LOG IN    OR   REGISTER TO FORUMS


Powershot S3 jpg-raw comparison

FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos RAW, Post Processing & Printing
Thread started 24 Aug 2007 (Friday) 21:14   
LIST NEARBY THREADS
 
Ikari
Mostly Lurking
Joined Aug 2007
10 posts
[MORE/SHARE]

I've been doing some research shots with S3's raw. At the first time I was using Drifft to convert all raw files into (unfortunately only) .tiff, since it cannot produce the .dng format (though it also made dng and jpg folders instead of tiff). After couple shots, I still couldn't find a consistent conversion results since drifft wasn't previewing some settings. I was only getting one very nice iso400, low light, indoor shot result compared to the jpg's, with a significant difference in noise grain (all the raw are almost always have finer, relatively smaller grains of noise). The other shots were not promising at all. I was about to give up, but eventually found the "DNG for Powershot 1.1.4". It was very relieving to get the program works without any problems. Working with .dng, bring it into photoshop's ACR, the adjustments sliders are abundant and also previewable.

The whole new world begins. The raws are just what they are promised to be. I took extreme test shots outdoor under harsh midday sunlight, and low-light indoor. I managed to recover things more than I expected. In photoshop's dialogues, all settings are left unadjusted but the "sharpness", "recover", "contrast", and "noise reduction" are properly adjusted (except for contrast is almost always set to minimum, and sometimes the recover is set to maximum, and maybe due to default ACR's noise reduction the noise is significantly lower compared to Drifft's. But if you're lucky enough to own more advanced programs like neat image etc., I'd recommend you to leave 100% noise reduction to them).

Unlike once said that small sensors are just useless for its raw, it surprised me that those sayings are not completely true. Completely white surfaces reveal their textures and colors, unsaturated shadows reveal their true colors, lightings are more balanced, and noise characteristics are also a lot friendlier to manipulate. However, some cons are also emerging. The appearance of chromatic aberration in some unexpected places, possible occasional aliasing in some edges, possible highlight banding due to "over-recovery", hot-pixels in long exposures, and sometimes a lot softer images compared to the original jpg. The unsharp mask with 100% strength and 2.0 pixel radius is closing the gap, but not as good. I'm still researching on that.
Watch closely to my sample image attachments. 4 crops of each jpg and raw, side by side.
The first 2 are high contrast outdoor shot, the next 2 are low-light long exposure indoor (15 sec).

If I may summarize the characteristics of S3's original jpgs:
1. No matter how you set the in-camera-contrast adjustment, the whole images are always processed relatively in high contrast (that's why I won't set the contrast higher than 2 - it will hide things even more in hilites and shadows), results are lower dynamic range.
2. Low-light images or even most deep shadows in bright images are highly desaturated, losing their original colors that you can't recover no matter what (btw, the iso800 itself desaturated around 25%). Try boosting up the brightness or gamma and also the saturation of my jpg versions, or shoot and find it yourself.

Have a nice try yourself! Sorry for the long post... ;)

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos.

Post #1, Aug 24, 2007 21:14:24




LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
PacAce
Cream of the Crop
PacAce's Avatar
Joined Feb 2003
26,804 posts
ABE, PA USA
[MORE/SHARE]

Maybe I'm missing something here but as far as I know, the Powershot S3 does not support the creation of raw files. So, were you referring to some other camera, perhaps? :confused:

Post #2, Aug 25, 2007 02:01:56


...Leo

LOG IN TO REPLY
cdifoto
Don't get pissy with me
cdifoto's Avatar
Joined Dec 2005
34,036 posts
[MORE/SHARE]

Hacked S3?

Post #3, Aug 25, 2007 02:12:00


Did you lose Digital Photo Professional (DPP)? Get it hereexternal link. Cursing at your worse-than-a-map reflector? Check out this vid!

LOG IN TO REPLY
PacAce
Cream of the Crop
PacAce's Avatar
Joined Feb 2003
26,804 posts
ABE, PA USA
[MORE/SHARE]

cdifoto wrote in post #3792824external link
Hacked S3?

I thought you were kidding but I just found out that there really is a RAW hack for the S3 IS. :shock:

Post #4, Aug 25, 2007 14:38:47


...Leo

LOG IN TO REPLY
Ikari
THREAD ­ STARTER
Mostly Lurking
Joined Aug 2007
10 posts
[MORE/SHARE]

Powershot S3 jpg-raw comparison, update

Wow, I'd never be kidding about anything like this. I'd swear by my own S3!

Anyway, the next other time I tried indoor long-exposures (from 1 to 10 secs, iso 800 to 80), lit by fluorescent light equivalent to 85W (not too dark, but the camera needed to lower its speed below 1 sec and get on a tripod), and the results are too disappointing, that are quite similar both the raw and jpg and sometimes opposing any credits of my previous research. The raw didn't recover anything in highlight areas, and sometimes even losing some important details in shadows! I can't figure out why it seems that the raw is far superior and usable only in highly contrast scenes (where you can still recover shadow or highlight details), or in a very low light ones (for shadow details and colors' saturation). I've tried such conditions over and over again and it's pretty consistent.

It's less powerful in balanced, adequate lighting, where you can already have wonderful camera jpgs by default (especially with iso80 - yes, iso80, you may end up in raw with hard-to-rid hot pixels and annoying noise). In an already-wonderful jpg, overall sharpness is something that the raw can't match by any standard sharpening methods, other than maybe photoshop cs series' "smart sharpen" with "remove: lens blur", which reaching equally sharp, but without strong viewable halos around edges. By far it's the best I've ever tried.
Another story with iso800, with proper lightings they are still good, but if you can manage to get rid of intrusive noise (with extensive, multiple, boring, time-consuming filterings) the raw is still nice by it's small and a bit more uniform grains (the jpgs have slightly bigger grains and less uniform, and even a bit better in shadow area noise), but it's not that significant. Unfortunately, I think, those fine results are only achievable with expensive, multiple tools like a combination of photoshop's filtering and neat image. Such time and resource consumption definitely not recommended for ordinary-day shots.

Another next shot is an outdoor one, I was trying to recover a very bright highlight in white, shiny floor. I can only recover slight lines with aliasing and banding. White and shiny floor is likely something terrible for the camera, even for its raw shots. Those slight lines are recovered when the shot was set at 2x speed (equivalent to -1 EV), so it was twice the darkness. Brighter than that I'd have recovered nothing at all. Disappointing. However, like I said before, you can still get a better shadow detail and color saturation in such dark images. It is the only advantage.

One more less significant note: in the raw images (whatever shooting condition is), edges in shadows are somehow by default sharper than its edges in highlight, so if you sharpen the whole images by referring to the highlight and get equal sharpness to the jpg's, the shadow details will be sharper than the jpg's.

I haven't found the exact overall formula yet.
Have a nice try!

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos.

Post #5, Aug 27, 2007 23:29:02 as a reply to PacAce's post 2 days earlier.




LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)


LIST NEARBY THREADS
603 views & 0 likes for this thread
Powershot S3 jpg-raw comparison
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos RAW, Post Processing & Printing



NOT A MEMBER YET? CLICK HERE TO REGISTER TO FORUMS

CHANGE BODY TEXT SIZE FOR ALL THREAD PAGES
POWERED BY AMASS 1.0version 1.0
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net


SEND FEEDBACK TO STAFF  |  JUMP TO FORUM...  |  FORUM RULES


Spent 0.00116 for 6 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.02s
885 guests, 790 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 3341, that happened on Dec 11, 2014
Latest registered member is shwater

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: By using this site you agree that some cookies will be stored on your browser. For unlogged users we store one session id cookie. For registered members we store (in addition to login session cookie) only cookies that are essential for required functionality, we do not store any personal tracking data in cookies or other browser's data storage methods.