12 or 16 bit JPEG
Jan 27, 2021 06:36:30 #
I know that RAW files tend to be 12-16 bit and thus the greater potential for color gradation and detail. Why haven't JPEGs increased in Bit depth?
Jan 27, 2021 07:01:34 #
Because JPEG is standard (created by the Joint Photographic Experts Group) that was specifically designed to bhave 8 bit color depth.
Jan 27, 2021 07:27:26 #
larryepage
Loc: North Texas area
Flickwet wrote:
I know that RAW files tend to be 12-16 bit and thus the greater potential for color gradation and detail. Why haven't JPEGs increased in Bit depth?
The vast majority of people who take photographs save and display or print them as they are shot, just like the majority of film photographers printed, saved, and shared snapshots. 8 bit files are a great match for the capabilities of most displays and most printers. They also fit memory architectures perfectly. Any minor losses during saving and retrieving files doesn't matter to well over 99% of the world. JPEG is a near-perfect format for its primary intended purpose. There is no reason and no motivation to change it in any significant way.
Jan 27, 2021 07:54:48 #
For printing and displaying you really don't need more than 8 bit per channel. The extra bits are really useful for editing when manipulate the curve. So once you save a raw file to JPEG you don't edit any more that would be sufficient.
Jan 27, 2021 08:25:38 #
I edit in lightroom and photoshop set to 16 bit, but my printing service requests 8 bit files. When I convert to export for printing, my eyes can't see the difference. Still I guess I'm glad to have the extra latitude for editing. My camera sensor is 14 bit, so I figure why throw away data until I know I don't need it any more.
Jan 27, 2021 08:49:45 #
Flickwet wrote:
I know that RAW files tend to be 12-16 bit and thus the greater potential for color gradation and detail. Why haven't JPEGs increased in Bit depth?
The primary goal of JPEG is to SAVE memory and SPEED transfer - that is why it is 8 bit and will remain so !
.
Jan 27, 2021 09:20:26 #
JPEG compression/files is intended to compress image data to the minimum size without perceptible loss in image quality when viewed or printed. As such 8 bits is adequate.
I recommend the Wikipedia article on JPEG for an exhaustive and exhausting discussion of JPG. It is an unusually long article but like most articles it starts off quite readable before descending into geeky detail. Just read until your brain hurts or you fall asleep. Most of the controversial issues surrounding JPEG are covered before you will tune out. Notable are the age, nearly 32, and the billions of files created daily.
I recommend the Wikipedia article on JPEG for an exhaustive and exhausting discussion of JPG. It is an unusually long article but like most articles it starts off quite readable before descending into geeky detail. Just read until your brain hurts or you fall asleep. Most of the controversial issues surrounding JPEG are covered before you will tune out. Notable are the age, nearly 32, and the billions of files created daily.
Jan 27, 2021 10:56:40 #
larryepage wrote:
The vast majority of people who take photographs s... (show quote)
👍👍👍
Only comment I'd make is 99% might be a tad on the low side. The few pictures that might benefit from a raw profile is what many consider overkill and not needed. A few relish in the overkill, and there is nothing wrong with that.
A short peruse of the post processing forum will show that editing a jpg is not much of a problem in most all cases. The biggest advantage to raw is correcting gross over and under exposure. Regular jpg editors can handle all reasonable problems in this area. Best is to get the exposure close to begin with, and modern digital camera's are really good at it.
Jan 27, 2021 12:58:24 #
bleirer wrote:
I edit in lightroom and photoshop set to 16 bit, but my printing service requests 8 bit files. When I convert to export for printing, my eyes can't see the difference. Still I guess I'm glad to have the extra latitude for editing. My camera sensor is 14 bit, so I figure why throw away data until I know I don't need it any more.
I save my raw files separately from my JPEGs. When I need or want to redo/crop a shot for a customer or myself, I go back to the raw file. I never throw away bits.
Jan 27, 2021 13:19:21 #
Jan 27, 2021 14:09:47 #
Fred Harwood wrote:
I save my raw files separately from my JPEGs. When I need or want to redo/crop a shot for a customer or myself, I go back to the raw file. I never throw away bits.
That is what I meant by 'export.'
Jan 28, 2021 07:42:22 #
Flickwet wrote:
I know that RAW files tend to be 12-16 bit and thus the greater potential for color gradation and detail. Why haven't JPEGs increased in Bit depth?
The jpeg standard is fixed at 8 bits.
A new standard - the Jpeg2000 - was published in 2005, but did not get enough traction.
Jpeg2000 allows unlimited bit depths, so it does support 12 or 16 bits.
Jan 28, 2021 08:02:06 #
Modern JPEG files are of excellent quality, my Olympus camera JPEG files are simply outstanding in quality.
These JPEG files are not the same files of just a few years back. Artifacts are not common and subtle color changes although can happen are not as common as they were in the past.
Editing is based on 8 bits and does not offer the flexibility of RAW data. I have never been able to understand what happens when editing RAW data with 16 bits of information and a wide color space is compressed to a JPEG that has a much shorter color space and the bits count is cut in half.
Compressing from ProPhoto to sRGB is quite a compression. I use both files depending on my subject but I admit I have better results using JPEG with my Olympus bodies.
These JPEG files are not the same files of just a few years back. Artifacts are not common and subtle color changes although can happen are not as common as they were in the past.
Editing is based on 8 bits and does not offer the flexibility of RAW data. I have never been able to understand what happens when editing RAW data with 16 bits of information and a wide color space is compressed to a JPEG that has a much shorter color space and the bits count is cut in half.
Compressing from ProPhoto to sRGB is quite a compression. I use both files depending on my subject but I admit I have better results using JPEG with my Olympus bodies.
Jan 28, 2021 08:21:22 #
... resuming my previous post, HEIC does supports 16 bits.
The only reason why jpeg only supports 8 bits, is that it is hard coded in the standard (ISO/IEC 10918-1) an therefore it is very difficult to change: all organizations, corporations, etc. must agree on a new standard that supersedes that... and it cost money.
Bottom line: it is not that 8 bits are good enough, the true reason is just red tape.
The only reason why jpeg only supports 8 bits, is that it is hard coded in the standard (ISO/IEC 10918-1) an therefore it is very difficult to change: all organizations, corporations, etc. must agree on a new standard that supersedes that... and it cost money.
Bottom line: it is not that 8 bits are good enough, the true reason is just red tape.
Jan 28, 2021 09:04:42 #
camerapapi wrote:
Modern JPEG files are of excellent quality, my Oly... (show quote)
It’s not so much that “modern” jpegs are better. It’s that the internal processing in your camera that creates the jpegs is better.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.