Olsen Posted July 2, 2007 Share #41 Posted July 2, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) it's a jpeg!!! has it's uses in the big picture................ the engine processor is generic tailored for a general population and result. If you want your own do as you already......... shoot raw and process. What do you guys want leica to do everything for you.. wipe your backsides as well. Get real it's a camera created but, not with you as an individual in mind. Remember you put the bucks down on a untested camera and you knew that before you bought....... hence the quirks............. We want Leica to stand up to competition and deliver to us a jpg quality which is quite common on far cheaper digital cameras. Is that to much to ask? The jpg quality out of the M8 is a scandal! It is equal to the jpg files out of the latest gsm telephones. Artifacts is the worse, obviosly. Quite a few sales are lost right there on the counter when customers want to test out the 'jpg right out of the camera'. Compared to jpg files out of professional tools like Canon 1Ds II the M8 jpg's stand out as 'horrible'. So, no more crap that it is more 'professional' to go by RAW. The next fimware up-date must adress this and bring us nice jpg's that the customers can show on their PC screens, right away, right out of the camera. The RAW file path is for the 'refined file' for print processing and too time consuming in our fast world to perform on all exposures. The norwegian photo magazine 'Fotografi' had a test of M8 in their last issue. They do little number of purple fringe and all that, but critises heavily the M8 for it's poor jpg quality and and how it totally destroys the performance of the excellent optics available to this camera. Give us far better jpg's by late automn this year! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 Hi Olsen, Take a look here JPG resolution loss. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Guest stnami Posted July 2, 2007 Share #42 Posted July 2, 2007 no more crap that it is more 'professional' to go by RAW :D ... meanwhile Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pklein Posted July 2, 2007 Share #43 Posted July 2, 2007 Like Jono, I must confess to owning an Olympus E-1. Well-exposed E-1 JPGs are almost indistinguishable from reworked RAW files. This opens up the possibility of shooting events (for example) with little or no post-processing. The problem with the M8 JPGs is that they obviously smear detail that the RAW files retain, and you can see it even on a reduced Web JPG. In DNG grass looks like grass. In JPG, it looks like mush, and there is visible artifacting as well. Hopefully nothing that a little programming can't solve. --Peter Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_x2004 Posted July 3, 2007 Share #44 Posted July 3, 2007 The problem with the M8 JPGs is that they obviously smear detail that the RAW files retain, and you can see it even on a reduced Web JPG. In DNG grass looks like grass. In JPG, it looks like mush, and there is visible artifacting as well. Well can we see some evidence of that? I love the way opinions flow and no one even attempts to backs em up with examples. Probably also help if you guys thought it through and started posting RAW/DNG/JPG examples from the 1DS11/Olympus/Nikon?DMR..whatever it was you were on about. Some people are actually interested in this m8 issue but dont give two flying for the opinions. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_x2004 Posted July 3, 2007 Share #45 Posted July 3, 2007 For what it is worth, had the original images posted on this thread been full frame then this problem would have been horrendous. Anyone trawling through the site would think gee this m8 is crap. When you see the extent of the crop you realise it isnt the case. It might or might not be as good as other cameras, but I doubt it is much worse. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Ross Posted July 3, 2007 Share #46 Posted July 3, 2007 HI MartinI quite understand what you're saying, but turning off in camera sharpening is simple enough (and the right thing). If they reduced the compression they should also remove the artifacts and increase the resolution. On the other hand, as Sergio points out, the colour is fine, and the DR is even better than the jpgs - I've also found that the mid tone smearing that Bob talks about is removed by dropping the sharpening, and, more importantly, dropping the saturation to medium low. Of course, I could be wrong, but I return to my point - they aren't okay, but they're soooo nearly really fine! Hi Jono, You mentioned the lowering of saturation before, but it went over my head, because like this thread the OP was a B&W image. I'll have to run the lower saturation thing through when the weather permits. In B&W I still get smeared grass and I asume that this is saturation turned all the way down, so I didn't explore the reduced saturation idea. For B&W I can use tonal masks to recover my grass, but I have also made global curve tweaks with good results. The resulting curves resemble a handlebar moustache and worked well on medium low contrast settings, to build the contrast back up. I approach JPEG development assuming that the detail is in there hiding and it can be coaxed out. I think a way to alter curves in-camera like Nikon did would be a great asset to the wide variety of Leica M8 shooters. Bob Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sergiolov Posted July 3, 2007 Author Share #47 Posted July 3, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) For what it is worth, had the original images posted on this thread been full frame then this problem would have been horrendous. Anyone trawling through the site would think gee this m8 is crap. When you see the extent of the crop you realise it isnt the case. It might or might not be as good as other cameras, but I doubt it is much worse. Rob, this is with the d2x. First image jpeg from camera, second from NEF. What do you think? Sergio 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! Quote 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/27936-jpg-resolution-loss/?do=findComment&comment=296677'>More sharing options...
peterv Posted July 3, 2007 Share #48 Posted July 3, 2007 The next fimware up-date must adress this and bring us nice jpg's that the customers can show on their PC screens, right away, right out of the camera. The RAW file path is for the 'refined file' for print processing and too time consuming in our fast world to perform on all exposures. Give us far better jpg's by late automn this year! Strange tone in your post... (is it the Norwegian - English?) must this... right away... I understand you feel you have 'rights' as a customer, but the way you 'demand' this and that sounds a bit spoiled, I must say. BTW what you suggest is: Best quality in NO time. Yeah, don't we all want that... Please post you GSM jpg's next to the M8 jpg's and show us what you're ranting about. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_x2004 Posted July 3, 2007 Share #49 Posted July 3, 2007 What I think... Between teh Nikon files yes there is less difference. Compare the Leica DNG conversion to the Nikon file and there is a gulf. Would I prefer two fuzzy files pretty much the same, or a staggering file and a fuzzy jpg that doesnt appear much worse than the Nikon file. Tough choice. Remember too this is a crop presumably? Same lens on both cameras? Apples for apples? No? Really? One thing I dont know and maybe the brains trust can tell us, does the absence of the in camera filter affect jpeg potential? To get a better jpeg is it just change the algorithm or are there other design concessions Leica would have had to make to provide it? Anyone? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_x2004 Posted July 3, 2007 Share #50 Posted July 3, 2007 Is the jpg dng gulf dependent on conditions? Does the difference change with ISO? Does the difference change with how bright the day is? Night time? Does teh difference change with depth of field perceptions? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_x2004 Posted July 3, 2007 Share #51 Posted July 3, 2007 Presumeably your daylight conditions were very different. Notice the Nikon shot at fiftieth, the Leica shots at fifteen hundredth and thousandth. Any effect? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_x2004 Posted July 3, 2007 Share #52 Posted July 3, 2007 Something else that is odd, the blockwork lattice on the nikon files looks better than the Leica jpg, but the ironwork handrail on the Leica jpg is still better than both Nikkon files. Maybe it is a contrast thing. I still keep coming back to the size of the crop, and wonder if it is all just tail chaising. If you are jpeg printing it is only going to be smaller prints and maybe web viewing. You are only looking at clarity in these comparisons, and ignoring tones contrast, colour. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
martinb Posted July 3, 2007 Share #53 Posted July 3, 2007 It's not only the softness and artefacts that's really bad but it's also how horrible these JPEG's are in blacks and shadows. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisC Posted July 3, 2007 Share #54 Posted July 3, 2007 The Nikon Jpeg has sharpening halation, look at the largest black [vertical] balcony rail guards. ...................Chris Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted July 3, 2007 Share #55 Posted July 3, 2007 I do agree - maybe Eoin can do it? Guys, it wouldn't really be that hard to get a C1 profile to match the JPEG response. Just shoot a CC SG and maybe some more greens the way you want them with the M8 / JPEG. Measure the significant LAB values of the greens you want. Then go into C1 Pro (or some other editor) and map those greens to an updated profile. I'd do it, but I until today I didn't know exactly what was wanted in green, because until today I wasn't sure how Jono had the JPEGs settings set (the JPEGs I get out of the M8 are only ever ok). FWIW, I quite like the newest UV / IR profile in C1; but I shoot mainly people, so reds are more important to me, in a sense. But I know Jono is shooting unfiltered...right? So that makes things a bit more complicated, but still do-able. If one of you has a colour checker (the SG would be better) and can send me a shot with your normal JPEG process and the corresponding DNG, as well as a couple of reference DNG + JPEGs, I should be able to help you out. But if you're using Aperture....well, I dunno then Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sergiolov Posted July 3, 2007 Author Share #56 Posted July 3, 2007 Hi Rob and others, instead of replying to your single (and well argumented) questions, I redid the shoot with the 2 cameras side by side, iso 160, raw or dng + ipg fine, same field of view, - d2x + "legendary" 17-35 2,8 set at 5,6 and 32mm -m8 + cron 35 ASPH set at 5,6 default jpg settings, raw or dng converted with WB applied on both cameras. Overcast gray day. Images are as follows: 1 d2x converted NEF 2 m8 converted DNG 3 d2x JPG fine 4 m8 JPG fine All 100% crops. I still think that Leica has a lot of space to improve the jpg resolution. Thanks for your patience. Sergio 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! Quote 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/27936-jpg-resolution-loss/?do=findComment&comment=297179'>More sharing options...
Guest sirvine Posted July 3, 2007 Share #57 Posted July 3, 2007 I don't get it. Under what conditions is it preferable to shoot JPEG in-camera instead of bringing the power of a proper RAW convertor to bear? I hear better color, but that's a matter of personal taste. I hear card size constraints, and I wonder how that even happens in a world where 2GB SD cards are $30. I hear client impatience, and I wonder how it is faster to download JPEGs than process DNGs when everything from the development settings, EXIF modifications, and even export to web- or email-appropriate sizes can be automated in Lightroom so that one click of a button completes a sequence of batch processes on a card. The only reasons I can possibly empathize with are wanting black and white previews on the camera's LCD. Otherwise, you are using a small axe to cut down a big tree when your big axe just sits idle at your desk. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pklein Posted July 3, 2007 Share #58 Posted July 3, 2007 Well can we see some evidence of that?I love the way opinions flow and no one even attempts to backs em up with examples. Probably also help if you guys thought it through and started posting RAW/DNG/JPG examples from the 1DS11/Olympus/Nikon?DMR..whatever it was you were on about. Some people are actually interested in this m8 issue but dont give two flying for the opinions. This is (usually) a friendly forum where we help each other. It is not a Junior High School debating society where we gleefully look for ways to prove everyone else wrong. If the latter is your purpose here, you might be happier elsewhere. I have used the M8 for a couple of months now. I shot JPG for the first few days, compared it with RAW and stopped shooting JPG. For the reasons I mentioned. I was reporting my observations. Someone else had already posted a couple of crops illustrating my point very well. It showed differences in detail on the back of someone's shirt in a distant apartment rather than in nearby grass, but the scale was similar. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philinflash Posted July 3, 2007 Share #59 Posted July 3, 2007 WARNING: OFF-TOPIC ...in a world where 2GB SD cards are $30... You still paying that?? I just paid $8.50 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
martinb Posted July 3, 2007 Share #60 Posted July 3, 2007 Sergio, Good comparison, but you have to set the D2X to ISO 200 for a proper comparison as ISO 160 on the M8 is the equivalent of ISO 200. That explains why the D2X shot is brighter in this comparison. Didn't think the D2X would look sharper in RAW but it does and a LOT better in JPEG. 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.