Dng files vs jpg ?!?!

[gilmbento]

Hi there!

Got my P2v+ for 2 months and always been taking photos in DNG and tweaking them on LR and PS.
Today i took a test and imported the dng and the jpg into lightroom 5 to compare them.
Hitting the letter C you can compare 2 images and to my surprise, the jpg has a bit more detail , less chromatic aberration and a lot less noise!!!
Even after tweaking the dng,i found the jpg more pleasant (to my eye). Can some one test it too?
I think i'll be shooting in jpg for now, as it takes 2 second freezing time on the app, vs 6/8 seconds on the dng!!

Thank you guys.

 

[andersonpaac]

Dng gives you fidelity, you can mess around with the parameters after the picture is taken. More importantly the pictures aren't compressed

 

[InterMurph]

the jpg has a bit more detail , less chromatic aberration and a lot less noise!!!

The JPG appears to have more detail, less chromatic aberration, and less noise, because the camera's image processor has made those adjustments to the raw image.

If you have some basic Lightroom skills, you can take the raw DNG file and produce a far superior JPG, with more detail, less chromatic aberration, and much less noise, than the camera's tiny processor can.

So don't compare an unprocessed raw image with a processed JPG image. Process the raw image yourself, then compare that to the JPG produced by the camera. I promise you you can do much better than the camera can.

 

[malacca]

The noise-reducing on the Phantom .jpgs is pretty high, so unless you are equally aggressive with your noise reduction when processing your .dng, you'll see more noise in the .dng file. That said, having a little more noise keeps some of the small details more visible, and unless you're pixel-peeping, it's not too bad. The .jpg files look fine, though, and a shorter lag photo-to-photo is nice.

 

[Beaugolfs]

If DNG files are processed correctly they will far surpass the JPG version. For example, DNG also allows for correction of white balance mistakes and gives you more data to bring out detail in the shadows. The unprocessed DNG will usually not look as good as good as the JPG version. In a hurry JPGs are great.

 

[InterMurph]

And while we are talking about image quality, I have obtained the best results with the sharpening set to the "soft" setting. This has improved the quality of both my stills and my video.

 

[gilmbento]

https://imageshack.com/i/ipa1d040p

 

[gilmbento]

https://imageshack.com/i/ipa1d040p

as long as i push up the dng, the jpg looks better straight out of camera.
Just my opinion…

 

[4wd]

I'm generally an enormous fan of RAW and always use it with my two other cameras - but the time taken 'waiting' for the phantom to write a DNG and jpg (wish the jpg could be turnedoff, it would help) is excessive and in most cases the large jpg alone seems surprisingly good.
So I've been using large JPG only for a while, it takes about a third of the time with black screen.

 

[gilmbento]

I'm generally an enormous fan of RAW and always use it with my two other cameras - but the time taken 'waiting' for the phantom to write a DNG and jpg (wish the jpg could be turnedoff, it would help) is excessive and in most cases the large jpg alone seems surprisingly good.
So I've been using large JPG only for a while, it takes about a third of the time with black screen.

Agree.
I have a d800 and jpg is not an option. Always shoot in raw and tweak them in LR with outstanding results compared to jpg's, but in this case i'm confused because i find jpg's better than tweaked dng's .
Does any one tested it ?

 

[slothead]

I'm glad this subject was raised. I'm a Nikon guy and usually use my D800 and shoot NEFs almost religiously (I use the JPGs to find what images I want to PP). In the case of the FC200 camera, it appears to me that the JPGs are as good as the DNGs. I try to sharpen the DNGs with ACR and they aren't getting any better than the JPGs already are! Does anyone else get any better results?

 

[EV2]

If referring to Nikon D800 you can shoot jpg, raw or both, just set in your menu.

As to Phantom, the jpg file is a smaller file with sharpening and processing done in the camera with a lot of data dumped.

Simply stated, if you have a rudimentary knowledge of your software, you can, at the very least, adjust to match the jpg file and with knowledgeable application of adjustments in raw before opening in Photoshop, you will have a superior image with significantly more detail. The amount of difference will vary depending upon the original capture.

If your jpg is superior, you may not be correctly using the raw file.

Often, inexperienced software users compare the already in-camera processed jpg to the just opened, unadjusted raw file and are disappointed. Some of the comments above appear to fall in that category.