1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Professor Newman- The Lost JPEG article

Discussion in 'AP Magazine Feedback & Suggestions' started by Blind Pugh, Oct 29, 2015.

  1. Blind Pugh

    Blind Pugh Well-Known Member

    What a good point raised by Bob Newman in this week's edition regarding JPEG 2000....why don't manufacturers use this format?.

    I am a fan of using the RAW editing software that usually comes with the cameras that I have purchased in the hope that this will give me a similar look to the in camera processed JPEG but with the added bonus of my slight adjustments in terms of highlights and shadows ( especially).
    Fujifilm X series cameras supply a variant of Silkkypix comes with the ability to replicate the Film Simulations such as Classic Chrome , Velvia , Provia etc. This very good if you like to process the Raw file away from the camera and in the relaxed and considered manner mentioned. The other bonus of a Fujifilm X series camera is that if the image has been shot in Raw then the film simulation , Highlight,Shadows,Dynamic range,and Noise reduction settings can be edited in camera after the event, this is a sure way to keep the feel and look of the output Jpeg correct.


    As well as wondering why JPG 2000 gas not been embraced, I also wonder why camera manufacturers do not give the user an option to save a DNG file with a chosen Film simulation or colour profile baked in ( perhaps they do?? ) so there would be at least a good starting point to preserve that certain look that the camera was purchased for perhaps.

    Cheers ,
    Ian Knight.
     
  2. Sejanus.Aelianus

    Sejanus.Aelianus In the Stop Bath

    Just thinking aloud:

    If you save the file as .jpg, then you'll presumably get that "look". You can keep that file safe and only work with copies, as I do. If you drop the file into a suitable editor, you can then save a copy in a DNG file and proceed from there.

    Does that sound right?
     
  3. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    I guess they've stayed with the original JPEG format for compatibility reasons.

    Most cameras don't use the DNG format, but their own proprietary RAW format; don't know about others, but Canon certainly do include their own colour profile info in the file, which would then be used as the starting point in their own RAW software, DPP.
     
  4. EightBitTony

    EightBitTony Well-Known Member

    There's probably a healthy dose of JPEG is good enough. IT is full of examples of 'good enough' solutions and the standards graveyard is full of 'better than good enough but arrived too late' standards.
     
  5. PhotoEcosse

    PhotoEcosse Well-Known Member

    Given that Prof Numann used Leica to exemplify the problem, I wonder if Roger H. sticks with Coca Cola or has invented his own Pepsi clone?
     
  6. Terrywoodenpic

    Terrywoodenpic Well-Known Member

    I would be happy if camera makers just offered Jpeg 2000 as an option. Or even as jpeg+jpeg 2000
    it has many advantages and no drawbacks ( It can be both a smaller file and lossless)
    you can even convert it to a standard jpeg (but why would you)

    It would also do away with the need for the vast tiff files.
     
  7. EightBitTony

    EightBitTony Well-Known Member

    JPEG 2000 offers both lossy and lossless compression methods, but I don't think the lossless compression results in smaller files than JPEG. I thought the lossy compression option was a little better than JPEG, but not hugely different in terms of size?

    The main advantage over JPEG is that the artefacts, at higher compression ration, are much less obvious with JPEG 2000, but it's still lossy.
     
  8. Footloose

    Footloose Well-Known Member

    I'm not sure, but I was under the impression .DNG files are a variant of the lossless Jpeg2000 format? I would have thought, that the fact that a Jpeg IS 'lossy', is what concerns some people. Is there another variant of the Jpeg format, which allows the user to save a file, so from that point onwards, no further compression is applied to it?

    Undoubtedly someone will say, "Ah, but if you set the compression to 1, on re-saving it again, the level of compression applied will be minimal." - My retort to that is, "So why not allow those saving a file, to instead, completely turn OFF the compression?"
     
  9. forestwhitaker

    forestwhitaker New Member


    If you save the file as .jpg, then you'll presumably get that "look"
    [​IMG]
     

Share This Page