Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Stephen Fox
For in-camera JPEG to be 50% (approx) than that of RAW converted to JPEG suggests the in-camera JPEG must apply more compression than its RAW converted variant. More compression equates to a lower quality image in this case a little softer.
|
Steven, from my earlier look at DPR's review the softness difference between JPG and RAW conversion was put down to the greater processing power of converting RAW in a PC. Given the advances in technology I can understand that. As the JPG file was smaller and the colours lighter I thought that the highlight detail would have suffered. Unfortunately at the time of this shot it was not something I had considered so did not include something suitable in the scene. That is why I did a composite from a section of the board - lightest area in the pic. With both images of the BLT up side by side in uncompressed form, I did not find detail to be missing.
My question to you would be ( as you have the latest kit ) what differences are the between Best Quality JPG and RAW converted straight to JPG. That was the route I took. I did not go RAW through TIFF to JPG.
My interest is that if I know the quality you can get in JPG relative to RAW. Then an upgrade to D200 without an additional PC upgrade may be possible. My current kit could handle the JPG file sizes but not the RAW. I feel from my tests that the differences if there are any, will be in the fine detail in highlight areas.
Don
PS Duncan the JPG is softer its not your screen.