16 Bit RAW vs 8 bit SRGB JPEG - A detailed Comparison

[richard_bach1]

<p>Hello everyone,</p>

<p>Its too hot to do anything today here in SoCal so I though I'd do some fun comparison shots here.</p>

<p>There's always an ongoing debate on whether or not there are advantages to a 16 bit or workflow over an 8 bit or JPEG workflow. So here are some shots.</p>

<p>This is literally the same shot on RAW + JPEG mode on my d700. I wanted a scene with a lot of detail in the highlights and the shadows, and I wanted them both to be clipped in the initial capture (this isn't meant to be pretty here, just informational.) I then brought both of these images into Lightroom and applied the same treatment: dropping the exposure to bring in the highlights (the best way Lightroom handles them in my experience) and then bringing the shadows + blacks up to bring in all of the shadow detail. Then a little bit of contrast + clarity to bring the balance back in. Nothing too crazy really, the same process I would've used for any troublesome image.</p>

<p>Here's a quick before and after so you can see the level of editing that was done:</p>

<p><img src="http://31.media.tumblr.com/21cb0dbe9b844d9d70481f2a9b808345/tumblr_mshcrddTsX1sw0sh6o3_1280.png" alt="" width="600" height="200" /></p>

<p>Let's look at the shadow detail (RAW on the left and JPEG on the right):</p>

<p><img src="http://25.media.tumblr.com/04f420a527500bf406ab46bfc1bf0854/tumblr_mshcrddTsX1sw0sh6o5_1280.png" alt="" width="700" height="428" /><br /> While there's a pretty big but not earth shattering difference in the amount of detail, the tonality is MUCH smoother in the RAW file. The JPEG is blocking up pretty severely, along with some color shifts, some inversion in the farthest reaches, and a lot of ugliness. With the JPEG you can see a clipping point where it gets just plain awful beneath, while the RAW file clips much more gracefully. This is probably due to both the larger color space and the greater bit depth (either the larger 16 bit working bit depth or the larger 12 bit capture)</p>

<p>Now the highlights (RAW on the left and JPEG on the right again):</p>

<p><img src="http://25.media.tumblr.com/781d3376415c88b853a32fdbed66288a/tumblr_mshcrddTsX1sw0sh6o4_1280.png" alt="" width="700" height="480" /></p>

<p>This is an even bigger difference: a huge amount of detail just isn't there in the JPEGs. There's also a lot more posterization in the highlights on the JPEG, and its pretty obvious. Sure, the extreme highlights of the RAW image are not perfect either, but at least hey are there.</p>

<p>Aliasing, sharpening, noise reduction, etc.</p>

<p>For some reason there appears to be more aliasing in the JPEG (look at the border around the doorframe), even though it was never resized. Also, while I didn't put a huge amount of effort in to matching them, the sharpening and noise reduction is much more heavy handed in the JPEG. The color balance is different, but this is probably due to the Adobe profile which I find has a bit of a wild color cast to it (at least in comparison to the native Nikon profile). Thought thats still irrelevant…</p>

<p>And for those that say that this is just pixel peeping and it would never show up in the real world, here's some exported JPEGS. There is a huge difference here too, and something that is immediately noticed without the need for peeping (And hopefully will dispel the thinking that there is no use in shooting in a larger color space/bit depth if you are only going to convert to a smaller one…) This would almost certainly be noticeable in a print as well. JPEG is on top, RAW is on the bottom.<br /> <img src="http://25.media.tumblr.com/4b9c5758ac2c440a56ec72b35c6c3bfa/tumblr_mshcrddTsX1sw0sh6o1_1280.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="399" /></p>

<p><img src="http://25.media.tumblr.com/20d5f838bfcfb26b8ec4e1ef2ece76c0/tumblr_mshcrddTsX1sw0sh6o2_1280.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="399" /></p>

<p>So there it is, thats why I shoot RAW. You could argue that this is an extreme example, but I don't think it is. If you have a well tailored workflow, RAW definitely offers a huge advantage.</p>

[johnw63]

<p>Is 8 bit the only size of JPEG you can choose ? I would think that simply being 16 bit over 8 bit would show differences if they were the same format, RAW or JPEG.</p>

<p>Here is an article that talks about what you just did as well. ( If anyone reads it, could you tell any difference in the beach ball pictures toward the end ? I didn't. Not much anyway. )</p>

<p> </p>

[richard_bach1]

<p >Even though you're link wasn't there, I've seen that article before anyway :) And no, I don't see a noticeable difference. I think that writer is missing the point...</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I think its a bit of a misconception that on on a normal run of the mill image with normal editing that shooting in a larger space will give you "better" colors. I think the real advantage is when you have a troublesome image, or one that undergoes a lot of re tone mapping at some point, those are the images that will benefit from the larger space.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I tend to shoot at the best quality I can on the file side, as storage is cheap nowadays. And sometimes you never know which of your images is going to end up being a masterpiece.</p>

[richard_bach1]

<blockquote>

<p >I would think that simply being 16 bit over 8 bit would show differences if they were the same format, RAW or JPEG.</p>

</blockquote>

<p >I haven't checked on the camera to see that my options are, but I'm pretty sure JPEGs by nature are only 8 bits. I'm actually trying to find a solid answer on this right now, but I believe this is why Photoshop will only save a 16 bit file as a copy when the JPEG option is chosen...</p>

[greg_alton]

<p>Jpeg is only 8 bits (there may be some obscure variations that use more than 8 bits but they are not in common use). And thanks to Richard for the comparison, most useful. I tend to use raw for everything with only some small exceptions - storage is cheap and I can live with the hit to be able to save images that have difficulties. It's saved me lost shots many times.<br>

I only wish that there was more consistency in raw development - what would be great is if there was a 'simple recipe' embedded to tell the raw program how to generate what the camera's jpeg engine would generate. I could always ignore it of course - but it's frustrating to have to spend time fiddling with raw to get a file that looks like the default jpeg.<br>

Of course, maybe I'm being dense and there's a better way to do this.</p>

[richard_bach1]

<p>Thanks Greg,<br>

Which converter are you using? I believe some of the later versions of Lightroom have the "Adobe" profiles and the "Camera" profiles, which are meant to mimc what the manufacturer's different profiles look like. I've never used them as I use my own profiles (or Adobe's as the are pretty similar)</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Greg,</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I only wish that there was more consistency in raw development - what would be great is if there was a 'simple recipe' embedded to tell the raw program how to generate what the camera's jpeg engine would generate.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Apart from the profiles that were added to Lightroom (I think in version 3, maybe 4) and Adobe Camera Raw (version 4.4 somewhere, if I recall well) that 'mimick' the look of the in-camera JPEG styles, there are also the manufacterer supplied RAW programs who will do that - at least for Canon (DPP) and Nikon (ViewNX2/CaptureNX2).<br /> So, it would help to know which program you use, and which brand of camera to give a more complete response :-)</p>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>When you took the picture, the camera stored all the data it captured, in a "raw" file. It also did an interpretation of that data, based on in-camera presets, and created a jpeg.</p>

<p>The latter is going to be less than satisfactory in some cases, is a lossy format, and leaves you no recourse for trying other jpeg iterations.</p>

<p>What's to like, lol?</p>

[lachaine]

<p>There's little I can't or haven't done with raw files over the past few years, but such comparisons are really not that meaningful when you consider all the variables involved in exposing the picture in the first place, and then in converting the raw data file into an image you can look at.</p>

<p>Of course, there is more leeway in what you can do with the raw file, because the camera's JPEG engine has not made any decisions for you as to what you ultimately want to "lose" when you do end up making the final image.</p>

<p>But on the other hand, many cameras today offer quite a number of options as to how you want the in-camera JPEGs handled, plus, when you know ahead of time that you are shooting JPEGs, you might choose the scene, the lighting and the exposure differently.</p>

<p>In one set of examples you have up there, more noise reduction was applied to the raw file, and as a result, if you look closely enough, there is more actual detail in the JPEG. In the modern camera review universe, a camera that applied as much noise reduction as there is in that raw file would be dismissed as a piece of useless crap.</p>

<p>As a long time film user, it seems very much like the decision to use slide vs negative film used to be, only in those days, there was no argument about it. It was just a matter of trade-offs and what you wanted to do. Everyone knew that if you started out with a black and white negative, that negative had more detail on it than you could put in the print, unless you did extra stuff like burning and dodging.</p>

[richard_bach1]

<blockquote>

<p >In one set of examples you have up there, more noise reduction was applied to the raw file, and as a result, if you look closely enough, there is more actual detail in the JPEG. </p>

<p > </p>

</blockquote>

<p >I actually didn't apply any noise eduction to he raw file, though I understand what you are talking about. The JPEGs have some weird detail going on at 100% that makes it look like it is noisier than the RAW. It looks like it was smoothened then the remaining edges (in this case noise) were sharpened. And the darker spots look rather quantized too…</p>

<p > </p>

<p ><img src="http://31.media.tumblr.com/657b801063b40642b717015964a44a56/tumblr_msifapEiQL1sw0sh6o1_1280.png" alt="" width="600" height="407" /></p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<blockquote>

<p > Of course, there is more leeway in what you can do with the raw file, because the camera's JPEG engine has not made any decisions for you as to what you ultimately want to "lose" when you do end up making the final image.</p>

</blockquote>

<p > </p>

<p >Regardless, I understand your point. I suppose the thing I wonder now is why would anyone with editing time on their hands would shoot JPEG. Not that great images can't be made with JPEGs, but it seems with a good RAW converter you are opening the same image in a pipeline that offers you much more control. And in this case, looks better too...<br>

</p>

[greg_alton]

<p>Richard, Wouter, thanks. I am using Aperture and haven't tried Lightroom since several generations back; perhaps I should consider but am reluctant to change workflows. I have tried Nikon's software but found it awful in terms of interface/usage, worse than awful in terms of workflow, and hardly a bargain. I generally set the camera to save raw+jpeg, but then bring only the raw over (perhaps I should consider using the jpeg except in cases where raw is needed, but again, don't really want any extra steps.<br>

I guess my point is that for most users, most of the time, the jpegs really are very good and their proprietary 'jpeg recipes' spot on (or at least the best starting point). Camera makers are (IMO) doing themselves a disservice by not having this be the default for everyone, even raw users. What raw users want is mostly either the ability to fix things (per Richard's example) or extra latitude when an image deserves extra work (and these are related phenomena). They would show off their gear and software best if they allowed users to use the 'best jpeg recipes' but go back to original raw if needed.<br>

But I'm open to suggestions if there are better ways to achieve the same thing. If Lightrooms' profiles are close I might try it again (although I'd argue it still makes sense for camera makers to have their best effort be most prominent ... rather than have this achievable thorugh use of their own expensive and deficient software).</p>

[richard_bach1]

<blockquote>

<p>Camera makers are (IMO) doing themselves a disservice by not having this be the default for everyone, even raw users.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I thought the same thing when I first started working with Lightroom. There's always that brief second of a beautiful JPEG on the screen before it reverses the processing and makes it look pretty muddy and flat haha. But over the years I've come up with my own recipes that I prefer to the Nikon rendering.<br>

And I'll take the level of control over the default rendering any day.</p>

[johnw63]

<p>Oops. Sorry, I forgot to paste in the link:</p>

<p>http://www.photoshopessentials.com/essentials/16-bit/</p>

<p> </p>

[greg_alton]

<blockquote>

<p>But over the years I've come up with my own recipes that I prefer to the Nikon rendering.<br />And I'll take the level of control over the default rendering any day.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What I'm suggesting would in no way conflict with you applying your own rendering, nor take any control away.</p>

[richard_bach1]

<blockquote>

<p>What I'm suggesting would in no way conflict with you applying your own rendering, nor take any control away.</p>

</blockquote>

<p >I meant nothing by it, and I apologize if it came off that way. What I meant was that I missed that JPEG rendering myself in the beginning, but not so much since I developed my own recipes that I prefer to the Nikon Profiles.<br>

</p>

[alan_cox3]

<p>Note that some cameras use the same processing settings for JPEGs and video. So when shooting RAW and video, one can punch up the video using the settings. So the embedded JPEGs on image captures will initially look different or "better", and then when the RAW version is displayed it can look flat.</p>

[greg_alton]

<p>Richard, thanks. And likewise, no offense meant. I just find it odd, the gap that many new users find between their expectations of raw when they start using it (they expect the 'basic' raw to resemble the jpegs or at least be no worse), and at least in the case of NIkon, to get that, they have to pay extra. I think it's a silly approach that turns people off. The advantage the DSLR makers have is that their cameras give the best possible output, but they cripple it (from the perspective of many users). <br>

Again, I am open to suggestions on how to organise my workflow better, but I shoot dslr in part because of good raw. But then I have to work too hard to get output like what the camera shows me. It's counterproductive.<br>

I do hope that I'll have time to come up with my own recipe that is better than Nikon's. But it's a bit backwards.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>You've only got to look at the history and intended purpose of the JPEG file format to see why it's an extremely poor choice for modern high-end digital camera use or for image archiving purposes. It's a file format invented over 20 years ago, the purpose of which was to provide an efficient means of transmitting reasonable quality 'full-colour' images over the then limited bandwidth of the internet; a purpose that it fullfilled admirably, and that it still fulfills. What it was <em>never </em>intended to be was a high quality archival format robust enough to withstand file corruption or heavy image manipulation. Compared to GIF and other compressed bitmap standards of the time it was revolutionary - but then so was steam power compared to the horse! However we've now moved on from believing that 16.7 million colours is more than enough.</p>

<p>The reasons why JPEG became the defacto file standard in consumer level digital cameras are again historic, being lack of processing power and storage space. Those limitations are now well behind us, and it's about time the JPEG file format was consigned to its rightful place in history, as a web transmission medium only. The sooner we all move to a higher bit-depth format with no localised-pallette limitations, no production of spurious image artefacts and using a more robust compression algorithm the better.</p>

[GBarrington]

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>The reasons why JPEG became the defacto file standard in consumer level digital cameras are again historic, being lack of processing power and storage space. Those limitations are now well behind us, and it's about time the JPEG file format was consigned to its rightful place in history, as a web transmission medium only. The sooner we all move to a higher bit-depth format with no localised-pallette limitations, no production of spurious image artefacts and using a more robust compression algorithm the better.</p>

</blockquote>

 

 

It is entirely possible that jpg is no longer a reasonable de facto format standard. However, I do think it is entirely appropriate that change in such a standard is glacially slow and always remains a bit 'old fashioned'.

 

I think any format with pretensions to becoming that standard should be the lowest common denominator in terms of hardware and software demands, and preferably be backwards compatible with one or two previous 'standards'. I don't want development of new standards to stop, I just want to make sure my archived stuff can be seen by as many people as possible.

 

<p><a name="pagebottom"></a></p>