Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: Milutin Labudovic on October 27, 2006, 08:53:27 am
-
I went to picture some folk music festival and i tried for the first time basic JPEG compresion.
I don`t recall viewing on LCD in camera this kind of pixel artifacts when on 100%, but today i almost cried and laugh when wanted to sort them for the magazine.
As you can see, this is unaltered image straight from the camera. It is totally unacceptable for camera today. Look at the PIXELS on the girl. NIKON should reconsider BASIC compression.
second image DSC_3605.JPG is pictured in same settings minutes after and looks OK.
Conclusion is simple, to complicate for bayern pattern + this kind of compression.
Lost in quality is OK and resonable due to compresion, but this is not loss in quality, this is no quality at all.
"nikon seat down, D" or 1 here in europe, back in highschool
-
I went to picture some folk music festival and i tried for the first time basic JPEG compresion.
I don`t recall viewing on LCD in camera this kind of pixel artifacts when on 100%, but today i almost cried and laugh when wanted to sort them for the magazine.
As you can see, this is unaltered image straight from the camera. It is totally unacceptable for camera today. Look at the PIXELS on the girl. NIKON should reconsider BASIC compression.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=82504\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The first image has a massive amount of high frequency detail (all the sub-pixels of the background screen). The same pixelization effect is visible in the gray patch on the left of the image. My understanding is that such an image is beyond the capabilities of the jpeg algorithm itself, and that a smooth, low frequency foreground subject against a high frequency background cannot be (jpeg-)compressed without the really bad quality loss you are observing.
To confirm this you should take an uncompressed picture of the same subject and compress it to jpeg in a controlled environment. As an example I tried with a smooth gradient over a highly structured background. You can see that with moderate compression there is quite visible pixelization of the gradient while the background maze is kept almost perfect.
[attachment=1122:attachment]
Piero
-
you are right, nice example.
i wonder how other manufacturer`s deal with this sort of a problem?
if this stage set is permanent (which i think it is, because show goes on. do, this was some kind of a special competition linked to the show), i will go and try it with canon also.
-
you are right, nice example.
i wonder how other manufacturer`s deal with this sort of a problem?
if this stage set is permanent (which i think it is, because show goes on. do, this was some kind of a special competition linked to the show), i will go and try it with canon also.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=82634\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think you should better try shooting raw...
Piero
-
Have you seen the results from other cameras, 20D 30D?
-
Have you seen the results from other cameras, 20D 30D?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=82876\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
noop, but i will try both nikon d200 & canon d10 to see various settings. at least i will do my best, since no driving license for another month
-
Don't use basic compression. Use the highest quality settings you have for jpeg compression. That way you won't run into these problems. Anytime you have an image of that resolution, with such a small file size something is going to give and that is image quality.
The second image file size is larger, but the image quality suffers as well, not as badly. Next time use the highest jpeg quality that the camera has as well as the highest resolution.
-
For most of the guys on the site - even shooting Fine JPG is a compromise in 2006.
The final image quality of shooting RAW is just way too good and easy. Even misseed exposures can be rescued if captured in RAW - but if JPG, then no dice.
I do wonder why Nikon even gives users the chance to shoot in Basic JPG. It really defeats the reason of using a high end digital SLR, like the D200 - which is a totally awesome camera.
-
Don't use basic compression. Use the highest quality settings you have for jpeg compression. That way you won't run into these problems. Anytime you have an image of that resolution, with such a small file size something is going to give and that is image quality.
The second image file size is larger, but the image quality suffers as well, not as badly. Next time use the highest jpeg quality that the camera has as well as the highest resolution.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=83084\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
yes, i wanted to save space on this occasion, that`s why i went to basic compression + save space alghorithm. Of course more space more quality. but in nikon`s space they are just to roomy and spoiled for the final quality.
@raw shooter - well, personally i think nikon should do better in theirs JPEG programmers team .
but nice of them that they give us a choice in many steps for a compression rate.
-
For most of the guys on the site - even shooting Fine JPG is a compromise in 2006.
The final image quality of shooting RAW is just way too good and easy. Even misseed exposures can be rescued if captured in RAW - but if JPG, then no dice.
I do wonder why Nikon even gives users the chance to shoot in Basic JPG. It really defeats the reason of using a high end digital SLR, like the D200 - which is a totally awesome camera.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=83101\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Because not everyone has the option of RAW everytime.
-
yes, i wanted to save space on this occasion, that`s why i went to basic compression + save space alghorithm. Of course more space more quality. but in nikon`s space they are just to roomy and spoiled for the final quality.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=83113\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Frankly speaking, what you are seeing could have been anticipated. It is well known that basic jpeg is small because it is highly compressed. High compression ratio can be achieved because details are thrown away...
You know that I am sure, but taking enough CF cards next time, or a portable HD, will solve the problem.
My personnal approach when only little storage remains available for some reason is to delete some less important images instead of compromising the quality of the following ones by shooting in a lossy compression format like jpeg small. This is of course because I feel that image quality is important - which seems to be the case for you as well.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Milutin,
If you have 3000 euro camera why should you use basic JPG compresion to save space, buy mor memory. Take the pictures in RAW and compress them after processing in photoshop or whatever you use in your computer.
Second, I also think that the first photo is underexposed as the camera metered light from LED screen, not from the face or other part of body. If you do not have enough details in the shade where the eyes are, there is no procedure that can reveal that details again. The difference between tones in this underexposed shade is too small.
Third, Ms. Katic does not look much better, no matter how you take the picture of her. Even calling her "a girl" cannot help. Both the year of manufacture and the mileage...
Fourth, you forgot to send the photos that you promised to your kum so this was the punisment.
-
Milutin,
If you have 3000 euro camera why should you use basic JPG compresion to save space, buy mor memory. Take the pictures in RAW and compress them after processing in photoshop or whatever you use in your computer.
Second, I also think that the first photo is underexposed as the camera metered light from LED screen, not from the face or other part of body. If you do not have enough details in the shade where the eyes are, there is no procedure that can reveal that details again. The difference between tones in this underexposed shade is too small.
Third, Ms. Katic does not look much better, no matter how you take the picture of her. Even calling her "a girl" cannot help. Both the year of manufacture and the mileage...
Fourth, you forgot to send the photos that you promised to your kum so this was the punisment.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=83751\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Simply this is not acceptable - to recieve pixelization, we want more with every technical progress achieved. And... kum is not a button .
-
I do wonder why Nikon even gives users the chance to shoot in Basic JPG. It .
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=83101\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
IMO basic is for using in 'basic and raw' mode
For creation of fast contact sheets or quick preview images
I use basic and raw when working for newspapers - one can be e-mailed to them FAST and if the quality is not right a better can be made from the RAW
And I mean really fast
I would archive or create stock images from the RAW at a later date
SMM
-
Milutin,
If you have 3000 euro camera why should you use basic JPG compresion to save space, buy mor memory.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=83751\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
well, the answer is in my "from" sign. you know folks here, they buy brand new mercedes, and sleep in a cartoon box house (favelas). i guess i am an original sample of this territories.
anyway the show was canceled this monday. i guess i will try next monday.