- Joined
- Nov 27, 2015
- Messages
- 96
- Reaction score
- 13
- Age
- 47
RAW is processed, JPG is not
- Thread starter gr8pics
- Start date
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2016
- Messages
- 293
- Reaction score
- 60
- Age
- 49
Don't waste your time.
It's just the most banal discussion.
The basic principal of raw again JPEG is clearly misunderstood here.
Here are screenshots taken with Rawtherapee(linux) from the two.
JPG:
RAW:
Both are imported with the neutral profile so IMHO we can compare this.
I observe that JPG is a little bit more stretched is to the bright side.
Not a photographer but a linux freek.
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2016
- Messages
- 293
- Reaction score
- 60
- Age
- 49
It's possible the DJI in-came jpeg processing is automatically applying a shadow boost -- like Nikon/Sony's dynamic range optimizer setting. That could account for why the JPEG's histogram appears to be more stretched towards the right than the DNG.
An experiment you might want to carry out -- lift the shadows or boost the exposure of the DNG to match the histogram of the JPEG. Add some noise reduction. Is the result better, or worse then the JPEG?
I did that experiment earlier (this has been referenced here before)
P4P, can we squeeze 14 stops of dynamic range from a raw file?
I know Tomas -- was just suggesting it as an educational experiment for those unhappy with the DJI DNG files and the way they're rendered by default in ACR/Raw Therapy
I seeI know Tomas -- was just suggesting it as an educational experiment for those unhappy with the DJI DNG files and the way they're rendered by default in ACR/Raw Therapy
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2014
- Messages
- 337
- Reaction score
- 116
Lets approach this differently then, since some of you dont understand what some of us are trying to say.
Its all digital, all the light coming trough the lens, hits the sensor, and from there its all a bunch of 0101010101's put into a system controlled by software. That software can do ANYTHING you program it to do, no matter if its DNG, mov, mp4 or jpeg, if you want to add a sidecar file with a preset, you can. It ALL happens in the camera, before the data is saved to the memory card, both presets and processing.
At this point, either of us, have any information about the facts, that if both DNG and/or jpeg files have been embedded with some presets, other than the lens profile. If you know, how do you know, and what is your source? and where is your documentation? and we are talking about files from THIS camera, and not DNG in general.
What we DO know by now, is that there is more than just one experienced photographer being used to work with these kind of files day in and day out, and not just theoretical knowledge, that have drawn attention to this.
Or are you implying that all of a sudden a bunch of experienced people suffer from problems with their eyes?
So, back to the starting point in ACR when you open the DNG.
If the "neutral" point where the CENTER is, STARTS with a profile that is considerably way off the "neutral" point, then you will not have the same space to work with, cause the distance to the ends is less, cause the sliders have a maximum range, you cannot just pull and pull until the sliders disappears out of the screen, IF there was a preset added in ACR, it should have shown the sliders moved to the the respective points, so we could pull them back to neutral point and start from scratch. We cannot even delete the presets that might be there, so we still end up with the same issue, something "added" that we can remove, in a non destructive way. Do we really need to argue more about this?
If the HISTOGRAM on your camera displays a "perfect" exposure being in centre, what good is that, if the saved file is greased with black? (exaggerate just to illustrate)
Have you ever had a raw file in ACR you tried to lighten up the shadows, reaching the end point, even if you would and could have pulled it further?
What you do think happens if you just have 2 steps on the slider, compared to 5 steps of adjustments? That said, shadow areas in these files should barely be touched at all, but thats another story.
Alternative is to overexpose to compensate for the incorrect histogram, but it all still boils down to the same thing, it has TOO much CONTRAST, which means the DIFFERENCE between shadow and highlights makes it really hard(er) to achieve a balanced picture, where the dynamic between shadow and highlights looks good.
Or if we forget everything weve discussed so far, for a second, and ask this;
WHY does the DNG retouched to your taste, have LOWER quality than the processed jpg that have been saved twice already?
That alone is also a mystery to me.
I still believe all this is software related, and the data saved FROM the camera is causing this, nothing else makes sense considering that a raw file contains 50% more data, and on top of that are "unchanged" raw data.
Dji have done weird things before in their software that didnt make sense, and its not unlikely they have done it again, for all i know.
Im confident the quality of these files can be improved further, by tweaking the software.
If everyone that participates in this thread, could upload their own set of untouched DNG and jpegs, then we can at least compare it to eachothers files, especially the ones that categorically keeps disagreeing that theres is something odd with these files.
Its all digital, all the light coming trough the lens, hits the sensor, and from there its all a bunch of 0101010101's put into a system controlled by software. That software can do ANYTHING you program it to do, no matter if its DNG, mov, mp4 or jpeg, if you want to add a sidecar file with a preset, you can. It ALL happens in the camera, before the data is saved to the memory card, both presets and processing.
At this point, either of us, have any information about the facts, that if both DNG and/or jpeg files have been embedded with some presets, other than the lens profile. If you know, how do you know, and what is your source? and where is your documentation? and we are talking about files from THIS camera, and not DNG in general.
What we DO know by now, is that there is more than just one experienced photographer being used to work with these kind of files day in and day out, and not just theoretical knowledge, that have drawn attention to this.
Or are you implying that all of a sudden a bunch of experienced people suffer from problems with their eyes?
So, back to the starting point in ACR when you open the DNG.
If the "neutral" point where the CENTER is, STARTS with a profile that is considerably way off the "neutral" point, then you will not have the same space to work with, cause the distance to the ends is less, cause the sliders have a maximum range, you cannot just pull and pull until the sliders disappears out of the screen, IF there was a preset added in ACR, it should have shown the sliders moved to the the respective points, so we could pull them back to neutral point and start from scratch. We cannot even delete the presets that might be there, so we still end up with the same issue, something "added" that we can remove, in a non destructive way. Do we really need to argue more about this?
If the HISTOGRAM on your camera displays a "perfect" exposure being in centre, what good is that, if the saved file is greased with black? (exaggerate just to illustrate)
Have you ever had a raw file in ACR you tried to lighten up the shadows, reaching the end point, even if you would and could have pulled it further?
What you do think happens if you just have 2 steps on the slider, compared to 5 steps of adjustments? That said, shadow areas in these files should barely be touched at all, but thats another story.
Alternative is to overexpose to compensate for the incorrect histogram, but it all still boils down to the same thing, it has TOO much CONTRAST, which means the DIFFERENCE between shadow and highlights makes it really hard(er) to achieve a balanced picture, where the dynamic between shadow and highlights looks good.
Or if we forget everything weve discussed so far, for a second, and ask this;
WHY does the DNG retouched to your taste, have LOWER quality than the processed jpg that have been saved twice already?
That alone is also a mystery to me.
I still believe all this is software related, and the data saved FROM the camera is causing this, nothing else makes sense considering that a raw file contains 50% more data, and on top of that are "unchanged" raw data.
Dji have done weird things before in their software that didnt make sense, and its not unlikely they have done it again, for all i know.
Im confident the quality of these files can be improved further, by tweaking the software.
If everyone that participates in this thread, could upload their own set of untouched DNG and jpegs, then we can at least compare it to eachothers files, especially the ones that categorically keeps disagreeing that theres is something odd with these files.
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2015
- Messages
- 96
- Reaction score
- 13
- Age
- 47
Man givit it a rest. If you are mad because you think we don´t get it just leave the thread ok? You are being very rude. Seriously.
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2015
- Messages
- 96
- Reaction score
- 13
- Age
- 47
That is the point. The Raw can be "fixed" or improved in post. It shouldn´t be the case. That´s the point of the thread. I think should be stretched and have more latitude out of the camera than de jpg
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2015
- Messages
- 96
- Reaction score
- 13
- Age
- 47
English is not my first language so I cannot express my self as I would like to. But you did it perfectly. I agree 100% with you, and as a photographer who works with photos (RAW files) every singles day, well, there´s something off about this RAW files. Someone (forgive if I forget his name) suggested was something on the ACR that wasn´t updated. It made sense. But I opened the file in other programs he suggested and the same thing happens. That means, of course, that the proble (yes! there is a problem) lies from de camera. Even though there´s a kind of rude guys insisting it isn´t that we are dumb and don´t know what we are talking about.
I am sure the only fix to this will be an firmware update once they realize the parameter are mixed up or wrong.
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2015
- Messages
- 96
- Reaction score
- 13
- Age
- 47
Also, respectfully I would advise to everyone who doesn´t know how to fix this or they think we are absolutely wrong and that the DNG coming out from this camera are perfect, it would be best for them to leave the tread, is not my thread but it is only a suggestion, because you wont convince us and we wont convince you.
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2014
- Messages
- 337
- Reaction score
- 116
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2015
- Messages
- 96
- Reaction score
- 13
- Age
- 47
Sure. I know the natural tendency is to defend DJI because if DJI product has a problem then my drone might have one. But it has one. At lest in your drone and my drone. Not saying all are like that though. Also it´s so very comon people thinking they are professional photographers because they take pictures, or aerial photographers because they have a drone with a camera.Im happy that you said it, if i did, everyone would gang up on me
Whoever wants to think the DNG is amazing or that the problem are the computer or the retouching software, it´s wrong.
I know I wont gain anything but I will talk to DJI today and see where it get´s me.
I´m still confident, because they are not stupid, that they will correct this in a firmware update. Meanwhile, I will do overexpose my photo by 1 or 2 stops so I don´t clip the highlights but recover more info in the shadows. Specially short duration photos at night. I know I can shoot seconds in it, but I want to try not to do so so much.
Anyways.... let´s hope something is resolve soon.
gr8pics,
If you have the time/means, there is great info on assessing RAW files here: RAW Files | imatest
And you can get a demo version of Imatest to run on a DNG file and see what it produces.
That or one of the other programs mentioned in the link should help you analyze the DNG file and confirm if it is RAW or cooked.
Update: For what it's worth, I bought the P4P to use mostly for photography and, besides a bit more noise than expected, I have been pleasantly surprised by the DNG files including their latitude in post. I would put them ahead of my old Canon 50D files (though they can't match the 5DmkIII).
If you have the time/means, there is great info on assessing RAW files here: RAW Files | imatest
And you can get a demo version of Imatest to run on a DNG file and see what it produces.
That or one of the other programs mentioned in the link should help you analyze the DNG file and confirm if it is RAW or cooked.
Update: For what it's worth, I bought the P4P to use mostly for photography and, besides a bit more noise than expected, I have been pleasantly surprised by the DNG files including their latitude in post. I would put them ahead of my old Canon 50D files (though they can't match the 5DmkIII).
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2014
- Messages
- 337
- Reaction score
- 116
ianwood
Taco Wrangler
Such is the complexity of RAW and it could very well be DJI is applying incorrect metadata resulting in a default underexposed looking shot. Or it could be the lack of the correct profile for the tool you are using as Andrei suggests. But the important part of it is that if the shot was properly exposed in camera, the data is still there. Move the sliders and you'll see that you can achieve the full quality of the shot.
P.S. I have the same challenge with Davinci Resolve showing all my CinemaDNG shots from the X5R as darker than they were shot. It's a bit of a pain but the important point to remember always is the detail is there. It just needs the settings to be adjusted.
The trouble is that you have been saying "P4P have problems in RAW" and don't have problems in RAW!! You are looking a problem when it's not there.
I understand all of you point of view. Maybe you can't listen and learn because it's hard to recognize for you.
1) RAW is not processed.
2) RAW is what the sensor sees. RAW it's like a negative in analog photography. If you see different the same DNG it's for baseline profiles that the program loads with the DNG. It's not a problem in P4P, it's a missed interpretation (or not) of the RAW viewer.
3) JPG is processed into P4P based on your profiles (color profile, picture profile, contrast, sharpening, saturation, WB, etc).
4) And most important: Histogram live feed is based on what you see in the screen, WITH the profiles applied live.
5) If you don't like what you see on the DNG straight to P4P, buy a Inspire 2 with X5. Don't waste your time waiting for a firmware that solves a problem, because WE DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM HERE!!!!!!!!!
If you shoot stills, attach to a NONE and 0-0-0 for a better histogram live feed, and when you have the RAW file, reveal as your taste. If you shoot video, it's another story because P4P don't have RAW data in video.
Sorry, I don't know you, but is really hard to think that you live as professional photographer. You can't not know this...
Last edited:
Similar threads
