Canon 10D JPEG Compression

[mblanton]

The 10D can capture jpeg images in several sizes (sm, md, lg), and also two different compression settings (normal and high). Has anyone ever shot in LARGE HIGH? Were you happy with the results? I think I can get almost double the amount of pictures on my memory card in this mode. Opinions please???

MIke

[CyberDyneSystems]

Don't compromise your image quality just to get a few more images on your card.

If shooting jpeg,. shoot at the highest possible resolution and the least compression. The resulting file sizes are still quite small (compared to a RAW or TIFF file)

If you are in need of taking more pictures, the solution is not to take more lower quality pictures,. the solution is to get more memory. With 1GB cards for under $100.00 these days.. memory is a very affordable option.

[Mills]

Don't compromise your image quality just to get a few more images on your card.

If shooting jpeg,. shoot at the highest possible resolution and the least compression. The resulting file sizes are still quite small (compared to a RAW or TIFF file)

If you are in need of taking more pictures, the solution is not to take more lower quality pictures,. the solution is to get more memory. With 1GB cards for under $100.00 these days.. memory is a very affordable option.

CDS, just curious, what compression setting do you use on your MK II?

[jbradc]

I have a 10D and I always shoot either RAW or Large, Highest quality JPEG. Cyber is right the time to compromise is not when you capture the image, you can always make it smaller later in PhotoShop if needed.

[KennyG]

Storage is so cheap these days there is no excuse not to shoot in the highest resolution possible.

For me, everything is shot in RAW anyway, but I find most MK-II JPG users go with the largest size and maximum resolution. Why pay that much for a camera and not use it to its full potential?

[Jim_T]

I shoot about 66% Large high quality JPEG, and 33% RAW. I never use the lower resolutions.

[CyberDyneSystems]

CDS, just curious, what compression setting do you use on your MK II?

RAW.. ;)

I did look closely at the default ( 8 ) Vs. the best quality (10, which I set my MkII to upon first use) settings and have to admit there was little difference except in file size,.

However on the 10D, 20D etc.. the best quality jpeg available is closer to the 8 setting on a 1 series,. ...the files aren't even close to the size of the 10 setting.

So with these Cameras (10D 20D) ..the steps are much more dramatic and going from "best" to "2nd best" is a very large and noticeable difference.


Back to the 1D series,. for those that can not or just have no interest in shooting RAW and the inherent steps involved,. the 10 setting for jpeg on the 1 is a great advantage. It offers a large file size with little to no compression,. (other than being a jpeg file to begin with)

If I had to shoot jpeg for some reaon,. it would be 10 for sure ;) (again,. this is now my default jpeg on the MkII, I just never actually use it)

[KevC]

I always shoot RAW. Why? I don't know. I'm a quality freak. Annnd I'm a newbie so I never get the white balance right http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/images/smilies/icon_redface.gif

[Cadwell]

:eek: My cameras can shoot in JPEG? :eek: are you sure? *wanders off to check the manual*

[ToriEm]

I have the 10D. I always record the image RAW.

In the <RAW> image-recording quality mode, a JPG image is recorded simultaneously and embedded within the RAW file. Custom Function C.Fn-08 allows me to set the recording quality of this JPG.
My question is this:
Why would I choose Large/Fine here and eat up the memory on my CF card. When I can use the File Viewer utility to process the raw image and choose there what quality I want the JPG to be.
Or, is it that the "processing of the raw file" in the File Viewer utility, is actually just pulling the JPG "as it was originally recorded in the raw file", rather than actually deriving a jpg from the raw data.
Ultimately, I guess I'm trying to realize, Would I be sacraficing anything by setting C.Fn-08 to the smallest recording quality for the JPG?

[ToriEm]

I don't understand and I'm sure it's because I do not understand the architecture of the RAW file and how it is captured.
I do shoot in RAW all the time. Is it true, that I'm getting the best possible quality I can get by choosing RAW, "regardless of what I set the quality of the embedded JPG to"? Let's see if I can learn by asking some more questions....

I am assuming the only data captured at the time the pic was taken is the RAW data.
I am viewing the RAW and the embedded JPG as one entity. With the JPG being a sub entity, which is derived from the RAW data - not captured simultaneouly at the same time the RAW was captured. Meaning the jpg is created (from or using) the raw data. Is this the way you understand it? If that is true, then I would choose the lowest in camera setting for the jpg, knowing that I could derive/create the high quality jpg on my pc later (where storage is not as issue) OR is it that, the RAW is created at the time of capture. And the JPG is created at the time of capture. And you can never get a best quality jpg short of caturing it at the same time you capture the RAW pic.

I know... my mind drives me nuts.....
Sure appreciate this forum and feedback !

[ToriEm]

Okay I see from my canon manual, the jpg and raw are captured simultaneously. But why? Isn't it true, you can derive a best quality JPG (or any format for that matter, tiff ) straight from the raw data.

Would be easier to just get another 1 gig card and do it the failsafe way (RAW + Large/Fine JPG) - but I am interested in how it works if anyone knows.

[daveh]

Okay I see from my canon manual, the jpg and raw are captured simultaneously. But why?

That just means that you press the button and get both. Most computers do things "simultaneously" by human standards simply by doing things very quickly.

[LisaMarie]

Hi Tori- I was prepared to do a lot of typing for you- instead I found a Ken Rockwell page ( with all the typing done for me ! ) that you might find interesting.
While I don't agree with all his "opinions" he explains the whole raw/jpg in good easy terms .

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

LisaMarie















Okay I see from my canon manual, the jpg and raw are captured simultaneously. But why? Isn't it true, you can derive a best quality JPG (or any format for that matter, tiff ) straight from the raw data.

Would be easier to just get another 1 gig card and do it the failsafe way (RAW + Large/Fine JPG) - but I am interested in how it works if anyone knows.

[tim]

You might find this thread (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=56376) interesting. Almost everyone uses highest quality JPG or RAW, with RAW just beating out JPG.

[tim]

That piece by Ken Rockwell's very interesting - he basically says RAW is for hobbyist who get things wrong and need to adjust them, whereas JPGs are used by pros who don't want or have to spend a lot of time on each image. My teacher is a pro, he shoots JPG exclusively. I'm new to this game and get things wrong, RAW's great for me.

[ToriEm]

Good article LisaMarie. Thank you !!

[jbradc]

...he basically says RAW is for hobbyist who get things wrong and need to adjust them, whereas JPGs are used by pros who don't want or have to spend a lot of time on each image...

I would have to disagree with that. I see it just the opposite, RAW is used by Pro's who need more control over the final image and better quality. And JPEG is used by the hobbyist who does not need to spend the time and attention to detail that RAW requires.

Here is a quote from an article that explains RAW vs. JPEG as I see it...

"Possibly the biggest advantage of shooting raw is that one has a 16 bit image (post raw conversion) to work with. This means that the file has 65,536 levels to work with. This is opposed to a JPG file's 8 bit space with just 256 brightness levels available. This is important when editing an image, particularly if one is trying to open up shadows or alter brightness in any significant way."
Here is the link to the article...
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-raw-files.shtml

But the bottom line is that there is more than one right answer, both RAW & JPEG can produce good results, it is a personal preference I guess.

[CyberDyneSystems]

You guys are looking in the wrong places if you are looking to Ken Rockwell to answer your questions with any kind of objectivity.

http://www.rogercavanagh.com/helpinfo/35_rawor-1.stm

Roger Cavanaugh is a "Web Famous" photographer who has taken a lot of time to research and explain many of the nuances of digital photography and help others in there quest for such info,. (yes he even takes the time to visit these very forums) ..as opposed to Rockwell who has merely used his platform to pidgeon hole, generalize, segregate, perpetuate and preach there own prejudices and lack of understanding.

http://www.cps.canon-europe.com/articles/article.jsp?article.articleId=1240

Who better to understand how best to take advantage of your cameras abilities and full potential than the manufacturer?

[ToriEm]

Good Info. Thanks for all the articles !!

Okay now the summary -
I was trying to figure out, if I take RAW pics and can produce a best quality jpg during post processing, using that RAW file - why choose LargeFine for the embedded jpg at the time you take the pic and eat up memory on my cf card....

the conclusions I've derived with your help and my research are;
The reason why I would shoot RAW+Large/Fine jpg in most cases, instead of RAW+Small jpg, is
1) because the camera sensor is capable of producing a better jpg image than the post processing softwares (ex: DPP, File Viewer Utilty, Capture.. etc)
2) a high quality jpg is going to be the end result anyway, so why impact work flow w/ unecessary post processing efforts in creating that jpg.

[tim]

I would have to disagree with that. I see it just the opposite, RAW is used by Pro's who need more control over the final image and better quality. And JPEG is used by the hobbyist who does not need to spend the time and attention to detail that RAW requires.

I can see your point. I think RAW is for people who have time to pay attention to every individual image, JPG is for people who don't have the time. My teacher is a full time professional, he works exclusively in JPG because he doesn't have time to spend playing around with RAW. JPG is fine for him, doing weddings, nudes, and some product photography.

I choose RAW because I often need to correct white ballance, exposure, noise, etc. If I was doing a high volume commercial shoot i'd expect i'd pay more attention, expose properly in JPG, and save the time in my workflow.

Just reading Roger C now, looks interesting.

[DavoMrMac]

I have started a separate thread for this, but thought it also appropriate to ask here.

I use a Canon 20d and always set to RAW and LargeFine JPEG. But noticed that when I few the resulting images, iView Media Pro reports them all as having different degrees of compression, for example 1:10 or 1:7, the RAW file is normally half the amount of compression of the JPEG file.

Does anyone know why this is? as I would have thought that the images would have all the same amount of compression, unless I change a setting on the 20d. I also expected the RAW files to have zero compression.

[robertwgross]

I don't know how your program deals with the estimation of the compression of an image file.

RAW is a non-lossy compression. JPEG is a lossy compression. TIF is a non-lossy "non-compression".

---Bob Gross---

[tim]

The amount of compression in a JPG depends on the photo. If there's large areas of the same color that compresses well, but for example if it's noisy it won't compress well.

[Bodog]

You guys are looking in the wrong places if you are looking to Ken Rockwell to answer your questions with any kind of objectivity.


I just skimmed the article, but I gotta agree with CDS. This guy is not someone to take advise from. Paraphrase: Don't shoot RAW because you might miss photos because your card won't hold enough RAW files; Any good studio photographer will know he has over exposed the shot, so there should be no need to recover blown highlights... he "lost" the curves for the jpegs that he used to increase the two stops exposure that made them look as good as the processed RAW files. Sure... In other words I don't want you amateur's out there checking up on me.
Sorry for the rant, but I don't like this guy just from the little I read from that link. :evil: He probably uses a N*k*n.

[robertwgross]

I just skimmed the article, but I gotta agree with CDS. This guy is not someone to take advise from.

Let's give him the benefit of the doubt and just say that Rockwell's comments are "interesting".

---Bob Gross---

[tonyhipps]

I was also going to recommend Ken Rockwell, and if you take the time to navigate his site you will learn that not only does he shoot exclusively JPEG he also shoots exclusively Jpeg normal not jpeg fine.