I didn't realize .jpg and raw were cropped differently

[mmpsteve]

Greetings, all. You experienced photogs may laugh, but I just recently looked at a .jpg and raw file, side by side, and realized that the .jpg was cropped smaller, image-wise, to the raw file, to a significant level. I only looked closer at it when I noticed the vignetting in the upper corners of the raw file that didn't exist in the .jpg file; the corners in question had been cropped out! Again, probably not surprising to those of you with experience, but was news to me.
Many consumers won't have the ability to see or process the raw files, so it may not matter to them, but I wanted to see the difference in highlight details, and the difference is significant. Best regards from Indiana, USA.
Steve

 

[Tomas Wangen]

Greetings, all. You experienced photogs may laugh, but I just recently looked at a .jpg and raw file, side by side, and realized that the .jpg was cropped smaller, image-wise, to the raw file, to a significant level. I only looked closer at it when I noticed the vignetting in the upper corners of the raw file that didn't exist in the .jpg file; the corners in question had been cropped out! Again, probably not surprising to those of you with experience, but was news to me.
Many consumers won't have the ability to see or process the raw files, so it may not matter to them, but I wanted to see the difference in highlight details, and the difference is significant. Best regards from Indiana, USA.
Steve

Did you choose the 2/3 image format? 16/9 (and 4/3) will be cropped.

 

[KevMo Photog]

Greetings, all. You experienced photogs may laugh, but I just recently looked at a .jpg and raw file, side by side, and realized that the .jpg was cropped smaller, image-wise, to the raw file, to a significant level. I only looked closer at it when I noticed the vignetting in the upper corners of the raw file that didn't exist in the .jpg file; the corners in question had been cropped out! Again, probably not surprising to those of you with experience, but was news to me.
Many consumers won't have the ability to see or process the raw files, so it may not matter to them, but I wanted to see the difference in highlight details, and the difference is significant. Best regards from Indiana, USA.
Steve

Yo Steve from Indiana! From Southern Indiana myself. What aspect ratio are you shooting your stills at? 4:3 or 3:2? I've heard about this vignetting issue on other threads. I have not noticed it yet. I shoot only in Raw btw. Also saw where a guy had some color vignetting issues in corners and on sides too.

 

[Meta4]

I just recently looked at a .jpg and raw file, side by side, and realized that the .jpg was cropped smaller, image-wise, to the raw file, to a significant level.

Compare the image sizes.
I've noticed that several posted raw images are a few pixels less (in width and height) than the image size of the corresponding jpg.
Otherwise the image sizes should be the same.

 

[mmpsteve]

I believe I was set at 16:9 ratio. I'll be changing to 3:2 for next flight, after reading up a little bit. I saved to .jpg and raw for my shots, with auto setting (my first flight). I'm from a printing background, with very little photo experience, at least high-end photos, so definitely in the learning mode. The vignetting was noticeable; I'll try to post photo. I see the raw file is too big to upload.

 

[mmpsteve]

Meta4, sir, the pixel count seems to be the same, but the cropping is tighter on the .jpg image, by a good bit. I have the .jpg posted on the media gallery, but appears the .dng file is too big?

 

[Meta4]

Meta4, sir, the pixel count seems to be the same, but the cropping is tighter on the .jpg image, by a good bit. I have the .jpg posted on the media gallery, but appears the .dng file is too big?

This is what I was referring to:
Photo Issues: JPG and RAW mixed up
Look at the image dimensions in his example
I've seen a couple like that but don't know what the explanation is.

What you describe sounds like two different photos.

 

[mmpsteve]

Meta4, I had been following the .jpg vs. raw thread. In my case, it is the exact same photo, and the jpg looks, colorwise, the way I would expect, vs the .dng file. The pixel count is exactly the same for both, but the jpg is cropped tighter (less image) than the raw file. I've checked a couple since I saw this, with the same result. Can you tell me how to show the raw file for others to compare to the jpg. I've only posted 1 jpg file to the media account for another thread, but the raw files look too big to post there. I can convert the raw file to jpg, but I'm concerned the issues with cropping will get too confusing if I use 2 jpg files to compare, as opposed to using the jpg with the corresponding raw file.

 

[Meta4]

but the jpg is cropped tighter (less image) than the raw file.

That sounds very odd since they were taken with the same lens and the same position at virtually the same time.

Can you tell me how to show the raw file for others to compare to the jpg.

Umm ... if you just wanted to show the look of it you could just post a screenshot of it on your monitor

 

[misterCB]

I noticed this during some testing a few days ago.. the JPG is slightly "cropped" compared to the DNG, but is the same pixel count. My guess is that it is some kind of lens/distoriton correction being applied during JPG processing. It was most noticeable in the corners when I A/B'd the same photo which was saved via RAW+JPG mode.. I put some reference lines over the photos to see if the perspective changed at all (in addition to the crop), and it does ever so slightly.

EDIT: Just wanted to add, my tests were in 16:9.. the distortion in the DNG was most definitely present in the top right corner, where I had a door frame to reference against, compared to the JPG.

 

[Tomas Wangen]

I noticed this during some testing a few days ago.. the JPG is slightly "cropped" compared to the DNG, but is the same pixel count. My guess is that it is some kind of lens/distoriton correction being applied during JPG processing. It was most noticeable in the corners when I A/B'd the same photo which was saved via RAW+JPG mode.. I put some reference lines over the photos to see if the perspective changed at all (in addition to the crop), and it does ever so slightly.

EDIT: Just wanted to add, my tests were in 16:9.. the distortion in the DNG was most definitely present in the top right corner, where I had a door frame to reference against, compared to the JPG.

The sensor is 3:2 for at so you will get cropping for all other formats.

 

[misterCB]

The sensor is 3:2 for at so you will get cropping for all other formats.

I understand it has to crop from 3:2 for16:9.. was curious about the difference in JPG vs DNG though, both at 16:9.

I had images from my test all lined up to post when I noticed the JPG actually was a few pixels larger.. Not sure how I missed that last time. My JPG, straight from the P4P (16:9 in RAW+JPG mode) is 5472x3078. The DNG for some reason shows as 960 x 540 in the properties via Explorer, but after processing in ACR without changing a thing and exporting to JPG, it's 5464 x 3070.

Even after scaling the JPG down to the DNG size - it's still not the exact same composition - so there is some difference in how the camera is cropping or correcting the JPG.

I realize it's not a huge deal, but was curious when I noticed it.

 

[gr8pics]

I understand it has to crop from 3:2 for16:9.. was curious about the difference in JPG vs DNG though, both at 16:9.

I had images from my test all lined up to post when I noticed the JPG actually was a few pixels larger.. Not sure how I missed that last time. My JPG, straight from the P4P (16:9 in RAW+JPG mode) is 5472x3078. The DNG for some reason shows as 960 x 540 in the properties via Explorer, but after processing in ACR without changing a thing and exporting to JPG, it's 5464 x 3070.

Even after scaling the JPG down to the DNG size - it's still not the exact same composition - so there is some difference in how the camera is cropping or correcting the JPG.

I realize it's not a huge deal, but was curious when I noticed it.

I think this just adds up to all the other observations about this camera, which certain people get thrown under the buss for having opinions about

 

[mmpsteve]

In my case, the jpg and raw both showed the exact same pixel count and 16:9 ratio, as viewed in Corel Photo Paint. I'm going to look at them again in Adobe, just to confirm. The crop on the jpg was probably 10% tighter (less image) all the way around. It's not a huge deal for me; I'm not a professional, but just found it interesting. One of the answers above made me think that the raw was imaging at 3:2 ratio, and only the jpg was imaging 16:9 (what I had it set to) but that wasn't the case. The pixel count showed 16:9 ratio in the raw also. I'll be switching to 3:2 and checking again when the weather cooperates. As for being thrown under the bus for opinions, I would not worry about that. All any of us can do is offer our observations in an accurate manner. I can see this situation impacting professionals who might use jpg for proofing, then substitute the raw file after post-processing and have different composition that had not been approved by client. Thanks, all.

 

[Meta4]

The crop on the jpg was probably 10% tighter (less image) all the way around. It's not a huge deal for me; I'm not a professional, but just found it interesting.

I tried a test and see the 8 pixel difference in height and width (jpg is bigger).
I note some small variance around the edges that may be the "cropping" being discussed.
It's tiny - nowhere near 10% and you have to look very closely to detect it.
The raw image appears to shows a little extra on all sides - yellow arrows are points where it's visible.

 

[mmpsteve]

Meta4, sir, I'll post side by sides tomorrow. Finally got a chance to look at it closer. My jpg files are definitely cropped tighter than what you're showing.