EOS Viewer Utility and soft JPGS

[robertdrake]

Looking at my images after downloading my JPG and RAW pics using the EOS Viewer Utility, I noticed that with the JPGs image next to the same RAW image, the JPGS were extremely soft by comparision. I thought it was supposed to be the other way around? I have the camera set to Parameter 1 (which adds a tiny bit of sharpening, colour saturation, etc). Why would an unalterned RAW image look sharper than a JPG?

[robertwgross]

JPEG files, by definition, use lossy compression.

RAW files do not.

---Bob Gross---

[robertdrake]

So that means they're sharper right out of the camera? I thought I read that RAW files out of the camera where soft looking compared with JPGS, since the JPGs added sharpness in the camera?

[robertwgross]

So that means they're sharper right out of the camera? I thought I read that RAW files out of the camera where soft looking compared with JPGS, since the JPGs added sharpness in the camera?

No.

JPEG files use lossy compression. That means that that with the default compression factors of the camera, you are still throwing away image detail.

You can change the shooting parameters inside the camera, and then the JPEG will have more sharpening or less sharpening, but there is still image detail that has been thrown away. With RAW, the shooting parameters don't do anything inside the camera, and the RAW file is fairly pure. The shooting parameters may or may not be used in making a TIF conversion in the computer.

---Bob Gross---

[Quinn Porter]

I'm afraid that I have to disagree with Bob Gross on this one. While it is true that JPEG is a lossy format, image degradation generally occurs over time as the file is repeatedly opened and resaved. JPEGs out of the camera are of very high quality (assuming you are using the fine compression setting). RAW images out of the camera should be a bit soft due to the anti-aliasing filter. JPEGs out of the camera are generally sharper looking because they have had some level of sharpening applied in camera.

I don't use the EOS Viewer Utility, so I am not speaking with any authority here, but perhaps this software is applying some level of sharpening to the displayed image. I use C1 for RAW conversion and it does allow for sharpening.

[robertwgross]

I'm afraid that I have to disagree with Bob Gross on this one. While it is true that JPEG is a lossy format, image degradation generally occurs over time as the file is repeatedly opened and resaved. JPEGs out of the camera are of very high quality (assuming you are using the fine compression setting). RAW images out of the camera should be a bit soft due to the anti-aliasing filter. JPEGs out of the camera are generally sharper looking because they have had some level of sharpening applied in camera.


I can't understand what you are saying. JPEG is a lossy format, and that is a given. Image degradation does occur over time as the file is repeatedly opened and resaved --- But that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. RAW images out of the camera should be a bit soft due to the anti-aliasing filter ---But JPEGs were made with the same filter. JPEGs straight out of the camera have a variable level of sharpening, depending on what the shooting parameters are. RAWs always have the same extremely low and fixed level.

---Bob Gross---

[robertdrake]

I'm afraid that I have to disagree with Bob Gross on this one. While it is true that JPEG is a lossy format, image degradation generally occurs over time as the file is repeatedly opened and resaved. JPEGs out of the camera are of very high quality (assuming you are using the fine compression setting). RAW images out of the camera should be a bit soft due to the anti-aliasing filter. JPEGs out of the camera are generally sharper looking because they have had some level of sharpening applied in camera.


I can't understand what you are saying. JPEG is a lossy format, and that is a given. Image degradation does occur over time as the file is repeatedly opened and resaved --- But that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. RAW images out of the camera should be a bit soft due to the anti-aliasing filter ---But JPEGs were made with the same filter. JPEGs straight out of the camera have a variable level of sharpening, depending on what the shooting parameters are. RAWs always have the same extremely low and fixed level.

---Bob Gross---

Okay, now I'm confused again. If the "PEGs straight out of the camera have a variable level of sharpening, depending on what the shooting parameters are" (in my case, using Parameter 1) and "RAWs always have the same extremely low and fixed level." then I still don't understand why my JPGS are so much softer than my RAW images if shapening is applied to the JPG but not the RAW? But you are saying that the RAW images should be sharper? I understood you earlier to say the RAW files are sharper because they are of higher quility to start with, I'm I getting this right?

[robertwgross]

Okay, now I'm confused again. If the "PEGs straight out of the camera have a variable level of sharpening, depending on what the shooting parameters are" (in my case, using Parameter 1) and "RAWs always have the same extremely low and fixed level." then I still don't understand why my JPGS are so much softer than my RAW images if shapening is applied to the JPG but not the RAW? But you are saying that the RAW images should be sharper? I understood you earlier to say the RAW files are sharper because they are of higher quility to start with, I'm I getting this right?

Where is the confusion?

1. JPEGs straight out of the camera have a variable level of sharpening, depending on the shooting parameters.
2. RAWs always have the same extremely low and fixed level of sharpening. Practically zero. However, some people use conversion utilities that will affect that differently by the time they are TIFs. Some conversion utilities just convert RAW to TIF and stop there. Some others apply sharpening depending on shooting parameters. Others do it a little differently.
3. RAWs always carry the true sensor data in full resolution. In general, that is 12-bit data.
4. JPEGs started with the true sensor data, maybe full res or maybe reduced res, but then the JPEG lossy compression happens as the file is saved in the camera. JPEG normally converts the image into 8-bit data. There are exceptions, but not here. In some images, lossy compression is so subtle that the human can't see any difference. Some of that compression is in color depth. In some other images, lossy compression is barely noticeable. Of course, multiple saving in JPEG degrades it further, but I don't think that is the discussion.

---Bob Gross---

[robertwgross]

Okay, now I'm confused again. If the "PEGs straight out of the camera have a variable level of sharpening, depending on what the shooting parameters are" (in my case, using Parameter 1) and "RAWs always have the same extremely low and fixed level." then I still don't understand why my JPGS are so much softer than my RAW images if shapening is applied to the JPG but not the RAW? But you are saying that the RAW images should be sharper? I understood you earlier to say the RAW files are sharper because they are of higher quility to start with, I'm I getting this right?

Where is the confusion?

1. JPEGs straight out of the camera have a variable level of sharpening, depending on the shooting parameters.
2. RAWs always have the same extremely low and fixed level of sharpening. Practically zero. However, some people use conversion utilities that will affect that differently by the time they are TIFs. Some conversion utilities just convert RAW to TIF and stop there. Some others apply sharpening depending on shooting parameters. Others do it a little differently.
3. RAWs always carry the true sensor data in full resolution. In general, that is 12-bit data.
4. JPEGs started with the true sensor data, maybe full res or maybe reduced res, but then the JPEG lossy compression happens as the file is saved in the camera. JPEG normally converts the image into 8-bit data. There are exceptions, but not here. In some images, lossy compression is so subtle that the human can't see any difference. Some of that compression is in color depth. In some other images, lossy compression is barely noticeable. Of course, multiple saving in JPEG degrades it further, but I don't think that is the discussion.

---Bob Gross---

[Quinn Porter]

I can't understand what you are saying. JPEG is a lossy format, and that is a given. Image degradation does occur over time as the file is repeatedly opened and resaved --- But that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. RAW images out of the camera should be a bit soft due to the anti-aliasing filter ---But JPEGs were made with the same filter. JPEGs straight out of the camera have a variable level of sharpening, depending on what the shooting parameters are. RAWs always have the same extremely low and fixed level.

---Bob Gross---

Well Bob, was the Bold really necessary? I think you probably did understand what I was saying, but I'll clarify anyway. With regard to JPEGs, although it is a lossy format, the image degradation during the conversion from RAW to JPEG is so small as to be not visable in most photos to most people. Only with repeated resaving will the degradation become a problem.

Yes, I know that the anti-aliasing filter has its impact on all images, including JPEGs. My point was that an unsharpened image, be it RAW, JPEG, TIFF, etc., is going to look soft due to the anti-aliasing filter. Because the JPEGs out of the camera have a fair amount of sharpening (especially at parameter 1 as the original post states), they generally appear sharper than an unsharpened image. Although you don't say it and I'm sure you don't believe it, your earlier post makes it sound like RAW files must be and are sharp simply because they are the original data.

From your posts it seems that you believe that the gain in sharpness from in camera processing is more than offset by the loss in sharpness from conversion to JPEG (due to the lossy compression). It is with this concept that I disagree (just so I'm clear :wink: ).

[robertdrake]

I'm not sure we're understanding each other, here is an example of what I'm talking about:

http://www3.telus.net/public/alexlind/football.jpg

As you can see, the RAW is far sharper than the JPG. From what I've read in the past, I would have thought the JPG would be shaper than the RAW image, it clearly isn't. I was wrong about the program I was using, this is DPP, and I've added no shapening to the RAW image.

[robertwgross]

... Although you don't say it and I'm sure you don't believe it, your earlier post makes it sound like RAW files must be and are sharp simply because they are the original data.


Correct. I did not say it, and I do not believe it.

It is just that RAW files are about as pure as we are going to get. No variable level of sharpening. Nothing fooled with.



From your posts it seems that you believe that the gain in sharpness from in camera processing is more than offset by the loss in sharpness from conversion to JPEG (due to the lossy compression). It is with this concept that I disagree (just so I'm clear :wink: ).
No, I did not say that, either, and I don't believe it. You jump to conclusions.

I shoot only RAW in the camera. I convert using no parameters. When editing, I use only TIF files, so I avoid the loss problem. Some TIF files get USM, to a different degree. After archiving, if I need the image for web publishing, then I convert to JPEG, but my editor allows me to choose the degree of compression in that. Normally, I keep the compression rather low, like only 5-10%.

---Bob Gross---

[Quinn Porter]

From your posts it seems that you believe that the gain in sharpness from in camera processing is more than offset by the loss in sharpness from conversion to JPEG (due to the lossy compression). It is with this concept that I disagree (just so I'm clear :wink: ).
No, I did not say that, either, and I don't believe it. You jump to conclusions.

If this is not what you believe, then why do you feel an unsharpened RAW image will appear sharper than a sharpened JPEG straight out of the camera?

And I think we should both agree that something is very wrong with Robert's JPEG.

[Quinn Porter]

I'm not sure we're understanding each other, here is an example of what I'm talking about:

http://www3.telus.net/public/alexlind/football.jpg

Robert,

Just so we're clear, is that a JPEG that was coverted from the RAW image by you using DPP or is that a JPEG out of the camera? If it was converted by you, what JPEG compression setting did you use? If it is out of the camera, what JPEG quality setting did you use?

[robertdrake]

I'm not sure we're understanding each other, here is an example of what I'm talking about:

http://www3.telus.net/public/alexlind/football.jpg

Robert,

Just so we're clear, is that a JPEG that was coverted from the RAW image by you using DPP or is that a JPEG out of the camera? If it was converted by you, what JPEG compression setting did you use? If it is out of the camera, what JPEG quality setting did you use?

I downloaded the file from the camera to the computer using EOS Viewer Utility, I then loaded the images into DPP. I didn't alter them or change them at all. That's the way they came out of the camera. And again, the camera is set to Parameter 1.

But this is odd, take a look at the data from the RAW file:

File Name
IMG_0107.CR2
Camera Model
Canon EOS 20D
Shooting Date/Time
25/09/2004 11:32:03 AM
Shooting Mode
Shutter-Priority AE
Tv( Shutter Speed )
1/250
Av( Aperture Value )
7.1
Metering Mode
Evaluative Metering
Exposure Compensation
0
ISO Speed
100
Lens
50.0 mm
Focal Length
50.0 mm
Image Size
3504x2336
Image Quality
RAW
Flash
Off
White Balance Mode
Auto
AF Mode
One-Shot AF
Parameters Settings
Contrast Mid. High
Sharpness Mid. High
Color saturation Mid. High
Color tone 0
Color Space
sRGB
Noise Reduction
Off
File Size
7632 KB
Custom Function
C.Fn:01-0
C.Fn:02-0
C.Fn:03-0
C.Fn:04-0
C.Fn:05-0
C.Fn:06-0
C.Fn:07-0
C.Fn:08-0
C.Fn:09-0
C.Fn:10-0
C.Fn:11-0
C.Fn:12-0
C.Fn:13-0
C.Fn:14-0
C.Fn:15-0
C.Fn:16-0
C.Fn:17-0
C.Fn:18-0
Drive Mode
Single-frame shooting
Owner's Name
unknown
Camera Body No.

As you can see, it says that the Parameters are set for Med.High. Where are those Parameters being set?

[robertwgross]

If this is not what you believe, then why do you feel an unsharpened RAW image will appear sharper than a sharpened JPEG straight out of the camera?

I never said that, either. Again you jump to conclusions. Forget about trying to read between the lines. Stick to the words as they appear.


And I think we should both agree that something is very wrong with Robert's JPEG.

Yes, there is something going on there that I don't understand. It was never stated, but I am assuming that the camera was something like a 20D, and that both the RAW and JPEG versions of the shot were of the same resolution. We don't know what kind of shooting parameters are getting in the way here.

---Bob Gross---

[Quinn Porter]

As you can see, it says that the Parameters are set for Med.High. Where are those Parameters being set?

The parameters are set via the menu (check out the last item in the red section). Even when shooting in RAW, the parameters are recorded even though they are not applied to the RAW file.

I have no idea what happened to your JPEG. If they are all like that, there may be something wrong with your camera.

[Quinn Porter]

I never said that, either. Again you jump to conclusions. Forget about trying to read between the lines. Stick to the words as they appear.


Bob, you must have been a star on the debate team, LOL. The original poster wanted to know why his JPEGs weren't as sharp as his RAW files. Your response:

"JPEG files, by definition, use lossy compression.

RAW files do not.

---Bob Gross---"

I believe my interpretation of your response was reasonable.

It's been fun. I'm calling it a night.

[robertwgross]

Bob, you must have been a star on the debate team, LOL.

Quinn, I'll bet that you were not one.



Your response:
"JPEG files, by definition, use lossy compression.
RAW files do not.

---Bob Gross---"

I believe my interpretation of your response was reasonable.


Yes, you quoted me accurately, but nowhere did I state that an unsharpened RAW is better or worse than a sharpened JPEG.

There are simply too many variables here to make a blanket statement like that.

I prefer to work with a RAW file because I know where I'm starting from. I can then intelligently select any level of process that is needed to attain the best results to my eye. In other words, I hand-edit each image. I'm always leery of working much with JPEGs, because I don't know what level of compression has already been done to them.

---Bob Gross---

[PacAce]

Looking at my images after downloading my JPG and RAW pics using the EOS Viewer Utility, I noticed that with the JPGs image next to the same RAW image, the JPGS were extremely soft by comparision. I thought it was supposed to be the other way around? I have the camera set to Parameter 1 (which adds a tiny bit of sharpening, colour saturation, etc). Why would an unalterned RAW image look sharper than a JPG?

I think what you have to understand is that the images you are looking at are thumbnail images. To make an acurate assessment of the two images what you have to do is open both of them so that they are displayed full screen or even bigger.

[DocFrankenstein]

I'm not sure we're understanding each other, here is an example of what I'm talking about:

http://www3.telus.net/public/alexlind/football.jpg
I have a question about IQs at this point. :shock:

If you want to compare sharpness, then you should compare 100% crops of raw/tiff and jpegs.

The raw appears sharper because of the algorithms used in the program. It just scaled down the JPEG's thumnail with horrible quality - that's why it seems less sharp. Open both of them up and compare at 100% magnification.

Bob... What you're saying is true, but your arguments point out that the JPEG should be sharper if you don't count in the JPEG quality loss. The quality loss is minimal because the JPEG was not manipulated or resaved. So if we think rationally, you're saying that raw should be softer.

[robertdrake]

I'm not sure we're understanding each other, here is an example of what I'm talking about:

http://www3.telus.net/public/alexlind/football.jpg
I have a question about IQs at this point. :shock:

If you want to compare sharpness, then you should compare 100% crops of raw/tiff and jpegs.

The raw appears sharper because of the algorithms used in the program. It just scaled down the JPEG's thumnail with horrible quality - that's why it seems less sharp. Open both of them up and compare at 100% magnification.

Okay...I did that, and they appear pretty much the same full sized. Which, I guess, answers my question though I'm still not sure what the process it. So, IOW, it completely normal that the RAWs look sharper than the JPGS as thumbnails in DPP? If so, I won't worry about it and revisit the issue when I know more about digital photograhy.

Bob... What you're saying is true, but your arguments point out that the JPEG should be sharper if you don't count in the JPEG quality loss. The quality loss is minimal because the JPEG was not manipulated or resaved. So if we think rationally, you're saying that raw should be softer.

I appreciate Bob's trying to help, but I couldn't figure out what he was saying and I was looking for simple answer :)

[Quinn Porter]

I appreciate Bob's trying to help, but I couldn't figure out what he was saying...

Amen brother!

[robertwgross]

Bob... What you're saying is true, but your arguments point out that the JPEG should be sharper if you don't count in the JPEG quality loss. The quality loss is minimal because the JPEG was not manipulated or resaved. So if we think rationally, you're saying that raw should be softer.

No, I didn't say that either. You guys keep trying to put your own slanted interpretations on my words.

"...that the JPEG should be sharper if you don't count on the JPEG quality loss."

But, you can't leave out the JPEG quality loss. The quality loss may or may not be minimal in the first pass. It is not necessary to save and resave to degrade the JPEG image from RAW quality.

---Bob Gross---

[robertdrake]

So, on really simple terms, if I'm getting soft JPGs as thumbnails, and sharp RAWs, that's not a sign of any defect in the camera? I putting the camera through its "test phase".

Oh, one more thing (maybe two). If I set the Parameters to 1, does that apply to both the RAW and the JPG image (I'm doing both at the same time)? It certainly seems to.

Okay, and here's the bonus question, I took some shots of plan white paper, they turned out blue (very blue). Is that because of the exposure (like when you're shooting shots of a snowly landscape)? Its been a long time since I've been involved in photography (over 15 years) and I'm more than rusty...and I know next to nothing about digital photography.

Thanks again guys!

[PacAce]

So, on really simple terms, if I'm getting soft JPGs as thumbnails, and sharp RAWs, that's not a sign of any defect in the camera? I putting the camera through its "test phase".

Oh, one more thing (maybe two). If I set the Parameters to 1, does that apply to both the RAW and the JPG image (I'm doing both at the same time)? It certainly seems to.

Okay, and here's the bonus question, I took some shots of plan white paper, they turned out blue (very blue). Is that because of the exposure (like when you're shooting shots of a snowly landscape)? Its been a long time since I've been involved in photography (over 15 years) and I'm more than rusty...and I know next to nothing about digital photography.

Thanks again guys!

The parameter settings apply to in-camera processing that's done to the JPEG files.

The same parameter may or may not be applied to the image that's converted from the raw file. If you tell the converter program to use the parameters used when the image was shot, then it'll do that. However, if you go out of your way to change one or more of the parameters, it'll use your new settings.

The the white paper looking blue, check the white balance setting. Maybe you have it set for incandescent light and the shot was taking using available sun light or flash. THat's assuming the exposure was set correctly. If the exposure was really underexposed, then that can cause a white paper to turn bluish, too.

[robertdrake]

The exposure of that white paper was set to "auto". And its very blue. My pictures with white objects don't look blue at all, btw. Just when the entire frame is white the image is very blue. As for the Parameter settings, I have it set only in camera, and I'm importing using EOS Viewer.

I looked at the "info" from each RAW image there, and it was setting the RAWs as Parameter 1 (that is, +1 for sharpening). Maybe if I set the camera to take only RAW, it will then ignore this setting?

Another thing, the "dead pixel" test. I took 30 sec shots, manual settings f1.8 and f11. One hot pixel at f11. Did I do this right? I would image that one hot pixel isn't an issue at all at 30 sec. I used the Dead Pixel Test utility to test the images.

[DocFrankenstein]

Bob... What you're saying is true, but your arguments point out that the JPEG should be sharper if you don't count in the JPEG quality loss. The quality loss is minimal because the JPEG was not manipulated or resaved. So if we think rationally, you're saying that raw should be softer.

No, I didn't say that either. You guys keep trying to put your own slanted interpretations on my words.

"...that the JPEG should be sharper if you don't count on the JPEG quality loss."
My slanted interpretations = mathematical logic :?