In camera processing RAW v JPG comparison

[Don Hoey]

Rob,

If you get time for a test that will be interesting. I certainly cannot find much difference between RAW and JPG Fine on the D100. Even the basic amazed me.

Don

[yelvertoft]

Originally Posted by ruchai

Bees starting their new colony in our garden, flocking together. Taken with D50, Nikkor 80-400VR in RAW+JPEG.

I think the differences are obvious. If you do not care much about details then use jpeg. If you want to get all out from the pictures use raw. [snip...]

The first one is RAW (222.5KB), the one on the right is JPEG (196.8KB).

Am I missing something here? All I can see is a lot of subject movement. I don't think it matters if you are using raw or jpeg with this kind of subject, it's a blurred image regardless.

[yelvertoft]

Originally Posted by Don Hoey

Rob,

If you get time for a test that will be interesting. I certainly cannot find much difference between RAW and JPG Fine on the D100. Even the basic amazed me.

Don

Thanks for the samples Don, this is just the kind of thing we are looking for. It seems to me that the jpeg basic appears to be better resolution than the jeg fine. Have you got the labels round the right way? Perhaps it's my eyes going funny from lack of food.

[Don Hoey]

Originally Posted by yelvertoft

Thanks for the samples Don, this is just the kind of thing we are looking for. It seems to me that the jpeg basic appears to be better resolution than the jeg fine. Have you got the labels round the right way? Perhaps it's my eyes going funny from lack of food.

Duncan,

Labels are correct. I think in camera must add a smidge of sharpness to the basic image. Perhaps I need to do a foodie to maintain concentration.

Interesting link about RAW here. Its a PDF file, just saved it myself. http://www.photomet.com/pdfs/technotes/12bits.pdf

Off in search of more info. I'll have to think of another test after reading this.

Don

[Don Hoey]

I think we need a bit of input from Stephen now as he shoots RAW.

My thinking ...... may be completly wrong but here goes.

JPG = 8 bit
RAW = 12 bit
TIFF = link attatched http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TIFF

So when RAW is converted to JPG our nice 12 bit image becomes 8 bit. Tiff on the other hand would retain the 12 bit. So a print from a TIFF file will retain all of the 12 bit colour. The downside of TIFF is file size. If I remember from early experiments when I got my camera these are huge in comparison to RAW.

This is where Stephen could help by giving an idea of the growth in file size going from RAW to TIFF on a 12 mega pixel camera. I will take my RAW file from this and do similar.

Don

[Canis Vulpes]

Originally Posted by Don Hoey

I think we need a bit of input from Stephen now as he shoots RAW.

This is where Stephen could help by giving an idea of the growth in file size going from RAW to TIFF on a 12 mega pixel camera. I will take my RAW file from this and do similar.

Don

12-bit compressed NEF = 9.5 to 11.5 MB
12-bit uncompressed NEF = 20MB (approx)
TIFF from converted 12-bit compressed RAW = 80 to 100MB with no compression selected.

Now thats a disk filler!

[Don Hoey]

Originally Posted by Stephen Fox

12-bit compressed NEF = 9.5 to 11.5 MB
12-bit uncompressed NEF = 20MB (approx)
TIFF from converted 12-bit compressed RAW = 80 to 100MB with no compression selected.

Now thats a disk filler!

Thanks Stephen,

Finally the results for this image are .................

TIFF ( RGB ) 35.571mb
RAW 9.57mb
Conv. RAW 5.58mb
JPG Fine 2.58mb

Using Paint Shop Pro 8 I did a colour count ............. strange result for the RAW conversion

TIFF 419808 colours
EX RAW 203528 colours
JPG Fine 206895 colours

I attach the pic again as we are over the page.

My computer needs a rest now !!

Don

PS The D100 is a 6 megapixel camera !!

[robski]

Is this a fair test ?

on the left is bees jpg , middle robin feather jpg , right bees raw.

The Robin feather detail was shot at the weekend using jpg fine. Canon 20D 300mm 1/80 Sec f7.1 ISO 400.

A 100% crop no other processing.

[Don Hoey]

Originally Posted by yelvertoft

Perhaps it's my eyes going funny from lack of food.

I appoligise for this Rob but I think Duncans needs are greater - see attached pic.

Other than the ability to correct WB and exposure probs the main advantage of RAW appears to be 12 bit colour.

Another little experiment ...........

1) Convert the BLT from RAW to TIFF and from RAW to JPG using Nikon Capture.
2) Convert the TIFF to JPG.
I did not take this pic as a JPG fine but the previous post suggests it would have had a higher colour count than ex RAW.

Results :-

TIFF 34.78mb file ........... 698848 colours
JPG ex TIFF 3.65mb file ... 297901 colours
JPG ex RAW 6.11mb file ... 263905 colours

So for those with limited HD space the better option appears to be RAW to TIFF to JPG to retain max colour count. Then delete the TIFF.

Of course the next question will be how large do you have to print to see the difference ?

Don

[Don Hoey]

Originally Posted by robski

Is this a fair test ?

on the left is bees jpg , middle robin feather jpg , right bees raw.

The Robin feather detail was shot at the weekend using jpg fine. Canon 20D 300mm 1/80 Sec f7.1 ISO 400.

A 100% crop no other processing.

Nikon v Canon v Nikon
This would cause a riot on DPR

Don