Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Forums  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear
Guest
Forums  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon G-series Digital Cameras 
Thread started 25 Apr 2005 (Monday) 23:16
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links (only for non-logged)

G3 Normal vs Superfine

 
Selmorott
Hatchling
3 posts
Joined Sep 2004
     
Apr 25, 2005 23:16 |  #1

Hi there,
I was wondering if anyone can tell me, or even better show me, what the difference in quality is between having your G3 set on Large Normal, to Large Superfine? There is a huge difference in the number of pics you can hold on a card between these, and I want to know if the difference in quality is worth it. I am travelling o/s for a couple of months and the extra space would be handy. Although, if I take a great pic and want to blow it up, is it going to be noticeable if I have it set on Large Normal?

thanks in advance
Selmorott




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bryan ­ Bedell
Senior Member
Avatar
377 posts
Joined Apr 2005
Location: Chicago, IL, USA
     
Apr 26, 2005 08:39 |  #2

Take two photos of the same object, one in each mode, and view them in photoshop at 200% or so, you'll likely notice more "compression" in the photo taken at "normal." (you'll see artifacts, pixels that seem blurry or out of place, odd colors, especially on edges where there's contrast, and large areas of even color might be smoothed out. If you don't see the difference, look in one of the RGB channels, it's usually more obvious.

here are some examples, you can download them and compare them up close:

http://www.dpreview.co​m/reviews/canong6/page​12.asp (external link)

The G6 seems to have pretty good compression compared to some cameras, and if you're making 4x6 prints from 7mp images or posting them on the web or just looking at them on-screen, and you want to save hard drive and card space, and you're more interested in quantity than quality, you'll probably be OK in "normal," but be warned that in some photos it might be noticeable and if you're planning on having any large prints made, or color separations made for 4-color offset printing, your photos are not going to look the best they can. But for that matter, "Superfine" isn't the best, it's still a tiny bit compressed, "RAW" is the only uncompressed format.

Why not split the difference and at least shoot in "Fine"?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
S45_fornow...
Senior Member
530 posts
Joined Dec 2003
Location: NC, USA
     
Apr 26, 2005 10:32 |  #3

Selmorott wrote:
Hi there,
I was wondering if anyone can tell me, or even better show me, what the difference in quality is between having your G3 set on Large Normal, to Large Superfine? There is a huge difference in the number of pics you can hold on a card between these, and I want to know if the difference in quality is worth it. I am travelling o/s for a couple of months and the extra space would be handy. Although, if I take a great pic and want to blow it up, is it going to be noticeable if I have it set on Large Normal?

thanks in advance
Selmorott

The compression setting really depends on the size of the pics you plan on printing and how much storage space you have.

I usually print 4x6's and 8x10's, but I always shoot at the highest resolution and the Superfine compression setting because if I manage to get a really fantastic shot and I want to go bigger than 4x6 or 8x10 with the print, then I will have that extra detail due to more information embedded into the jpeg. Granted, I shoot RAW nowadays, but I think you'll understand where I'm coming from with my reply...




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Lagged2Death
Member
93 posts
Joined May 2004
Location: Cleveland, Ohio, USA
     
May 01, 2005 14:47 |  #4

I believe most (or at least many) camera shops can copy memory cards to CD-R for you, for a fee. If you're travelling somewhere where camera shops are common, this option could ease your storage constraints without spending a bundle on memory cards.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mannytkd
Goldmember
Avatar
1,224 posts
Joined Feb 2005
Location: Bradford West Yorkshire
     
May 01, 2005 16:36 as a reply to  @ Lagged2Death's post |  #5

Hi there,

I'm still fairly new to digital and was first shooting in "superfine" on my new G6 but was disapointed with the appearance of poor quality RAW compared to the superfine, what am i doing wrong, i use photoshop cs and paintshop pro 9, but after using the unsharp mask to sharpen the RAW and adjust the colour i thought it was rubbish and this puts me off RAW but so many people talk about it, For my own piece of mind i have gone back to "superfine". E.G. i have recntly took some shots of a single Bluebell stem with a few flowers on them and they came out perfect but in Raw i probably would have been disapointed?

Can anyone enlighten me please about raw or is my camera, surley not!!??

Thanks.


Canon 50D | [COLOR=black]18-55 IS | 55-250 IS | Canon EF 100mm USM macro | Canon 50mm MK2 | Tokina 11-16 | Kenko Auto Extension Tubes | Uniloc 1200 series pod | Canon 430EX flash gun | Some filters
www.karls-photography.co.uk (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bryan ­ Bedell
Senior Member
Avatar
377 posts
Joined Apr 2005
Location: Chicago, IL, USA
     
May 01, 2005 23:37 as a reply to  @ Mannytkd's post |  #6

Mannytkd wrote:
Hi there,

...but after using the unsharp mask to sharpen the RAW and adjust the colour i thought it was rubbish and this puts me off RAW but so many people talk about it, For my own piece of mind i have gone back to "superfine"....

Not sure about the G3 but the G6 saves a preview JPEG attached to the RAW file,which can be set in the in-camera menu to be whatever size you want, but by default it's small, so maybe somehow you're opening that and not the actual CRW (Canon RAW) format file. Until I switched to iPhoto05 and found a plugin for Photoshop CS, I wasn't even able to download or open the actual CRW file (Unless I used the Canon Software, but who would do that?). Now it's cake, and the RAWs look great.

If it's opening in Photoshop and not opening the "raw import" menu with all the RAW options, you're not working on the RAW file. Check that your import utility is importing files with a ".CRW" extension, and that you're opening those and getting the options to open/modify a RAW file (much more extensive than a regular file)

Bb.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mannytkd
Goldmember
Avatar
1,224 posts
Joined Feb 2005
Location: Bradford West Yorkshire
     
May 02, 2005 14:52 as a reply to  @ Bryan Bedell's post |  #7

Hi Bb,

I have downloaded the raw plugin for PS cs and have been loading the raw shot from the camera, and it does say "CRW" but i still think that they are very grainy, and now that it's sunny i keep the iso at 50 and shoot at F8 for even more sharpness and still get what appears to be unsharp and grainy. But when i use superfine, "wow" what a difference in quality, detail and above all sharpness.

So, could there be a problem with teh camera or is it like that till i mess about with it in PS cs to get it right.......? please can you enlighten me about raw, evrybody's talking about it but i'm not impressed YET?!


Canon 50D | [COLOR=black]18-55 IS | 55-250 IS | Canon EF 100mm USM macro | Canon 50mm MK2 | Tokina 11-16 | Kenko Auto Extension Tubes | Uniloc 1200 series pod | Canon 430EX flash gun | Some filters
www.karls-photography.co.uk (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bryan ­ Bedell
Senior Member
Avatar
377 posts
Joined Apr 2005
Location: Chicago, IL, USA
     
May 02, 2005 15:27 as a reply to  @ Mannytkd's post |  #8

Dunno, that's weird... Do you get the "Open Raw File" menu (or whatever it's called) when you open it that gives you all the options to change the exposure and all that? If not, it's probably not opening the CRW file. correctly.

Also, maybe look at the file size and see if they're the appropriate size.

And try opening them with the Canon software, but only as a last resort, ha.

For me, the RAWs don't look radically different than the superfine JPGs, but if you really look, you can see the compression in the JPGs. The bigger benefit IMHO is the ability to modify the camera settings to the uncompressed file.

Bryan




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links (only for non-logged)

2,037 views & 0 likes for this thread, 5 members have posted to it.
G3 Normal vs Superfine
FORUMS Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon G-series Digital Cameras 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Forums   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset   •  Home

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.58forum software
version 2.58 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member was a spammer, and banned as such!
2290 guests, 131 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.