Dpreview REALLY scraping the barrel bottom now!
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Bruce on 7 Jul 2010 17:19 On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 16:08:21 -0500, Rich <none(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > >Be interesting to see some of the lesser, noise-reduced in-camera images >versus the Panasonic's before and after the application of software-based >NR. IMO, the Panasonic images would be superior. The in-camera NR shown >in those models is ham-fisted, to say the least. What I found very surprising was that the Panasonic's RAW performance was actually marked significantly *lower* than its JPEG performance. It is usually the case that post processing RAW files outside the camera gives far superior image quality. The Panasonic was one of only a few models tested that offered RAW - it was notable that the Canon and Nikon models did not - so it was disturbing to see that shooting RAW would have been pointless.
From: Russ D on 7 Jul 2010 17:35 On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 22:19:01 +0100, Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 16:08:21 -0500, Rich <none(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >> >>Be interesting to see some of the lesser, noise-reduced in-camera images >>versus the Panasonic's before and after the application of software-based >>NR. IMO, the Panasonic images would be superior. The in-camera NR shown >>in those models is ham-fisted, to say the least. > > >What I found very surprising was that the Panasonic's RAW performance >was actually marked significantly *lower* than its JPEG performance. >It is usually the case that post processing RAW files outside the >camera gives far superior image quality. > >The Panasonic was one of only a few models tested that offered RAW - >it was notable that the Canon and Nikon models did not - so it was >disturbing to see that shooting RAW would have been pointless. The Canon SX20 has CHDK available for it, giving it the ability to save in RAW or DNG formats.
From: Savageduck on 7 Jul 2010 18:32 On 2010-07-07 14:19:01 -0700, Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> said: > On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 16:08:21 -0500, Rich <none(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >> >> Be interesting to see some of the lesser, noise-reduced in-camera images >> versus the Panasonic's before and after the application of software-based >> NR. IMO, the Panasonic images would be superior. The in-camera NR shown >> in those models is ham-fisted, to say the least. > > > What I found very surprising was that the Panasonic's RAW performance > was actually marked significantly *lower* than its JPEG performance. > It is usually the case that post processing RAW files outside the > camera gives far superior image quality. > > The Panasonic was one of only a few models tested that offered RAW - > it was notable that the Canon and Nikon models did not - so it was > disturbing to see that shooting RAW would have been pointless. I also thought that odd. I think that is because the manufacturers know their target market is never going to use RAW, let alone know what RAW is. So why make any effort to add a feature they know will never be used. I think you will find the marketing war cry will be, "If you want RAW, buy one of our DSLR's!" Few of the buyers of those cameras will use the more complex features. The great majority will use them as a "big snap shot camera." Perhaps that is what we shoutd term them "BSSC"? ;-) -- Regards, Savageduck
From: LOL! on 7 Jul 2010 18:36 On Wed, 7 Jul 2010 15:32:12 -0700, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: >I think you will find the marketing war cry will be, "If you want RAW, >buy one of our DSLR's!" > >Few of the buyers of those cameras will use the more complex features. >The great majority will use them as a "big snap shot camera." Perhaps >that is what we shoutd term them "BSSC"? ;-) You of all would know this, all too well. LOL!
From: Stuffed Crust on 7 Jul 2010 19:30
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Savageduck <savageduck1@{removespam}me.com> wrote: > I also thought that odd. I think that is because the manufacturers know > their target market is never going to use RAW, let alone know what RAW > is. So why make any effort to add a feature they know will never be > used. Or perhaps this is due to the fact that most compact cameras now correct the images for lens flaws (eg pincushion/barrel distortion) when generating JPGs, but if you pull up their RAW output, you'll have to apply the corection manually.. and the corrections would likely change at each combination of zoom stepping and focal distance. So unless the manufacturer provides an official RAW converter, that's a hell of a lot of work to get a non-distorted image... - Solomon -- Solomon Peachy pizza at shaftnet dot org Melbourne, FL ^^ (mail/jabber/gtalk) ^^ Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur. |