JPG resolution loss

[Guest stnami]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Jono anything contrary to your thinking is a rant................ but don't expect Leica to come running to fix the compression, It's obvious that the jpeg quality was not a priority, leica had other quirks to work out and still do as everyone except for the extreme one eyes know

[jonoslack]

Jono anything contrary to your thinking is a rant

 

No No Im - that isn't a rant, that's just plain rude.

 

................ but don't expect Leica to come running to fix the compression, It's obvious that the jpeg quality was not a priority, leica had other quirks to work out and still do as everyone except for the extreme one eyes know

 

I'm pleased to hear that you have a way in to the inner brain at Leica - I certainly agree with you about the other quirks though (did you think I didn't?).

 

Just because some of us try to be positive and optimistic doesn't mean that we only have one eye.

 

Mind you, I can see the attraction of curmudgeonly, but it's kind of counter-productive.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[jaapv]

I'm a bit puzzled by this thread. So a converted DNG is better than an in-camera Jpeg. Yes - and? There is a reason virtually everbody on this forum habitually uses DNG and Jpeg only for convenience or speed, and then quality comes second as a consideration.

[Guest stnami]

Where did you read that I referred to you as an individual.....talk about being oversensative......... back to it all, the camera was never made as aP&S and never could so jpegs were not a high priority.

Now go and look at the original posting and then Rob's and most would see the whole ask in perspective and that as a jpeg you guys have little to quibble about....... its a beta camera , that's what you bought, live with it

[jaapv]

I cannot think of any camera offhand where converted RAW is beaten by in-camera Jpeg quality-wise.

[jonoslack]

I'm a bit puzzled by this thread. So a converted DNG is better than an in-camera Jpeg. Yes - and? There is a reason virtually everbody on this forum habitually uses DNG and Jpeg only for convenience or speed, and then quality comes second as a consideration.

 

HI Jaap

It's all about colour (for me anyway). I've still to see any converter that get's colour as good as that in the jpgs (for nature etc.) - of course, it's all spoiled by the artifacts.

1. The converted DNG has less artifacts

2. The jpg out of the camera has better colour.

 

Im, as for the 'taking it personally' bit - I wasn't, and I'm not sensitive, I was trying to poke a stick at you for being so grumpy. (and I obviously got you in the ribs).

 

The point and shoot issue is moot - I thought that was exactly what Leica RF was for? It's actually both good fun and instructive to shoot jpg sometimes - it reduces PP work, and the practice helps you to get in the mindset where you get things 'right first time' - which carries over into RAW work as well.

 

As for Leica not being interested in the jpg files, I find it hard to believe this, as they seem to have managed the (almost) impossible and go the greens right(ish). (as long as you drop the saturation and sharpening).

 

I'm not suggesting for a minute that anyone shoots only jpg, but I like to do it for casual stuff, and I'd like it to have less artifacts please (that isn't unreasonable is it?).

[jonoslack]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I cannot think of any camera offhand where converted RAW is beaten by in-camera Jpeg quality-wise.

Well, I'd argue that the Olympus E1 does - unless you convert in Olympus studio. As a general principal I'd agree with you though.

 

But there is a charm about shooting jpg - you're taking on board the camera's processing - it's rather like shooting a particular brand of film.

 

Sure, you always have more flexibility shooting RAW, and sure, everyone is going to do it for anything that really matters. But real pictures mostly aren't about Image quality, and there is (for me anyway) a joy about 'taking what you're given' and making the most of it.

 

For instance - you go for a walk with the kids - you don't want to spend hours doing PP afterwards - it's just sweet to be able to bang away - if they're bad you delete them, and if they're good . . . . they've got too many artifacts in them!

 

It's like climbing without a rope, walking in sandals; there's a kind of joylessness in all the serious measurebating, going out with a camera and one lens for a couple of hours and shooting jpg only is a kind of release. Isn't that one reason why we all like using the M8 - it's a release after lugging around 15kg of dSLR and lenses?

 

But the compression is too great

[jonoslack]

Hi Im

 

Where did you read that I referred to you as an individual.....talk about being oversensative......

 

erm, when you said:

 

Jono anything contrary to your thinking is a rant...

 

Or was that a generalised statement?

 

Let it drop - you're much less likely to be able to irritate me than I am you

[jaapv]

HI Jaap

It's all about colour (for me anyway). I've still to see any converter that get's colour as good as that in the jpgs (for nature etc.) - of course, it's all spoiled by the artifacts.

1. The converted DNG has less artifacts

2. The jpg out of the camera has better colour.

 

Im, as for the 'taking it personally' bit - I wasn't, and I'm not sensitive, I was trying to poke a stick at you for being so grumpy. (and I obviously got you in the ribs).

 

The point and shoot issue is moot - I thought that was exactly what Leica RF was for? It's actually both good fun and instructive to shoot jpg sometimes - it reduces PP work, and the practice helps you to get in the mindset where you get things 'right first time' - which carries over into RAW work as well.

 

As for Leica not being interested in the jpg files, I find it hard to believe this, as they seem to have managed the (almost) impossible and go the greens right(ish). (as long as you drop the saturation and sharpening).

 

I'm not suggesting for a minute that anyone shoots only jpg, but I like to do it for casual stuff, and I'd like it to have less artifacts please (that isn't unreasonable is it?).

 

Ok, Jono, I'll add - for any other reason Anyway, what I meant to say, there are reasons for choosing one or the other. If we want speed or colour or whatever to override resolution or less sophisticated in-camera noise-reduction, so be it, it is likely the best choice. But a mini-computer in the camera can never compete with the power of a PC when it comes to processing.

Another camera where Jpegs are often preferable to RAW, come to think of it, is in my experience the Digilux2.

 

The best of both worlds is of course DNG plus Jpeg fine - but it takes sooo loooong to write that to memory.....

[Guest stnami]

Jono anything contrary to your thinking is a rant..

,, stated in the next thread after the wobbly

 

Let it drop - you're much less likely to be able to irritate me than I am you

.... ha ha try me!!! remember I come from ward 017 fully certified and joined on the 1st of April and one must check their boots before entering a door, learnt that one in Bullamakenka the easy way from Raelene........... and Raels used to be a bloke.... :D

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!

[jonoslack]

 

The best of both worlds is of course DNG plus Jpeg fine - but it takes sooo loooong to write that to memory.....

 

zzzzzz.... doesn't it just - but it also puts back the 'safety net'. Still, unlike some, I don't think the jpgs are awful - just too compressed, and it seems to me that a less compressed version might even write more quickly. Olympus put 1:2.7 compression on the E1, and it produces lovely files without obvious artifacts (and they didn't take too long to write either).

 

Of course, Leica could come back and say that it isn't practicable, but right now they're three quarters of the way to paradise, and it would be nice to see them go the extra mile.

[jonoslack]

.... ha ha try me!!! remember I come from ward 017 fully certified and joined on the 1st of April and one must check their boots before entering a door, learnt that one in Bullamakenka the easy way from Raelene........... and Raels used to be a bloke.... :D

 

 

So which one is you then? (I've always thought of you as a banjo player).

 

As for Raelene - we had her to stay (all 6ft3 of her) and she only did the change so that she could wear pink slippers.

 

With respect to Ward 017, you're surely not trying to tell us that Saxted is a problem (Lord Emsworth not withstanding) , or do you speak of the Blue Downs near Eersterivier?

[Philinflash]

Talk about resolution loss! This thread has lost more than any jpeg I've ever seen, lol.

[Guest stnami]

.....................wrong Raeles she's never been out of Bullamakenka except to represent the under 12s as halfback against the Lithgow workers in Kandos, met MIck hooking in a ruck and took Ray Davies songwriting as the gospel truth, been an item since.

Nah the salvos run the wards do a damn good job, the good Lord El would not be permitted ever since he slept with the dead rabbit, can't have a strain of compressed myxo hitting the white rabbits:cool:

[tom0511]

HI Jaap

It's all about colour (for me anyway). I've still to see any converter that get's colour as good as that in the jpgs (for nature etc.) - of course, it's all spoiled by the artifacts.

1. The converted DNG has less artifacts

2. The jpg out of the camera has better colour.

 

Jono,

I absolutly agree.

Color and tones of M8-in-camera jpg is much better (for my taste). I have experimented a lot with c1 and several profiles and IMO its allways a compromise. I do not understand why Leica can not give us a profile which does the same as the internal jpg machine.

[jonoslack]

.....................wrong Raeles

 

So know you're telling me that YOUR Raeles/Raelene is the RIGHT one and MINE is the WRONG one.

Sheesh:mad:

 

AND you never told me if you were the Banjo player?

[jonoslack]

Talk about resolution loss! This thread has lost more than any jpeg I've ever seen, lol.

Hi Philip - you obviously haven't played around with the Leica ones much:)

 

Anyway, apologies for my part - normal service will be resumed as soon as possible.

[jonoslack]

Jono,

I absolutly agree.

Color and tones of M8-in-camera jpg is much better (for my taste). I have experimented a lot with c1 and several profiles and IMO its allways a compromise. I do not understand why Leica can not give us a profile which does the same as the internal jpg machine.

 

I do agree - maybe Eoin can do it?

[Philinflash]

Hi Philip - you obviously haven't played around with the Leica ones much.

...

 

Sorry, Jono, I was not commenting on the merits of the on-topic content one way or the other. More, to the rest of the back and forth.

 

I have played around with Leica JPEGs enough to know that I don't want to.

 

I only shot DNG+JPEG fine early on in my M8 use and until I developed confidence in RAW files. Now, I cannot see the point of in-camera JPEGs, at least in my use. There is nothing there that I cannot get out of a RAW files, so DNG is my "default" shooting mode. I suppose one could shoot JPEGs only if you have a space-on-card problem (a place I have found myself once or twice) or if one does not anticipate having access to a DNG processor or if one is just taking images for immediate electronic transmission without post processing. In that latter mode, one is really using the M8 as a sort of P&S which I suppose is OK.

 

When it comes to a developmental wish-list for Leica, there are things sited in many other threads that would be way above improvements to the in-camera JPEG processing.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jonoslack]

Sorry, Jono, I was not commenting on the merits of the on-topic content one way or the other. More, to the rest of the back and forth.

 

I have played around with Leica JPEGs enough to know that I don't want to.

 

I only shot DNG+JPEG fine early on in my M8 use and until I developed confidence in RAW files. Now, I cannot see the point of in-camera JPEGs, at least in my use. There is nothing there that I cannot get out of a RAW files, so DNG is my "default" shooting mode. I suppose one could shoot JPEGs only if you have a space-on-card problem (a place I have found myself once or twice) or if one does not anticipate having access to a DNG processor or if one is just taking images for immediate electronic transmission without post processing. In that latter mode, one is really using the M8 as a sort of P&S which I suppose is OK.

 

When it comes to a developmental wish-list for Leica, there are things sited in many other threads that would be way above improvements to the in-camera JPEG processing.

Phil, I was joking too.

I quite agreed with your other post - but not this one. (but I've put my reasons down in the rest of the thread).