Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

D70 vs P&S cameras: in-camera sharpening.

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 4:22:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Newbie question follows, so keep the flame throwers sheathed :) 

I watched a consumer TV programme last night where they shot a few
indoor party scenes with a range of consumer P&S cameras, printed out
at A4 size, and compared results with those from a Nikon D70. A
Fuji P&S was found to be "sharper" than the D70.

Now from what I have read here about "soft" results reported by new
users of DSLRs, I presume this was due to more in-camera sharpening
being applied in the consumer P&S than in the D70.

So, here is the question: does this mean that the D70 is more
accurately outputting the detail information that is hitting the
sensor, and that if it looks soft, that is because that is all the
information that can be resolved? This would also mean that any
sharpening up being applied later in the digital darkroom is
"inventing" information that is not in the original, would it not?

Looking forward to getting some more education about sharpening :) 
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 4:22:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Bryn James" <fbjames@iee.org.uk> wrote in message
news:quabr01rni7uk7v6r7qv0bahr880ru3rlj@4ax.com...
> Newbie question follows, so keep the flame throwers sheathed :) 
>
> I watched a consumer TV programme last night where they shot a few
> indoor party scenes with a range of consumer P&S cameras, printed out
> at A4 size, and compared results with those from a Nikon D70. A
> Fuji P&S was found to be "sharper" than the D70.
>
> Now from what I have read here about "soft" results reported by new
> users of DSLRs, I presume this was due to more in-camera sharpening
> being applied in the consumer P&S than in the D70.

Bingo! The in-camera sharpening of the D70 is adjustable, and by default,
isn't much.

> So, here is the question: does this mean that the D70 is more
> accurately outputting the detail information that is hitting the
> sensor, and that if it looks soft, that is because that is all the
> information that can be resolved? This would also mean that any
> sharpening up being applied later in the digital darkroom is
> "inventing" information that is not in the original, would it not?

Sharpening doesn't "invent" detail, it brings out what is already there.
The idea is that when two adjacent pixels (or actually pixels within a
certain distance of each other) are different, you increase the difference.
For example, suppose you had a row of black-and-white pixels that went like
this:

10 10 10 10 13 17 20 20 20 20

This is most likely a slightly blurred edge between an area of brightness 10
and an area of brightness 20. The sharpening algorithm will do something
like this:

10 10 10 10 11 19 20 20 20 20

(increasing the difference between the 13 and the 17) or maybe even this:

10 10 10 09 08 22 21 20 20 20

(producing a very exaggerated edge).

This counteracts the effects of blur from any source, within reason (the
actual theory is quite complicated and depends on the point spread
function). HOWEVER, it can also make edges look sharper than they were in
the original subject, and it can produce very unnatural effects.

Low-end digital cameras do a fixed amount of in-camera sharpening with the
assumption that you are taking pictures under typical conditions and want a
print between 4x6 and 8x10 inches in size. Higher-end DSLRs have adjustable
in-camera sharpening and are not very heavy-handed; they expect you'll do
your _real_ processing outside the camera.

So... Comparing the "sharpness" of the D70 to a low-end digital camera is
not a fair test. The D70 definitely captures enough detail that people can
use it to test Nikon lenses. It just doesn't do a lot of sharpening by
itself.

Also, the D70 has a quite aggressive noise-reduction algorithm. If you make
a 1- or 5-second exposure with a D70, it won't be speckled the way a long
exposure with a cheaper camera will be.

--
Clear skies,

Michael A. Covington
Author, Astrophotography for the Amateur
www.covingtoninnovations.com/astromenu.html
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 4:45:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Depends, I have just read that Raw files are a little less sharp than an 'in
camera cooked' Jpeg, so as to allow for post digital manipulation. So if the
reviewers were comparing on that basis thinking that the Raw is necessarily
superior to a Jpeg, as usual they don't know there arse from their elbow.
The in camera sharpening on a P&S's Jpeg is perhaps tweaked to appeal to the
average snapshooter but the slight softness of a raw file is perfect as it
is the raw data, unassembled, allowing for post manipulation which is what
digital is all about really, the art of light wave/rule bending,
My 2p's worth

"Bryn James" <fbjames@iee.org.uk> wrote in message
news:quabr01rni7uk7v6r7qv0bahr880ru3rlj@4ax.com...
> Newbie question follows, so keep the flame throwers sheathed :) 
>
> I watched a consumer TV programme last night where they shot a few
> indoor party scenes with a range of consumer P&S cameras, printed out
> at A4 size, and compared results with those from a Nikon D70. A
> Fuji P&S was found to be "sharper" than the D70.
>
> Now from what I have read here about "soft" results reported by new
> users of DSLRs, I presume this was due to more in-camera sharpening
> being applied in the consumer P&S than in the D70.
>
> So, here is the question: does this mean that the D70 is more
> accurately outputting the detail information that is hitting the
> sensor, and that if it looks soft, that is because that is all the
> information that can be resolved? This would also mean that any
> sharpening up being applied later in the digital darkroom is
> "inventing" information that is not in the original, would it not?
>
> Looking forward to getting some more education about sharpening :) 
>
>
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 5:21:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Bryn James" <fbjames@iee.org.uk> wrote in message
news:quabr01rni7uk7v6r7qv0bahr880ru3rlj@4ax.com...

> So, here is the question: does this mean that the D70 is more
> accurately outputting the detail information that is hitting the
> sensor, and that if it looks soft, that is because that is all the
> information that can be resolved? This would also mean that any
> sharpening up being applied later in the digital darkroom is
> "inventing" information that is not in the original, would it not?

Yes indeed. The sharpening process actually throws away information, so it
should be done only after all other adjustments.
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 5:52:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 13:22:55 GMT, Bryn James <fbjames@iee.org.uk>
wrote:

>Newbie question follows, so keep the flame throwers sheathed :) 
>
>I watched a consumer TV programme last night where they shot a few
>indoor party scenes with a range of consumer P&S cameras, printed out
>at A4 size, and compared results with those from a Nikon D70. A
>Fuji P&S was found to be "sharper" than the D70.
>
>Now from what I have read here about "soft" results reported by new
>users of DSLRs, I presume this was due to more in-camera sharpening
>being applied in the consumer P&S than in the D70.
>
>So, here is the question: does this mean that the D70 is more
>accurately outputting the detail information that is hitting the
>sensor, and that if it looks soft, that is because that is all the
>information that can be resolved? This would also mean that any
>sharpening up being applied later in the digital darkroom is
>"inventing" information that is not in the original, would it not?
>
>Looking forward to getting some more education about sharpening :) 

Well spotted, this is typical bullshit you expect from a consumer
program. I've seen them (being general here) get it *completely* wrong
in other industries and in one particular experience I had about 10
years ago, they were verging on being corrupt, selecting an obviously
inferior brand by applying questionable and irrelevant logic.

For a Granny, the inability to modify the sharpness setting in the D70
'sharpening' menu might mean this program's conclusion was helpful,
but for the rest of the world, it's trash.

Here's a general rule on in-camera vs out of camera processing:

** If the same source data is made available to both algorithms, the
out-of-camera (read Photoshop) will do a better job. It has MUCH more
processing power, MANY more sliders for fine control, MUCH more R&D
and is in it's 9th release, compared to version 2 of the camera
firmware.

Some things (and I believe digital zoom on non-DSLRs could fall into
this category) are best done in-camera because they are done before
JPEG conversion, the (zoom for example) is done on the RAW and then
converted to JPEG. But, this really only matters if JPEG is being
used.


For D70, I would shoot RAW with sharpening to NONE (BTW, I am not sure
if it would actually sharpen the RAW, or just use it as a
recommendation for the RAW importer). Don't do any sharpening on
import (annoying RAW thing in photoshop has this to 25% by default)
and use a third-party sharpener plugin such as nik sharpener pro which
asks you target output size, print rez and viewing distance and even
scans the image to determine the correct amount and method of
sharpening.

Even if you want small internet-only images, if card capacity isn't an
issue, I'd still shoot RAW and resize them in Photoshop, the result
has less step-artifacts than doing it in-camera.

--
Owamanga!
December 7, 2004 5:59:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Owamanga <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:bmfbr0doj841hj37snu0v3ufc7of5qtj0l@4ax.com:

> Some things (and I believe digital zoom on non-DSLRs could fall into
> this category) are best done in-camera because they are done before
> JPEG conversion, the (zoom for example) is done on the RAW and then
>

Would not all operations be performed on the RAW data? I don't usually
shoot RAW on my camera because it takes so long to write to the card.

Bob
December 7, 2004 7:37:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"bob" <Jwx1.nothing@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:Xns95B86622E1D39j123w123x123@216.77.188.18...
> Owamanga <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:bmfbr0doj841hj37snu0v3ufc7of5qtj0l@4ax.com:
>
> Would not all operations be performed on the RAW data? I don't usually
> shoot RAW on my camera because it takes so long to write to the card.
>
> Bob
My D70 writes RAW data very fast (as fast or faster than JPEG) because the
camera need not process the image at all. I do all sharpening in PS after
all other changes have been made.
Jim
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 7:52:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"bob" <Jwx1.nothing@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:Xns95B86622E1D39j123w123x123@216.77.188.18...
> Owamanga <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:bmfbr0doj841hj37snu0v3ufc7of5qtj0l@4ax.com:
>
>> Some things (and I believe digital zoom on non-DSLRs could fall into
>> this category) are best done in-camera because they are done before
>> JPEG conversion, the (zoom for example) is done on the RAW and then
>>
>
> Would not all operations be performed on the RAW data? I don't usually
> shoot RAW on my camera because it takes so long to write to the card.

Sounds like time for a nice new fast card then ! It makes a big difference
with a D70 if you have a slow card and maove to a faster one. I used to use
an IBM microdrive until I bought a SanDisk Ultra II CF. It's loads faster
saving images and clearing the buffer - night and day.
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 7:57:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On My D70 I shoot raw 6.6mb and Jpeg fine 2.5mb simultainously and writing
to card is not an issue with a buffer of 9 shots. I can rattle of 2-3 second
bursts before the buffer is full which I rearly do and the wirite proccess
is never an issue with the D70.
"Jim" <j.n@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:U_ktd.27700$fC4.5752@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "bob" <Jwx1.nothing@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns95B86622E1D39j123w123x123@216.77.188.18...
>> Owamanga <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> news:bmfbr0doj841hj37snu0v3ufc7of5qtj0l@4ax.com:
>>
>> Would not all operations be performed on the RAW data? I don't usually
>> shoot RAW on my camera because it takes so long to write to the card.
>>
>> Bob
> My D70 writes RAW data very fast (as fast or faster than JPEG) because the
> camera need not process the image at all. I do all sharpening in PS after
> all other changes have been made.
> Jim
>
>
December 7, 2004 8:19:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"adm" <adm1@fastmail.fm> wrote in
news:mKudneZ7O9pTQijcRVn-sw@giganews.com:

> Sounds like time for a nice new fast card then ! It makes a big
> difference with a D70 if you have a slow card and maove to a faster
> one. I used to use
>

I envy all you D70 guys and your fast write times. With the Coolpix 5000,
write times are slow, and faster cards don't help. The fastest it can write
a RAW image is measured in seconds (12, 30? I don't remember the figure),
and a single RAW image fills the entire buffer, so it has to write one
before you can expose the next.

Bob
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 8:28:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 16:52:20 -0000, "adm" <adm1@fastmail.fm> wrote:

>
>"bob" <Jwx1.nothing@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>news:Xns95B86622E1D39j123w123x123@216.77.188.18...
>> Owamanga <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> news:bmfbr0doj841hj37snu0v3ufc7of5qtj0l@4ax.com:
>>
>>> Some things (and I believe digital zoom on non-DSLRs could fall into
>>> this category) are best done in-camera because they are done before
>>> JPEG conversion, the (zoom for example) is done on the RAW and then
>>>
>>
>> Would not all operations be performed on the RAW data? I don't usually
>> shoot RAW on my camera because it takes so long to write to the card.
>
>Sounds like time for a nice new fast card then ! It makes a big difference
>with a D70 if you have a slow card and maove to a faster one. I used to use
>an IBM microdrive until I bought a SanDisk Ultra II CF. It's loads faster
>saving images and clearing the buffer - night and day.

I use 1Gb Transcend 45x cards in the D70, chosen for the price rather
than speed (these were $85), maximum sequences I shoot are about 7-9
frames RAW (The time it takes for a heron to take-off or land), more
typically about 5 frames. I shoot slower than 3fps because I need time
to reframe/focus-target or manually focus between shots. With this
usage pattern and hardware, I've never had it fail to release the
shutter.

--
Owamanga!
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 8:40:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 14:59:02 GMT, bob <Jwx1.nothing@bellsouth.net>
wrote:

>Owamanga <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote in
>news:bmfbr0doj841hj37snu0v3ufc7of5qtj0l@4ax.com:
>
>> Some things (and I believe digital zoom on non-DSLRs could fall into
>> this category) are best done in-camera because they are done before
>> JPEG conversion, the (zoom for example) is done on the RAW and then
>>
>
>Would not all operations be performed on the RAW data?

True. So what I mean is it probably only matters if you are shooting
JPEG with no plans to post-process, you'll want the camera to do the
work on the RAW and produce the JPEG as the last stage. RAW users
don't need this, everything can (and should) wait to be done in
Photoshop.

Even so, read any Photoshop book and they'll tell you that sharpening
(Unsharp mask) should be the LAST thing to happen to an image prior to
printing it, not the first thing.

To me, digital darkroom is the *major* advantage of going digital, so
I have a difficult time understanding those consumers who want the
camera to perform this step automatically, especially on a DSLR.

> I don't usually shoot RAW on my camera because it takes so long to write to the card.

I guess you don't own a D70. You still have 14 shopping days until
Christmas. Go for it.

--
Owamanga!
December 7, 2004 9:24:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Owamanga <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:b6qbr0lim352h0adq5hl6cj65magkrmi3m@4ax.com:

> I guess you don't own a D70. You still have 14 shopping days until
> Christmas. Go for it.
>

I have a wife too, and I'd like to keep her ;-)

I feel like Homer Simpson looking at donuts every time I walk into Best
Buy. Mmmmmm -- D70.

Bob
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 10:01:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 14:52:52 GMT, in rec.photo.digital Owamanga
<nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:


>For a Granny, the inability to modify the sharpness setting in the D70
>'sharpening' menu might mean this program's conclusion was helpful,
>but for the rest of the world, it's trash.

Except one can modify the sharpness setting in the D70. As I did with my
5700, I set it to none.


>For D70, I would shoot RAW with sharpening to NONE (BTW, I am not sure
>if it would actually sharpen the RAW, or just use it as a
>recommendation for the RAW importer)

Raw is just that. No image adjustment.

>Even if you want small internet-only images, if card capacity isn't an
>issue, I'd still shoot RAW and resize them in Photoshop, the result
>has less step-artifacts than doing it in-camera.

I'd disagree with this and shoot smaller size fine quality jpegs. IFF this
was the only destination for the photos.
________________________________________________________
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
http://EdwardGRuf.com
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 10:02:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 16:57:37 -0000, in rec.photo.digital "Nick Beard"
<nick@superchop.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>On My D70 I shoot raw 6.6mb and Jpeg fine 2.5mb simultainously

???? How do you do this? The combo setting raw + basic jpeg, not fine.
________________________________________________________
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
http://EdwardGRuf.com
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 10:03:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 17:19:42 GMT, in rec.photo.digital bob
<Jwx1.nothing@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>"adm" <adm1@fastmail.fm> wrote in
>news:mKudneZ7O9pTQijcRVn-sw@giganews.com:
>
>> Sounds like time for a nice new fast card then ! It makes a big
>> difference with a D70 if you have a slow card and maove to a faster
>> one. I used to use
>>
>
>I envy all you D70 guys and your fast write times. With the Coolpix 5000,
>write times are slow, and faster cards don't help.

We've been through this around here before for the 5700, 20-22 sect was
about the best.
________________________________________________________
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
http://EdwardGRuf.com
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 10:13:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 17:40:17 GMT, in rec.photo.digital Owamanga
<nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:

>True. So what I mean is it probably only matters if you are shooting
>JPEG with no plans to post-process, you'll want the camera to do the
>work on the RAW and produce the JPEG as the last stage.

You must be careful, many of the default settings can be content dependent
if using the auto or maybe scenes modes.

________________________________________________________
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
http://EdwardGRuf.com
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 10:27:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"bob" <Jwx1.nothing@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:Xns95B8890554A7Bj123w123x123@216.77.188.18...
> Owamanga <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:b6qbr0lim352h0adq5hl6cj65magkrmi3m@4ax.com:
>
>> I guess you don't own a D70. You still have 14 shopping days until
>> Christmas. Go for it.
>>
>
> I have a wife too, and I'd like to keep her ;-)
>
> I feel like Homer Simpson looking at donuts every time I walk into Best
> Buy. Mmmmmm -- D70.

Buy it as a Christmas present for her.
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 11:30:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 18:24:49 GMT, bob <Jwx1.nothing@bellsouth.net>
wrote:

>Owamanga <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote in
>news:b6qbr0lim352h0adq5hl6cj65magkrmi3m@4ax.com:
>
>> I guess you don't own a D70. You still have 14 shopping days until
>> Christmas. Go for it.
>>
>
>I have a wife too, and I'd like to keep her ;-)

She'd look better in pictures taken by the D70!

>I feel like Homer Simpson looking at donuts every time I walk into Best
>Buy. Mmmmmm -- D70.

Indeed, and it doesn't stop once you've bought the body.

--
Owamanga!
December 7, 2004 11:35:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Owamanga <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:8k4cr0t28uq1f5kgkm8a8u6a5uk1md3sue@4ax.com:

> Indeed, and it doesn't stop once you've bought the body.

Now that I'm seriously considering the D70, I'm wishing I hadn't sold off
the 180 2.8 AF and the 35-70 2.8 AF...

Bob
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 12:41:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 19:27:44 -0000, "adm" <adm1@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>"bob" <Jwx1.nothing@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>news:Xns95B8890554A7Bj123w123x123@216.77.188.18...
>> Owamanga <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> news:b6qbr0lim352h0adq5hl6cj65magkrmi3m@4ax.com:
>>
>>> I guess you don't own a D70. You still have 14 shopping days until
>>> Christmas. Go for it.
>>>
>>
>> I have a wife too, and I'd like to keep her ;-)
>>
>> I feel like Homer Simpson looking at donuts every time I walk into Best
>> Buy. Mmmmmm -- D70.
>
>Buy it as a Christmas present for her.

Yes, and when it doesn't fit in her handbag/purse, offer to swap.

Always be the gentleman.

--
Owamanga!
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 1:09:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"bob" <Jwx1.nothing@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:Xns95B89F535E43j123w123x123@216.77.188.18...
> Owamanga <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:8k4cr0t28uq1f5kgkm8a8u6a5uk1md3sue@4ax.com:
>
> > Indeed, and it doesn't stop once you've bought the body.
>
> Now that I'm seriously considering the D70, I'm wishing I hadn't sold off
> the 180 2.8 AF and the 35-70 2.8 AF...

indeed - thats a pity - maybe you can get a similar deal on ebay like when
you let them go... and if you are getting in trouble with your wife, you can
always send her over to rpd - we will take the blame of leading you on ;-)
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 8:22:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ah yes you are right, but basic Jpeg is quite huge and ideal for resising
for email etc
"Ed Ruf" <egruf_usenet@cox.net> wrote in message
news:n2hcr011hg8i9sl2fhr974q6mpgl44aits@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 16:57:37 -0000, in rec.photo.digital "Nick Beard"
> <nick@superchop.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On My D70 I shoot raw 6.6mb and Jpeg fine 2.5mb simultainously
>
> ???? How do you do this? The combo setting raw + basic jpeg, not fine.
> ________________________________________________________
> Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
> http://EdwardGRuf.com
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 8:22:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 17:22:30 -0000, in rec.photo.digital "Nick Beard"
<nick@superchop.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>Ah yes you are right, but basic Jpeg is quite huge and ideal for resising
>for email etc

I don't get the reasoning here. If you have to resize, just process
the raw. No need to use addition storage space for the basic jpg.
________________________________________________________
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990 and 5700 at
http://EdwardGRuf.com
Anonymous
December 9, 2004 4:29:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ed....It not so much that, but you may want a finished shot for imediate use
and one for experimentation. For one clik of the shutter in Raw+Jpeg you
have 1) a raw image that can be post proccessed at will with out loss of
image quality and 2) a 'ready cooked meal' of a photo all served up ready
for publishing, distributing or printing out as a reference to what you
might have had if you hadnt messed too much with the Raw image. This is
apparently a recent option on DSLR's introduced this year so I'm sure that
ther is other valid reasons for the use of two identical shots in different
formats. Memory isnt an issue really, with 1 and 2 Gb cards available at
very reasonable cost, especially from the US

"Ed Ruf" <egruf_usenet@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1leer0hsigsl4q5lfjj7mc81udd26p3ak1@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 17:22:30 -0000, in rec.photo.digital "Nick Beard"
> <nick@superchop.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Ah yes you are right, but basic Jpeg is quite huge and ideal for resising
>>for email etc
>
> I don't get the reasoning here. If you have to resize, just process
> the raw. No need to use addition storage space for the basic jpg.
> ________________________________________________________
> Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
> See images taken with my CP-990 and 5700 at
> http://EdwardGRuf.com
Anonymous
December 9, 2004 4:29:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 01:29:26 -0000, in rec.photo.digital "Nick Beard"
<nick@superchop.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>Ed....It not so much that, but you may want a finished shot for imediate use
>and one for experimentation. For one clik of the shutter in Raw+Jpeg you
>have2) a 'ready cooked meal' of a photo all served up ready
>for publishing, distributing or printing out as a reference to what you
>might have had if you hadnt messed too much with the Raw image

I don't see the use of this for me. I don't now what you mean by publish,
here, but for distributing via email I'll resize/resample any how. I'm not
going to mail out 3000x2000 800kB images. As to printing for reference,
which I never do anyhow, Qimage could print from the raw NEF. Since if
shoot with no sharpening set whatsoever even when I shoot fine jpg, I need
to post process some. In any case it's just a couple clicks to process the
nef if I shoot that, which I don't always do.

>formats. Memory isnt an issue really, with 1 and 2 Gb cards available at
>very reasonable cost, especially from the US

Even though I have a 1GB card, it's always an issue. First weekend with the
D70 I went to an airshow and shot 400+ fine jpgs, which just filled the
card. Next big outing shot almost 500 at 1.5 gb and used my Nixvue DA to
dump to. But I also keep a local backup of all my files on a second hard
disk and archive to dvd. I just don't see where the ~16% overhead of
raw+jpg is worth it for every photo.

________________________________________________________
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
http://EdwardGRuf.com
Anonymous
December 9, 2004 5:17:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 22:07:31 -0500, Ed Ruf <egruf_usenet@cox.net>
wrote:
>Even though I have a 1GB card, it's always an issue. First weekend with the
>D70 I went to an airshow and shot 400+ fine jpgs, which just filled the
>card. Next big outing shot almost 500 at 1.5 gb and used my Nixvue DA to
>dump to. But I also keep a local backup of all my files on a second hard
>disk and archive to dvd. I just don't see where the ~16% overhead of
>raw+jpg is worth it for every photo.

I use RAW+JPEG just because often the wife wants to use ACDSee to
quickly spin through the images (literally, with the mouse wheel) to
choose which ones she wants to print. I'll do the same (based on JPEG
viewing only).

Corresponding RAWs for the chosen shots are then imported,
exposure-adjusted, balance-adjusted and cropped as required. I save
(possibly) multiple versions of HQ JPEG at different resolutions and
sharpening for different print sizes using Photoshop.

In order to still be able to keep this workflow, I'll either have to
leave the camera creating the JPEGs or perform some sort of batch
process to generate me these files from the NEFs once I get them on a
PC.

I currently have 2x1Gb and 1x0.5Gb cards, and have a 40Gb PD7X
portable storage device that transfers the card to HD - combined, this
allows me approximately 6,800 shots of RAW+JPEG on a single trip. This
equates to 283 rolls of film for which I'd need a small donkey or a
couple of sherpas to carry. The PD7X actually fits in my front pocket
(if I don't sit down).

--
Owamanga!
Anonymous
December 9, 2004 8:42:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 14:17:58 GMT, in rec.photo.digital Owamanga
<nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:

>In order to still be able to keep this workflow, I'll either have to
>leave the camera creating the JPEGs or perform some sort of batch
>process to generate me these files from the NEFs once I get them on a
>PC.

Doesn't ACDSee support NEF? At least V7 appears to from the website.

________________________________________________________
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
http://EdwardGRuf.com
Anonymous
December 10, 2004 4:58:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 17:42:32 -0500, Ed Ruf <egruf_usenet@cox.net>
wrote:

>On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 14:17:58 GMT, in rec.photo.digital Owamanga
><nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>In order to still be able to keep this workflow, I'll either have to
>>leave the camera creating the JPEGs or perform some sort of batch
>>process to generate me these files from the NEFs once I get them on a
>>PC.
>
>Doesn't ACDSee support NEF? At least V7 appears to from the website.

v7? Damn, I am still running v4.

Does anyone know how fast it is compared to flicking through JPEGs
(which is extremely fast).

--
Owamanga!
Anonymous
December 10, 2004 11:00:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

That claim is very misleading. The picture may seem sharp because P/S
cameras do heavy processing of the image internally. This makes them seem
much "better".
The D70, unless you select it, does NOT do this processing. It just gives
you "raw data" if you want (I don't mean "raw" compression). You can then
do your own processing of the image in a program like Photoshop, and get
much better results than the P/S.

"Bryn James" <fbjames@iee.org.uk> wrote in message
news:quabr01rni7uk7v6r7qv0bahr880ru3rlj@4ax.com...
> Newbie question follows, so keep the flame throwers sheathed :) 
>
> I watched a consumer TV programme last night where they shot a few
> indoor party scenes with a range of consumer P&S cameras, printed out
> at A4 size, and compared results with those from a Nikon D70. A
> Fuji P&S was found to be "sharper" than the D70.
>
> Now from what I have read here about "soft" results reported by new
> users of DSLRs, I presume this was due to more in-camera sharpening
> being applied in the consumer P&S than in the D70.
>
> So, here is the question: does this mean that the D70 is more
> accurately outputting the detail information that is hitting the
> sensor, and that if it looks soft, that is because that is all the
> information that can be resolved? This would also mean that any
> sharpening up being applied later in the digital darkroom is
> "inventing" information that is not in the original, would it not?
>
> Looking forward to getting some more education about sharpening :) 
>
>
Anonymous
December 11, 2004 11:40:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 20:00:22 -0500, in rec.photo.digital "Fred B."
<spamfred1@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>That claim is very misleading. The picture may seem sharp because P/S
>cameras do heavy processing of the image internally. This makes them seem
>much "better".
>The D70, unless you select it, does NOT do this processing. It just gives
>you "raw data" if you want (I don't mean "raw" compression). You can then
>do your own processing of the image in a program like Photoshop, and get
>much better results than the P/S.

Actually many of the higher end P&S cameras allow one to change these
settings as well. My CP-990 and 5700 do, at least. I have shot with any in
camera sharpening for years.
________________________________________________________
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
http://EdwardGRuf.com
December 28, 2004 10:02:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> On My D70 I shoot raw 6.6mb and Jpeg fine 2.5mb simultainously
Doubt it - the RAW+JPG is JPG in basic (high compression) format...

A minor benefit of many Fuji P&S cameras over others is that they use
interpolation, giving a better result for an enlarged image, than not having
it. Still nothing like 'true' resolution though.

Cheers, Jason
Folio: www.gadgetaus.com/photos
Anonymous
December 28, 2004 8:53:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <33cenqF3vrpkoU1@individual.net>,
"Gadgets" <info@gadgetaus.dot.com> wrote:

>A minor benefit of many Fuji P&S cameras over others is that they use
>interpolation, giving a better result for an enlarged image, than not having
>it. Still nothing like 'true' resolution though.

Well, it is helpful when the majority of high-contrast transitions, like
architectur edges, square signs with square fonts, etc., are horizontal
and vertical. In images with arbitrary angles of edges, it offers
nothing at all.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
!