RAW is processed, JPG is not

[Tomas Wangen]

Okay Tomas, you didnt get any of this thread.
I didnt ask what a raw file is, i asked why the jpg comes out flat like a raw normally does, and the other way around... Anyway, there are others here that understand what im talking about.

I am describing the raw file contained in the dng for phantom 4 pro. End of discussion for my part.

 

[gr8pics]

Well then

I am describing the raw file contained in the dng for phantom 4 pro. End of discussion for my part.

Well, then youre in the wrong thread, nobody asked for that here.

 

[Jeff Bohner]

Hey the Jpeg is compressed and the DNG is not. If you have the uncompressed DNG file you have a lot more information and latitude in post processing. If the DNG file is 10 times larger then your jpeg file, your solid. They may look different out of the camera but that does not change the fact you will have a lot more latitude in post processing with the DNG file than with the JPEG. I almost always shoot in RAW format because of this reason.

 

[gr8pics]

Hey the Jpeg is compressed and the DNG is not. If you have the uncompressed DNG file you have a lot more information and latitude in post processing. If the DNG file is 10 times larger then your jpeg file, your solid. They may look different out of the camera but that does not change the fact you will have a lot more latitude in post processing with the DNG file than with the JPEG. I almost always shoot in RAW format because of this reason.

Looks like you misunderstood this post as well.
They ARE suppose to look different out of the camera, but the jpg is the one that suppose to look processed, not the raw.
I suggest you read from post #1 and down...

 

[F3honda4me]

Exactly!


Exactly!!!

Raw file is not suppose to come out as "normal" like a jpg, and here everything have been turned around.
Jpg looks like how a raw is suppose to look like unprocessed, and raw looks like a "finished" jpg.

No the raw is supposed to look raw. That doesn't necessarily mean it's going to look like garbage. You can have raw images that need little or no post.

Your raw is fine.

Your jpg is not. Although your jpg might be correct, I don't know since the jpg is processed and compressed.

 

[gr8pics]

Dear god, give me strength!

 

[F3honda4me]

Looks like you misunderstood this post as well.
They ARE suppose to look different out of the camera, but the jpg is the one that suppose to look processed, not the raw.
I suggest you read from post #1 and down...

At this point I suggest you contact DJI support if you feel something is wrong. Everyone here has tried to help you about a question YOU asked on this forum. Instead you just want to tell everyone they are wrong. You're clearly not understanding what's happening here nor understanding that what you've been told is correct. Stop bothering us then and go bother DJI support as it's clear you don't actually want our help, you just want to argue. If you know better than everyone here, why did you even ask.

 

[Kman]

Just a quick question.

You keep saying you're a professional photographer. If so why do you care about the JPEG files? I haven't shot jpeg in years. Everything is done in DNG and edited in Lightroom.

 

[Snufflebunny]

Very weird handling of the files of this model i must say.
I never seen this before on any camera, but, the Dng files looks processed, fully saturated and high contrast, while the jpg looks dull and just how Dng is suppose to look like when unprocessed.
Anyone else noticed this?
I think i begin to understand now, why im not impressed with the picture quality of this one, cause ive been editing on already processed pics, even though they are Dng, and that is also why theres allot if noise introduced to the shadow areas.

This is my second unit of P4P, as i got the other one replaced by the local dealer, but i didnt notice this before today.
When i check the files from the previous unit, its the same.

Other than me?

Whatever color profile you have selected is applied to the jpeg and not the raw. So if you choose D-LOG your jpegs will look like your D-log image and your raws will look like what the camera actually captured. Raw is the way to go.

 

[misterCB]

I understand where gr8pics is coming from. He's trying to say that the RAW/DNG file typically looks flat out of any other camera, compared to a JPG from that same camera, and in this case he feels it's reversed.

I know my Lightroom setup is still pretty default, and it doesn't apply anything to a RAW/DNG other than the white balance "as shot" - everything else is at 0, and RAW images from my 70D come very flat compared to a processed JPG (as it should be).

I agree that in the examples you posted, the DNG does appear to be a bit more post-processed as far as color goes compared to the JPG.

I'll do some tests of my own and see how it comes out. Yesterday was the first time I actually shot with RAW on my P4P and I did take note that the images looked a bit processed already, but I didn't have RAW+JPG turned on so I can't compare those.

And to clarify - yes, I also understand what a RAW file is. My theory here is that the sensor just puts out a bit more saturated images compared to your typical sensor in the raw data(and this probably explains the noise issues), and the processed JPG was probably shot in "none" profile so I'm betting the post processing flattened it.

 

[Snufflebunny]

I understand where gr8pics is coming from. He's trying to say that the RAW/DNG file typically looks flat out of any other camera, compared to a JPG from that same camera, and in this case he feels it's reversed.

This is actually false. If you were to put a vision color or technicolor profile on your canon DSLR to shoot video your jpegs would be flat compared to your raws. Same if you just lowered the contrast in the picture profile setting...Thats whats happening here. Yes there is some contrast in the raw file but thats pretty easy to fix with some non destructive editing .

 

[Meta4]

Sizes matches as normal, jpg around 4mb, dng around 40mb, so its not there were the problem lays...

I'm wondering why your jpg size is so small.
Mine are all around 7.5 MB to 9.5MB (3:2 Aspect Ratio: 5472 × 3648)
Are you shooting lower resolution?

 

[gr8pics]

I understand where gr8pics is coming from. He's trying to say that the RAW/DNG file typically looks flat out of any other camera, compared to a JPG from that same camera, and in this case he feels it's reversed.

I know my Lightroom setup is still pretty default, and it doesn't apply anything to a RAW/DNG other than the white balance "as shot" - everything else is at 0, and RAW images from my 70D come very flat compared to a processed JPG (as it should be).

I agree that in the examples you posted, the DNG does appear to be a bit more post-processed as far as color goes compared to the JPG.

I'll do some tests of my own and see how it comes out. Yesterday was the first time I actually shot with RAW on my P4P and I did take note that the images looked a bit processed already, but I didn't have RAW+JPG turned on so I can't compare those.

And to clarify - yes, I also understand what a RAW file is. My theory here is that the sensor just puts out a bit more saturated images compared to your typical sensor in the raw data(and this probably explains the noise issues), and the processed JPG was probably shot in "none" profile so I'm betting the post processing flattened it.

Finally someone who understands what im talking about, thank you!

I have Canon, Fujifilm, Olympus and Sony cameras, i always use raw format, but ive never seen a raw file with this much contrast and saturation before.
Of course you can still edit it, but if the starting point is that far off, then you have a smaller window to work with in both ends, it doesnt matter how large the file is.
The most critical part on this camera, is the shadow areas, there is where all the noise starts to appear, once you start pulling in that, thats also why its important that the contrast is low, to maintain the dynamic range between shadow and highlights, if shadows already are applied with strong contrast, then its almost impossible to avoid noise in those areas, especially on such a small sensor.

This camera is meant for aerial photography, and every picture taken from it, reviewed at 100% zoom, which is the only correct way of checking the actual quality of a photo, theres very few elements on the ground that looks well defined, unless its objects with large surfaces, like houses, roofs and cars.

I would say its better than the previous camera, but not by much, at least not in the stills mode, this camera is designed to produce great film.
Stills is just a second feature, and its still not good enough to be considered for pro use, imo, only for computer monitor sized viewing, go in 100% and you will be disappointed, but of course, its all a matter of requirements, for hobby use its more than good enough, so is my iPhone 7.

When pics starts to have details like this, then we can categorize it as a camera that take good pictures, when every detail down to a rope has a clear definition.
I guess i had to high expectations for this camera, i should have known better, and not believed the hype

 

[gr8pics]

I'm wondering why your jpg size is so small.
Mine are all around 7.5 MB to 9.5MB (3:2 Aspect Ratio: 5472 × 3648)
Are you shooting lower resolution?

My bad, typo, they are the same as yours...

 

[misterCB]

This is actually false. If you were to put a vision color or technicolor profile on your canon DSLR to shoot video your jpegs would be flat compared to your raws. Same if you just lowered the contrast in the picture profile setting...Thats whats happening here. Yes there is some contrast in the raw file but thats pretty easy to fix with some non destructive editing .

OK, but out of the box, there isn't a vision color or technicolor profile on the camera, so the raws are flat.. That was kind of my point. In any case, if we follow your logic here, then one could surmise that there is some kind of color profile on the P4P that is making the raw more saturated and contrasted than myself and gr8pics would expect for a raw image. Either that or the "none" setting for JPG output is outputting images flatter than a pancake run over by a steamroller.

 

[Snufflebunny]

OK, but out of the box, there isn't a vision color or technicolor profile on the camera, so the raws are flat.. That was kind of my point. In any case, if we follow your logic here, then one could surmise that there is some kind of color profile on the P4P that is making the raw more saturated and contrasted than myself and gr8pics would expect for a raw image. Either that or the "none" setting for JPG output is outputting images flatter than a pancake run over by a steamroller.

Those profiles would only apply to the jpegs. Raw is what the camera sees with a color and contrast curve attached. Its not permanent. Yes there is contrast in the raw. I dont see the issue?

 

[gr8pics]

Those profiles would only apply to the jpegs. Raw is what the camera sees with a color and contrast curve attached. Yes there is contrast in the raw. I dont see the issue?

The issue my friend, is that theres too much processing added to the raw file, but i belive it can be tweaked in the camera software, if they really want to. This camera was suppose to have allot more DR than the previous one, on paper, but the effect to me, havent been very visible to me so far.

An interesting observation though, and maybe a "cheat" for better quality, is that a jpg with D-cine have better quality after post, than the raw has after post, its slightly sharper and more detailed, and less noise, yes, belive it or not.
You guys can test it next time you fly and see for yourself.
Same goes for film, the flatter the better, at least the contrast and saturation, we dont want the camera to apply that, but be able to do it ourselves, in post...

 

[Meta4]

I would say its better than the previous camera, but not by much, at least not in the stills mode
I guess i had to high expectations for this camera, i should have known better, and not believed the hype

I'm not sure if your dissatisfaction is due to the camera or the way you are using it.
From my experience I would say it is a great camera and certainly not over-hyped.
On the ground I use a 36MP Nikon and the P4p isn't in that league but it's a huge improvement beyond previous DJI cameras.
The sensor size is >4x bigger than the sensor from the P3/P4 cameras but that's still a small sensor.

I think DJI have done very well to get the results that are possible with this camera.

When pics starts to have details like this, then we can categorize it as a camera that take good pictures, when every detail down to a rope has a clear definition.

Speaking of ship's rope as an example ....
Here's a shot I took recently with the P4p

And here's a crop of a 470 x 300 pixel area (0.7% of the original image) showing the rope on the winch above the ship's name.

I can't complain about that for detail from a small sensor.

 

[F3honda4me]

My camera doesn't have this issue nor do my jpgs look better than my dng after post. Contact DJI with these issues.

 

[Snufflebunny]

An interesting observation though, and maybe a "cheat" for better quality, is that a jpg with D-cine have better quality after post, than the raw has after post, its slightly sharper and more detailed, and less noise, yes, belive it or not.

You realize you can denoise are supposed to sharpen raw files right? ACR does it quite well....