow the same JPG resolution options. Any insight that someone might have would be appreciated. Thanks. Dan Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 Hi danhefner, Take a look here What's the difference between JPG format modes?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Trivette Posted February 4, 2015 Share #2 Posted February 4, 2015 JPEG compression reduces file size, but it is lossy: Data is lost by the compression algorithm. It is independent of resolution. The difference between fine and super fine would be the amount of JPEG compression applied to the DNG file. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rchrd Posted February 4, 2015 Share #3 Posted February 4, 2015 Actually, no compression is applied to the DNG file, it is "raw" and therefore has more data. This is why you can save highlights and darks in DNGs much more than JPGs. Super Fine JPG from what I understand uses less compression than regular JPG so it retains more data to work with. JPGs have an advantage over DNGs since they render sharper images and don't require as much post processing as DNGs, which usually have a more flat look to them before they are edited. Also, Leica has its own image processor specifications, so their JPGs have a certain look that other brands can't get. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trivette Posted February 4, 2015 Share #4 Posted February 4, 2015 JPEG compression reduces file size, but it is lossy: Data is lost by the compression algorithm. It is independent of resolution. The difference between fine and super fine would be the amount of JPEG compression applied to the DNG file. I thought it was clear that I was referring to the compression applied to the (raw) image in the conversion process. The DNG file itself, of course, is unaffected. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted February 5, 2015 Share #5 Posted February 5, 2015 (edited) You all might reorient yourselves. The Leica T manual uses the word 'resolution' in a handy (quotidian) manner, and makes it clear that when it addresses JPEG, it means number of pixels in the JPEG image where more is better, but even at its best, it is not the same as DNG (raw). To very many people, the difference is not significant enough. Choose as you please. So, you have the DNG, and whatever JPEG number of pixels you select. If you have software that manipulates DNG, then you do not need JPEG, but some find JPEG adequate and convenient. Again, please yourself. . Edited February 5, 2015 by pico Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trivette Posted February 5, 2015 Share #6 Posted February 5, 2015 You all might reorient yourselves. The Leica T manual uses the word 'resolution' in a handy (quotidian) manner, and makes it clear that when it addresses JPEG, it means number of pixels in the JPEG image where more is better, but even at its best, it is not the same as DNG (raw). To very many people, the difference is not significant enough. Choose as you please....... Unfortunately, such a reorientation obscures the question asked by the OP. JPEG comprerssion differs from, for example, bicubic resampling, which also changes the number of pixels in the image (by interpolation). Can anyone explain the difference between the T's two JPG file format modes: "Fine" vis-a-vis 'Super Fine?" I don't find the technical information in the manual all that helpful. Both modes allow the same JPG resolution options...... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted February 6, 2015 Share #7 Posted February 6, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Unfortunately, such a reorientation obscures the question asked by the OP. JPEG comprerssion differs from, for example, bicubic resampling, which also changes the number of pixels in the image (by interpolation). It obscures nothing significant at this time. I was trying to write a response that addresses the question in an understandable, friendly and immediately useful manner. If you were hip to JPEG you would know that there are ten different kinds under consideration and development, and to some of these ten there are different options within each kind. I won't get into that kind of minutiae. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 10, 2015 Share #8 Posted February 10, 2015 (edited) There are two things. Compression and number of pixels. Compression reduces the file size rendering the same number of pixels and pixel reduction reduces the number of pixels in the image by using interpolation. The camera actually does the latter. Probably the amount of compression on the files of both JPG outputs is the same. JPG being a lossy format reduces the amount of data using the small computer in the camera. It is wise to retain the data by shooting DNG (raw) and doing the developing of the image in the more powerful computer on your desk, as that, depending on your level of skill, will get you a better result. Edited February 10, 2015 by jaapv Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trivette Posted February 10, 2015 Share #9 Posted February 10, 2015 (edited) Here are some numbers. On an X2, the same image was shot twice at 16 MP JPG resolution, one in Super Fine mode, the other Fine: Here are the file sizes: Super Fine: 5,643 KB Fine: 3,388 KB Fine mode resulted in about a 40% reduction in file size compared to the Super Fine.. Personally, I use DNG + JPEG Super Fine 16 MP B&W. For color, I would rather work with the raw files. Edited February 10, 2015 by Trivette Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 10, 2015 Share #10 Posted February 10, 2015 Yes, but not due to compression, but due to smaller dimensions in pixel number. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trivette Posted February 10, 2015 Share #11 Posted February 10, 2015 Yes, but not due to compression, but due to smaller dimensions in pixel number. Maybe so, but according to my computer, the Super Fine and the Fine had exactly the same pixel dimensions: 4928 x 3264. Whatever it is doing, the pixel count doesn't change. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 10, 2015 Share #12 Posted February 10, 2015 (edited) I don't know what your import settings are, but if you have an X2, just have a look on page 158 of the manual. The different JPG settings reduce the pixel count of the output. DNG: 2944x3272 JPG: 4928x3264 4288x2856 3264x2160 2144x1424 1632x1080 Edited February 10, 2015 by jaapv Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trivette Posted February 10, 2015 Share #13 Posted February 10, 2015 And on page 116: FILE FORMAT / COMPRESSION RATE Two different compression rates are available: JPG fine and JPG Super fine . Both can be combined with simultaneous DNG (RAW image data format) recording. In the menu, select Compression (3.7), and in the submenu the desired setting. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 10, 2015 Share #14 Posted February 10, 2015 OK there you have your two real compressions. One wonders why the more aggressive - and lossy- one is even offered. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
timde Posted February 10, 2015 Share #15 Posted February 10, 2015 Because its adequate in many cases, and you can fit more images on an SD-Card. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 10, 2015 Share #16 Posted February 10, 2015 But I am convinced that a drop in resolution will be less detrimental than a strong JPEG compression with the same file size, assuming a JPEG user will not be printing extremely large. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trivette Posted February 10, 2015 Share #17 Posted February 10, 2015 But I am convinced that a drop in resolution will be less detrimental than a strong JPEG compression with the same file size, assuming a JPEG user will not be printing extremely large.I agree. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted February 11, 2015 Share #18 Posted February 11, 2015 Because its adequate in many cases, and you can fit more images on an SD-Card. Just how many images do you want save on an SD card? Storage space is no longer an issue, but reliability remains a concern when one can lose the whole card at once. . Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fastfashn Posted September 3, 2017 Share #19 Posted September 3, 2017 I was trying to get the T to be faster (I thought that the problem was that "review" was on all the time even when set to off. However, it's not the review function at all when taking an image, it's the DNG + Superfine JPG that keep the camera from being ready to take another shot immediately. If you take DNG away (jpg superfine only), the camera is ready for a new shot almost immediately. Or, jpg fine + DNG is also quicker. I haven't really shot jpg fine yet, so I'm not sure how that will look... Impressions, anyone? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.