Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

Really? He is wondering if saving raw files would improve the picture produced by the camera? If that is true then a lot of us missed what he was trying to say.

Wallen Loc: Middle Earth

Stop distorting facts to fit your narrative.Those two posts are answers to 2 different posts.
Are you deliberately misunderstanding what you read to fit your belief or really lacking in reading comprehension?
By the way, I still stand firm for both previous post.

To clarify, My disagreement is with the idea that the difference in quality relies on power of the camera vs power of a pc.

Why I can not agree with that thought?
The file is already in the buffer. The computer in the camera have the whole day to crunch the number if it wants to. The speed of the cameras computer is not a factor.

JPEG compression is the same whether it happens fast or slow, in the camera or at post.

The major factor are the settings chosen by the operator. Whether in camera or on an editing software afterwards, the brain behind the tools is what matters. In other words, don't blame the tool. Use it properly, where it is meant for and get the best result it can provide.

Which brings me to-why are you accusing me of not knowing what affects JPEG compression when you are the one who stated that the prepost settings are part of JPEG?

Summing up your slip-ups, it is very clear to me now that though you may show technical knowledge, you do not have the practical understanding of JPEG. You did not understand that my statement is not about JPEG compression, but rather about situations where JPEG is a poor choice, showing your ignorance if not arrogance of the subject. Sometimes you make me think of the adage; "those who can not do, teaches".

You have been a very clear advocate of RAW.
But you are now your showing us an image that you says is a good JPEG SOOC, to prove I am wrong because your shot do not fit my criteria which would creating a good jpeg.

Have you looked at your image closely? Do you not see the very obvious speckling in sky and in the flat colored areas of the image?

.

Your image only prove I am correct. Beyond the tools design, it creates less ideal images


The same speckling happens on the solid fields.

petrochemist Loc: UK

I'd be extremely annoyed if my camera was routinely tied up for a minute after each shot processing the file. In reality processing time in camera is far more restricted than post processing on a PC. Even just a second of processing time would make the camera unusable for many situations.
Even if I didn't want to take more than one shot a day, None of my cameras could never have the whole day to 'crunch the numbers' the battery just wouldn't last that long.
If I have a particular shot that needs intensive noise reduction, I could leave the PC working on it overnight, battery life is not an issue when it's on the mains & I'm somewhat less likely to need to use the hardware...

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

I don't see it that way but you're entitled to your opinion. He did say he wanted to know what was superior/inferior and why. That seems to me that he is open to shooting raw in the future but wants reasons why he should do so.

OTOH, the discussion is useful for the general public, not just the OP, so while the OP may have left the room, there may be others who learn something.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

.

EJMcD

Good grief everyone...do your own experimenting, decide what works for you and "you do you".

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

You are wrong and that has been demonstrated. https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-787932-38.html#14392494

You are wrong. The memory buffer is there to buffer file writing to the card.

That is not the issue. It has never been the issue. I've never suggested that it was the issue. You keep bringing it up in error. The issue is the image processing that has to take place before the JPEG algorithm is applied. That was clear from the very first post I placed on the thread on page 1. https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-787932-1.html#14194794

This is the issue and has always been the issue. This is the only issue I have been addressing. And you're wrong about this as well; the tools do matter -- that's the point. The brain behind the camera has no choice to use better tools. Here's an example: https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-787932-34.html#14387861 The Fuji user has no control over the demosaicing algorithm (tool) applied in the camera. And so the tool matters. Yes you can blame the tool. You are wrong.

Because it's absolutely hilarious that you did the same thing I did after you incorrectly accused me of it. I never said the image processing was part of the JPEG compression algorithm but you falsely accused me of that. Now you've gone and done the same thing. YOUR WORDS: "JPEG is limited in capability. If one want a good JPEG photo, use with enough light, low dynamic range scene, no smooth gradients, no solid swaths of single color and use very light post edit."

AND NEITHER WAS MINE!! I'm being sarcastic! YOUR WORDS: "JPEG is limited in capability. If one want a good JPEG photo, use with enough light, low dynamic range scene, no smooth gradients, no solid swaths of single color and use very light post edit."

You are wrong. Show me where I said the photo was an SOOC JPEG.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

This is wrong. JPEG compresses the image after it is processed. Issues with low light, dynamic range, gradients etc. are concerns for the camera image processing software and hardware and have nothing to do with JPEG compression. The limited capability is in the camera hardware and image processing software.

Again not a JPEG issue but an issue with hardware capacity and processing software. JPEG only compresses the processed image.

Both images below are JPEGs. The IQ of the right side image is good. What's wrong with using JPEG to compress it? You're confused. The reason the IQ of the left side image is poorer has nothing to do with JPEG. The camera's poor noise filtering is the cause.

(Download)

srt101fan

Curiosity leads me to one more try. You seem to be a reasonable fellow so I hope you'll give me a straight answer to this direct, simple question.

Why don't you believe the OP when he says: "Mwsilver on Page 1 and Bill_de on page 27 recognized exactly what I was asking and why."

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

Not sure which post to believe from the OP. If he has no intention of postprocessing, why does he want to know which is better? If he wants to know which is superior/inferior and why, it seems that he might be considering raw (which requires postprocessing). Even if he doesn't intend to postprocess. Mwsilver described raw as flat and not as sharp as jpg, which I don't agree with. Bill_de said "He maybe wanted to know if a SOOC jpg would look as good as a SOOC raw file." I don't know what is meant by a SOOC raw file since I don't consider it a finished image. But if that's what the OP wanted to know, his introduction led me in a different direction.

At any rate, I think the discussion has been good, even outside the OP's intent.

joecichjr Loc: Chicago S. Suburbs, Illinois, USA

Love Bizarro's take on life 😂😂😂

Walkabout08

👏

Shooter41 Loc: Wichita, KS

Dear selmslie... You are correct in that auto ISO doesn't work well at Hartman Arena because the background behind the indoor soccer players constantly varies from a snow-white banner on the far wall from my favorite spot to shoot from, to a pitch black background behind the goal at one end of the pitch. I have found that setting my ISO on 12,800 and leaving it there allows me to avoid "clipping" highlights and still remove "noise" adequately in post processing. My camera can't go more wide open with my 70-200 mm telephoto lens that I have to use than F2.8 because the action varies between 100 ft away to 8 feet away and constantly varies. But, I can try shooting at 1/1600 instead of 1/2000 second for less noise. I can't switch to the Sony 300mm lens because I need a telephoto to be able to shoot close up. Even though I am 82 now with poor eyesight, I will need to frame the images I take tightly so that I do less cropping and then post process away the noise. Thank you for your excellent selections. Shooter41