RAW vs JPG - dynamic range difference?

[Bussty]

So I can confirm that in Photo Mode and using JPEG's there is no upside to using any of the auto modes in terms of Dynamic Range performance.

First image fully manual exposure



Second image ISO switched to Auto



Third image ISO and Shutter Speed to Auto


Fourth image ISO, Shutter Speed, Aperture all Auto



Doesn't seem to be an increase in HDR improvement on any of these so assuming this HDR benefit that you are seeing in d-log M is limited just to Video Mode.

 

[nickcaptures]

Just an update. I updated the firmware of Mavic 4 Pro. Then I did another flight, took some more shots of direct sun during sunset - RAW manual ISO, JPG manual ISO, JPG auto ISO.

On this shoot, the gradient of the light/colour of the RAW shots of the sun looked a lot more natural. I don't know if it was the firmware update, a different position/angle of the camera to the sun, different light intensity or polarisation... but the RAW this time looks far more like I'm used to seeing in other cameras.

As for the JPGs, the dynamic range of the JPGs (using both auto ISO and manual ISO) look the same to me - as what @Bussty found.

Thanks for all the replies everyone.

 

[Meta4]

I don't know if it was the firmware update ...

It's most unlikely that the firmware update made any changes to the camera's properties.
If it did, DJI would have trumpeted that.
It's very rare that firmware updates make any differences to anything that users would notice.

 

[Tolga20]

Your camera applies Local Tone Mapping (LTM) and other image processing algorithms to enhance the live view and JPEG previews (e.g., boosting shadows, balancing highlights, and optimizing overall brightness). However, when you import RAW files into Lightroom or Photoshop, these in-camera enhancements are intentionally not applied, as RAW files are designed to preserve all the original sensor data for maximum editing flexibility.

This is why the shadows may appear darker and highlights more pronounced in Lightroom—you're seeing the unprocessed "raw" data. While this might require some extra editing, it gives you far more control over the final result. Use Auto ISO to gain little bit more dynamic range.

 

[Filmarik]

Your camera applies Local Tone Mapping (LTM) and other image processing algorithms to enhance the live view and JPEG previews (e.g., boosting shadows, balancing highlights, and optimizing overall brightness). However, when you import RAW files into Lightroom or Photoshop, these in-camera enhancements are intentionally not applied, as RAW files are designed to preserve all the original sensor data for maximum editing flexibility.

This is why the shadows may appear darker and highlights more pronounced in Lightroom—you're seeing the unprocessed "raw" data. While this might require some extra editing, it gives you far more control over the final result. Use Auto ISO to gain little bit more dynamic range.

On top of that JPEG has 8bit color depth while DNG has 12 bit color depth. That is a massive difference. That is why DNG allow for much greater flexibility when editing. Auto ISO has nothing to do with dynamic range when shooting DNG.

 

[Greatdane007]

To the OP, firstly is your editing software up to date? Oddly my CaptureOne would only open some of my M4Pro raw files until I updated to the latest version. As for files, a 16 bit raw has about 65,000 pieces of information to work with (or colors). A JPEG file has 256 pieces (or colors). Think of a jpeg as a chocolate cake, and then think of a raw file as; what kind of cake do you want to make. You can not adjust a jpeg beyond the 256 colors within it. In order to gain the most range from a raw file, you would adjust all aspects such as highlights, contrast, shadows, exposure, brightness etc to pull that data to its limits. If you can see colors in a jpeg file, that data and much much more is within the raw data. I think it’s strange that your jpegs “appear better” or have more dynamic range than the raw files. That’s what makes me ask if your software is up to date.

 

[Meta4]

As for files, a 16 bit raw has about 65,000 pieces of information to work with (or colors). A JPEG file has 256 pieces (or colors).

You should check those numbers .. they are a long way from the actual values.

 

[Filmarik]

You should check those numbers .. they are a long way from the actual values.

I guess what he meant to say was that 16bit raw file has approximatelly 65 000 (65,536 to be exact) steps of color per channel whereas 8 bit file such as your typical JPEG has only 256 steps per channel. That would be more or less correct.

 

[GadgetGuy]

I guess what he meant to say was that 16bit raw file has approximatelly 65 000 (65,536 to be exact) steps of color per channel whereas 8 bit file such as your typical JPEG has only 256 steps per channel. That would be more or less correct.

But, didn't you just say DNG only has 12 bit color depth in post #25 above?

 

[Filmarik]

But, didn't you just say DNG only has 12 bit color depth in post #25 above?

Yes. I did.

But, didn't you just say DNG only has 12 bit color depth in post #25 above?

Yes, I did. Again I was talking on behalf of the person who said that a quote: "16 bit RAW file has 65000 information to work with" and I said that that generic statement was close to being accurate. There are not many cameras which shoot 16bit RAW files though. Some MF cameras such as the Fuji GFX 100, as an example does.
AFAIK M4P main camera shoots 14bit RAW files and that means 16,384 steps per channel and M3P shoots RAW files with 12bit color depth meaning 4,096 steps per channel, which is what I was talking about in post #25.
But this debate is about DNG vs. JPEG and all of the above explains and demonstrates why DNG should deliver superior colors to JPEG and more importantly why JPEG breaks appart pretty quickly when pushed in post, and why JPEG is prone to show posterization in smooth gradient areas such as blue sky etc. I can not see any reason why a properly processed DNG file should have inferior colors or less dynamic range than a JPEG.

 

[GadgetGuy]

Yes. I did.

Yes, I did. Again I was talking on behalf of the person who said that a quote: "16 bit RAW file has 65000 information to work with" and I said that that generic statement was close to being accurate. There are not many cameras which shoot 16bit RAW files though. Some MF cameras such as the Fuji GFX 100, as an example does.
AFAIK M4P main camera shoots 14bit RAW files and that means 16,384 steps per channel and M3P shoots RAW files with 12bit color depth meaning 4,096 steps per channel, which is what I was talking about in post #25.
But this debate is about DNG vs. JPEG and all of the above explains and demonstrates why DNG should deliver superior colors to JPEG and more importantly why JPEG breaks appart pretty quickly when pushed in post, and why JPEG is prone to show posterization in smooth gradient areas such as blue sky etc. I can not see any reason why a properly processed DNG file should have inferior colors or less dynamic range than a JPEG.

Thanks for the clarification.

To be clear, then, the only relevant number for the 8 bit JPEG comparison of the Mavic 4 Pro should be 14 bit DNG files, not 16 bit RAW nor 12 bit DNG.

"M4P main camera shoots 14bit RAW files, and that means 16,384 steps per channel instead of 256 steps, assuming DJI's Mavic 4 Pro JPEG's are 8 bit."

Are the Mavic 4 Pro JPEG, in fact, 8 bit?

The poster you were defending was using an irrelevant 16 bit RAW comparison in post #26, and you used an irrelevant 12 bit DNG comparison in post #25.

I am certainly not questioning your premises that DNG should deliver superior color depth, and that JPEG will fall apart rapidly when pushed too far in post, and is prone to show posterization in smooth gradient areas under those circumstances.

The only reason a properly processed DNG might have inferior colors or less dynamic range than a JPEG would be because of some secret sauce of DJI's being applied to the JPEG, that is not available to be used on the DNG's, and/or the DNG was missing the "Colonel’s Secret Sauce."

One of the biggest complaints about Lightroom originally was the DNG's lacked the superior look of the associated camera created JPEG's as a starting point, and Adobe's default opening settings sucked. Eventually, Adobe did their best to copy each camera manufacturers' JPEG processing as a default opening setting, but there are some who still swear each camera manufacturer’s camera JPEG's are superior to what third party image editors can produce from the DNG's when they lack the proprietary "secret sauce" used in the JPEGs.

Bottom line, a well-exposed JPG doesn't need the recovery capability of a DNG. However a DNG gives more flexibility to change the image's color balance and recover areas if an artificial HDR image is desired instead.

There is no right answer as to whether a JPEG or DNG is "better."
It all depends upon what the photographer wants and is trying to achieve, and the compromises required to shoot DNG in the first place (think frame rate) , and whether the editing time and effort required to properly process the DNG after is worth the effort vs. just culling through the JPEG AEB exposures to find the right one, or which to blend together.