pascal_meheut Posted February 27, 2009 Share #21 Posted February 27, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Not to mention that Leica said the technology developed for the S2 will be reused in the R and M lines where jpeg support is important. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 27, 2009 Posted February 27, 2009 Hi pascal_meheut, Take a look here Lfi 2/2009. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
georg Posted February 27, 2009 Share #22 Posted February 27, 2009 "JPGs are often the final step in the pipeline, not just some amateur thing" You mean the pre-press of a glossy-magazine/brochure or book would accept JPGs instead of TIFFs? Even in the movie-industry, where data-rates become pretty problematic (up to serveral terabytes per hour!), lossless formats are the only "real" choice. I'm sure many "professionals" work for newspapers and other "demanding" formats, but that's not the market for the S2 at all, is it? The JPG-functionality of the DMR/M8 caused lots of confusion and damaged their image, I hope that doesn't happen with future models... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted February 27, 2009 Share #23 Posted February 27, 2009 "JPGs are often the final step in the pipeline, not just some amateur thing" You mean the pre-press of a glossy-magazine/brochure or book would accept JPGs instead of TIFFs? No, of course not! But keep thinking, maybe you'll come up with something. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted February 27, 2009 Share #24 Posted February 27, 2009 As others have said, JPEGs are far superior to RAW for proofing--especially real-time proofing. Case in point: I don't know how many of you have tried wifi transfer of as-shot images, but there's no way you're pumping RAW files--or even large JPEGs--with any like real speed (tethered is better, but not always possible). Also, Carsten is right: many high end print engines only accept 8 bit input and a high-quality JPEG is fine. Not that it would often come straight from a camera, though. For my own use, I wish the M8 and DMR had the processing power to really write a DNG and a high quality JPEG at the same time. It would save me hours and hours of processing proofs (I try to get stuff right in the camera) since I could deliver JPEGs right away and still have the RAWs to process for higher end or final art purposes. So I'm pretty interested in how fast Leica and Fujistu can shove data down the pipe--and how fast they can make acceptible JPEGs. (PS--FWIW, Canon and Nikon RAW files have large embedded JPEGs in them. Helps with LCD zooming and with proofing, and it's why the Epson portable devices can read Canon RAWs. It's really reading the JPEG preview. The DMR / M8 DNGs only have a thumbnail preview, which is why you need a full-blown processor like C1 to create previews for you and things like BreezeBrowser or Expressions Media are so slow with those files). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lxlim Posted February 27, 2009 Share #25 Posted February 27, 2009 Its true that RAW is the defining edge of what the S2 can produce but if S2's JPGs are great then it going to open a lot of doors of opportunity for Leica. With the economy going downhill, a lot of cost needs to be cut from the pipeline. If the S2's abilities can give a pro an edge in quality, shorter turnaround time, less post production, more reliability, etc. Then it is not necessarily the most expensive item in the pipeline but the most effective one. Time costs can be exorbitantly high. Sometimes you need to have the best tools in the right hands in order to have the lowest cost. In my experience time and reliability rather than absolute quality, which is not always needed for every project, is what many clients want. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
eronald Posted March 7, 2009 Share #26 Posted March 7, 2009 As others have said, JPEGs are far superior to RAW for proofing--especially real-time proofing The Jpegs coming out of my Nikon D3x are so good that I've just about stopped using Raw. Think of getting perfectly exposed slides every time. First camera I've ever seen which can do that. I have no idea how Nikon does it, except that I kow that exposure is adjusted by D-lighting to avoid burnout, and then some areas in the image are electronically fill-lighted. BTW, I've started using Gimp as a Raw processor cum cropping tool, and it works fine. I can coax very good color out of it - Jamie will know what that means Edmund Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted March 7, 2009 Author Share #27 Posted March 7, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) I think there's this sort of hair-shirt attitude that the "only way" is to process RAW. I spend more than enough time of my life in front of a PC (not just on this forum!) so I'm more than happy to use JPEGs where I can with RAW as backup. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pierovitch Posted March 10, 2009 Share #28 Posted March 10, 2009 There is nothing wrong with Low compression JPEGs and they make sense if you apply a color profile and want to have some control over the reproduced image. Would you have sent a color negative to a magazine or stock agency? Just pays to keep your negatives. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted March 10, 2009 Share #29 Posted March 10, 2009 JPEGS at the end of the pipeline are one thing (and BTW what Getty actually SELLS via download are JPEGS). In shooting, one would shoot DNG + JPEG, so the DNG is available for best-quality post-processing, but there are JPEGS instantly available of every shot - without hours of post-processing. If you shoot 200 images on an assignment, do you seriously want to post-process all 200 as DNGs before the client makes a selection? Or do you want the client to review the JPGs and select the 10-20 "most-likelies" to spend your time on? Different types of pro photography have different needs - some of them include jpegs. If you don't need them, that's fine - but Leica isn't designing the S2 for a market of one. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastFashnReloaded Posted March 10, 2009 Share #30 Posted March 10, 2009 I still don't get the point of the JPG-capability in this segment.JPGs are per definition not professionally usable (bit depth, post-processing...), are there really clients that want some "quick&dirty" JPGs of a photo-shooting while the photographer still processes the RAW-files to perfection? "JPGs are per definition not professionally usable (bit depth, post-processing...), are there really clients that want some "quick&dirty" JPGs of a photo-shooting while the photographer still processes the RAW-files to perfection?" Incorrect. Depends on the use that the output file is for. The word, "professional", is well and truly-over used and means very little. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
georg Posted March 12, 2009 Share #31 Posted March 12, 2009 "Professional" means more than just "making money with it" in context of the Leica S2, I (and I think most others did that, too) simply used it as a description of the demanding MF-market, where JPGs aren't usually enough. But giving them to the customer as a"foretaste" to the final product which is made from the RAW later makes sense, thanks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.