Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: Tim Gray on November 30, 2006, 11:10:21 am
-
http://news.com.com/2061-10801_3-6139374.h...3-0-5&subj=news (http://news.com.com/2061-10801_3-6139374.html?part=rss&tag=2547-1_3-0-5&subj=news)
Quotes from both Michael and Chuck Westfall...
Make any sense?
-
http://news.com.com/2061-10801_3-6139374.h...3-0-5&subj=news (http://news.com.com/2061-10801_3-6139374.html?part=rss&tag=2547-1_3-0-5&subj=news)
Quotes from both Michael and Chuck Westfall...
Make any sense?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=87867\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well, "noise" is only one aspect of image quality. RAW certainly has other advantages which do not need to be rehashed. The underlying assumption of Chuck Westfall's comments seem to be that users of this camera will not want to do any post processing.
Paul
-
Noise on the G series cameras has always been an issue!
-
"...the company now has offered an explanation for the move: increasing the number of megapixels led to more noise per pixel and meant raw was no better than JPEG."
Oh good grief...
Chuck would never have said such a thing. It must have been his evil twin from Marketing.
Nill
~~
www.toulme.net (http://www.toulme.net)
-
Chuck would never have said such a thing. It must have been his evil twin from Marketing.
Or his mind is being controlled by aliens...
It smells like a bunch of BS to me; there's no way that the in-camera computer can do a better job auto-processing RAWs than a desktop under the control of a knowledgeable, experienced human. They must think we're a bunch of retards.
-
http://news.com.com/2061-10801_3-6139374.h...3-0-5&subj=news (http://news.com.com/2061-10801_3-6139374.html?part=rss&tag=2547-1_3-0-5&subj=news)
Quotes from both Michael and Chuck Westfall...
Make any sense?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=87867\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
None at all.
Pure nonsense. Raw will always offer better options for conversion and taming noise.
-
None at all.
Pure nonsense. Raw will always offer better options for conversion and taming noise.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=87956\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It would be sad if this really is Canon's rationale. RAW has never been specifically about image quality for me. It's simply about wanting to use a better RAW converter than the camera, and being able to perform the conversion from the original data as often as I liked rather than having one shot at getting it right. I don't really care how good or bad the JPG image is, or whether there is any discernible difference between a perfect JPG straight from the camera and a good RAW conversion. It's about using the best tool for the job, plus repeatibility.
So the G7's lack of RAW isn't strictly a profitability or product placement decision. They're just embarassed by what happens when you cram 10 MP into the size of a fingernail and can't understand that there's more to RAW than pulling out shadow detail or handling a little overexposure.
I also suspect that Canon is just way too preoccupied with sensors and image quality, rather than on cameras as photographic tools. This is why Nikon has been able to regain so much ground in low- to midrange DSLRs. I don't fault Canon's selection of priorities, but when Nikon catches up in image quality, Canon better have caught up in features and ergonomics.
-
Then give me a G7 with 7 or 8 megapixels AND RAW!
-
http://news.com.com/2061-10801_3-6139374.h...3-0-5&subj=news (http://news.com.com/2061-10801_3-6139374.html?part=rss&tag=2547-1_3-0-5&subj=news)
Quotes from both Michael and Chuck Westfall...
Make any sense?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=87867\")
It makes some sense. The smaller pixel has less dynamic range and requires fewer bits to encode the useful information captured by the sensor. It could be that 8 bits at a gamma of 2.2 is sufficient to record what the sensor is capable of capturing.
However, sensors with a higher dynamic range will require more bits to encode their dynamic range, and high end cameras may need 16 bit AD converters. Look at Figure 4 on Roger Clark's web site:
[a href=\"http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/digital.sensor.performance.summary/]http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dig...rmance.summary/[/url]
The other advantages of RAW, such as the ability to use a better decoder on a more powerful computer have been mentioned. One can adjust color temperature after the fact with Lightroom, but having only 8 bits to work with can be a limitation.
-
It makes some sense. The smaller pixel has less dynamic range and requires fewer bits to encode the useful information captured by the sensor. It could be that 8 bits at a gamma of 2.2 is sufficient to record what the sensor is capable of capturing.
8 bits with a gamma of 2.2 can record more DR at the pixel level than 12-bit linear, by about 5.5 stops. In fact, the Leica M8 uses this format for its DNG files.
The real issues are the JPEG artifacts, the compression of shadows and highlights, and the clipping of highlights.
However, sensors with a higher dynamic range will require more bits to encode their dynamic range, and high end cameras may need 16 bit AD converters. Look at Figure 4 on Roger Clark's web site:
I think Roger's point was that the sensors themselves in recent Canons are capable of warranting 16-bit readout at ISO 100, but just changing the ADC to a 16-bit one is not enough, as there is a lot of read noise at ISO 100. The conclusion is based on the lower (electron-unit) noise at ISO 1600. Roger's experiment was a response to a post of mine on usenet where I reported the absolute noise at ISO 1600 was lower than ISO 100. At that time, I thought that the deficiency of ISO 100 was the bit depth, and I argued that higher bit-depth was the solution, but I realized afterward that posterization doesn't cause that kind of noise; in fact, any noise that shows up as a standard deviation is not caused by posterization. It became quite clear that bit depth was not the real DR limitation at ISO 100 when I took the same shot with the same manual settings at ISOs 100 and 1600 on my 20D, and then posterized the ISO 1600 image to the same number of levels as the ISO 100 image, and it gained only a small amount of visible noise, and was still orders of magnitude clearer than the ISO 100 image.
A system with only 10 bits and no read noise would be better than what we have now, IMO. However, with no read noise, you might as well digitize at 16 bits, because that will be even better.
I have a lot of experiments in my head that I'd like to try, but never get around to. One is to take a stack of ISO 100 images (about 16) with my 20D on a tripod, with a 10mm lens for maximum registration. The result will be a 16-bit linear RAW, with a standard deviation of about 0.52 at the black level, and low in shot noise as well (all noises will be two stops weaker). Then, compare a single one of the 16 images with the stack, and with the stack posterized to various bit depths.
The other advantages of RAW, such as the ability to use a better decoder on a more powerful computer have been mentioned. One can adjust color temperature after the fact with Lightroom, but having only 8 bits to work with can be a limitation.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=88225\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm not sure exactly how much RAW headroom is clipped in a G7 JPEG, but even if it is half of what the DSLRs clip (typically 1 stop for the DSLRs), you will get less noise by shooting your ISO 400 at ISO 283 with +0.5 EC, something you can not do in JPEG mode without blowing highlights.
Canon scares me, to be honest. I don't think that people who know what they are doing are making decisions, or they do, but are just trying to save money by not having to answer tech support calls from people who can't figure out what to do with the RAW shots they took.
-
http://news.com.com/2061-10801_3-6139374.h...3-0-5&subj=news (http://news.com.com/2061-10801_3-6139374.html?part=rss&tag=2547-1_3-0-5&subj=news)
Quotes from both Michael and Chuck Westfall...
Make any sense?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=87867\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
well, the essential question for us buyers of G7 (and recently engaged in learning the control of raw-files) is whether a firm-ware update is possible, or impossible because of particular hardware of the G7?
jaj
-
It makes some sense. The smaller pixel has less dynamic range and requires fewer bits to encode the useful information captured by the sensor. It could be that 8 bits at a gamma of 2.2 is sufficient to record what the sensor is capable of capturing.
That's preposterous. Canon is claiming that the processor and firmware inside the camera can do a better job of processing the RAW data from the sensor than you, your much-more-powerful-than-the-camera desktop computer, your favorite RAW converter, and Photoshop. That's just as dumb as claiming that the minilab at the corner drugstore can auto-process and print film images better than an experienced film photographer familiar with developing, processing, and printing film. The fact that small-pixel sensors are noisy means than the experience of the human over the machine is more important, not less. I have gotten some good images from my Olympus SP-350, but I have to put more effort into them than I do images from my DSLRs; the digicam RAWs need more work to meet high technical standards than the DSLR RAWs.
-
That's preposterous. Canon is claiming that the processor and firmware inside the camera can do a better job of processing the RAW data from the sensor than you, your much-more-powerful-than-the-camera desktop computer, your favorite RAW converter, and Photoshop.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=88311\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Really, haven't you heard about ASICs (application specific integrates circuits)? They can perform specialized tasks quite rapidly, whereas a general purpose microprocessor such as in a desktop uses less optimized code for demosiacing and other graphics functions. This point was made by Andrew Rodney in response to a previous post that I had made voicing the same argument as yours above. Do you have any data to support your assertions?
-
8 bits with a gamma of 2.2 can record more DR at the pixel level than 12-bit linear, by about 5.5 stops. In fact, the Leica M8 uses this format for its DNG files.
I think Roger's point was that the sensors themselves in recent Canons are capable of warranting 16-bit readout at ISO 100, but just changing the ADC to a 16-bit one is not enough, as there is a lot of read noise at ISO 100. The conclusion is based on the lower (electron-unit) noise at ISO 1600. Roger's experiment was a response to a post of mine on usenet where I reported the absolute noise at ISO 1600 was lower than ISO 100. At that time, I thought that the deficiency of ISO 100 was the bit depth, and I argued that higher bit-depth was the solution, but I realized afterward that posterization doesn't cause that kind of noise; in fact, any noise that shows up as a standard deviation is not caused by posterization. It became quite clear that bit depth was not the real DR limitation at ISO 100 when I took the same shot with the same manual settings at ISOs 100 and 1600 on my 20D, and then posterized the ISO 1600 image to the same number of levels as the ISO 100 image, and it gained only a small amount of visible noise, and was still orders of magnitude clearer than the ISO 100 image.
A system with only 10 bits and no read noise would be better than what we have now, IMO. However, with no read noise, you might as well digitize at 16 bits, because that will be even better.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=88232\")
Yes, posterization is caused when there are not enough bits to quantize the number of levels in the image and the gaps in the data are too wide and the differences are obvious to the eye. Random noise will tend to hide posterization
I don't understand your statement that ISO 1600 has less noise than ISO 100. This defies common experience. The read noise is higher at ISO 100, but as we have gone over before, photon noise is predominant at all levels of a real world photograph and this is much less when you collect a large number of photons at low ISO. I know you don't agree with Roger's analysis, but where are your data?
[a href=\"http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/evaluation-1d2/index.html]http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/eva...-1d2/index.html[/url]
10 bit linear is severely limited in dynamic range as shown by this table on Norman Koren's web site. If you assume the darkest zone should have 8 levels, 10 bit linear has a DR of only 7 stops as shown in Norman's table.
http://www.normankoren.com/digital_tonality.html (http://www.normankoren.com/digital_tonality.html)
Bill
-
That's preposterous. Canon is claiming that the processor and firmware inside the camera can do a better job of processing the RAW data from the sensor than you, your much-more-powerful-than-the-camera desktop computer, your favorite RAW converter, and Photoshop. That's just as dumb as claiming that the minilab at the corner drugstore can auto-process and print film images better than an experienced film photographer familiar with developing, processing, and printing film. The fact that small-pixel sensors are noisy means than the experience of the human over the machine is more important, not less. I have gotten some good images from my Olympus SP-350, but I have to put more effort into them than I do images from my DSLRs; the digicam RAWs need more work to meet high technical standards than the DSLR RAWs.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=88311\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
As I wrote in a separate post on the same topic, the Nikon D50 is one example of a camera whose high ISO jpg appears to be very difficult to top even when carefully processing the RAW file in post. Thom Hogan has written on this topic.
Besides, I am not sure that Canon is telling us the real truth here. IMHO, they have just reached the conclusion that most users would not be able to do better with a RAW file than they managed to achieve with a dedicated processor in camera. It doesn't even have to mean that doing better is impossible, just that it is difficult enough that few people would manage, especially with a non Canon RAW converter.
My view is that this is just yet another example of the open/closed system topic. Canon with the G7 is doing the same thing Hasselblad is doing with the H3D. They are deciding to close a system to get more control.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Yes, posterization is caused when there are not enough bits to quantize the number of levels in the image and the gaps in the data are too wide and the differences are obvious to the eye. Random noise will tend to hide posterization
I don't understand your statement that ISO 1600 has less noise than ISO 100.
I didn't make such a statement. I said that ISO 1600 has less absolute noise, to distinguish it from relative noise, which is higher at ISO 1600 in all regards.
This defies common experience. The read noise is higher at ISO 100, but as we have gone over before, photon noise is predominant at all levels of a real world photograph and this is much less when you collect a large number of photons at low ISO.
The photon shot noise is related only to the amount of light falling on the sensor; it has nothing to do with ISO, so when the same light falls on the sensor, ISO 100 and 1600 have the same shot noise, but the readout noise is greater at ISO 100, and hence the total of all absolute noises is higher for 100 (1600 is not worse in any case).
I know you don't agree with Roger's analysis, but where are your data?
I don't necessarily disagree with that particular analysis; what I have disagreed with in the past is his conclusion that over-sampling well electrons is not beneficial. I just think that as a scientist, he may not have stressed the point that the non-scientist is likely to miss, that it is the sensor, and not the whle amplification/read-out system, that is capable of fully utilizing 16 bits of precision.
10 bit linear is severely limited in dynamic range as shown by this table on Norman Koren's web site. If you assume the darkest zone should have 8 levels, 10 bit linear has a DR of only 7 stops as shown in Norman's table.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=88328\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Most of these discussions tend to ignore the huge difference between the dynamic range of the pixel as an independent measuring device, and the dynamic range of an image, which is a community of pixels. You can have far more DR in an image than the bit-depth allows for a single pixel. How do you think that all of those old dithering schemes worked when we had 256-color and even 16-color displays?
I will show you the results when I get to the experiment, but from what I have generally seen, bit depth is not as big a contributor to image DR as people make it out to be; it's the noise that makes the biggest difference in current systems. Get noise out of the way, and then bit-depth will be the bigger issue.
-
Really, haven't you heard about ASICs (application specific integrates circuits)? They can perform specialized tasks quite rapidly, whereas a general purpose microprocessor such as in a desktop uses less optimized code for demosiacing and other graphics functions. This point was made by Andrew Rodney in response to a previous post that I had made voicing the same argument as yours above. Do you have any data to support your assertions?
Yes, I've heard of ASICs. Yes, they can do certain things faster than CPUs, But CPUs can use more complex algorithms than can be programmed into an ASIC, which means that CPUs can do a better job of accomplishing some tasks than ASICs when the more complex algorithm is more effective. But the ASIC vs. CPU iquestion addresses none of the following:
How many digicams are individually profiled to optimize color accuracy? I get much more accurate color from my SP-350 from ACR after running Tom Fors' Color Checker calibration then I get from the in-camera JPEGs. The same is true of images from my 1Ds and 1D-MkII; calibrated ACR beats the camera JPEGs hands-down.
Since when does any camera, digicam, DSLR, or MFDB, get white balance right 100% of the time? ACR's auto white balance is generally better than the camera's, but still can be fooled by some subject matter. But ACR gives me total freedom to change it, unlike pre-baked JPEGs. I don't care how good the camera is, I know I'm better at picking a white balance than it is. AWB (in-camera and in-converter) gets one in the ballpark, but is far from perfect. There's too many situations where it can be fooled to blindly trust it.
The inherent advantages of high-bit image editing go out the window when shooting JPEGs. 16-bit vs. 8-bit editing has been discussed at length in many threads, so I won't rehash it all here. Why edit with one hand tied behind your back?
Camera JPEGs throw away dynamic range and color gamut; I don't see any camera supporting ProPhoto (and to do so with any 8-bit file format would be foolish anyway, due to the posterization & banding it would cause) even though many sensors can capture colors outside Adobe RGB, including Canon's, and RAW converters are much better at highlight recovery than camera firmware. Camera JPEGs give you <100% of the sensor's DR and gamut, RAW gives you 100% of the sensor gamut and at least 100% of the sensor's DR to work with.
Bottom line: being limited to JPEG constrains and compromises color accuracy, image gamut, dynamic range, white balance, and the ability to apply adjustments to the image without intruducing posterization and banding artifacts, regardless of how good in-camera noise processing may be. And I'm not convinced that camera firmware can do better than Neat Image, Noise Ninja, etc. in that department, either. Do you have any examples of camera JPEGs outperforming these tools?
-
And I'm not convinced that camera firmware can do better than Neat Image, Noise Ninja, etc. in that department, either. Do you have any examples of camera JPEGs outperforming these tools?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=88364\")
Jonathan,
You might want to check this out:
[a href=\"http://www.bythom.com/D50REVIEW.htm]http://www.bythom.com/D50REVIEW.htm[/url]
Go down to the section called "Imatest Results and Interpretation", and read the 5th bullet on noise.
Especially the last part, that I quote without permission from Thom Hogan (I hope he'll forgive me):
"The bad news is this: the D50, like the D2x, is doing something with JPEGs that doesn't get done with NEFs. NEFs from a D50, while still a better than my D70s at high ISO values, have more noise in them than JPEGs. Detail in JPEGs is a little lower than in NEFs, so perhaps we've got some very good noise reduction in play with the JPEG rendering engine. "
Best regards,
Bernard
-
It smells like a bunch of BS to me; there's no way that the in-camera computer can do a better job auto-processing RAWs than a desktop under the control of a knowledgeable, experienced human. They must think we're a bunch of retards.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=87898\")
I get the distinct impression that the ratio of "retards" vs "knowledgeable, experienced humans" is roughly comparable to "build-in lens" vs "DSLR" in [a href=\"http://www.dpreview.com/news/0612/06120101cipashipq3.asp]this link[/url]...
Some of the DSLR owners are still retards, some of the bil owners are still knowledgeable. Either way, if there is a remote chance that you can end up with a bad name on the retard side, the data suggests that that chance will hurt sales significantly.
Something to ponder: Michael apparently chose the "No RAW, but well build" option over the "6sec RAW, but Fuji build" option. No doubt there are other significant factors, but they may come down to the same conundrum: "No RAW + advantage" over "6sec RAW + disadvantage"...
-
Jonathan,
You might want to check this out:
http://www.bythom.com/D50REVIEW.htm (http://www.bythom.com/D50REVIEW.htm)
Go down to the section called "Imatest Results and Interpretation", and read the 5th bullet on noise.
Especially the last part, that I quote without permission from Thom Hogan (I hope he'll forgive me):
"The bad news is this: the D50, like the D2x, is doing something with JPEGs that doesn't get done with NEFs. NEFs from a D50, while still a better than my D70s at high ISO values, have more noise in them than JPEGs. Detail in JPEGs is a little lower than in NEFs, so perhaps we've got some very good noise reduction in play with the JPEG rendering engine. "
Best regards,
Bernard
That's because he's not doing any noise reduction whatsoever in his RAW workflow. I saw no mention of Neat Image, Noise Ninja, Noiseware, or any other PS noise reduction plugin. Obviously no noise reduction is done in-camera on RAW files, that's the whole point of RAW--giving the user control of what processing and how much, instead of the camera making all processing decisions. Thom's comparison is between in-camera noise reduction and nothing at all, and if the camera fails that test, the firmware programmers at Nikon ought to be fired en masse.
-
I didn't make such a statement. I said that ISO 1600 has less absolute noise, to distinguish it from relative noise, which is higher at ISO 1600 in all regards.
The photon shot noise is related only to the amount of light falling on the sensor; it has nothing to do with ISO, so when the same light falls on the sensor, ISO 100 and 1600 have the same shot noise, but the readout noise is greater at ISO 100, and hence the total of all absolute noises is higher for 100 (1600 is not worse in any case).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=88351\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes, but if you are using low ISO, you normally increase the exposure so that full well conditions exist for base ISO, collecting more photons and giving smaller SDs. At higher ISOs, the full well is not utilized and photon noise increases. If the light is very dim and normal exposure is not feasible, one can increase output in the RAW converter rather than increasing the ISO. According to Roger, there is no point of increasing the ISO substantially above unity gain, as we have discussed.
I will show you the results when I get to the experiment, but from what I have generally seen, bit depth is not as big a contributor to image DR as people make it out to be; it's the noise that makes the biggest difference in current systems. Get noise out of the way, and then bit-depth will be the bigger issue.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=88351\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I would be interested in your experiments, since you know what you are doing. In another post, an electronics engineer who works with high end imaging also stated that few sensors can are really limited by 12 bit output.
Bill
-
That's because he's not doing any noise reduction whatsoever in his RAW workflow. I saw no mention of Neat Image, Noise Ninja, Noiseware, or any other PS noise reduction plugin. Obviously no noise reduction is done in-camera on RAW files, that's the whole point of RAW--giving the user control of what processing and how much, instead of the camera making all processing decisions. Thom's comparison is between in-camera noise reduction and nothing at all, and if the camera fails that test, the firmware programmers at Nikon ought to be fired en masse.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=88396\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Jonathan,
I think that he is comparing the jpg in camera, with the RAW produced by Nikon Capture, including noise reduction. That seems fair to me.
Most of the posters in this thread are saying that a PC processed version of a raw image will be better than the in camera jpg. I have assumed that people here were not extending the discussion to raw converters relative quality. From this standpoint, comparing the in camera jpg with the a raw file converted by the manufacturer's raw conversion software is the most reasonnable thing to do isn't it? Thom's result are very surprising, but they show that a jpg camera can be better noisewise than a raw conversion.
Not knowing exactly what the D50 built-in processor is able to do, I don't see how I could refute this fact based on general theoretical assumptions. For me his comparison is the best information we will ever get on this topic. I find it useful as one input in trying to understand Canon's move on the topic. Nothing more, nothing less.
As a final comment, Noise Ninja could be applied to both the jpg and raw.
Regards,
Bernard
-
Not knowing exactly what the D50 built-in processor is able to do, I don't see how I could refute this fact based on general theoretical assumptions. For me his comparison is the best information we will ever get on this topic. I find it useful as one input in trying to understand Canon's move on the topic. Nothing more, nothing less.
It may be as simple as that Canon has no desire to have to provide similar noise reduction functionality in their raw converter (added complexity and support for the software division), but rather keep it in-camera.
And it is possible that the in-camera hardware and software might be better at specific noise handling than current Photoshop plugins or other noise handling software on a PC, even though that is likely to change fairly quickly as that software is updated.
-
Yes, but if you are using low ISO, you normally increase the exposure so that full well conditions exist for base ISO, collecting more photons
Yes you do, but what does that have to do with the context of my original statement?
and giving smaller SDs.
The SDs are highest for full-well, and at ISO 100. It is the ratio of the SD to the signal that is lowest. If you take a RAW exposure of a color-checker card, and run a high-pass filter on it, the brightest square will have the most noise.
If the light is very dim and normal exposure is not feasible, one can increase output in the RAW converter rather than increasing the ISO.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=88407\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You can do that, but what you have is really, in effect, a higher ISO. The camera's ISO setting does not dictate the actual Exposure Index; absolute exposure and the brightness of the rendered image do.
-
Jonathan,
I think that he is comparing the jpg in camera, with the RAW produced by Nikon Capture, including noise reduction. That seems fair to me.
Most of the posters in this thread are saying that a PC processed version of a raw image will be better than the in camera jpg. I have assumed that people here were not extending the discussion to raw converters relative quality. From this standpoint, comparing the in camera jpg with the a raw file converted by the manufacturer's raw conversion software is the most reasonnable thing to do isn't it? Thom's result are very surprising, but they show that a jpg camera can be better noisewise than a raw conversion.
Ignoring the numerous options available in RAW converters ignores one of the greatest advantages of RAW; being able to choose one's preferred tool based on the quality of the results produced by that tool, vs. being locked into the manufacturer's software, which in many cases is not that good, especially when it comes to noise reduction. Canon's RAW converter and ACR suck badly compared to Neat image in that department, which is why I convert in ACR with NR turned off and de-noise with Neat Image. Thom didn't specify what, if any noise reduction settings he was using in Nikon Capture, so assuming he did is an assumption, as is the premise that Nikon Capture's noise reduction is better than Neat Image, Noise Ninja, etc.
I want the freedom to use the best tool for the job as I see fit, not to be locked into one manufacturer's software that, in many cases, is crap. Neither Canon or Olympus' RAW converters are anything to write home about; they work, but ACR (especially when properly color calibrated) does a much better job with more accurate color.
-
The Canon USA argument is a bit unpersuasive, because it seems to ignore some raw processing options like correcting white balance. Is it true that even when in-camera WB is applied, all relevant distinctions of luminance in each color channel are recorded in JPEG to the full accuracy limits of the sensor's noise levels, so that color adjustments in PP have as much significant information to work with from good JPEG as from raw data? Maybe.
Canon USA might well be correct a far as super-fine JPEG's 8-bit gamma compressed encoding of luminance data being able to record the full dynamic range and information content of the signal from those small photosites, so that there would be no advantage in that respect do doing raw conversion later on a computer.
Canon is claiming that the processor and firmware inside the camera can do a better job of processing the RAW data from the sensor than you, your much-more-powerful-than-the-camera desktop computer, your favorite RAW converter, and Photoshop.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=88311\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Not really: Canon USA is only claiming that you cannot do a better job by post-processing of raw than by post-processing of super-fine JPEG, because all the significant raw information (to the significance level imposed by noise) is preserved in that JPEG.
This is similar to another thread about whether there is any point doing A/D conversion at precision finer than one output level per electron of photo-site signal. The common question is whether the discretization (quantization) preserves all significant information or not. In this case, the discretization being to 8-bit gamma compressed JPEG values from what is probably 10 or 12 bit linear A/D convertor output.
My rough estimate is that the G7's sub-2 micron photo-sites have a well capacity of around 2,000 electrons or less and S/N ratio of about 1,000:1 or less, so 10-bit linear is the most that would be of value, except for those who like to measure noise to many bits of precision.
Does anyone know the bit-depth of the G7's A/D convertor?
-
Canon's position on the G7 is absolutely untenable. JPEG will never be better be than RAW. Even if it somehow magically were so at some point in time, RAW captures can be re-processed later with superior technology so the advantage can't possibly last.
Just this weekend my wife took my Canon S70 to a children's party and took some snapshots. One of them had terrible exposure due to a white table in the foreground getting blasted at close range by the flash. But with RawShooter Premium I processed it into two TIFF files that were identical except for exposure compensation, then blended them in PhotoShop - a ten minute rescue that would be impossible with JPEG.
-
Yes you do, but what does that have to do with the context of my original statement?
The SDs are highest for full-well, and at ISO 100. It is the ratio of the SD to the signal that is lowest. If you take a RAW exposure of a color-checker card, and run a high-pass filter on it, the brightest square will have the most noise.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=88492\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes John, I stand corrected on that point. The absolute noise is highest for ISO 100, but the S/N ratio is higher with the lower ISO. The context of the original statement is sometimes ambiguous: a discrepancancy could result from mispeaking, unclear communication, or confusion on my part. That is why followup is important.
-
Ignoring the numerous options available in RAW converters ignores one of the greatest advantages of RAW; being able to choose one's preferred tool based on the quality of the results produced by that tool, vs. being locked into the manufacturer's software, which in many cases is not that good, especially when it comes to noise reduction. Canon's RAW converter and ACR suck badly compared to Neat image in that department, which is why I convert in ACR with NR turned off and de-noise with Neat Image. Thom didn't specify what, if any noise reduction settings he was using in Nikon Capture, so assuming he did is an assumption, as is the premise that Nikon Capture's noise reduction is better than Neat Image, Noise Ninja, etc.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=88582\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Jonathan,
- Neat Image could be applied to the jpg image as well. The point is really what amount of noise/detail is present in the converted image vs jpg,
- Canon's decision if anything is probably based on their assessement of what their Raw converter can do. You might call this poor market intelligence if you'd like, but it makes complete sense from a Japanese standpoint. They just would have no control on the support of the G7 by third party software.
I want the freedom to use the best tool for the job as I see fit, not to be locked into one manufacturer's software that, in many cases, is crap. Neither Canon or Olympus' RAW converters are anything to write home about; they work, but ACR (especially when properly color calibrated) does a much better job with more accurate color.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=88582\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I understand Jonathan, but to what extend has this influenced Canon's decision?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Ignoring the numerous options available in RAW converters ignores one of the greatest advantages of RAW; being able to choose one's preferred tool based on the quality of the results produced by that tool, vs. being locked into the manufacturer's software, which in many cases is not that good, especially when it comes to noise reduction. Canon's RAW converter and ACR suck badly compared to Neat image in that department, which is why I convert in ACR with NR turned off and de-noise with Neat Image. Thom didn't specify what, if any noise reduction settings he was using in Nikon Capture, so assuming he did is an assumption, as is the premise that Nikon Capture's noise reduction is better than Neat Image, Noise Ninja, etc.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=88582\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
With JPEGs it is not possible to turn off NR completely with the D200 and some other Nikon cameras when using high ISOs. Nikon Capture and ACR do allow NR to be disabled. I don't think that anyone claimed that NC or ACR or in camera has better NR than Neat Image or NN. If you want to use separate NR, it is important to turn off all sharpening for the JPEG and as much NR as possible.
At high ISO, I think you would get better results with raw for conversion and NN or NI for NR. Personally I hardly ever use JPEGs, but many are satisfied with its results and the differences are minimal in many cases.
-
Jonathan,
- Neat Image could be applied to the jpg image as well. The point is really what amount of noise/detail is present in the converted image vs jpg,
- Canon's decision if anything is probably based on their assessement of what their Raw converter can do. You might call this poor market intelligence if you'd like, but it makes complete sense from a Japanese standpoint. They just would have no control on the support of the G7 by third party software.
I understand Jonathan, but to what extend has this influenced Canon's decision?
Cheers,
Bernard
I don't believe Canon's assertions regarding RAW vs superfine JPEG noise are correct; they fly in the face of all of my experience processing RAW and JPEG images and the relative quality of the two. Yes, noise reduction can be applied to JPEGs, but doing so is less effective than applying the same noise reduction tool on a 16-bit converted RAW. There are no JPEG artifacts in the RAW data, and noise reduction tools work better in 16-bit mode, as do lens correction, sharpening, and other tools.
Nor do Canon's assertions address white balance or color accuracy issues at all; a properly profiled/calibrated RAW converter is clearly superior to camera JPEGs in both color accuracy and ease of setting the correct white balance, especially when the camera doesn't get WB quite right. Canned printer profiles are not better than well-made custom profiles in the vast majority of cases, why should the generic camera profiles used to create camera JPEGs be better than a custom-profiled/calibrated RAW converter? The notion simply defies common sense.
And what about tone curves? With all decent RAW converters, you have the ability to select or create the most appriate tone curve for the image after the shot, and preview the results of tweaks as you do so, to ensure the best possible result. With camera JPEGs, if you don't like the camera-applied tone curve, you are far more limited in how much you can change it before banding and posterization set in.
I don't really care what Canon is basing their decisions on, or whether those decisions make sense to the Japanese mindset; the bottom line is that the decisions are stupid, based on premises of extremely dubious merit, and very much likely to alienate the serious-photographer-wanting-a-decent-compact-camera market segment. They've certainly alienated me; I bought the Olympus SP-350 specifically because it supports RAW. I would have preferred to buy a Canon instead to maintain E-TTL flash compatibility and not have to buy yet another memory card format, but Canon didn't see fit to offer me what I was looking for, so I went elsewhere.
Even if camera JPEGs were always just as good as the output of the best RAW converter + noise reduction tools in existence (which they are certainly not, for the reasons I mention above), adding the ability to save a RAW file to firmware functionality is trivial; certainly far less complex than converting the RAW data to JPEG and then saving it. There is no logically defensible argument for not allowing the RAW data to be saved.
I realize I'm just one person. But if enough of us complain loudly enough, the current silliness may go away.
-
I realize I'm just one person. But if enough of us complain loudly enough, the current silliness may go away.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=88670\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Jonathan,
I am completely with you in wishing that Canon had kept RAW support in the G7, and most people here at LL probably feel the same, but from a forum standpoint that's the scope of another thread IMHO.
Regards,
Bernard
-
In my opinion, some folks on this sight have lost sight that the G7 is a point and shoot camera, not a professional tool. For every person who screams the G7 should (or must) have RAW, I cam point to 10 camera buyers who say "What's RAW? White balance?"
All the consumer (who is the alledged audience for this camera) seem to want is a really nice camera that takes "clear" pictures, is easy to use and makes a decent print or e-mail attachment of the family dog (or kid).
Reading this thread, I do not get the idea that Canon said JPEGs were better than RAW, there just wasn't enough difference.
I also think that if everyone complaining on LL made a loud enough cry and actually bought a G7 with RAW, Canon would never notice. But they might notice the loss of sales because the "pricey" G7 (per dpreviw) were even pricier and a lot of consumers went elsewhere.
Canon may have screwed up, but maybe they should be given credit for knowing their business.
-
In my opinion, some folks on this sight have lost sight that the G7 is a point and shoot camera, not a professional tool. For every person who screams the G7 should (or must) have RAW, I cam point to 10 camera buyers who say "What's RAW? White balance?"
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=88687\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You are of course right, but many of us had hoped that Canon would keep targetting advanced users with their G series. Let's face it, we all have back problems, and carrying a D80 in the bag at all times isn't realistic.
We are now facing the hard reality that we are not a large enough population, and that probably no-one will ever manufacture the camera we had hoped for... that's a bit like learning that Santa Claus isn't real, life is tough...
Cheers,
Bernard
-
We are now facing the hard reality that we are not a large enough population, and that probably no-one will ever manufacture the camera we had hoped for... that's a bit like learning that Santa Claus isn't real, life is tough...
Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=88692\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Only thing tougher than not being the big fish in the pond is realizing you are really just a very little fish in the little pond.
-
also think that if everyone complaining on LL made a loud enough cry and actually bought a G7 with RAW, Canon would never notice. But they might notice the loss of sales because the "pricey" G7 (per dpreviw) were even pricier and a lot of consumers went elsewhere.
Canon may have screwed up, but maybe they should be given credit for knowing their business.
Adding RAW support to the firmware functionality is a trivial programming exercise that at most would make a few cents' difference in the cost of the camera over its life cycle.
-
Adding RAW support to the firmware functionality is a trivial programming exercise that at most would make a few cents' difference in the cost of the camera over its life cycle.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=88729\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Isn't this coming from the same company that purposedely disabled some firmware functions in the 300D to create a differentiation with its bigger brothers?
i remember some Russian computer genious hacking this and providing back the functionalities...
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Am I the only one who wants a pro-quality point and shoot ? SLR-quality sensor, carbon-fiber body, Raw, a decent wide-angle zoom, and all the usual automation. And small. Leica, what are you waiting for ?
Edmund
-
Adding RAW support to the firmware functionality is a trivial programming exercise that at most would make a few cents' difference in the cost of the camera over its life cycle.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=88729\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I wouldn't be surprised though if the RAW file doesn't compress that well, and writing it to the memory card will take long, and will fill it up real quick. I wonder if they could do it in less than 6sec, and I also wonder what people consider useable raw:
1raw in 6sec obviously doesn't cut it,
3raws in 3secs?
It's easy to write these seemingly small numbers, but I strongly suspect that the impact on design requirements is more than significant, even at the end of 2006... :-(
-
I wouldn't be surprised though if the RAW file doesn't compress that well, and writing it to the memory card will take long, and will fill it up real quick.
Canon CR2 RAW files losslessly compress to about 1/2 to 2/3 of uncompressed size, depending on ISO and subject. DNG does just a bit better than that.
-
Canon CR2 RAW files losslessly compress to about 1/2 to 2/3 of uncompressed size, depending on ISO and subject. DNG does just a bit better than that.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=88773\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
But given that the entire uncompressed data would be a little less than 15MB, you'd be looking at 8 to 10 MB p/s. Maybe they can pull it off, but the battery would be drained by the third picture... :-)
-
But given that the entire uncompressed data would be a little less than 15MB, you'd be looking at 8 to 10 MB p/s. Maybe they can pull it off, but the battery would be drained by the third picture... :-)
The earlier G series cameras had the same battery as the 10D/20D/30D, the G7 has the same battery as the 400D.
Why should the battery drain quicker by writing similarly sized images on a G7 than on the 400D?
-
The earlier G series cameras had the same battery as the 10D/20D/30D, the G7 has the same battery as the 400D.
Why should the battery drain quicker by writing similarly sized images on a G7 than on the 400D?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=88809\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Because there probably is no buffer. It would have to go straight to the card. Once you're in that territory, none of these babies do 1raw p/s...
-
But given that the entire uncompressed data would be a little less than 15MB, you'd be looking at 8 to 10 MB p/s. Maybe they can pull it off, but the battery would be drained by the third picture... :-)
Or they could do what most cameras do, and have a buffer large enough to store a couple of uncompressed frames...
-
Because there probably is no buffer. It would have to go straight to the card. Once you're in that territory, none of these babies do 1raw p/s...
Writing to the card is something that would have to be done anyway, a buffer doesn't remove that consideration.
Adding a buffer means adding another power drain, not a power saver, unless there is additional logic that reduces the power drain by using smarter write algorithms to the card. I guesstimate that the savings of such algorithms would be minimal.
What the buffer may do, however, is to offer a time-limited higher shooting rate, until that buffer is full.
-
Am I the only one who wants a pro-quality point and shoot ?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=88757\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
No, though we may be few. There are cases where, even if I carry a DSLR with one lens attached, I would prefer to carry a high quality, compact, "telephoto dedicated" fixed camera instead of a telephoto lens for DSLR, let alone carrying a second DSLR body with telephoto lens attached.
Maybe about 25-100 f/2.8-3.5 in 1/1.8" or 2/3" format, roughly matching 100-400 in 35mm for FOV, so "following on" from a standard zoom.
No, I am not holding my breath.
-
Adding RAW support to the firmware functionality is a trivial programming exercise that at most would make a few cents' difference in the cost of the camera over its life cycle.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=88729\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I have no reason to either believe or not believe this. Do you have any supporting sources for this? Like, Canon? How much does Canon think it will cost per camera?
There was a thread here about the cost/benefits of RAW. Lots of posts on the benefits. Only onaddressed what the user was willing to pay for RAW, but I didn't see anything about the actual costs.
I've been looking but I can't even find out how many G7s Canon is expecting to sell without RAW. Seems like a very important piece of data for a per camera cost for RAW.
-
There was a thread here about the cost/benefits of RAW. Lots of posts on the benefits. Only onaddressed what the user was willing to pay for RAW, but I didn't see anything about the actual costs.
Canon already had firmware code for RAW support; they had to take some time to remove that code from their code base going from the G6 to the G7. Unless there is an entirely new chipset in the G7 which has zero compatibility with that of the G6 and required a complete rewrite of the firmware from scratch, it probably cost Canon more to remove RAW support than it would have to leave it in. At any rate the cost for RAW support would be negligible per-camera; we're talking mabe a week's worth of work for one to three mid-level programmers, depending on how much tweaking the G6 RAW code would need to function in the G7. But it could also be just a few man-hours (mostly for testing) if no major changes were needed for the G6-G7 update. I've been programming for nearly 10 years, and am pretty confident about the timeline here.
From the user's perspective, the costs of RAW would larger image files, meaning greater storage requirements, and moderately greater demands on the computer processing the images (doing the RAW conversion). Once the RAW is converted, there's no difference in file size or CPU demands over JPEG. RAW also slows the camera down when shooting; the larger file sizes fill the buffer faster and increase file write times.
-
... it probably cost Canon more to remove RAW support than it would have to leave it in. At any rate the cost for RAW support would be negligible per-camera; we're talking mabe [sic] a week's worth of work for one to three mid-level programmers, depending on how much tweaking the G6 RAW code would need to function in the G7.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=89042\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
"Probably cost ..." "Maybe ..." a week. "Depending on ..." Do you have any facts to back this up besides your your personal thoughts, ideas and/or maybe not so relavent experiences. I am not saying you are wrong, just not at all convincing.
"negligible per-camera ..." How many G7s is Canon planning on making?
-
"Probably cost ..." "Maybe ..." a week. "Depending on ..." Do you have any facts to back this up besides your your personal thoughts, ideas and/or maybe not so relavent experiences. I am not saying you are wrong, just not at all convincing.
"negligible per-camera ..." How many G7s is Canon planning on making?
I spent over 7 years as a professional programmer, so I have a fairly good idea of what kind of project writing RAW support would be. Assuming Canon's programming department is at all competent, they would have code libraries of firmware for all of their existing cameras that could be borrowed from for established features like RAW support. If the programming was done competently in the first place and the chipsets weren't too different between the G6 and G7, adding RAW support to the G7 could be as simple as pasting the G6 code into the G7 firmware, doing a search/replace to change "G6" to "G7", changing the parameters for the height and width of the RAW image, and adding a menu entry for RAW mode in the file format menu option list. The 3 programmers working 1 week would be a worst-case scenario if RAW support had to be written from scratch for the G7. But we're still talking less than $10,000 US, and if Canon sold 10,000 G7 cameras worldwide (and I bet they will sell many more than that), RAW support would be < $1/camera. Would you pay an extra $1 for RAW on your camera?
-
I spent ... so I have a fairly good idea ... . Assuming ... . If ... , adding RAW support to the G7 could be as simple as ... . But we're still talking less than $10,000 US, and if Canon sold ... . Would you pay an extra $1 for RAW on your camera?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=89075\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
No facts that I see. Just more opinions and conjecture. I would be more convinced with some cold hard facts to support your beliefs.
Would I pay a $1 for RAW? Yes, if I were buying a digital camera. Bit then I am not the main stream camera consumer either.
When I was in school, I came up with what I thought was a great idea that would only cost General Motors a penny or so a car. Bad idea. It would have cost them millions of dollars.
-
No facts that I see. Just more opinions and conjecture. I would be more convinced with some cold hard facts to support your beliefs.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=89077\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This entire thread is lacking in facts. It starts off with a report of a very reasonable comment from Chuck Westfall, ie. that you can't expect much RAW latitude from a pixel that is less than 2 microns in diameter, then progresses along the lines that RAW is always an advantage and that poor Chuck doesn't know what he's talking about.
Engaging in some conjecture myself, I would guess that when Chuck made that statement (assuming he did and/or was not misquoted) he probably did not have in mind the capabilities of experienced ACR and C1 users who are often prepared to spend hours processing an image to achieve some sort of fine art vision.
P&S cameras are not designed for fastidious perfectionists who will go to any lengths to extract the last 10th of a stop of dynamic range. The issue is not whether Chuck is literally right in asserting that there would be nothing to be gained by including a RAW mode in the G7, but whether or not the benefits would be sufficiently great to interest anyone.
If the cost of including RAW support really is trivial, one might wonder why Canon did not include it despite technical advice that it would not serve much purpose. A gullible public is often impressed with 'professional sounding' features, so perhaps the Canon marketing team should be congratulated for not adding bells and whistles to the G7 in order to gain a few more sales.
What I think is happening in this thread is, you have a bunch of photographers who are well aware of the significant benefits of shooting RAW with DSLRs and who are making the erroneous assumption that the same degree of improvement of image quality is applicable to a P&S RAW image. If this assumption is not erroneous, then show me the evidence. Someone could perhaps start off with RAW versus jpeg samples from the G6. We could then discount any improvements with the G6, by a certain percentage, and get some idea of what we could have expected from a G7 with RAW mode.
It seems clear to me that a small sensor with 2 micron photosites would produce unacceptable noise at all ISOs, including base ISO, in RAW mode, except with well-lit and very low dynamic range scenes. Is it reasonable to expect any manufacturer to offer a feature on their shiny new product that facilitates the production of crap images, just for the benefit of a few individuals like Jonathan Wienke and John Sheehy who might be able to do a better processing job than the in-camera algorithms?
I think there's a reasonable assumption being made by Canon that perfectionists and fine-art photographers do not use P&S cameras for that purpose of making fine art photos. The sensors and pixels are simply too small and the dynamic range is just dreadful. If you think I'm exaggerating, it's probably because all your jpeg images from your P&S camera (if you happen to own one, as I do) have had noise reduction already applied in-camera.
My very compact and feature-rich Sony T30 has a few manual features like exposure bracketing and EV adjustments from + to - 2EV, as well as a live histogram. There should be no excuse for blown highlights, apart from complete incompetence. I just recently did a careful comparison of 2 shots of the same scene that differed by one stop exposure. The shot with the greater exposure had irretrievably blown highlights. The shot with half the exposure was just right with respect to the highlights. After levels and curves adjustments in PS to get both images looking similar with respect to over all balance, I pixel-peeped the shadows, expecting to see more noise in the image with one stop less exposure.
Surprise! Surprise! There wasn't. However, what I did notice was a loss of resolution in the image with less exposure, despite the fact that the shutter speed was twice as fast. Grass and foliage appeared slightly smudged (or shall we say, more smudged). Clearly the camera had applied more aggressive noise reduction to the image with less exposure.
As far as I know, there are no noise reduction programs that do not also to some degree blur fine detail. Even the luminance smoothing control in ACR blurs fine detail. One can choose not to apply noise reduction to certain parts of the image, or apply less of it to certain parts of the image, and I concede there might be an advantage there, starting with a noisy RAW image. But I doubt the time and effort would be justified by the results.
Show me some G6 comparisons if you want to argue.
-
This entire thread is lacking in facts. It starts off with a report of a very reasonable comment from Chuck Westfall, ie. that you can't expect much RAW latitude from a pixel that is less than 2 microns in diameter, then progresses along the lines that RAW is always an advantage and that poor Chuck doesn't know what he's talking about.
Engaging in some conjecture myself, I would guess that when Chuck made that statement (assuming he did and/or was not misquoted) he probably did not have in mind the capabilities of experienced ACR and C1 users who are often prepared to spend hours processing an image to achieve some sort of fine art vision.
Show me some G6 comparisons if you want to argue.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=89182\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I have to agree with Ray's analysis. We don't really now Canon's reasons for not including RAW with the new camera, but the decision was most likely made in Japan and Chuck Westfall has to put forth the best explanation he can.
One suggestion was that Canon wanted to have a closed system where they had control, but then JEPG output is completely open and requires no special software for access to the images. What it does give Canon is control over the processing of the images and I think it boils down to arrogance on the part of Canon. They know best, and the customer preferences do not matter. This attitude is not unique to Canon
-
Ray, you have it backwards. Canon is saying that their firmware RAW conversion is better than ACR, Capture One, and any other RAW converter, and their in-camera noise reduction is better than Neat Image, Noise Ninja, and all of the other noise reduction tools out there, or if not better, then at least close enough that it's not worth your bother to try, and by the way, we're not even going to let you do that. That's pretty bold and arrogant on Canon's part, and Canon has not offered one shred of proof to bolster their claims. If you want to claim you've seen Elvis on the mother ship, fine, but you'd better have high-definition video of the King singing "Jailhouse Rock" if you want anyone to take you seriously. I've spent the last several years learning the differences between what one can get out of RAWS vs. JPEGs, especially in difficult circumstances like concerts, and I see no reason to waste my time debunking Canon's "I saw Elvis! Really!" marketing technobullcrap when Canon hasn't seen fit to offer any RAW/JPEG image pairs of difficult subject matter (like a concert or some other low-light, high-contrast subject) to try to prove their point. If they did so, I have $100 that says they would be embarassed.
-
Jonathan,
Canon is only saying that they know better than 90% of their customers for the G7. IMHO, their are right.
Cheers, Bernard
-
I suspect that all the posters on this thread have done more thinking about the pros and cons of RAW than the nice folks at Canon have. After all, they are the people that determined that owners of the 5D would have greater need for a "Print-from-camera button" than for, say, a mirror-lockup button.
When my S60 dies, I will certainly look for a decent P&S-with-RAW, if I can find one, but if there aren't any, I may (grudgingly) consider the G7 or its successor.
-
My purely speculative supposition is that removal of RAW on Canon's p&s cameras was, indeed, a move to protect the low-end dslr models. I have no data to buttress this idea other than the relative prices of the Canon camera models on both sides of this range. Remember, Canon heritage is principally that of an optical company. They basically wrap electronics around lenses. That is, they want to sell lenses.
But while y'all are working this matter out I think I'll just keep shooting with my little G7 (http://www.pbase.com/tanakak/image/71304035).
-
My purely speculative supposition is that removal of RAW on Canon's p&s cameras was, indeed, a move to protect the low-end dslr models. I have no data to buttress this idea other than the relative prices of the Canon camera models on both sides of this range. Remember, Canon heritage is principally that of an optical company. They basically wrap electronics around lenses. That is, they want to sell lenses.
But while y'all are working this matter out I think I'll just keep shooting with my little G7 (http://www.pbase.com/tanakak/image/71304035).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=89235\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ken,
That is a good idea-- it does protect their low end DSLRs from completion from Canon P&S, but as long as alternatives are available from Nikon, Sony, Olympus, etc, a discerning user has alternatives to the Canon P&S. Even though you might use Canon SLRs and lenses, there is really no advantage to going with Canon for your advanced P&S. Of course, in another thread it was noted that Sony discontinued their large sensor P&S once they introduced a SLR. Apparently, there are no alternatives there.
-
Jonathan,
Canon is only saying that they know better than 90% of their customers for the G7. IMHO, their are right.
Cheers, Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=89224\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I agree with that conclusion. Sure don't know the percents, but I would guess Canon knows better than more than 90%. The G7 is not directed at the same market as the DSLR. The problem seems to be users of DSLR thinking they are (or at least should be) the market audience.
For every photographer that thinks he needs RAW, I know 10 that don't even know what RAW is and wouldn't use it if it were available.
The idea of competing with other Canon products seems plausible (high end p&s vs. low end DSLR). Such competion simply isn't good business. Maybe Canon does know what they are doing and their own business after all.
-
I wrote software for 25 years, 10-12 of those writing firmware. On the limited aspect of this discussion regarding the amount of work to implement RAW support in firmware, Jonathan's arguments are perfectly reasonable, with the proviso (that he stated) that the chipset in the G7 is the same (or even really similar to, IMO) that of the G6. That is, if the chipset is the same/similar, the manpower resources to implement RAW support would have been trivial compared with the larger product project. The additional requirements because of the greater number of pixels are also minor in terms of moving bytes around. Three more million pixels is not significant in computer terms.
If the chipsets are similar, it's not the development costs of implementing RAW support that were likely the determining factor in eliminating the feature. There could be lots of other reasons why; only Canon knows. I have been on many projects where the technical reasons for doing or not doing something were among the least important considerations.
If the chipsets were different, unlikely but possible, then in my experience, the addtional costs of implementing RAW would still not be that great an extra effort, given what the development team would already be doing. Inside the camera, after all, at some point, there is RAW data in some form that some piece of software is converting to a JPG before it is written to a memory card.
-
There could be lots of other reasons why; only Canon knows. I have been on many projects where the technical reasons for doing or not doing something were among the least important considerations.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=89267\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Very true. Management may have more information than the engineers and non-technical reasons for doing or not doing something. Something that makes perfect sense technically may be very wrong business-wise.
I always thought it was my responsibility as an engineer to provide my management with the best technical information I could and a decision based on that information. It was also my responsibilty to accept their decision (provided of course it was not illegal or immoral).
-
The idea of competing with other Canon products seems plausible (high end p&s vs. low end DSLR). Such competion simply isn't good business. Maybe Canon does know what they are doing and their own business after all.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=89243\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This is very possible indeed. In Japan at least, the Ixus line, G7 and 400d are featured in the same leaflet...
The other DSLR get a different one.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Ray, you have it backwards. Canon is saying that their firmware RAW conversion is better than ACR, Capture One, and any other RAW converter, and their in-camera noise reduction is better than Neat Image, Noise Ninja, and all of the other noise reduction tools out there, or if not better, then at least close enough that it's not worth your bother to try, and by the way, we're not even going to let you do that. That's pretty bold and arrogant on Canon's part, and Canon has not offered one shred of proof to bolster their claims. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=89223\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's not my interpretation of what Canon is saying. Rather, they are saying that their in-camera noise reduction is better than the default, easy settings of ACR, Capture One and Neat Image type noise reduction programs, that would generally appeal to users of P&S cameras. In other words, to better Canon's in-camera processing, starting from a truly dreadful RAW image, you'd have to have the skills, patience and dedication of a Jonathan Wienke.
In my view, some posters in this thread are forgetting an important principle that cuts across all picture making, 'use the best tool for the job'. It's fanciful to think that a G7 with a RAW mode could compete with the 400D's RAW mode. Canon is being very sensible in protecting gullible consumers from making a wrong choice. You should thank them. Had they provided a RAW mode for the G7, you can bet your bottom dollar there'd be thousands of additional buyers of the G7 kidding themselves that their miniature camera was as good as a 400D, then regretting their purchase when the facts came to light and they later saw real world comparisons on the net between the RAW capability of both cameras. What are we comparing... 10m 2micron pixels with 10m 5.5 micron pixels? What is there to protect except the gullibility of the consumer!
-
The G7 raw debate reminds me of the Leica Digilux 2 I had a few years ago. It had raw, but raw was very slow, and I had to work pretty hard to get better results than the default JPEGs. It was nice to have around if I thought I would have a lot of trouble with a shot, but I never really used it much.
-
In my view, some posters in this thread are forgetting an important principle that cuts across all picture making, 'use the best tool for the job'. It's fanciful to think that a G7 with a RAW mode could compete with the 400D's RAW mode. Canon is being very sensible in protecting gullible consumers from making a wrong choice. You should thank them.
(http://www.visual-vacations.com/images/smilies/mooning.gif)
I thank Canon because I'm being screwed out of the option of RAW processing by their retarded marketing department when I'm deployed and DSLRs are too heavy/bulky to carry around when I'm already loaded down woth 60+ pounds of armor, ammo, supplies, a weapon, and other gear, and what I need is something small and light that can still capture a reasonably good image without imposing itself excessively on the final result.
I thank Canon because I have to buy a less-capable camera from another, less arrogant, manufacturer, but with an incompatible flash mount and an incompatible memory card format, so I have to buy a whole new set of flash cards and accessories.
I thank Canon because they are denying me the option of the best tool for the job on the basis of a bunch of egotistical, arrogrant, and paranoid marketing BS.
Yes, it's fanciful to think that a G7 can compete with a 400D or any other DSLR on a pixel-to-pixel basis. Which is an excellent argument against deliberately crippling the G7 to "protect" the 400D against something it doesn't need protection from.
-
In my view, some posters in this thread are forgetting an important principle that cuts across all picture making, 'use the best tool for the job'.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=89365\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I don't really agree "'use the best tool for the job," but rather use the best tool you have for the job. A G7 with RAW isn't the best tool, or even the best tool you have. It just isn't. At best, it is just another dream camera.
-
This is an awful long thread for and the issue has been beaten to death. So here's a suggestion...
Buy a Lumix LX2- you'll get 10 MP, a 16:9 format, almost all the control features of a DSLR in a very attractive retro syle case AND, it has RAW. Why keep lamenting over the fact that one manufacturer chooses to limit the feature set when a perfectly good alternative is available now? I looked at both of these cameras and chose the LX2 and yes, it can be noisier than the G7 in some lighting situations. But you can clean up the noise quite nicely in Silkypix (almost worth the price of the camera itself) and, after all, you all wanted to work in RAW anyway so.....
-
This is an awful long thread for and the issue has been beaten to death. So here's a suggestion...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=89666\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
We should perhaps now start another thread called "Why do people talk so much about the lack of RAW on the G7?".
You are right, a shortcoming ends up generating more visibility for this camera than it probably deserves.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
"Why do people talk so much about the lack of RAW on the G7?".
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=89668\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Answer: Because they've been hoodwinked into believing that RAW is a panacea for all image deficiencies. We like to believe in miracles and we also like good conspiracy theories. Consider the popularity of the Da Vinci Code.
The amount of hot air generated is often inversely proportional to the quantity of facts presented. I've seen no comparisons in this long thread so far demonstrating the amazing capabilities of RAW mode in a P&S camera, whether it be the G6 or the Lumix LX2. Why is that? Could it be there's nothing much to shout about?
Let's suppose we could get a consensus of opinion as to a percentage increase in image quality that potentially could be achieved using RAW instead of fine jpeg. Whatever percentage that may be, lets call it 10% for argument's sake and let's focus on dynamic range which seems to be the one thing one cannot recover from a processed jpeg. (One can always get an improved white balance with some stuffing around, even if it means placing a grey card in the scene.)
With DSLRs such as the 20D and 5D one can probably recover, on average, about 0.75 of a stop of DR without blowing any color channels. In other words, an apparent over-exposure of 0.75 EV results in a full exposure to the right, something which one cannot achieve with a jpeg shot. The same exposure in jpeg mode would result in irretrievably blown highlights. People who use DSLRs in jpeg mode are depriving themselves of about 0.75 stops of dynamic range, but that's only a rough figure that varies with scene content of course. With grey skies one can recover sometimes as much as 1.5 stops. With very saturated colors, apparent over-exposure would have to be less than 0.75 stops.
Whether the DR gain is 0.35 stops or 1.5 stops, it's significant and worthwhile with a camera that has a respectable DR to begin with. I can only guess what the relationship might be between pixel pitch and DR in cameras with the same pixel count. Comparing a 2 micron pixel with a 6 micron pixel, I tend to think that RAW capability might give us, on average, a 1/10th of a stop DR advantage over jpeg, for the same amount of work and skill.
Is this what you guys are screaming about? Canon, please gives us the opportunity to spend hours of our time recovering 1/10th of a stop of DR with sophisticated desktop programs and RAW converters.
-
The only possible answer to this question is: Because Canon did not put it there. Anything else is speculation. I am going to draw a line in the sand with my saber. Anyone who wants to take photographs with their G7 cross that line. Anyone who wants to spend their time speculating about raw, don't cross the line.
-
We should perhaps now start another thread called "Why do people talk so much about the lack of RAW on the G7?".
You are right, a shortcoming ends up generating more visibility for this camera than it probably deserves.
Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=89668\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
People are upset at the arrogance of Canon for not including raw, which they could have done at minimal expense. Whether or not raw would be a significant advantage for that type of camera is in doubt, but that is a decision that the user would like to make for himself/herself.
As many will recall, many Nikon users were incensed when Nikon encrypted the white balance of their SLRs. The users wanted to have a choice of raw converters. The Nikon decision was clearly for market control reasons, but Canon's motives are unclear.
-
Is this what you guys are screaming about? Canon, please gives us the opportunity to spend hours of our time recovering 1/10th of a stop of DR with sophisticated desktop programs and RAW converters.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=89673\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It's not 1/10 stop. It's at least a stop in the red channel in the highlights, recoverable for chlouds, white shirts, ets. Depending on where they draw the whitepoint in the JPEG algorithm, there may be more in the green channel as well.
Any difference in amplification between different horizontal and vertical lines in the image are locked in for all time in a JPEG, as are any of the host of artifacts that Canon ignores in their RAW data.
I think you are going quite overboard in trivializing the differences between RAW and JPEG.
The potential benefits of having RAW far outweigh the trivial cost (if any) of implementing RAW in the camera.
The problem here is extreme arrogance on Canon's part; that they know better than all the consumers, and that they're the only ones who can interpret RAW data.
That is quite far from the truth.
-
I don't really agree "'use the best tool for the job," but rather use the best tool you have for the job. A G7 with RAW isn't the best tool, or even the best tool you have. It just isn't. At best, it is just another dream camera.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=89396\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The only thing keeping this dream from being reality is corporate arrogance. There is no technological or cost barrier. They are either trying to steer serious G4, 5, and 6 users to DSLRs, or are just not willing to deal with tech-support calls from people who can't find their files.
-
People are upset at the arrogance of Canon for not including raw
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=89692\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Arrogance? How can that be? Canon have already explained through Chuck Westfall that they didn't think the inclusion of RAW would be a worthwhile benefit in the G7, considering the extremely small pixels. I read this to mean that to get a decent picture with in-camera processing, the Canon team had to pull a few rabbits out of the hat. The message is clear. There's nothing much more to be got from a RAW image, even with sophisticated desktop programs. There's nothing in this thread that disproves this message.
I'm repeating for the third time, show me the evidence with jpeg/RAW samples from another 10mp P&S, such as the Lumix LX2, or a lower pixel count camera such as the Canon G6.
-
It's not 1/10 stop. It's at least a stop in the red channel in the highlights, recoverable for chlouds, white shirts, ets. Depending on where they draw the whitepoint in the JPEG algorithm, there may be more in the green channel as well.
Once again, John, give us the evidence that these figures apply to a 2 micron photodiode. I know you've written extensively about the potential of increased dynamic range with the Canon 20D through the use of filters to correct the imbalance in channel sensitivity, but what evidence do you have to support an assumption that the same principle applies to the G7. How do you know that Canon have not addressed such problems with the G7 with their in-camera processing.
We need more facts. Let those people who already own P&S cameras with a RAW mode come forth and demonstrate the RAW advantages.
-
People are upset at the arrogance of Canon for not including raw, which they could have done at minimal expense.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=89692\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Canon seems less arrogant than those who think (and pcan provide no basis) they know and can manage Canon's business better than Canon can.
No basis for cost that I have seen except for some hand waving and "I think."
-
Canon seems less arrogant than those who think (and pcan provide no basis) they know and can manage Canon's business better than Canon can.
No basis for cost that I have seen except for some hand waving and "I think."
To the non-technical people a technical person's estimates and caveats will always seem like "hand waving".
But that doesn't mean that the opinions are unqualified.
Your accusation of arrogance while simultaneously dismissing experienced programmers' opinions on programming is a nice show of double standards.
What are your qualifications for having any opinions on such programming?
Or is it just hand waving, too?
-
We need more facts. Let those people who already own P&S cameras with a RAW mode come forth and demonstrate the RAW advantages.
WTF do you think I've been talking about this whole thread? I've been shooting RAW with the Olympus SP-350, and the differences between the camera JPEGs and what I can get from RAW are NOT trivial. Color from ACR (after being calibrated with Tom Fors' script) is far more accurate than camera JPEGs. White balance calculated in-camera is OK, but not awesome, and is frequently off a bit, so being able to set the exact correct WB in ACR is a very good thing. I can get an additional stop of DR from the highlights in ACR over the camera JPEGs. And the ability to apply my own tone curve in ACR is much preferable to applying a comparable curve on the JPEG; less posterization/banding and color shifts. And of course NR is more effective when one can use the tools on 16-bit data that hasn't been mucked up with JPEG artifacts and 8-bit conversion, and one can adjust the noise reduction settings to match the specific image.
The magnitude of difference I see between Olympus camera JPEGs and RAW is comparable the magnitude of difference between Canon DSLR RAWs and JPEGs, but with smaller format cameras, taking every possible technical advantage is more important, because smaller-format camera files have more technical shortcomings than those from DSLRs; higher noise, less DR, etc. You have to work the digicam files harder to get a good result (technically) than the DSLR files. Therefore, having RAW support in small-format cameras is even more important than having it in DSLRs. Olympus is obviously making a profit selling a camera with RAW support for <$250 (I paid $239 for mine), so the cost for including it can't possibly that great.
-
Canon seems less arrogant than those who think (and pcan provide no basis) they know and can manage Canon's business better than Canon can.
No basis for cost that I have seen except for some hand waving and "I think."
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=89735\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I do not think that photographers who prefer raw processing are arrogant; many valid reasons for using raw have been given. Even though the advantages of raw might not be that great for this particular camera, experienced and highly qualified photographers such as our esteemed host have decried the absence of raw in this camera.
Microsoft may know their business when they make use of anti-competitive behavior, but that does not mean we have to like it. Some users use the Mac in protest.
-
As many will recall, many Nikon users were incensed when Nikon encrypted the white balance of their SLRs. The users wanted to have a choice of raw converters. The Nikon decision was clearly for market control reasons, but Canon's motives are unclear.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=89692\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's an interesting example indeed because:
- The people who were most vocal about this were non Nikon users (MR and Jeff Schewe to cite 2) - which is a clear common point with the Canon G7 (most people in this thread don't own one),
- Nikon being motivated by market control is just yet another hypothesis that is not backed up by facts. Nikon has never suied any of the companies that reversed engineered the very weak "encryption", and also released a mini-SDK for those companies like Adobe who didn't want to reverse engineer that part of the raw file. The whole story just showed that Nikon had not properlly understood the (North American) market and not anticipated the consequences of a mostly technical decision.
This might be another common point with Canon or so it would seem if you consider that LL forum participants are representative of the potential G7 customers (which I don't really think).
Cheers,
Bernard
-
To the non-technical people ...
Or is it just hand waving, too?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=89750\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Are you referring to me? What dwould you base that statement on? Any evidence or support, or just more opinion?
-
Your accusation of arrogance while simultaneously dismissing experienced programmers' opinions on programming is a nice show of double standards.
What are your qualifications for having any opinions on such programming?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=89750\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I did not say experienced programmers' opinions were wrong. I did say they failed to support their opinions with anything more substantial than if, probably, assuming.
No one has yet to provide a substantiated cost in dollars for adding RAW. And the decision not to include RAW may have been much more complex that a simply cost per camera. Business people and the technical people don't alwaya agree on product.
I don't disagree that RAW has technical benefits to a few users, but that may bot produce the business results Canon wants. Even if it does make some people quite upset.
-
What are your qualifications for having any opinions on such programming?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=89750\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I don't think I ever said the progtammers were wrong about required efforts and cosrs. I am not a programmer and haven't been for several years. But I do have enough engineering and business experience not to just take somebodies word for something, just because they "think" so. If the programmers here are so sure, let them offer some solid, varifiable evidence. All I know about these experts is what they say about their creds on LL.
-
That's an interesting example indeed because:
- The people who were most vocal about this were non Nikon users (MR and Jeff Schewe to cite 2) - which is a clear common point with the Canon G7 (most people in this thread don't own one)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=89765\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I am one Nikon user who was very upset with that decision since Adobe Camera Raw (my preferred converter) couldn't read the white balance. I very much appreciated the support of such prominent photographers as MR and Jeff Schewe. Fortunately, Nikon did provide the mini-SDK
- Nikon being motivated by market control is just yet another hypothesis that is not backed up by facts. Nikon has never suied any of the companies that reversed engineered the very weak "encryption", and also released a mini-SDK for those companies like Adobe who didn't want to reverse engineer that part of the raw file. The whole story just showed that Nikon had not properlly understood the (North American) market and not anticipated the consequences of a mostly technical decision.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=89765\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well, you may remember that a Nikon official stated that no one really needed Photoshop, except perhaps to remove a light pole. He suggested that everything could be done in Nikon Capture.
Small software companies such as Bibble quickly broke the encryption; after all you can't get blood from a turnip and no one would bother suing them. However, Adobe with its deep pockets did not even consider risking litigation by circumventing the encryption. In addition, intellectual property is their lifeblood and hacking someone else's software would not look good.
Fortunately, Nikon came to its senses and the whole affair is nothing more than an unpleasant memory. The lesson to be learned is that it is not good business to antagonize your good customers with WB encryption or lack of a raw file.
-
No intend to re-write history here. We all know the various opinions on this topic. I mostly disgaree with yours, but both are just opinions mostly not supported by facts.
Let's just say that Adobe got very good lawyers and that Nikon didn't even bother commenting.
This again is very similar to what we have here about the G7.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Well, you may remember that a Nikon official stated that no one really needed Photoshop, except perhaps to remove a light pole. He suggested that everything could be done in Nikon Capture.
...
Fortunately, Nikon came to its senses and the whole affair is nothing more than an unpleasant memory. The lesson to be learned is that it is not good business to antagonize your good customers with WB encryption or lack of a raw file.
The Nikon WB encryption and Canon RAW support removal are similar incidents of corporate arrogance trying to control how their customers process their images. Encryption has one and only one purpose: to control access to information. Encrypting WB offers no benefit to the photographer whatsoever. It does not make the setting more accurate, and requires an additional (although trivial) decoding step to make it of any use to the RAW converter. Nikon was trying to force their customers to convert their RAWs with Nikon Capture, made stupid public statements to attempt to PR-spin-justify their arrogance, and ended up with egg on thir faces.
Canon is doing the same thing with the G7: trying to control how G7 owners process their images, and force photographers who do not want the camera to control their image processing to buy DSLRs. There are no compelling technical or financial (at least in terms of additional cost per unit) reasons for omitting RAW support, and many sound reasons for offering it. Hopefully, Canon's customers will complain enough, and Canon will abandon this silliness.
-
I don't think I ever said the progtammers were wrong about required efforts and cosrs. I am not a programmer and haven't been for several years. But I do have enough engineering and business experience not to just take somebodies word for something, just because they "think" so. If the programmers here are so sure, let them offer some solid, varifiable evidence. All I know about these experts is what they say about their creds on LL.
That's fair enough. But, I could never meet your burden of proof and I wasn't trying to. I don't work for Canon and have no insider knowledge.
I think it's fair to summarize this thread as one in which customers are voicing their displeasure about a product design decision. The topic came up about how the cost of implementation of RAW could have been a factor in the decision and some people (me among them) simply voiced their educated opinion that this was not plausible. Proving it never entered into it. But I think it's still a reasonable point of view, even setting aside technical opinions. The G2, G3, G5 and G6 were seemingly successful products and they provided RAW support. It is difficult to argue that the RAW support implementation cost had become more onerous with the G7. Typically, as a product line life cycle ages and matures, features increase. It's odd, and annoying to many, that this wasn't the case with the G7.
-
That's fair enough. But, I could never meet your burden of proof and I wasn't trying to. I don't work for Canon and have no insider knowledge.
I think it's fair to summarize this thread as one in which customers are voicing their displeasure about a product design decision. The topic came up about how the cost of implementation of RAW could have been a factor in the decision and some people (me among them) simply voiced their educated opinion that this was not plausible. Proving it never entered into it. But I think it's still a reasonable point of view, even setting aside technical opinions. The G2, G3, G5 and G6 were seemingly successful products and they provided RAW support. It is difficult to argue that the RAW support implementation cost had become more onerous with the G7. Typically, as a product line life cycle ages and matures, features increase. It's odd, and annoying to many, that this wasn't the case with the G7.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=89858\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I wasn't expecting proof, just some varifiable evidence. It seems that the guy from Canon offered a learned opinion and was immediately blown off as arrogant and more or less stupid. Just putting Canon spin on it. Maybe so, but that opinion is likely not bsed on anything but wanting it to be true. (Becasue I don't believe Canon, they are liers.)
This whole RAW thing boiled up because some folks think Canon should have included it on the G7 and arrogantly decided not to. Never mind that maybe Canon had some very good technical and/or business reasons to leave it out. In stead, just a bunch of whining about I want it, I expect it, and the SOBs screwed me. After all, I am smarter than Canon because I used to be a programmer.
One thing I have noticed is something gets said on the internet and before you know it, it is a carved in stone fact. Just because some self proclaimed expert said or thought thus and such.
I had to snicker to myself when one protester claimed the cost would be a few cents per camera. No basis provided except the person used to be a progammer and all that data are there anyway. When pressed, the number of G7s to be produced was not known (essential as far as I know in computing a per camera cost) and the cost had risen to $1 per camera. And a $1 in cost at the Canon factory rarely shows up as a $1 on the price tag at Samy's.
It seeme to me that the G7 does not have RAW and won't. Maybe it is time to get over it and go on.
-
"I really love the Canon G5, mostly because it was black..." So Canon must add RAW? I really love the Canon G7, mostly because it's black and has RAW... .
I was watching football last night. At the kick off, there were of photo flashes seen. Do you suppose all those folks that thought they had a flash capable of providing any value what so ever at that distance went home, fired up their comuters and processed a RAW file? Or is RAW so good at fixing exposure, an on camera flash works OK at 100 yards?
Canon's intended market is an important factor in dtermining features.
-
I wasn't expecting proof, just some varifiable evidence.
That's even worse.
Verifiable evidence is impossible to provide without breaking NDAs.
And still, you couldn't verify it, unless you had similar access yourself.
Such information could only be provided if Canon were willing to release it.
Obviously, they aren't, and there we are, waving arms and hands at eachother.
I think you've also answered my earlier question by now.
-
That's even worse.
Verifiable evidence is impossible to provide without breaking NDAs.
And still, you couldn't verify it, unless you had similar access yourself.
Such information could only be provided if Canon were willing to release it.
Obviously, they aren't, and there we are, waving arms and hands at eachother.
I think you've also answered my earlier question by now.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=89931\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I guess by verifiable evidence I meant something more than presenting one's opinion as fact. A reference to a recognized authority with the same or similar idea would be nice. I have no prolem with hand and arm waving as long as it is clear that is what is being presented as fact.
I had to look up NDA since I assumed ( right or wrong) you weren't referring to New Drug Applications to the FDA. I have never had to deal with non-disclosure agreements since everything I have worked with was open to the public (nothing to hide) or my employer trusted me to keep my mouth shut appropriatly.
If Canon is the only one that knows the real reason (and I guess that is the truth), then maybe it is time to either believe what Canon is saying, or say you doubt what they are saying but have no basis, and stop saying you know better than Canon what they were thinking. Just say you don't really know but are guessing that ... .
I'm sorry, I don't know what earlier question you are refering to. I hope I answered it for you rather than have you just assume an answer as fact.
-
WTF do you think I've been talking about this whole thread? I've been shooting RAW with the Olympus SP-350, and the differences between the camera JPEGs and what I can get from RAW are NOT trivial. I can get an additional stop of DR from the highlights in ACR over the camera JPEGs.
Geez! After 5 pages of mostly hot air, we now have a few facts beginning to trickle in. At least it's a start.
One whole stop of additional DR in the highlights?? That seems suspiciously high to me. Have you any explanation as to why this increase seems to be greater in absolute terms (and very much more in terms of percentage of DR) than the additional highlight headroom one would expect from the 5D using RAW? When I have the time, I'll revisit this issue with the 5D. My experiments so far have indicated that the differences in the jpeg based review with respect to histogram and blown highlight flashing on my 5D, vary by about 1.33 stops between maximum and minimum contrast settings. In other words, with contrast at a minimum setting, a small amount of highlight flashing is indicative of a RAW exposure that requires an EC setting in ACR of around minus 0.66 stops to recover high light detail. 2/3rds of a stop less exposure removes all highlight flashing, but I'm making an assumption that the highlight warning is accurate with respect to the jpeg image. I haven't actually compared a jpeg image with 0.66 stops less exposure with a RAW image with 0.66 stops more exposure.
It's perhaps very revealing that a Google search on RAW performance of P&S cameras does not throw up much at all. However, the Olympus SP-350 does not appear to have spectacular image quality, rating around 6 or 7 out of 10 in some reviews, ie. good as opposed to excellent. Being as cynical as those who claim arrogance on the part of Canon for not including RAW on the G7, I could claim that Olympus decided to offer a RAW mode on the SP-350 because they realised their in-camera processing was not on a par with the best out there. But that would be speculation. However, to get to the bottom of this, we need a reviewer such as dpreview to do some serious comparisons between RAW and jpeg (at minimum contrast and saturation setting) as well as between RAW with one brand and jpeg with another brand.
Alternatively, you guys could send me your P&S cameras (with RAW support) for an unbiased, impartial and dispassionate comparison .
-
I think that people are trying to read too much in Canon's decision, what with all the discussion about bits and linear spaces and DR.
For me, Canon's decision was simple marketing, influenced by the likes of dpreview and other forums:
The sensor is inherently very noisy. Their jpeg processor hides this fact quite well. Providing RAW would leave them open to reviewers and forum commentators really looking at the level of noise before their jpeg engine does its NR thing, and comparing it to their previous generation digicams. No good for their Japanese marketing minds.
They can get away with that decision because they believe (and I think they're right) that most of their target market couldn't care less about RAW.
But some of this target market would be influenced by reports of noisy sensor (based on reviewing the RAW output). The label of 'noisy sensor' would stick, and most of their taget market wouldn't dig too much to understand the differences of RAW without NR and jpeg+NR. They would just read Phil's comments about the noisy sensor.
Clever decision IMHO. I think that if the MP wars persist along with the noise related pixel peeping, this will bring the end of RAW in the digicam sector (and maybe in entry-level dSLR as well).
Look at the Fujifilm F30 (which I happen to own). Carries the label of 'very low noise'. In fact, its NR has a really adverse effect on anything more than 100 ISO, plainly obvious on anything larger than 4x6. But nobody complains. Everybody says the F30 is a very good High ISO performer in its class. That wouldn't be the case if it provided RAW, I believe.
As simple as that.
-
I think that people are trying to read too much in Canon's decision, what with all the discussion about bits and linear spaces and DR.
For me, Canon's decision was simple marketing, influenced by the likes of dpreview and other forums:
The sensor is inherently very noisy. Their jpeg processor hides this fact quite well. Providing RAW would leave them open to reviewers and forum commentators really looking at the level of noise before their jpeg engine does its NR thing, and comparing it to their previous generation digicams. No good for their Japanese marketing minds.
They can get away with that decision because they believe (and I think they're right) that most of their target market couldn't care less about RAW.
But some of this target market would be influenced by reports of noisy sensor (based on reviewing the RAW output). The label of 'noisy sensor' would stick, and most of their taget market wouldn't dig too much to understand the differences of RAW without NR and jpeg+NR. They would just read Phil's comments about the noisy sensor.
Clever decision IMHO. I think that if the MP wars persist along with the noise related pixel peeping, this will bring the end of RAW in the digicam sector (and maybe in entry-level dSLR as well).
Look at the Fujifilm F30 (which I happen to own). Carries the label of 'very low noise'. In fact, its NR has a really adverse effect on anything more than 100 ISO, plainly obvious on anything larger than 4x6. But nobody complains. Everybody says the F30 is a very good High ISO performer in its class. That wouldn't be the case if it provided RAW, I believe.
As simple as that.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90003\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Good comment, and I mostly agree with it. The Fuji F30 has a high reputation for low noise, but this is marred by the fact that one cannot adjust contrast levels. Shadows therefore tend to be blacker than one might desire in high contrast scenes.Would a RAW mode be the solution? I doubt it. If it were, it makes no sense that Fuji have not provided it. There are a lot of so called experts in this thread who are speaking through their bum.
-
I think that people are trying to read too much in Canon's decision, what with all the discussion about bits and linear spaces and DR.
For me, Canon's decision was simple marketing, influenced by the likes of dpreview and other forums:
The sensor is inherently very noisy. Their jpeg processor hides this fact quite well. Providing RAW would leave them open to reviewers and forum commentators really looking at the level of noise before their jpeg engine does its NR thing, and comparing it to their previous generation digicams. No good for their Japanese marketing minds.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90003\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
A good point about the noise. The Nikon D200 has good noise characteristics as reported on DPReview from the JPEGS, but if you use ACR it is apparent that the smaller pixel size as compared to the D70 and D50 does make a difference. One would never know this from looking at the JPEGs, except perhaps for loss of detail with the NR.
Bill
-
A good point about the noise. The Nikon D200 has good noise characteristics as reported on DPReview from the JPEGS, but if you use ACR it is apparent that the smaller pixel size as compared to the D70 and D50 does make a difference. One would never know this from looking at the JPEGs, except perhaps for loss of detail with the NR.
Bill
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90109\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
If you go all the back to the original post and read the provided link, noise is mentioned by Canon as their reason for deleting RAW from the G7.
-
If you go all the back to the original post and read the provided link, noise is mentioned by Canon as their reason for deleting RAW from the G7.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90113\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It's been a long time since that original post, but the noise issue is valid. However, with raw, one could use specialized NR in post processing, such as Noise Ninja or NeatImage, which might do a better job than the JPEG ASICS in the camera. Why not let the user decide? Also, with post processing NR one can use a surface mask to keep the NR away from the edges in the image.
-
It's been a long time since that original post, but the noise issue is valid. However, with raw, one could use specialized NR in post processing, such as Noise Ninja or NeatImage, which might do a better job than the JPEG ASICS in the camera. Why not let the user decide? Also, with post processing NR one can use a surface mask to keep the NR away from the edges in the image.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90116\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The G7 is a consumer camera. Canon really is not in the business of selling other vendor's software. They have their own, for better or worse. Ever wonder why Canon doesn't make a camera with a Nikon lens mount? Or why camera makers don't get together and select a common lens mount? Maybe it has something to do with Canon wanting you to buy a Canon lens with that Canon body. (I also don't think Canon is really worried about Sigma or Tamron.)
It is my observation that the usual Canon consumer for whom this camera seems to be intended will truly "point and shoot." Believe it nor not (and you don't have to), the entire world of picture takers do not process, nor do they want to process, every image for all its worth. Point, shoot, and paste the jpeg of the kids in the email to grandma.
Point and shoot. Plug and play. Sound easy and that is the idea.
-
The G7 is a consumer camera. Canon really is not in the business of selling other vendor's software. They have their own, for better or worse. Ever wonder why Canon doesn't make a camera with a Nikon lens mount? Or why camera makers don't get together and select a common lens mount? Maybe it has something to do with Canon wanting you to buy a Canon lens with that Canon body. (I also don't think Canon is really worried about Sigma or Tamron.)
It is my observation that the usual Canon consumer for whom this camera seems to be intended will truly "point and shoot." Believe it nor not (and you don't have to), the entire world of picture takers do not process, nor do they want to process, every image for all its worth. Point, shoot, and paste the jpeg of the kids in the email to grandma.
Point and shoot. Plug and play. Sound easy and that is the idea.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90122\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
So true. Having that RAW file option deep down in a menu is something that your typical point and shoot consumer would just absolutely stumble over. How could they not enable it? They couldn't. They'd have to. And from there it would be a nightmare of sales of non canon software. Hoo! Where would that lead?
-
The G7 is a consumer camera.
According to Canon USA, so is the 1Ds MkII.
You'll find it in "Consumer Products Home :: Camera :: EOS (SLR) Camera Systems".
They're also calling their SLRs "advanced professional looking".
However, they do call their own software "professional level".
As for the G7, they say:
"Canon's high-end PowerShot digital cameras incorporate the creative performance of a professional digital SLR camera and the compact convenience of a point-and-shoot."
-
According to Canon USA, so is the 1Ds MkII.
You'll find it in "Consumer Products Home :: Camera :: EOS (SLR) Camera Systems".
They're also calling their SLRs "advanced professional looking".
However, they do call their own software "professional level".
As for the G7, they say:
"Canon's high-end PowerShot digital cameras incorporate the creative performance of a professional digital SLR camera and the compact convenience of a point-and-shoot."
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90139\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You win.
-
I can get an additional stop of DR from the highlights in ACR over the camera JPEGs. And the ability to apply my own tone curve in ACR is much preferable to applying a comparable curve on the JPEG; less posterization/banding and color shifts. And of course NR is more effective when one can use the tools on 16-bit data that hasn't been mucked up with JPEG artifacts and 8-bit conversion, and one can adjust the noise reduction settings to match the specific image.
The magnitude of difference I see between Olympus camera JPEGs and RAW is comparable the magnitude of difference between Canon DSLR RAWs and JPEGs, but with smaller format cameras, taking every possible technical advantage is more important, because smaller-format camera files have more technical shortcomings than those from DSLRs; higher noise, less DR, etc. You have to work the digicam files harder to get a good result (technically) than the DSLR files.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=89752\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Jonathan,
I just poked my 5D through the hotel window here in Bangkok and took several shots of a cityscape against a bright sky with a few clouds, shooting RAW+jpeg at 1/3rd stop intervals with contrast, color saturation and sharpness set at a minimum.
Comparing the jpegs with the RAW images converted in ACR with up to -2 EC and brightness, contrast and shadows all at zero, it seems I've possibly underestimated the 2/3rds of a stop DR advantage of RAW. It might be closer to one stop, but not quite as great as one stop. The jpeg with one stop less exposure shows marginally greater detail in the brightest cloud.
Your points about slight image degradation due to jpeg compression prior to upsampling to 16 bit for processing purposes, are of course quite valid, as are the other advantages of RAW you mention. I'm not trying to say such advantages do not exist, just that they are probably not worth the effort. In your own situation with the Olympus SP-350, if you are truly getting one whole stop of additional DR from RAW then that alone might make using RAW worthwhile with that camera.
But a 10 second delay between shots doesn't make sense to me.
That might be okay for Howie who might take a whole afternoon to set up a shot, but I can't understand why someone whose output is as prolific as yours would bother with such a handicap. I'd rather carry a camera that's just a bit heavier and more bulky and I think that companies like Canon or Olympus would better serve the public with an ultra compact APS-C format camera with the usual RAW option but no mirror and no optical viewfinder. I'd rather sacrifice a through-the-lens optical viewfinder for the sake of less bulk and lighter weight, than feel compelled to work extra hard to extract the last iota of image quality from a tiny sensor.
-
Jonathan,
I just poked my 5D through the hotel window here in Bangkok and took several shots of a cityscape against a bright sky with a few clouds, shooting RAW+jpeg at 1/3rd stop intervals with contrast, color saturation and sharpness set at a minimum.
Comparing the jpegs with the RAW images converted in ACR with up to -2 EC and brightness, contrast and shadows all at zero, it seems I've possibly underestimated the 2/3rds of a stop DR advantage of RAW. It might be closer to one stop, but not quite as great as one stop. The jpeg with one stop less exposure shows marginally greater detail in the brightest cloud.
Your points about slight image degradation due to jpeg compression prior to upsampling to 16 bit for processing purposes, are of course quite valid, as are the other advantages of RAW you mention. I'm not trying to say such advantages do not exist, just that they are probably not worth the effort. In your own situation with the Olympus SP-350, if you are truly getting one whole stop of additional DR from RAW then that alone might make using RAW worthwhile with that camera.
But a 10 second delay between shots doesn't make sense to me.
Let's say I'm not real excited about it, but I still managed to capture some good stuff while in Iraq. It's not that much worse than a film camera with manual frame advance, like my old Argus C-4 rangefinder. It's a limitation I'm willing to accept when I'm already carrying 60 or more pounds of gear, and weight and size of additional crap to carry means DSLRs are not feasible, regardless of their many advantages.
Per your request a few posts ago, I did some comparison shots between JPEGs and RAWs with my Olympus SP-350. The RAWs exhibit about 2/3 of a stop greater highlight latitude than the JPEGs. I've attached 2 samples, one RAW, and one JPEG. The JPEG is as-is from the camera except for resizing, and the RAW has had a click white balance and a small curve tweak in ACR to get the black point to a sensible level. I've done no noise reduction or other processing on either image. As you can see, the camera got the white balance wrong (I had it on Auto with fluorescent lighting) but even taking that into account, the colors are still not as accurate as the RAW. Contrast is also lower; the camera was set to its default contrast setting of 0, and raising it would reduce JPEG highlight latitude even further. I left the EXIF data intact, so you can poke through it with Bridge or whatever to your heart's content. Enjoy!
-
Per your request a few posts ago, I did some comparison shots between JPEGs and RAWs with my Olympus SP-350. The RAWs exhibit about 2/3 of a stop greater highlight latitude than the JPEGs. I've attached 2 samples, one RAW, and one JPEG. The JPEG is as-is from the camera except for resizing, and the RAW has had a click white balance and a small curve tweak in ACR to get the black point to a sensible level. I've done no noise reduction or other processing on either image. As you can see, the camera got the white balance wrong (I had it on Auto with fluorescent lighting) but even taking that into account, the colors are still not as accurate as the RAW. Contrast is also lower; the camera was set to its default contrast setting of 0, and raising it would reduce JPEG highlight latitude even further. I left the EXIF data intact, so you can poke through it with Bridge or whatever to your heart's content. Enjoy!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90238\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Contrary to popular belief, one can adjust WB in JPEG captures. Here is Jonathan's JPEG picture edited in Adobe Lightroom with the WB adjusted on one of the neutral squares and the black point reset to a more suitable value. The JPEG is on the left and the raw capture on the right. The edit took about 10 seconds.
[attachment=1354:attachment][attachment=1355:attachment]
However, it is better to make these edits from the raw file, because you have more bits to work with and will not lose as much information in the edit.
Bill
-
However, it is better to make these edits from the raw file, because you have more bits to work with and will not lose as much information in the edit.
And fixing the JPEG white balance still leaves a greater degree of color inaccuracy than the RAW from the calibrated converter. Does Canon's software have a tool similar to Lightroom's JPEG WB repair?
-
Does Canon's software have a tool similar to Lightroom's JPEG WB repair?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90289\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I have no idea. But perhaps the important things to remember here are:
1. Does the usual target market for the G7 have Lightroom? Or even want to have it if they bought G7?
2. Does the usual target audience care that much for superaccurate about white balance?
3. Is Canon trying to sell Lightroom's white balance or cameras with their software?
4. Canon is a publiclly held company with no requirement to meet the needs of every potential camera customer, but a very real requirement to make a fair profit and return on investment for their shareholders.
From Canon's website:
"Canon's acclaimed G-Series has a new top-of-the-line model, and serious photography enthusiasts have a lot to be excited about. A matte black, retro-hip design houses impressive capabilities and top core specifications, including 10.0 megapixel resolution and a powerful 6x optical zoom. Loaded with Canon's latest and most advanced technologies, including an Optical Image Stabilizer for clear shots throughout the zoom range, PowerShot G7 is a camera to be reckoned with. "
Note the camrea is aimed at "serious photography enthusiasts," not professionals. Also note the camera is "[l]oaded with Canon's latest and most advanced technologies." It is not loaded with Abobe stuff nor is it marketed to require more than Canon's software.
-
Look at the below link that compares an in-camera JPEG to a RAW processed JPEG - both from a 10MP 1/1.8" CCD:
Eyeopening, from a detail extraction perspective:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=21079381 (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1010&message=21079381)
This leads me to believe that even a perfect in-camera JPEG, with all the technical settings set perfectly, will still suffer from factors like noise reduction that are beyond the control of the photographer.
-
Look at the below link that compares an in-camera JPEG to a RAW processed JPEG - both from a 10MP 1/1.8" CCD:
Eyeopening, from a detail extraction perspective:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=21079381 (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1010&message=21079381)
This leads me to believe that even a perfect in-camera JPEG, with all the technical settings set perfectly, will still suffer from factors like noise reduction that are beyond the control of the photographer.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90307\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I have some trouble with the examples. They are shown at 100%. That is a huge print. Zoom out a couple clicks and the differences aren't as obvious, to me anyway. Why not make the comarison at a more reasonable size and viewing distance. Maybe compare real prints instead of computer enlargements.
One would expect RAW to be better than JPEG. But maybe the comparisons should be more realistic.
-
Something to ponder: Michael apparently chose the "No RAW, but well build" option over the "6sec RAW, but Fuji build" option. No doubt there are other significant factors, but they may come down to the same conundrum: "No RAW + advantage" over "6sec RAW + disadvantage"...
Nothing to ponder here. Michael chose the G7, ***inspite*** of the lack of RAW, rather than ***because*** of the lack of RAW. He chose it because of other factors in the camera and from his perspective, the camera would have been a lot better, if the RAW option was avaiable (whether 6 secs or not).
"6 sec RAW + disadvantage" etc are interesting asides to a camera that is otherwise uninteresting. In that camera, even the presence of RAW was not a compelling persuasion, due to its other lacks.
We are talking of 2 completely different things here.
-
Note the camrea is aimed at "serious photography enthusiasts," not professionals. Also note the camera is "[l]oaded with Canon's latest and most advanced technologies." It is not loaded with Abobe stuff nor is it marketed to require more than Canon's software.
That's highly schizophrenic on Canon's part (and a bit disingenuous on yours); "serious photography enthusiasts" (as opposed to casual snapshooters) are exactly the kind of photographers who appreciate the benefits of RAW. Canon is saying that the G7 is designed for photographers who are beyond the casual snapshooter stage, but then treats those "serious photography enthusiasts" like a bunch of clueless newbies by refusing to offer the one feature that advanced-level photographers use most to control of their image processing: RAW. It makes no sense at all; if Canon won't add RAW support, then they should market the camera to the clueless newbies who don't know RAW from a hole in their butt, not the "serious photography enthusiasts" who are much more likely than the clueless newbies to know what RAW is and really want it.
-
And fixing the JPEG white balance still leaves a greater degree of color inaccuracy than the RAW from the calibrated converter. Does Canon's software have a tool similar to Lightroom's JPEG WB repair?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=90289\")
The key to WB is to be working in a linear (gamma 1.0) space. The internal working space of Adobe Camera Raw and Adobe Lightroom is gamma 1.0 with the chromaticities of ProPhotoRGB. Once you are in a gamma 1.0 space, WB merely involves multiplying the blue and red channels by a constant. For example, the table whose link is listed below gives the coefficients for various Nikon cameras:
[a href=\"http://www.pochtar.com/NikonWhiteBalanceCoeffs.htm]http://www.pochtar.com/NikonWhiteBalanceCoeffs.htm[/url]
If you are working in a gamma 2.2 space, the conversion is nonlinear. and more complicated. Lightroom is the only program I know of that has the ability to WB from a gamma 2.2 JPEG, but I have not worked with Canon software.
For example, if you are using a Nikon D2X and photographing at 2700K, the blue multiplier is nearly 4.0. This means that the blue channel full scale would be 0..64 rather than 0..255 and you would lose a lot of tones. With 12 bit raw, you would have 0..4095 tones in the green channel and 0..1024 tones in the blue channel
-
I have some trouble with the examples. They are shown at 100%. That is a huge print. Zoom out a couple clicks and the differences aren't as obvious, to me anyway. Why not make the comarison at a more reasonable size and viewing distance. Maybe compare real prints instead of computer enlargements.
One would expect RAW to be better than JPEG. But maybe the comparisons should be more realistic.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90312\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The point in the whole post was not whether the differences between RAW and JPEG are observable at 100% or not. It was that in a camera processed JPEG, critical, fine detail is **irretrievably** lost from within the picture, even if you can salvage things like white balance etc from a jpeg in post processing. The difference between a watercolor painting and a fine photograph.
What if you really want to print big ? Sorry, the detail does not exist. Gone ! Poof ! ***Even though*** the shot itself was taken perfectly, with the exposure nailed, the ISO tailored to the situation and the white balance perfectly done. Till the end of eternity, even if printer quality improves in the future, you simply cannot recreate the original details, as when you took the photograph, since it was irreversibly destroyed by the camera's processing engine.
Bottomline, RAW as an ***option*** can be turned off, if you want to shoot JPEG exclusively. Many people do so. But not providing that ***option*** is what we are so riled up about.
-
I have some trouble with the examples. They are shown at 100%. That is a huge print. Zoom out a couple clicks and the differences aren't as obvious, to me anyway. Why not make the comarison at a more reasonable size and viewing distance. Maybe compare real prints instead of computer enlargements.
One would expect RAW to be better than JPEG. But maybe the comparisons should be more realistic.
Given that well made prints can show much more detail per area unit than any monitor, the comparison is not meaningless. Perhaps the difference wouldn't be visible in a 4x6 print, but it would certainly be visible in anything 8x10 or larger. And the larger the print, the more obvious the difference will be.
-
That's highly schizophrenic on Canon's part (and a bit disingenuous on yours); "serious photography enthusiasts" (as opposed to casual snapshooters) are exactly the kind of photographers who appreciate the benefits of RAW. Canon is saying that the G7 is designed for photographers who are beyond the casual snapshooter stage, but then treats those "serious photography enthusiasts" like a bunch of clueless newbies by refusing to offer the one feature that advanced-level photographers use most to control of their image processing: RAW. It makes no sense at all; if Canon won't add RAW support, then they should market the camera to the clueless newbies who don't know RAW from a hole in their butt, not the "serious photography enthusiasts" who are much more likely than the clueless newbies to know what RAW is and really want it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90315\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Jonathan, perhaps we could end this winless back and forth if I say maybe Canon screwed up, and you could say maybe Canon is not a bunch of arrogant fools and know Canon's (their) business better than you do.
Parting shot though. Canon does have access to a lot of insider information that maybe you know nothing of. Maybe?
-
The point in the whole post was not whether the differences between RAW and JPEG are observable at 100% or not. It was that in a camera processed JPEG, critical, fine detail is **irretrievably** lost from within the picture, even if you can salvage things like white balance etc from a jpeg in post processing. The difference between a watercolor painting and a fine photograph.
What if you really want to print big ? Sorry, the detail does not exist. Gone ! Poof ! ***Even though*** the shot itself was taken perfectly, with the exposure nailed, the ISO tailored to the situation and the white balance perfectly done. Till the end of eternity, even if printer quality improves in the future, you simply cannot recreate the original details, as when you took the photograph, since it was irreversibly destroyed by the camera's processing engine.
Bottomline, RAW as an ***option*** can be turned off, if you want to shoot JPEG exclusively. Many people do so. But not providing that ***option*** is what we are so riled up about.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=90317\")
High quality JPEGS have detail that is virtually indistinguishable from non-compressed files, and I doubt if you would see much difference in a large print. When uploading digital files for large scale digital prints, many people use JPEG with excellent results to save on upload time.
[a href=\"http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/key=jpeg]http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/key=jpeg[/url]
-
High quality JPEGS have detail that is virtually indistinguishable from non-compressed files, and I doubt if you would see much difference in a large print.
Just retyping what was shown in the above post (JPEG from the camera vs JPEG processed from RaW) - both from a 10MP 1/1.8" sensor:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=21079381 (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1010&message=21079381)
-
Just retyping what was shown in the above post (JPEG from the camera vs JPEG processed from RaW) - both from a 10MP 1/1.8" sensor:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=21079381 (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1010&message=21079381)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90323\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
One anecdotal report from one camera under unknown conditions proves nothing at all. Why don't you look at Thom Hogan's report of JPEG with the Nikon D50, which was mentioned earlier in this thread or do a few comparisons yourself?
-
One anecdotal report from one camera under unknown conditions proves nothing at all. Why don't you look at Thom Hogan's report of JPEG with the Nikon D50, which was mentioned earlier in this thread or do a few comparisons yourself?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90324\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I will go through the article later today but from what I recall, Nikon uses 3 different RAW formats in their cameras.
Their higher-end cameras like the D2X (and probably the D200 too), uses the data that comes right off the sensor and prior to the processing engine of the camera having a go at it.
A watered down version of the "RAW" is present in cameras like the D80, where the data is NOT 12-bit but an emulation of it (or something along those lines).
An even further watered down version, which they also called "RAW", is present in cameras like the D40/D50 etc., which throws away even more information that the above D80 "RAW".
If the above is true, I would not be surprised to see very little difference between a high quality JPEG and this watered down version, termed by them as "RAW".
My definition of RAW is the data that came off the sensor, prior to any kind of processing from the camera - nothing more, nothing less.
The D40/D50 "RAW" is not a true RAW in my opinion, even though they may term it as such, for marketing convenience.
As far as the "anecdotal report" is concerned, you are right. This is just one anecdotal instance. But keep in mind, that these are small sensored cameras with a lot of MP stuffed into them. The noise reduction systems (specifically at any ISO greater than the lowest ISO) in such cameras, would be ruthless in eliminating detail and noise and there is nothing anecdotal about this fact. The attached link is highly representative of what a typical small sensored camera does, at 400 ISO, when it creates a JPEG....nothing anecdotal or surprising about it.
-
I will go through the article later today but from what I recall, Nikon uses 3 different RAW formats in their cameras.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90349\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Could you please provide a link to that article?
Thanks,
Bernard
-
I just read an article here on LL about RAW and JPG files and their differences. Interesting reading. Of note, it said in-camera RAW converters, except for Nikon and Kodak, range from poor to acceptable. Could it be that Canon's in-camera RAW converter for the G7 was poor and that is why JPG files are nearly the same, and RAW deleted by Canon?
The article also likened RAW to the latent image on a piece of film. Is converting RAW yourself like custom wet processing film yourself, and JPG more like sending your film to the corner drugstore to be processed?
IF that is the case, it seems to me that some folks might feel the G7 was lacking because they didn't get a latent image, but something more akin to a Polaroid print. Some folks, on the other hand, are quite happy because they have save a trip to the drug store, and got a processed negative they can print or fiddle with if they want. I have no data, but it seems to me many many more folks had their film processed by a third party (one dunk fits all) than got their hands wet. Maybe another factor for Canon's decision.
-
Could you please provide a link to that article?
Thanks,
Bernard
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=90353\")
I could not find a direct link but here is something that will help, since these are comments by Thom in dpreview (on the "lossy" compression used by Nikon in their RAW format) :
[a href=\"http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1038&message=20888361]http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=20888361[/url]
I stated earlier that the D80 uses a better RAW version (non-compressed NEF ?) than the D40/D50 but I was mistaken. It uses the same compressed "lossy" RAW format, as mentioned below (actual data stored in the "lossy" Nikon RAW in the low-end cameras like the D80/D50/D40 etc., seem to be around 6-7 bits, which is essentially JPEG territory).......thus no surpises that high-quality JPEGs and "RAW" (quote/unquote!) could not be easily distinguished. The "compressed RAW" (= lossy "RAW") in the D2X and the D200 can supposedly be turned off but in case of the D80/50/40, the user does not have such an option and is forced to accept 6-7 bit of stored data, as "RAW" :
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=20888513 (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1038&message=20888513)
Note: "Lossy" compression essentially throws away data in the compression process, while "lossless compression" as used by Canon, Sony etc., compresses the RAW files without throwing anything away....decompress the file and you get all the information back.
Bottomline, when I shoot RAW, I expect to obtain what came off the sensor. Not a processed "lossy" ***interpretation*** of what came off the sensor. A processed "lossy" version is not RAW, in my Lexicon.
-
You win.
Why, thank you.
What is the prize, anyway, for providing factual information instead of speculation and handwaving?
-
It uses the same compressed "lossy" RAW format, as mentioned below (actual data stored in the "lossy" Nikon RAW in the low-end cameras like the D80/D50/D40 etc., seem to be around 6-7 bits, which is essentially JPEG territory).......thus no surpises that high-quality JPEGs and "RAW" (quote/unquote!) could not be easily distinguished. The "compressed RAW" (= lossy "RAW") in the D2X and the D200 can supposedly be turned off but in case of the D80/50/40, the user does not have such an option and is forced to accept 6-7 bit of stored data, as "RAW" :
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=90367\")
According to this analysis, the compressed Nikon NEF files actually have 9.4 bits of data information. They contain 653 levels, whereas 8 bit has 256 levels. In practice, the image differences between compressed and noncompressed NEFs are minimal, and most users of Nikon cameras that give the user an option use compressed NEFs. If you are manipulating the highlight data extensively, noncompressed NEFs may be better.
[a href=\"http://www.majid.info/mylos/weblog/2004/05/02-1.html]http://www.majid.info/mylos/weblog/2004/05/02-1.html[/url]
-
IF that is the case, it seems to me that some folks might feel the G7 was lacking because they didn't get a latent image, but something more akin to a Polaroid print. Some folks, on the other hand, are quite happy because they have save a trip to the drug store, and got a processed negative they can print or fiddle with if they want. I have no data, but it seems to me many many more folks had their film processed by a third party (one dunk fits all) than got their hands wet. Maybe another factor for Canon's decision.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90356\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Howie, all good points. One point you forgot is that you can obtain a JPEG from RAW (in **exactly** the same format as the camera's own JPEG), by opening the RAW file in the software that came with the camera, and "save as" JPEG. Takes 2 seconds...that is assuming you don't want to do any post processing whatsoever and simply want to replicate **exactly** what the camera does within itself.
-
.....and most users of Nikon cameras that give the user an option use compressed NEFs.
......except in case of the D80/D40/D50/D70, where the user does not have the **option** to obtain an uncompressed NEF, as per Thom above.
-
I could not find a direct link but here is something that will help, since these are comments by Thom in dpreview (on the "lossy" compression used by Nikon in their RAW format) :
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=20888361 (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1038&message=20888361)
Thanks, aaykay, that's really interesting reading.
To my tastes, using lossy raw compression makes about as much sense as taking JPEG images at less than full resolution.
I'm still sitting on the fence regarding my sentiments with the raw format availability in the PowerShot G series, since I still remember how dissatisfied I was with it in the S40.
I do agree with Jonathan's remark that Canon seems a bit, ehrm, divided in their own opinion of what their cameras are about.
But we (I hope I can say "we") already realized that when they put the print button on the EOS 5D; printing when a compatible printer is connected is just a matter of using the SET button anyway.
-
......except in case of the D80/D40/D50/D70, where the user does not have the **option** to obtain an uncompressed NEF, as per Thom above.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90376\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That is why I added the qualification to my statement. I do not understand your style of debating. After shown to be wrong in one area, you respond with a non sequitur argument. My assertion stands.
-
Why, thank you.
What is the prize, anyway, for providing factual information instead of speculation and handwaving?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90370\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You are welcome. For a prize, if you feel you need one, anything your very active imagination can come up with. I suggest a nice knit cap to keep your head warmer.
-
That is why I added the qualification to my statement. I do not understand your style of debating. After shown to be wrong in one area, you respond with a non sequitur argument. My assertion stands.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90382\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Sorry, not to be argumentative but if the "shown to be wrong" portion was about the "9.4 bits" etc....well I thought I pointed out in the post prior to that from Thom Hogan, who disagreed, as below (quoting from him):
-------------------------------------
Not on the D50, D70, or D80. And that "9 bits" part is a little misleading. There are two levels of compression that occur. The net result is that 12 bits of original data becomes (usually) 6-7 bits of stored data and represents about 9-10 bits of "perceptual" data. (How's that for convoluted?)
---------------------------------------
6-7 bits is 6-7 bits. 9-10 bits of "perceptual data" is not 9-bits of real informational data. Or did I miss something ?
-
Sorry, not to be argumentative but if the "shown to be wrong" portion was about the "9.4 bits" etc....well I thought I pointed out in the post prior to that from Thom Hogan, who disagreed, as below (quoting from him):
-------------------------------------
Not on the D50, D70, or D80. And that "9 bits" part is a little misleading. There are two levels of compression that occur. The net result is that 12 bits of original data becomes (usually) 6-7 bits of stored data and represents about 9-10 bits of "perceptual" data. (How's that for convoluted?)
---------------------------------------
6-7 bits is 6-7 bits. 9-10 bits of "perceptual data" is not 9-bits of real informational data. Or did I miss something ?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90412\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I would suggest that you re-read Thom's explanation, which is quoted below for your convenience. I think you did miss something.
"Thus, Nikon's "Compressed NEF" format generally manages to take 12 bits of data and put it into 6 to 7 bits. Upon decompression, visually the results are equivalent to about 10 bits of real data. (Of course, you can turn Compressed NEF off on most non-consumer Nikon bodies [D100, D200, D1 series, D2 series])."
He states that 12 bits of data are compressed into 6-7 bits for storage. However, that second compression is lossless as he explains further in his e-book on the D200. The reduction of the 4096 levels in the 12 bit raw to 653 levels does throw away data, but the highlights are rich in levels and the result is not perceptible. When it is re-expanded it contains 9-10 bits of perceptual data, which is exactly what was quoted in my reference. A bit depth of 9 corresponds to 512 levels and a depth of 12 bits to 1024 levels; thus, the 653 levels of the compressed NEF is between 9 and 10 bits of real data and nothing is convoluted. Nikon refers to this as visually lossless and it is quite a bit better than 8 bit JPEG. Canon's raw files are also losslessly compressed and contain 12 bits of data in fewer than 12 bits of storage.
It is interesting that you quote Thom when he appears to support your thesis, but ignore his analysis when it does not coincide with your preconceptions about in camera JPEG as compared to raw.
-
It is interesting that you quote Thom when he appears to support your thesis, but ignore his analysis when it does not coincide with your preconceptions about in camera JPEG as compared to raw.
I think we can keep on going back and forth on this topic but bottomline, the Nikon "RAW Format" is not what I typically associate with RAW, which is losslessly compressed information that came off the sensor, without any additional processing by the camera's processing engine.
The Nikon RAW in the higher-end cameras are minimally processed with some loss in data but the lower end Nikon dSLRs (D80/D70/D50/D40) irretrievably throws away significant amounts of data and try to "perceptually" maintain the appearance of data that is truly not available and then calls it "RAW". To put it differently, that approach fails the "smell test", however we wish to spin it.
-
Contrast is also lower; the camera was set to its default contrast setting of 0, and raising it would reduce JPEG highlight latitude even further. I left the EXIF data intact, so you can poke through it with Bridge or whatever to your heart's content. Enjoy!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90238\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Jonathan,
According to Steve's Digicam review of the SP-350, the contrast settings range from plus 5 to minus 5. A default setting of zero would appear to be an average setting. The midpoint contrast setting on the 5D is also the default setting. As I mentioned before, the difference in retention of highlight detail in jpegs (on the 5D)varies by 1.66 stops from a minimum to maximum contrast setting. If the aim is to get the maximum DR from a jpeg shot, the contrast setting should be at a minimum, not the default.
If it's true the contrast adjustments on the SP-350 go from -5 to +5 and that a setting of 0 has resulted in a 2/3rds stop DR disadvantage for the jpeg, I'd be interested to know how the DR compares at -5 contrast and minimum saturation settings. My estimate of 1/10 of a stop might not be too far out .
Interestingly, on the 5D, the underexposed jpeg shot, despite the minimum contrast and saturation settings, still produces better (more vibrant) color than the RAW image overexposed by one stop and pulled back in ACR. In other words, I still have to do some work, in addition to EC adjustment, just to get the RAW image looking as good as the unadjusted jpeg.
-
I
The Nikon RAW in the higher-end cameras are minimally processed with some loss in data but the lower end Nikon dSLRs (D80/D70/D50/D40) irretrievably throws away significant amounts of data and try to "perceptually" maintain the appearance of data that is truly not available and then calls it "RAW". To put it differently, that approach fails the "smell test", however we wish to spin it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90443\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Would you care to substantiate and support your statemens above? Specifically with regards to:
1. Uncompressed NEFs in D2 series and D200 'are minimally processed with SOME LOSS OF DATA'
2. Compressed NEF's 'throws away SIGNIFICANT amounts of data'.
I think its the first time I hear the first, and the second has been beaten to death for years now, with no-one having been able to demonstrate (on a picture basis ) any (not to mention substantial) loss of visible data. At least to my knowledge.
I am eager to hear your explanation. Myself, I think you have no clue what you're talking about. I'm convinced of this, since you mention in your previous posts something about compressed NEF providing 6-7 bits of data etc. It is a well known fact that NEF compression is not a linear one as you seem to imply, but one based on psycho-visual theory. People have analysed NEF's and have published info about how this is accomplished, Thom Hogan included. You obviously not only do not know what you're talking about, but you can't even read correctly Thom's analysis.
The only fact the anyone has been able to show (theoretically) is that the compression gives away some highlight bit accuracy that could be used for recovering lost highlights during conversion without incurring highlight posterisation. Even for this, I have not seen any visual evidence to support it, being a Nikon dSLR user for more time than I care to remember.
-
The article also likened RAW to the latent image on a piece of film. Is converting RAW yourself like custom wet processing film yourself, and JPG more like sending your film to the corner drugstore to be processed?
IF that is the case, it seems to me that some folks might feel the G7 was lacking because they didn't get a latent image, but something more akin to a Polaroid print.
Yes, RAW is like having an undeveloped digital negative you can process over and over again however you like. And camera JPEGs are basically Polaroid prints. Omitting RAW in a camera that is being marketed to "serious photographers" is simply inexcusable.
-
If it's true the contrast adjustments on the SP-350 go from -5 to +5 and that a setting of 0 has resulted in a 2/3rds stop DR disadvantage for the jpeg, I'd be interested to know how the DR compares at -5 contrast and minimum saturation settings. My estimate of 1/10 of a stop might not be too far out .
I doubt it; minimum-contrast JPEGs in my Canon DSLRs still have about a half-stop less highlight latitude than RAW. And even at contrast setting 0, the camera JPEGs are pretty flat and washed-out looking; -5 would be even more so. I'll do a test when I get around to it.
-
Would you care to substantiate and support your statemens above? Specifically with regards to:
1. Uncompressed NEFs in D2 series and D200 'are minimally processed with SOME LOSS OF DATA'
2. Compressed NEF's 'throws away SIGNIFICANT amounts of data'.
I think its the first time I hear the first, and the second has been beaten to death for years now, with no-one having been able to demonstrate (on a picture basis ) any (not to mention substantial) loss of visible data. At least to my knowledge.
I am eager to hear your explanation. Myself, I think you have no clue what you're talking about. I'm convinced of this, since you mention in your previous posts something about compressed NEF providing 6-7 bits of data etc. It is a well known fact that NEF compression is not a linear one as you seem to imply, but one based on psycho-visual theory. People have analysed NEF's and have published info about how this is accomplished, Thom Hogan included. You obviously not only do not know what you're talking about, but you can't even read correctly Thom's analysis.
The only fact the anyone has been able to show (theoretically) is that the compression gives away some highlight bit accuracy that could be used for recovering lost highlights during conversion without incurring highlight posterisation. Even for this, I have not seen any visual evidence to support it, being a Nikon dSLR user for more time than I care to remember.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=90451\")
To the uninformed such as aaykay, all bits are the same. However, a scientific analysis shows that the bits in the shadows of a digital image are far more critical than in the highlights because of the nature of human vision. This principal is explained in detail by Norman Koren:
[a href=\"http://www.normankoren.com/digital_tonality.html]http://www.normankoren.com/digital_tonality.html[/url]
The brightest stop of a 12 bit digital capture contains 2048 tones, but the eye can distinguish only about 70 of these as indicated by the Weber-Fechner law. Therefore, it is possible to throw away many of these imperceptible tones in processing. However, the shadows contain far fewer levels and are liable to posterization.
In converting from a 12 bit linear image to an 8 bit gamma 2.2 image, one goes from 4096 to 249 levels as indicated by Bruce Lindbloom's levels calculator. Since very few devices are capable of more than 8 bit output, an 8 bit gamma 2.2 file can contain nearly all the levels in the original file that are capable of reproduction in the print. This explains why a high quality JPEG file is visually lossless. If you nail white balance, exposure, contrast, and color saturation in a JPEG capture, the results are similar to a rendering from a 12 bit raw file; however, the raw file can withstand quite a bit more editing than the JPEG.
Likewise, the compressed NEF is visually lossless. Even though highlight data are thrown away, highlight recovery with ACR is quite effective in my experience and I usually shoot compressed NEF with my D200. While I think that raw should be available for more advanced users, the loss of image information with the G7's JPEG is most likely minimal if you expose the shot correctly in camera.
Bill
-
While I think that raw should be available for more advanced users, the loss of image information with the G7's JPEG is most likely minimal if you expose the shot correctly in camera.
Assuming that exposure, white balance, color response, contrast, and tonality are all nailed perfectly in-camera, and that the camera's noise processing algorithm achieves the best possible tradeoff between keeping detail and removing noise, yes, JPEG doesn't degrade the image much compared to RAW. But all of these conditions are rarely met simultaneously while shooting in the real world.
-
Assuming that exposure, white balance, color response, contrast, and tonality are all nailed perfectly in-camera, and that the camera's noise processing algorithm achieves the best possible tradeoff between keeping detail and removing noise, yes, JPEG doesn't degrade the image much compared to RAW. But all of these conditions are rarely met simultaneously while shooting in the real world.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90525\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Why not also assume that the majority of photographers and nearly all picture takers do not care whether these things are "nailed perfectly in-camera." Nor do they require the ability to correct these things to perfect in their computer.
Apparently the G7 just isn't for you and I suspect Canon in their arroganance and stupidity didn't even try to meet your personal requirements. Maybe the G8 will be better. Then again, maybe not.
-
Is converting RAW yourself like custom wet processing film yourself, and JPG more like sending your film to the corner drugstore to be processed?
You have no programming experience, but you casually dismiss the opinions of experienced programmers. Given your evident naivete about what RAW's advantages to the digital photographer, I really don't think you're qualified to meaningfully participate in this debate. Is anything you've contributed to this thread based on actual personal experience; something more concrete than blind faith in Canon's marketing department? Or are you just being contrarian for contrarianness' sake?
-
You have no programming experience, but you casually dismiss the opinions of experienced programmers. Given your evident naivete about what RAW's advantages to the digital photographer, I really don't think you're qualified to meaningfully participate in this debate. Is anything you've contributed to this thread based on actual personal experience; something more concrete than blind faith in Canon's marketing department? Or are you just being contrarian for contrarianness' sake?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90531\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
And on what do you base your statement that I have no programming experience? Must one need to be a programmer to participate in this thread? Or be a photographer? And I don't really care what you think of my qualifications.
I do not dismiss, casually or otherwise, the experience of progammers. Nor do I simply accept anything and everything they say, even that they are experienced programmers. I am trying to learn more about RAW.
I was asking a question, hoping to gather more information. Hence, the ? after the question.
"Is anything you've contributed to this thread based on actual personal experience[?]" Yes. "... something more concrete than blind faith in Canon's marketing department?" Yes. Actually I do not have blind faith in Canon or you. "Or are you just being contrarian for contrarianness' sake?" No, I simply don't blindly buy into your ideas.
I was merely asking a question. Is that too threatening for you?
-
And on what do you base your statement that I have no programming experience? Must one need to be a programmer to participate in this thread? Or be a photographer? And I don't really care what you think of my qualifications.
I do not dismiss, casually or otherwise, the experience of progammers. Nor do I simply accept anything and everything they say, even that they are experienced programmers.
Your programming ignorance is pretty obvious. You made an statement, with no evidence whatsoever to support it, that you thought adding RAW support would significantly add to the cost of the G7, sufficiently so to make it economically unviable as a product. When that was challenged by people with programming experience who have done similar tasks, you dismissed our statements as pure speculation and hand-waving, completely ignoring the fact that your original statement has even less factual basis to support it than ours. At least we have offered some professional experience as a basis to allow the readers of this thread to judge our credibility; you have not.
"Is anything you've contributed to this thread based on actual personal experience[?]" Yes. "... something more concrete than blind faith in Canon's marketing department?" Yes. Actually I do not have blind faith in Canon or you. "Or are you just being contrarian for contrarianness' sake?" No, I simply don't blindly buy into your ideas.
I was merely asking a question. Is that too threatening for you?
No I'm merely pointing out that you're applying a double standard here. You refuse to accept anyone else's statments as having any validity unless they can provide a level of proof that would hold up in court, yet you expect everyone else to accept your statements as valid even though you have consistently refused to provide any qualifications to support your credibility, like whether you are privy to what's really going on inside Canon, what kind of programming experience you might have, whether or not you have ever owned a digital camera, whether or not you've ever shot RAW in your life, and if so, what level of expertise you have processing said RAW images. Either offer the kind of concrete proof to support your claims that you are demanding of everyone else (you've just claimed to have something of the sort, and we'd all love to hear it), provide some kind of justification why your opinions are more valid than everyone else's (like personal qualifications/experience), or cease and desist, howard smith (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?act=Search&CODE=show&searchid=e0989e380eae3dfef4c83e83bd72407e&search_in=posts&result_type=posts&highlite=).
-
I was asking a question, hoping to gather more information. Hence, the ? after the question.
Howie, I think I mentioned this before but let me repeat it :
a) Typically, in a camera that comes with RAW, you can shoot both RAW and JPEG simultaneously. Again, RAW is simply a data file, in a different format from JPEG. You can delete it, if you don't want to keep it.
b ) Let us assume that you decided to shoot the picture, purely as RAW, as opposed to the RAW+JPEG setting. If you want to recreate a JPEG, **exactly** like the camera does internally (and want to do ZERO post processing), all you have to do is to open the RAW file in the software that came with the camera and click "save as" JPEG. You will get your JPEG in 2 seconds flat. So even by shooting "RAW" only, you are not losing anything ! The upside is that RAW **always** contains more image data than any JPEG, since the JPEG is developed from the sensor's output (which is a synonym for RAW).....the logical thought being that the output simply cannot have more "real" data than the source.
To summarize the above, you are losing nothing by having the RAW **option**, since the JPEG option is not being taken away from you. Among the hundreds of digital cameras in the market, I know of only one camera that does not provide a JPEG option and is RAW-only (if I am not mistaken) and that is the Sigma dSLR that uses a FOVEON sensor. Every single other camera in the market, provides a JPEG option, even if RAW is available in the camera.
-
Your programming ignorance is pretty obvious. You made an statement, with no evidence whatsoever to support it, that you thought adding RAW support would significantly add to the cost of the G7, sufficiently so to make it economically unviable as a product. When that was challenged by people with programming experience who have done similar tasks, you dismissed our statements as pure speculation and hand-waving, completely ignoring the fact that your original statement has even less factual basis to support it than ours. At least we have offered some professional experience as a basis to allow the readers of this thread to judge our credibility; you have not.
No I'm merely pointing out that you're applying a double standard here. You refuse to accept anyone else's statments as having any validity unless they can provide a level of proof that would hold up in court, yet you expect everyone else to accept your statements as valid even though you have consistently refused to provide any qualifications to support your credibility, like whether you are privy to what's really going on inside Canon, what kind of programming experience you might have, whether or not you have ever owned a digital camera, whether or not you've ever shot RAW in your life, and if so, what level of expertise you have processing said RAW images. Either offer the kind of concrete proof to support your claims that you are demanding of everyone else (you've just claimed to have something of the sort, and we'd all love to hear it), provide some kind of justification why your opinions are more valid than everyone else's (like personal qualifications/experience), or cease and desist, howard smith (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?act=Search&CODE=show&searchid=e0989e380eae3dfef4c83e83bd72407e&search_in=posts&result_type=posts&highlite=).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90572\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Your programming ignorance is pretty obvious. You made an statement, with no evidence whatsoever to support it, that you thought adding RAW support would significantly add to the cost of the G7, sufficiently so to make it economically unviable as a product. When that was challenged by people with programming experience who have done similar tasks, you dismissed our statements as pure speculation and hand-waving, completely ignoring the fact that your original statement has even less factual basis to support it than ours. At least we have offered some professional experience as a basis to allow the readers of this thread to judge our credibility; you have not.
No I'm merely pointing out that you're applying a double standard here. You refuse to accept anyone else's statments as having any validity unless they can provide a level of proof that would hold up in court, yet you expect everyone else to accept your statements as valid even though you have consistently refused to provide any qualifications to support your credibility, like whether you are privy to what's really going on inside Canon, what kind of programming experience you might have, whether or not you have ever owned a digital camera, whether or not you've ever shot RAW in your life, and if so, what level of expertise you have processing said RAW images. Either offer the kind of concrete proof to support your claims that you are demanding of everyone else (you've just claimed to have something of the sort, and we'd all love to hear it), provide some kind of justification why your opinions are more valid than everyone else's (like personal qualifications/experience), or cease and desist, howard smith (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?act=Search&CODE=show&searchid=e0989e380eae3dfef4c83e83bd72407e&search_in=posts&result_type=posts&highlite=).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90572\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It is your opinion then that I have no programming experience. You have no data.
I don't think I ever said adding RAW "would" be prohiyitively expensive, I think I said it "could" be. There is a difference. I only challenged that the progammers had no experience to base their conclusion that adding RAW to the G& would add a few cwnts per camera. You can't even say how many G7s Canon will make. And what does that have to do with programming? I recall there were a lot of "if," "assuming" and "probably" quailifiers that I was questioning. Canon provided their expalnation and you simply said it was foolish. Why not give them some credit?
I don't think I ever said I required court quality evidence. Just more than "I think something may be true, so this may be a probable result."
I would be happy to "cease and desist." I was not aware of any minimum qualifications required to post here.
"you are privy to what's really going on inside Canon" No. Are you? Perhaps omitting RAW was a Canon business decision, not a technical one. Not everything that is technically possible or evn good, makes business sense.
"what kind of programming experience you might have" Not any business of yours and not really relavent to anything I have posted. I don't think being a programmer alone makes one capablr of making Canon business decsions.
"whether or not you have ever owned a digital camera" I do. So what? Does that matter.
" whether or not you've ever shot RAW in your life" I have. So what? Does that matter?
"and if so, what level of expertise you have processing said RAW images" Fairly minimal, but I can do it. It isn't rocket surgery.
Why don't we just agree that we don't agree, likely never will, and probably don't like or respect one another's position.
-
It is your opinion then that I have no programming experience. You have no data.
Data point: you didn't know what an NDA was.
I find it very unlikely that professional programmers don't know of the concept, unless they've led a very isolated life (I know some Norwegian programmers who have).
I'll concede that you have some programming experience, because you've made the claim that you had in an earlier post.
Whatever that "programming experience" is worth in Jonathan, you or me in the context of such a discussion is another matter entirely.
I am, however, generally more willing to trust the opinions of people who have worked with similar development work than those who haven't, unless what they suggest goes against what I have learned through my education, hobbies and career (and if you want to know more about that, feel free to follow my homepage link).
What Jonathan and Robert wrote about costs (given the named provisos) makes sense from a development point of view, and I think it's safe to say that the decision to exclude raw support was mostly political and marketing.
Also keep in mind that Canon is a big company. All companies uck fup, big companies too, and probably more often than others. The theory of companies and persons always acting in elightened self-interest is long since refuted; it was basically picked apart over 2000 years ago by Greek philosophers.
I don't think I ever said I required court quality evidence. Just more than "I think something may be true, so this may be a probable result."
You wrote:
If the programmers here are so sure, let them offer some solid, varifiable evidence.
"what kind of programming experience you might have" Not any business of yours and not really relavent to anything I have posted. I don't think being a programmer alone makes one capablr of making Canon business decsions.
Then what business is it of yours what qualifications those you're discussing with have? This is the double standard that Jonathan talks about.
If you give flak about others' qualifications, you really ought to put up with some questions regarding your own.
Why don't we just agree that we don't agree, likely never will, and probably don't like or respect one another's position.
I think the problem is a clash of discussion styles, not personal dislike. None of us seem to have met you personally.
I respect your position, but not your presentation of that position, nor your display of double standards.
-
Perhaps omitting RAW was a Canon business decision, not a technical one.
This statement in my opinion, is close to the mark !
-
Data point: you didn't know what an NDA was.
I find it very unlikely that professional programmers don't know of the concept, unless they've led a very isolated life (I know some Norwegian programmers who have).
I'll concede that you have some programming experience, because you've made the claim that you had in an earlier post.
Whatever that "programming experience" is worth in Jonathan, you or me in the context of such a discussion is another matter entirely.
I am, however, generally more willing to trust the opinions of people who have worked with similar development work than those who haven't, unless what they suggest goes against what I have learned through my education, hobbies and career (and if you want to know more about that, feel free to follow my homepage link).
What Jonathan and Robert wrote about costs (given the named provisos) makes sense from a development point of view, and I think it's safe to say that the decision to exclude raw support was mostly political and marketing.
Also keep in mind that Canon is a big company. All companies uck fup, big companies too, and probably more often than others. The theory of companies and persons always acting in elightened self-interest is long since refuted; it was basically picked apart over 2000 years ago by Greek philosophers.
You wrote:
Then what business is it of yours what qualifications those you're discussing with have? This is the double standard that Jonathan talks about.
If you give flak about others' qualifications, you really ought to put up with some questions regarding your own.
I think the problem is a clash of discussion styles, not personal dislike. None of us seem to have met you personally.
I respect your position, but not your presentation of that position, nor your display of double standards.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90584\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
To me, in my experience, and NDA was a New Drug Application. Did you kbow that? I didn't think that was what you meant because it seemd as irrelevant as a non-disclosure agreement. Had you said "non-disclosure agreement" instaed of NDA, I would have known exactly what you were talking about, even though I have never signed one. And I don't know a single Norwegian programmer. Come to think of it, I don't know any Norwegians. But that is probably noy important either.
I claimed to have, and do have, some programming experience. I just don't think it matters to this thread what my experience, your experience or anybody elses programming experience is. Even if you were a Canon programmer. Frequently, a technical person can provide any number of reasons to do something - technically- that makes absolutely no business sense. (Been there.) Canon is a business, not a technical house selling technology for technology sake. (Been there too.) They are trying to use technology to run a business and make a yen for the company and shareholders.
I have no trouble with opinions. We all use them. What I have trouble with is folks packaging their opinions as facts. "Canon is arrogant and think they know more than I do." That is not an opinion, but a statement of "fact." The problem is see is the speaker hasn't any basis but what they think (opinion).
I recognize Canon is a big company. I also recognize that companies of all sizes make mistakes. Big companies maybe less than smaller ones, otherwise they would not have gotten big. But companies are just collections of people, so some body(s) makes mistakes when a company makes a mistake. Maybe one of those people is a programmer, has progamming experience or maybe a few programmers working for them. (In the US, major league baseball players can make millions of dollars a year and only be right (get a hit) less than a third of their tries.)
I would add to the reason to exclude RAW may have been yen per share, and not necessarily "mostly political and marketing." And I sure can't accept, "I want it. I expect it." as the only reason for Canon to do anything. (I want it. CAnon thinks it is bad for Canon (or me). I lose.)
I wasn't trying to give anyone flak about their qualifications. I just don't believe merely having 7 years of programming experience is a qualification for saying Canon is arrogant and screwing photographers. If it matters, I have technical degrees, and technical and business experience. You say, "So what? You still don't know what you're talking about." But I do know enough to see there is no evidence of any quality on the table to support Canon doesn't maybe know what they are doing. (Forgot to add that I am a PE, hold an SRO, and I am licensed by Arizona to onspect houses. I also graduated from a high;y respected photography school, specializing in industrual photography. But you still don't care becasue I have never been a camera programmer or in the US Army. I did get an offer to fly helicopters for the Army, but passed,)
I don't understand the double standard issue you mention. I haven't held myself as saying my opnion is fact and others opinions don't matter. I just don't think it matters what your (or my qualifications) are when making unsupportable statements.
Are you a Canon insider? They are likely the only ones who really know and I don't think they are talking beyond the G7 with RAW wasn't that much better than JPG. And from what I've read, nothing other than saying you and Jonathan are right would matter anyway.
All I have tried to say is there is no basis for saying Canon arrogantly and stupidly left RAW off the G7.
++++++++++++
Below is the type of reasoned suppotyrd responxe to Canon'a statement I akve been talking about:
Or his mind is being controlled by aliens...
It smells like a bunch of BS to me; there's no way that the in-camera computer can do a better job auto-processing RAWs than a desktop under the control of a knowledgeable, experienced human. They must think we're a bunch of retards.
-
If you are working in a gamma 2.2 space, the conversion is nonlinear. and more complicated. Lightroom is the only program I know of that has the ability to WB from a gamma 2.2 JPEG, but I have not worked with Canon software.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90316\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Actually, WB is very easy in any gamma, as long as the entire DR of the format uses the *same* gamma. The problem with JPEGs is the compression artifacts, and the fact that the gamma is different in different parts of the tonal range (S-curves and such). When the gamma is consistent, multiplying any two values by the same amount will result in the same number of stops difference. Any r:g:b ratio results in the same hue and saturation level at all luminances.
-
To me, in my experience, and NDA was a New Drug Application.
Then you've lived an extremely sheltered life as a programmer; I've never done programming work without a non-disclosure agreement, nor has any other programmer I've ever met who did so for a living.
All I have tried to say is there is no basis for saying Canon arrogantly and stupidly left RAW off the G7.
Well, let's review:
Canon's marketing materials for the G7 say:
"The PowerShot G7 delivers the image quality and optical performance demanded by advanced photographers."
"Canon's acclaimed G-Series has a new top-of-the-line model, and serious photography enthusiasts have a lot to be excited about."
Canon obviously intends the G7 for the advanced, serious photographer, not the ignorant unwashed masses of snapshooters as you have strongly implied repeatedly. But they deliberately omit the feature most desirable to advanced, serious photographers: RAW support, which gives digital photographers the equivalent of an undeveloped film negative to process however they choose with whatever combination of tools and settings they feel will achieve their creative vision. After much customer complaining and negative comments by reviewers about the removal of RAW support, Canon makes the claim, without any evidence whatsoever to support it, that RAW support is no longer necessary because the in-camera processing is so good. This claim is patently preposterous; it is the digital-world equivalent of saying an automated drugstore minilab is capable of processing and printing film just as well as an experienced lab technician. No one making such a claim in the days of film was taken seriously, and there is no reason to take Canon seriously now, for many reasons already hashed over in great detail in this thread. If Canon truly believes what it is saying about the G7's lack of RAW support, their people are truly stupid, or at least fundamentally ignorant of the basics of digital image processing.
On the other hand, if Canon deliberately omitted RAW support to "protect" their lineup of DSLRs from being poached by lower-cost models and is trying to spin-doctor the situation to obfuscate their true intentions and motivation, they are still stupid, and likely arrogant as well. As has been pointed out earlier, a RAW from a compact, small-sensored camera is noisier than a RAW from a DSLR, so there is still plenty of justification for the price difference between compact digicams and DSLRs, based on image quality as well as the flexibility of interchangeable lenses, optical viewfinder vs LCD/EVF, shooting rate, and other characteristics.
Canon has alienated many of the serious/advanced photographers the G7 is being marketed to, who prefer to maintain creative control of their images intead of letting the camera process them automatically by this decision. Canon is saying in effect two things: first, that they can auto-process images in-camera better than a human with years of experience, and second, that photographers who want a compact lightweight camera that actually gives the photographer creative control over his/her images must either buy a DSLR or go without. Or else choose a product from another vendor. That is arrogant, stupid or both.
Canon cannot possibly be enhancing their market position or enhancing their bottom line by alienating and insulting the intended market segment for the G7 in this manner; customer reaction the the G7's lack of RAW support is affecting Canon enough that they had Chuck Westfall attempt to defend the indefensible. That Canon felt the need to address the issue at all is a very strong indication that their bottom line is taking a hit. There's plenty of examples of issues with Canon photo gear that, while generating a lot of internet discussion, never got any official response at all, or merely a one-line mention in the feature list of the next firmware update. Back focus, anyone?
-
Rant on Johnny, but do not ever say I implied that anyone as "... the ignorant unwashed masses of snapshooters."
I think it is time for you to clean up your act.
-
Gentlement, wouldn't it be time for us to all agree that we have had a fun time arguing on this, but that all opinions having been written 15 times already, it is time to decide whether or not to buy a G7 with its current limitations, and then move on to something else?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Rant on Johnny, but do not ever say I implied that anyone as "... the ignorant unwashed masses of snapshooters."
Nice try, but no cigar. You didn't use that exact term, but you did state that advanced users were not the intended market for the camera several times:
I was watching football last night. At the kick off, there were of photo flashes seen. Do you suppose all those folks that thought they had a flash capable of providing any value what so ever at that distance went home, fired up their comuters and processed a RAW file? Or is RAW so good at fixing exposure, an on camera flash works OK at 100 yards?
Canon's intended market is an important factor in dtermining features.
-
The G7 is not directed at the same market as the DSLR. The problem seems to be users of DSLR thinking they are (or at least should be) the market audience.
For every photographer that thinks he needs RAW, I know 10 that don't even know what RAW is and wouldn't use it if it were available.
-
In my opinion, some folks on this sight have lost sight that the G7 is a point and shoot camera, not a professional tool. For every person who screams the G7 should (or must) have RAW, I cam point to 10 camera buyers who say "What's RAW? White balance?"
All the consumer (who is the alledged audience for this camera) seem to want is a really nice camera that takes "clear" pictures, is easy to use and makes a decent print or e-mail attachment of the family dog (or kid).
-
The G7 is a consumer camera...It is my observation that the usual Canon consumer for whom this camera seems to be intended will truly "point and shoot." Believe it nor not (and you don't have to), the entire world of picture takers do not process, nor do they want to process, every image for all its worth. Point, shoot, and paste the jpeg of the kids in the email to grandma.
Point and shoot. Plug and play. Sound easy and that is the idea.
The market segment you're describing (people too ignorant to realize that an on-camera flash is useless on subjects 100 yards away, completely oblivious to concepts like white balance and color accuracy, and unaware of RAW or unwilling to bother with it if they are aware of it, and only wanting semi-decent snapshots of pets/kids) can be accurately, if not politically correctly, summed up as "the ignorant unwashed masses of snapshooters." I used a phrase in lieu of multiple paragraphs for brevity's sake. However described, it is still not the same as the market segment described in Canon's marketing materials.
-
I doubt it; minimum-contrast JPEGs in my Canon DSLRs still have about a half-stop less highlight latitude than RAW. And even at contrast setting 0, the camera JPEGs are pretty flat and washed-out looking; -5 would be even more so. I'll do a test when I get around to it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90457\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Jonathan,
Cameras vary. As I mentioned, my 5D has about 0.8 stops less highlight latitude than RAW when contrast is at a minimum, but 1.33 to 1.66 stops less latitude when contrast is at a maximum. My Sony 7.2mp DSC T30 (ultra compact but no RAW) has only 3 contrast settings, minus, normal and plus. The differences between them, in respect of DR, are subtle. The exposure compensation settings of -2EC to +2EC are more useful for contrasty scenes.
I would imagine that a P&S camera that has contrast settings from minus 5 to plus 5 would have a greater potential for DR improvement at the lowest setting. You should try it. I'd be surprised if the difference between DR in RAW mode, and jpeg at minimum contrast, is greater than 1/3 of a stop.
Washed out and flat images should be no problem for someone prepared to spend time processing images in PS. As I mentioned before, conversions of RAW overexposed images (full exposure to the right) with settings designed to extract maximum highlight detail using ACR, can look rather dull and flat. Reducing contrast in ACR to -50 seems to create a greater 'washed out' look without providing any additional DR than a zero contrast setting.
This is not the case with 5D jpeg in-camera constrast settings and is possibly not the case with Olympus SP-350 contrast settings.
I also have no problem adjusting the WB of the jpeg image you posted. But of course, you made it easy by including a Gretag Macbeth chart with a few grey patches .
-
Gentlement, wouldn't it be time for us to all agree that we have had a fun time arguing on this, but that all opinions having been written 15 times already, it is time to decide whether or not to buy a G7 with its current limitations, and then move on to something else?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90630\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
No, Bernard. It's not time. I want to see comparisons amongst a G7 image at minimum constrast and saturation, a G6 RAW and an Olypus SP-350 RAW.
I'm also intrigued by the fact that the G7 can shoot video at 1024x768 resolution, but only at 15 frames/sec. I want to know if there's any affordable software that can quadruple that frame rate on playback, in perhaps a similar manner to the 100HZ TV systems we have in Australia, which double up on the 50 interlaced frames per sec rate.
-
Well, while this "critical" debate has raged I've been having fun with my G7 (http://www.pbase.com/tanakak/image/71686824). Let me know the outcome so I'll know whether to hate or love it.
-
Well, while this "critical" debate has raged I've been having fun with my G7 (http://www.pbase.com/tanakak/image/71686824). Let me know the outcome so I'll know whether to hate or love it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90658\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I also have fun with my Sony DSC T30, in 640x480 video mode, sometimes shooting cabaret shows performed by Thai transvestites. The 3" wide LCD screen is very impressive on playback, but I'm afraid low light capability is very lacking.
By some strange quirk, the menu allows EC adjustment of +/- 2EC in video mode, but which has no discernible affect at all. I have lots of video footage of traditional Nepalese dancing which is way too dark.
Is there some easy program which allows brightening and noise reduction of video? This stuff I've recorded seems almost unique in the sense it's not available on commercial CD or DVD which leans heavily towards Bollywood style fantasy with smooth-skinned city folk doing choreographed dance routines against a harsh, mountainous environment. Unrealistic and artificial, and total crap.
-
I would imagine that a P&S camera that has contrast settings from minus 5 to plus 5 would have a greater potential for DR improvement at the lowest setting. You should try it. I'd be surprised if the difference between DR in RAW mode, and jpeg at minimum contrast, is greater than 1/3 of a stop.
I will, as soon as I get a chance. And I'll post comparison images with full EXIF, just like the other comparison I did. I'll probably post some ISO 400, 100% crops to compare sharpening and noise reduction, as well. If there's anything in particular you'd like to see other than minimum contrast, let me know.
-
Jonathan,
Cameras vary. As I mentioned, my 5D has about 0.8 stops less highlight latitude than RAW when contrast is at a minimum, but 1.33 to 1.66 stops less latitude when contrast is at a maximum.
Don't forget that when you set the camera to minimum contrast, the extra highlights just below the JPEG luminance clipping point are extremely compressed, and are useless for any real "exposure to the right". They are only useful to leave as extra specular highlights, cloud detail, and such. They are basically trashed, quality-wise.
Washed out and flat images should be no problem for someone prepared to spend time processing images in PS. As I mentioned before, conversions of RAW overexposed images (full exposure to the right) with settings designed to extract maximum highlight detail using ACR, can look rather dull and flat.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90647\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Which, of course, is the fault of nothing but a RAW converter that second-guesses the user's needs. The RAW data is not "washed out" or flat" in the highlights compared to any other range. This is the crux of this crisis; people are making all kinds of assessments of the value of RAW, but we still don't have good RAW converters yet. It is a very sorry state of affairs that digital photography is in right now, with RAW being discounted without having ever been fully utilized.
-
Don't forget that when you set the camera to minimum contrast, the extra highlights just below the JPEG luminance clipping point are extremely compressed, and are useless for any real "exposure to the right". They are only useful to leave as extra specular highlights, cloud detail, and such. They are basically trashed, quality-wise.
John,
I'm not sure I quite follow what you're saying here. To get the same highlight detail with a jpeg as a RAW image, requires an exposure of the jpeg image between 2/3rds and 1 stop less (with the 5D). Whilst such a jpeg image appears to have equal highlight detail, at a machine level it possibly doesn't. I don't know. I'm just looking at appearances.
But there's no doubt that such a jpeg exposure at slightly less than 1 stop exposure, has less detail in the shadows than the RAW image, which is indicative of a lower dynamic range.
The RAW data is not "washed out" or flat" in the highlights compared to any other range. This is the crux of this crisis; people are making all kinds of assessments of the value of RAW, but we still don't have good RAW converters yet. It is a very sorry state of affairs that digital photography is in right now, with RAW being discounted without having ever been fully utilized.
Yes. I understand that. When it comes to extracting the greatest amount of dynamic range, I find that ACR is marginally better than Raw Shooter Premium, but RSP tends to produce a more detailed image and is easier to use with regards to issues of color vibrancy. I often prefer RSP and look forward to receiving a free copy of the first commercial issue of Lightroom .
-
What I think is funny, though, is that Canon is including a SpeedLite compatible flash socket on a P&S.
Even eager advanced shooters won't be using that at a lot.
And what's that business with an on/off setting, anyway?
-
Well, while this "critical" debate has raged I've been having fun with my G7 (http://www.pbase.com/tanakak/image/71686824). Let me know the outcome so I'll know whether to hate or love it.
Hah, that's nothing, today I was having (http://flickr.com/photos/frettled/323020017/) fun (http://flickr.com/photos/frettled/323020009/in/photostream/) with my SE (http://flickr.com/photos/frettled/323020013/in/photostream/) K750i (http://flickr.com/photos/frettled/323020017/in/photostream/).
(Yup, the images are crap, and I didn't even care.)
But I do like your image!
-
Actually, WB is very easy in any gamma, as long as the entire DR of the format uses the *same* gamma. The problem with JPEGs is the compression artifacts, and the fact that the gamma is different in different parts of the tonal range (S-curves and such). When the gamma is consistent, multiplying any two values by the same amount will result in the same number of stops difference. Any r:g:b ratio results in the same hue and saturation level at all luminances.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90623\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
As I pointed out earlier, one performs white balance in a linear raw file by multiplying the red and blue channels by a multiplier. In the case of a Nikon D200, the red and blue multipliers are 1.28 and 2.29 respectively for balance at 3200K.
As an example, let's do some WB with various raw RGB values expressed in terms of a bit depth of 8 as shown in the table using these multipliers and then converting to a simplified gamma 2.2 space. We then determine the multiplier necessary to achieve WB from the converted gamma 2.2 values by taking the ratio of the gamma 2.2 to gamma 1.0 values for the given RGB values. As can be seen, the ratios are not constant and the raw multipliers can not be used. WB is not so easy as you claim
To use a constant multiplier, one would have to convert the gamma 2.2 RGB values back to gamma 1.0 and then multiply. It is often stated that WB can not be done with a gamma 2.2 space, but this is not true as shown by Lightroom and now ACR 4.0.
[attachment=1389:attachment]
-
Bill,
John is right. For example:
rgb_encoded = (rgb_linear)^(1/2.2)
wherein rgb = RGB / 255 for 8 bit
Let’s apply some linear scaling on the linear data:
rgb_new_encoded = (rgb_linear x multiplier)^(1/2.2)
rgb_new_encoded = multiplier^(1/2.2) x (rgb_linear)^(1/2.2)
rgb_new_encoded = new multiplier x (rgb_linear)^(1/2.2)
wherein the new multiplier = multiplier^(1/2.2)
rgb_new_encoded = new multiplier x rgb_encoded
The multiplier can be extracted from the exponential term to be a new multiplier again. This can be generalized to be valid on a per channel basis. White balance can be done via linear scaling before or after conversion to a (regular) gamma encoded space. Even, there is such kind of commutative law in place between linear scaling and matrix-to-matrix conversions in general (including different gamma and primaries).
However, that doesn’t work any more with ready processed JPG’s which were most likely treated with a brightening S-curve, saturation enhancements and all kinds of 3D color-selective tweaks during in-camera conversion. In this case, conversion back to a linear space helps nothing. Best you can do for white balance is to leave linear scaling and to use R/G/B curves (as recently agreed during another thread).
Cheers! Peter
--
-
Bill,
John is right. For example:
rgb_encoded = (rgb_linear)^(1/2.2)
wherein rgb = RGB / 255 for 8 bit
Let’s apply some linear scaling on the linear data:
rgb_new_encoded = (rgb_linear x multiplier)^(1/2.2)
rgb_new_encoded = multiplier^(1/2.2) x (rgb_linear)^(1/2.2)
rgb_new_encoded = new multiplier x (rgb_linear)^(1/2.2)
wherein the new multiplier = multiplier^(1/2.2)
rgb_new_encoded = new multiplier x rgb_encoded
The multiplier can be extracted from the exponential term to be a new multiplier again. This can be generalized to be valid on a per channel basis. White balance can be done via linear scaling before or after conversion to a (regular) gamma encoded space. Even, there is such kind of commutative law in place between linear scaling and matrix-to-matrix conversions in general (including different gamma and primaries).
However, that doesn’t work any more with ready processed JPG’s which were most likely treated with a brightening S-curve, saturation enhancements and all kinds of 3D color-selective tweaks during in-camera conversion. In this case, conversion back to a linear space helps nothing. Best you can do for white balance is to leave linear scaling and to use R/G/B curves (as recently agreed during another thread).
Cheers! Peter
--
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=91039\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Peter,
John is usually right when I disagree with him. When I get time I will go over my table again and see where my calculations went wrong, or perhaps you see the fallacy in them.
Thanks,
Bill
-
When I tried fixing the WB of Jonathan's jpeg containing a color chart, first upsampling to 16 bit in PS, the WB looked approximately the same as in the RAW image, but the greys were not as neutral.
It really boils down to just how accurate do you need to be. Whilst it may be obvious to some that greys in a color chart are not exactly neutral, most scenes do not contain color charts. Over all balance and credibility are more important than total accuracy.
The essential problem in fixing a WB that's noticeably out, is finding something in the scene that's supposed to be a neutral grey, is it not?
The image on the left is Jonathan's jpeg, white balanced in PS in 16 bit mode using 'levels', then reconverted to 8 bit jpeg. The image on the right is the original jpeg from the RAW.
[attachment=1391:attachment] [attachment=1392:attachment]
-
When I tried fixing the WB of Jonathan's jpeg containing a color chart, first upsampling to 16 bit in PS, the WB looked approximately the same as in the RAW image, but the greys were not as neutral.
It really boils down to just how accurate do you need to be. Whilst it may be obvious to some that greys in a color chart are not exactly neutral, most scenes do not contain color charts. Over all balance and credibility are more important than total accuracy.
The essential problem in fixing a WB that's noticeably out, is finding something in the scene that's supposed to be a neutral grey, is it not?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=91061\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes, a neutral gray is helpful, but many color balancing algorithms use memory colors such as foliage, blue sky, and human skin. If these are not reasonably natural, the picture will not look good to most people. In many situations accurate color is less important than pleasing color.
Bill
-
The image on the left is Jonathan's jpeg, white balanced in PS in 16 bit mode using 'levels', then reconverted to 8 bit jpeg. The image on the right is the original jpeg from the RAW.
[attachment=1391:attachment] [attachment=1392:attachment]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=91061\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I took the first one, neutralized it properly and here's the result:
[attachment=1394:attachment]
Here's the adjustments to the blue curve:
[attachment=1395:attachment]
The points on the curve come from Shift-Command clicking on each of the grays, and aligning the blue value with the others. All that was left was to fix the highlight/shadow points with a separate Curves adjustment layer (composite channel in Luminosity mode), then a slight saturation boost with Hues/Saturation (in Color mode). Took less than a minute. How'd I do?
-
I did a click white balance on the second-lightest neutral patch and a quick curve tweak in ACR to get the black point and overall tonality where I wanted it, then applied those settings to all of the shots at once before converting.
You accomplished more or less the same thing by opening the JPEG and creating 2 separate adjustment layers, which will have to be manually applied to each image in the series. I'm pretty sure batch conversion in ACR is faster than opening each JPEG and adding the adjustment layers.
-
You accomplished more or less the same thing by opening the JPEG and creating 2 separate adjustment layers, which will have to be manually applied to each image in the series. I'm pretty sure batch conversion in ACR is faster than opening each JPEG and adding the adjustment layers.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=91113\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Except that my result is more neutral than yours. Check the gray patches. If you want the same level of neutrality, you'd still have to do something similar. ACR doesn't do a particularly good job of rendering accurate colours overall, certainly not good enough for repro work. Post processing will always be required for optimal results.
Anyway, the point of all this is that it's possible to get pretty good results from JPEG irrespective of the white balance at capture. I went from a file that already had one round of adjustments and did all this in 8-bit ... and didn't spend too much time on it.
-
How'd I do?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=91083\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Stephen,
You did pretty well. Your adjustment is closer to the RAW adjustment than mine. I see there's no need for you to demand RAW mode with a P&S camera .
I had another look at my WB adjustment. The histogram has spare space at each end. I removed that and also clicked on 'autocolor'. The result is below. What do you think?
I think it's worth mentioning that the RGB values on the 'info pallette' jump around a lot as you move the eyedropper around the surface of any of the grey squares, particularly the darker squares.
There's an impresssion here that's there's variation at the machine level which might not be relevant at the human perception level.
[attachment=1399:attachment]
-
I had another look at my WB adjustment. The histogram has spare space at each end. I removed that and also clicked on 'autocolor'. The result is below. What do you think?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=91136\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Looks pretty good! I don't know for sure what the original stonework in the background looked like but I find it hard to imagine that it was as greenish as Jonathan's conversion from RAW. So there's curves work either way to get it looking its best.
I realized after I posted the above that my eyedropper was set to 1x1 so my gray patches aren't as neutral as they could/should be. I'm still transitioning to CS3 and finding things I've missed.
-
Except that my result is more neutral than yours. Check the gray patches.
If I do a 6-pixel blur on my image, the variation is pretty small. The lightest 2 patches are within 1 level, the third is within 2 levels, the fourth is within 4 levels, and the darkest two are within 2-3 levels. That's roughly consistent with the deviation from neutral in a theoretically-perfect Color Checker, see Bruce Lindbloom's page of Color Checker RGB values for different color spaces (http://www.brucelindbloom.com/index.html?ColorCheckerRGB.html) for more detailed info. Bottom line, hand tweaking the curves to achieve perfect channel equality is not going to get you perfect neutrality, and the sensor noise level is greater than the deviations we're talking about anyhow.
My converted RAW is pretty close, on a perceptual level and a nitpicking technical level. The greatest source of error by far is the level of sensor noise.
-
When I get time I will go over my table again and see where my calculations went wrong, or perhaps you see the fallacy in them.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=91044\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Your gamma adjusted values for the "RGB G 2.2" columns are wrong. The correct values are obtained with g=255*(linear/255)^(1/2.2).
Then, you calculated the ratio of the wrong things. You need to calculate the ratios of the two sets of linear values, after both gamma adjusted with the above formula. Then, the ratios will be consistent for all sets.
BTW, your red and blue multipliers, if they are supposed to be from a real camera, are probably swapped.
-
Yes, a neutral gray is helpful, but many color balancing algorithms use memory colors such as foliage, blue sky, and human skin. If these are not reasonably natural, the picture will not look good to most people. In many situations accurate color is less important than pleasing color.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=91079\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
WB is only the beginning of color correction in a RAW converter. WB only gets whites white and greys grey. Blues are made blue, red are boosted in saturation, etc, in a separate process, which is not accomplished by scaling color channels.
-
My converted RAW is pretty close, on a perceptual level and a nitpicking technical level. The greatest source of error by far is the level of sensor noise.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=91144\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Jonathan,
That might well be the case. There might well be significant error, in a machine sense, due to sensor noise. But it would not necessarily be apparent in a general scene.
Below are direct comparisons bewtween my twice adjusted jpeg and your your original RAW.
The differences are subtle. I could argue that the 3rd grey from black is slightly darker. The deepest blue and second deepest blue is slightly darker. The cyan square, 3rd from top left is slightly darker and the magenta square, 3rd from top second left is slightly more saturated.
These can all be adjusted according to your skills in PS.
No major problem here and no major reason for RAW mode in limited P&S cameras.
[attachment=1400:attachment] [attachment=1401:attachment]
MY image is on the left.
-
MY image is on the left.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=91155\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ray, this time I went back to the original JPEG and re-applied the previous procedure and mine is pretty damn close to yours! I'll leave it to others to decide which of these (the corrected JPEG or original RAW conversion) is a better match to the ColorChecker chart on Bruce Lindbloom's site ... and also subjectively more accurate.
[attachment=1403:attachment]
-
Your gamma adjusted values for the "RGB G 2.2" columns are wrong. The correct values are obtained with g=255*(linear/255)^(1/2.2).
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=91150\")
No, the RGB G2.2 column is correct. It is calculated from the RGB linear value after the raw value is multiplied by the WB coefficient [=(WB Raw * multiplier/255)^(1/2.2)*255]. It represents the white balanced G 2.2 RGB values from the raw file.
I have expanded my original table with the calculations suggested by Peter Lange. G 2.2 No WB represents the gamma 2.2 conversion of the raw file with no WB. The new multiplier is shown along with the WB G 2.2. As you can see the white balanced figures are the same, as Peter predicted.
[attachment=1404:attachment]
BTW, your red and blue multipliers, if they are supposed to be from a real camera, are probably swapped.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=91150\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
No, the multipliers are correct for a Nikon D200 with exposure at 3200K
[a href=\"http://www.pochtar.com/NikonWhiteBalanceCoeffs.htm]http://www.pochtar.com/NikonWhiteBalanceCoeffs.htm[/url]
This exercise was a learning experience for me and it demonstrates that the oft stated quote that WB can not be done with a gamma corrected image is not true, as is demonstrated by the various corrections that have been posted in this thread. However, if a tone curve has been applied, then one would have to add another curve to essentially undo the effects of the original. If one is working with a JPEG with a bit depth of 8, data loss with all the manipulations could be significant.
-
Does CS 3's ability to handle JPEGs in camera raw alter this discussion? Did Canon know this feature was going to be released? I suspect that altering a JPEG in ACR isn't as good as starting with a RAW file but it may satisfy a lot of the criticism of the G7.
-
Does CS 3's ability to handle JPEGs in camera raw alter this discussion? Did Canon know this feature was going to be released? I suspect that altering a JPEG in ACR isn't as good as starting with a RAW file but it may satisfy a lot of the criticism of the G7.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=91184\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Since Lightroom already had this ability in its develop module, I do not think that the situation would be dramatically altered by the new capabilities of ACR. When one is limited to 8 bits and the sRGB colorspace, significant post-processing may not be advisable. If you prefer the wider gamut of ProPhotoRGB, you are out of luck.
-
No, the RGB G2.2 column is correct.
Yes, they look correct now. I must have accidently typed 225 instead of 255 in my spreadsheet earlier.
No, the multipliers are correct for a Nikon D200 with exposure at 3200K[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=91176\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I thought it was a daylight value; that's why it looked strange to me..
-
If you prefer the wider gamut of ProPhotoRGB, you are out of luck.
The color gamut issue is not addressed by Canon at all in their laughable you-don't need-RAW press release smokescreen. Every Canon digital camera so far has had a sensor capable of capturing at least some colors outside Adobe RGB, making converting RAW to ProPhoto or a similar large color space a very sensible thing to do when saturated colors are present in the image. Now Canon firmware is automagically stuffing everything into sRGB with no inut from the user as to how this might best be done.
-
Now Canon firmware is automagically stuffing everything into sRGB with no inut from the user as to how this might best be done.
Maybe the G7 is a professional level webcam?
G, D & R
-
Maybe the G7 is a professional level webcam?
G, D & R
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=91242\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
1024x768 progressive scan video capability is pretty impressive. 15 frames a second is too jerky, though. I don't know what's available in video editing and processing programs, but I suspect there might be something available that can fix this and if not fix it, then at least make it better.
-
Perhaps this thread should be laid to rest but I'm uneasy because I don't see that the case has been made yet for including RAW mode in the G7.
I don't think anyone here is arguing that RAW mode does not provide an opportunity for some degree of improvement. At least I'm not.
To recap, is there any good reason to suppose that RAW support in a P&S camera can provide a greater percentage improvement than can be achieved in a DSLR with its significantly greater dynamic range?
Both Jonathan Wienke and John Sheehy initially implied that it can, claiming a whole stop of dynamic range improvement.
I questioned this. Jonathan did some comparisons, then claimed a 2/3rds stop DR improvement for his Olympus SP-350. Unfortunately, he made the comparison with in-camera contrast settings at zero on a scale of -5 to +5. If those contrast setting on the Olympus are not just for show, it's almost certain that the DR improvement will be less than 2/3rds of a stop, perhaps much less.
If it's not much less, then the question still arises. Why the greater percentage improvement, than with a DSLR? If we make an assumption that the DR of a 5D is 7 stops, then the DR improvement using RAW converted in ACR, according to my own experiments, is around 10% (ie. around 0.7 stops. Maybe 0.8 stops, but less than 1 stop).
If we make an assumption that the DR of the G7 is 3 stops (by the same standards we have used to describe the DR of the 5D as being 7 stops) then we could expect a DR improvement in the G7, using a RAW image, of 3/7ths of 0.8 stops = 0.34 stops, close enough to 1/3rd of a stop.
If this is true, then Jonathan has overstated his case, as indeed Michael might also have in this quote from his latest article - "It's not the Camera, it's the Photographer - Right?"
In this case, adequate for the job. But, not ideal, The Canon G7 doesn't shoot raw, and therefore only 8 bit JPGs. The JPG part wasn't that big an issue in this case, but the 8 bit file was found to be a real problem when I tried to enhance the separation between the rays of light and the shadows. It kept posterizing. (If anyone tells you that in-camera jpgs are sufficient, tell them to go to the back of the class. That's where they'll find the Canon marketing and engineering people who decided that this fine camera didn't need raw).
Now I'm not sure what bit depth is used in the G7, but it's probably less than the 12 bits used in Canon DSLRs and I can't help wondering if Michael is making the same mistake of attributing the 'magic bullet' cure to all RAW processing.
In other words, because a certain degree or level of posterization, visible on a high quality monitor, can be completely fixed by shooting in RAW mode with a DSLR and converting from 12 bit to 16 bits, it does not follow that the same degree of posterization from a tiny P&S camera could be completley fixed if such a camera also offered a RAW mode.
It's reasonable to suppose there would be some improvement but perhaps not enough to fix the problem. One could also argue that any improvement, however small, is better than no improvement. That's true. But how much time, effort and expense is that small improvement worth, both from the perspective of the end user as well as the manufacturer? That's the real question.
Canon have said essentially, it's not worth bothering with. Jonathan has said it is, but seems to have been under a misapprehension all along that he's been getting a whole stop of DR improvement using RAW mode with his SP-350 (which has a 10 second delay between shots.)
He's also tried to demonstrate the superior WB results from RAW, but again it seems the RAW image is only very marginally superior when one works on the jpeg image.
As I said, the issue does not seem resolved yet.