Jump to content

X-T10 JPEG Size... 150% larger?

MintMark

By MintMark
in Fuji X-T1 / Fuji X-T10

 Share

Recommended Posts

MintMark Explorer

MintMark

Posted
Posted

If you look in the specs on Fujifilm.eu it says that the X-T1 gets 600 JPEGs in 4Gb and the X-T10 gets 406 JPEGs in 4Gb.

 

http://www.fujifilm.eu/uk/products/digital-cameras/interchangeable-lens-cameras/model/x-t10/specifications/

http://www.fujifilm.eu/uk/products/digital-cameras/interchangeable-lens-cameras/model/x-t1/specifications/

(at the bottom of each page)

 

So... are they noticably better quality then?

 

Seems like a good improvement for JPEG shooters...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Zas Newbie

Zas

Posted
Posted

According to http://www.dpreview.com/previews/fujifilm-x-t10/5, showing two shots of the same scene:

- XT-1 JPEG is 5.6MB

- XT-10 JPEG is 9.2MB

 

Using ImageMagick identify -verbose command on both original files:

- XT-1 JPEG has Quality 97

- XT-10 JPEG has Quality 99

 

Comparing visually the two scenes, it is quite obvious XT-10 image has more details (check the text part ie.).

I'm pretty sure XT-1 will have this in firmware 4.0.

Link to post
Share on other sites
mattdm Apprentice

mattdm

Posted
Posted

For what it's worth, in Gimp (which uses different numbers than ImageMagic), the X-T10 files are at 98%, and the X-T1 files are 96%. Both use 4:2:2 subsampling (color channel information halved, basically).

 

This is a definite improvement, but still not great. With Pentax cameras, the high-quality JPEG (★★★★) mode is 100%, and the next step down (★★★) is 99%.

 

I don't understand why Fujifilm can't offer a higher-quality level; it's not like it's rocket science and if they're worried about people's reaction to the size, it doesn't have to be the default. Of course, shooting RAW is the other answer, but with Fujifilm investing so much into the in-camera JPEGs in other ways, this is a puzzle.

 

(I sound like a Pentax fan because I am. But I'm also a Fujifilm fan. I just want the best of both. *sigh*)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Maurice Community Regular

Maurice

Posted
Posted

To be clear, JPG at 100% doesn't make it lossless, just extremely inefficient.

 

The difference between 97% and a 100% (or lack there of! really, i dare you to find a difference :)) is not worth the size increase.

Link to post
Share on other sites
mattdm Apprentice

mattdm

Posted
Posted

I know it's not lossless, but the difference still can be meaningful. Take a look at http://photo.stackexchange.com/a/21691/1943, where I compare the various Pentax compression levels. TL;DR? The summary is that there are real-world situations where ★★★★ to ★★★ is a noticable decline, and ★★★ to below definitely is.

 

So, take this as "dare taken", Maurice. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
mattdm Apprentice

mattdm

Posted
Posted

For many subjects, it doesn't matter. But for others, it really can. With Pentax, I generally shoot with ★★★ JPEG + RAW and use in-camera conversion to ★★★★ for situations with high-color contrast like this or for shots I think are really special.

 

This is extra-true if you intend to do some touchup of the JPEG files. Resaving a 96% jpeg (even at the 96% level) causes significantly more damage than resaving a 100% one. (Both cause extra loss, but in the lower-compression case, it's negligable.)  See illustration of effect of multiple resaves at different levels at http://photo.stackexchange.com/a/34192/1943, although note that the example compares 75% and 99%.

Link to post
Share on other sites
CrazyCanuk Apprentice

CrazyCanuk

Posted
Posted

Well we can turn the question around... why is it wasting one third of my memory card? :/

 

I didn't know about the X30 and the X100T having larger JPEGs too... I couldn't find any discussion about it in some quick searches.

 

That argument suggests that RAF files coming in at almost 5 times their equivalent in jpeg 'wastes' far more memory card space... ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
ChatNoir Rookie

ChatNoir

Posted
Posted

I still can't understand why I ever would want to use a (very lossy) jpg-only workflow, unless maybe for simplicity or the fact that Fuji made a bit of a mess out of X-trans RAW conversions.

 

Whether those jpg-files have a Quality of 97 or 99% now - they never deliver the full potential and detail of your expensive X-series investment - and they also never provide you headroom to do even the smallest corrections in post, at least, in a decent manner.

 

It happened only by accident a few months ago with my X-T1, yes, one of those damned dials had changed. Basically I could throw all that 'fabulous' jpg Q 97%-material away, since the post-workflow I required to do had virtually become impossible and the required material wasn't just there. Saving space on cards too... c'mon boys, if you can't even afford the required GB for a camera solution like this,...?

 

If Fuji has to focus on one thing it's on the RAW-workflow where most advanced and pro-photographers rely on. Instead of offering this free but impossible Silkypix derivate, they should second a few specialists for a week or two to Adobe to get finally fixed what a lot of people dislike (and is quite possible to do, see how a one-man initiative like Iridient could impress the whole X-series world). This would be a MAJOR step forward in securing the entire X-trans universe.

 

Like most fine art & landscape photographers, after a few cups of strong coffee I can live with what comes out of Lr today but bottom line me too, I have been tempted to changeover a few times due to the X-trans RAW hassle which is hardly to defend for any camera system in 2015. It's btw one of reasons why I still use my DSLR for a fair bit of work. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
MintMark Explorer

MintMark

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I've seen several reasons people give to support a JPEG only workflow... one is speed (publishing breaking news) and one is that it encourages you to get it right in the camera (which I can understand). I do it because I don't want to use silkypix... with my Canon I was happy to use the bundled digital photo professional to edit and convert raw images, but I find silkypix much harder to use.

 

JPEG's not all bad... you can do actual non-destructive cropping if you need to. Google's picasa offers some non-destructive editing as well, applying a sequence of operations to the original file each time to minimise the number of recompressions.

 

I haven't bought anything for managing my photos... which is the best package? The answer seems to be changing all the time... I do save the RAW files too, so should I ever take a remarkable photo then I will be able to edit it properly later :) But for now JPEGs are fine for me my uses.

Link to post
Share on other sites
asathor Enthusiast

asathor

Posted
Posted

Using DP-review images is not going to work. They are an Adobe Franchise and Adobe has been slow to get the quality for X up so the visual differences may be from who-knows-what.

 

It is faster to compress less so the larger file size may be a matter of getting the same performance from a different chip (slower = battery drain) with a small potential image improvement thrown in the back door by that change.

 

In the micro chip universe different firmware versions often serve to correct production flaws in a new batch of chips - with changes and firmware improvements thrown in along with the repairs. It can make them hard to untangle so don't loose sleep wanting everything.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Antony Collaborator

Antony

Posted
Posted

I normally use RAW + JPEG for all of my work, and the JPEG is only to enable me to check a higher resolution preview on back of camera.

 

That said, I've had several occasions recently where I've had terrible moire on grooms' suits, and I've found the jpegs have handled it better than lightroom.

 

The last two days I've been shooting an equestrian event - 700+ riders at an average of 8 frames per jump in consistent light. For the first time ever I shot in JPEG only and I'm delighted with the results. Sure I won't switch to JPEG only for my weddings, but (excuse the pun) it's horses for courses - this has saved me hours of uploading and processing time, for no gain.

 

Personally I'm thankful for the gorgeous Fuji Jpegs - I never would have used jpegs from my 1Dx or 5D IIIs - I never could get them to look as good as the default Fuji output.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
Wintermute Rookie

Wintermute

Posted
Posted

I would like to use JPEGs only on my X-T1. The quality is good enough for me. The only reason I don't is the stupid Film Simulation. Non of the "Films" is really neutral in a way Canon or Nikon jpegs are. I get the best, most consistent results using RAW and Adobe Standard profile.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • jerryy
      Fuji Flowers

      By jerryy · Posted

      Hello, If you look in the top right-hand corner of each posting, there should be three dots in a row, like this —>  …  <—, click on them and after a moment or twelve, a small menu should drop down from the dots, the last entry in the menu is ‘Edit’. Choose that and after a moment or three you should be in edit mode for that entry. Note: Only you can edit your entries.
    • Fujiron
      Fuji Flowers

      By Fujiron · Posted

      Jerry I found out it's a Cherry Blossom but I can't figure out how to edit it.
    • N3v3r
      xPro1 can't change aperture with fujinon 27mm

      By N3v3r · Posted

      Up
    • Astigmatism
      Advertisement

      By Astigmatism · Posted

      What is most ironic about this is that there must be many of us here that would be interested in significant ads about the products we're discussing. I would be. I normally hate ads, but relevant ones here would actually be somewhat welcome. What are the recent new Fuji product announcements? Is anybody offering a sale? How about 3rd party products? I mean, I actually want to spend money, more or less.
    • Astigmatism
      CANNOT BACKUP OR RESTORE X-T4 SETTINGS WITH FUJI X ACQUIRE

      By Astigmatism · Posted

      I don't think I have your answer, but it's worth trying. It's been a few days, are you still struggling with this? I've used Acquire (on an iMac) and an X-T4 (also an X-T5 and an X-T30 ii) and it worked, at least as far as backing up. No error messages, and a computer file with stuff in it. I understand you get an error message when you attempt to restore the camera from a backup, but, does it look to you like the backup phase is working? I mean, do you get a saved file and no error messages? Do you have any other Fuji cameras, and does it work for them? I have had problems getting Acquire to detect the camera. I did all manner of playing around with starting the software, plugging in the camera, and powering the camera on, in various orders (including what the instructions say). I always got it to work eventually, but it took lots of playing some times. Lately it fires right up. Somebody here commented on this difficulty and the security obstacles in the computer. Are you getting a connection easily, or after trying things, or not at all? Does Acquire show your camera model and the few settings it displays correctly?
×
×
  • Create New...