RAW vs JPG

[RogerDH]

Well your image actually proves my point! There is a lot more NOISE in the black sky, and the water , especially if you look at the green splash on the sides of the ship. Compare that with my processed image where there is no or little noise in the black sky or the green water. You cannot pull many details out of a jpg file. For my peace of mind, I rarely shoot JPG anymore. I put my images through Photoshop and Bridge and select the images I want to keep and work and and process those RAW files.

Yeah, I don't question that you can get better results with RAW but the question is, how much better, given the limited dynamic range of the Mini 2's sensor. I did that JPG rather quickly and forgot to do any noise reduction, but it does look better with that applied:

 

[RogerDH]

Well your image actually proves my point! There is a lot more NOISE in the black sky, and the water , especially if you look at the green splash on the sides of the ship. Compare that with my processed image where there is no or little noise in the black sky or the green water. You cannot pull many details out of a jpg file. For my peace of mind, I rarely shoot JPG anymore. I put my images through Photoshop and Bridge and select the images I want to keep and work and and process those RAW files.

I should have mentioned that I typically shoot RAW+JPG with my DSLR, because why not, since I'm going to be fiddling with the images anyway. And if I had a Mini 2 I'd probably do the same thing, because why not, but the difference isn't enough to make me want to trade up to a Mini 2.

 

[Dale D]

I should have mentioned that I typically shoot RAW+JPG with my DSLR, because why not, since I'm going to be fiddling with the images anyway. And if I had a Mini 2 I'd probably do the same thing, because why not, but the difference isn't enough to make me want to trade up to a Mini 2.

For a long time I would set my Nikon DSLR on RAW+JPG. The D750 has two slots, and I used one for RAW and one for JPG. I never used the JPG files. So I reset the camera to RAW first SD card slot, and overflow RAW for 2nd slot.

To answer the drone question, I personally wouldn't spend the money to go from Mini with JPG to Mini with RAW, but you KNOW that your aerial still images could be tremendously better for RAW since, as mentioned before, there is a lot more data to recover details in the foreground in landscapes. Several weeks ago on the forum I did some fiddling around with a sunset submission. I was able to bring out details in the dark foreground of homes below which were in dark to black shadows, with a perfectly nice developed sunset. If I were you I'd get the new Mavic 3 Pro when it comes out.

 

[scro]

@Dale D It looks like a fair amount of noise reduction going on in the second image, which has resulted in the sky and the reflections of the coloured lights on the sea looking "smeared" and losing some fine detail. I actually prefer the "unedited" version as it is much more subtle and retains a bit more fine detail in the shadows. Note that the original is actually a composite of 11 images and not just a single RAW file.

 

[Dale D]

@Dale D It looks like a fair amount of noise reduction going on in the second image, which has resulted in the sky and the reflections of the coloured lights on the sea looking "smeared" and losing some fine detail. I actually prefer the "unedited" version as it is much more subtle and retains a bit more fine detail in the shadows. Note that the original is actually a composite of 11 images and not just a single RAW file.

Yes- your are correct- that is because I was working on a JPG file. It would have looked much better (or as we say in Miami "mucho major") if I had brought out the details in a RAW file. You cannot get a mink coat by skinning a goat.

 

[RogerDH]

For a long time I would set my Nikon DSLR on RAW+JPG. The D750 has two slots, and I used one for RAW and one for JPG. I never used the JPG files. So I reset the camera to RAW first SD card slot, and overflow RAW for 2nd slot.

To answer the drone question, I personally wouldn't spend the money to go from Mini with JPG to Mini with RAW, but you KNOW that your aerial still images could be tremendously better for RAW since, as mentioned before, there is a lot more data to recover details in the foreground in landscapes. Several weeks ago on the forum I did some fiddling around with a sunset submission. I was able to bring out details in the dark foreground of homes below which were in dark to black shadows, with a perfectly nice developed sunset. If I were you I'd get the new Mavic 3 Pro when it comes out.

The main reason I shoot RAW+JPG is that the JPGs have thumbnails in Windows file explorer and quick views in the photo viewer, whereas I have to open and convert the RAW files to see what they are, which is a PITA.

Re: Mavic 3 Pro, yeah, a 1" sensor is going to be more sensitive and have a higher dynamic range, so no doubt RAW will make a big difference. It should also have a great lens, which is what you need to make the most of 4K -- that's where a lot of the cheap 4K cameras fall down even if they have a decent sensor. I doubt I'll be getting one, though, as much as I'd like to.

 

[scro]

Yes- your are correct- that is because I was working on a JPG file. It would have looked much better (or as we say in Miami "mucho major") if I had brought out the details in a RAW file. You cannot get a mink coat by skinning a goat.

OK, now I'm a little confused. Post #17 is written as if a RAW file was being edited, and claiming it would have been much harder to pull that much detail out if the source material was a JPG. Then post #25 states a JPG was used as the source material.

The image file Derliz posted here First night shot with my Mini 2 is a PNG which can have higher colour depth than a JPG and "lossless" compression.

 

[PaulDoneDrone]

So... the Mini2 has RAW capabilities, and many pilots claim this is far superior to just JPG. Can someone with a Mini2 take a few well exposed JPG and RAW comparison shots to convince me that RAW is really the huge improvement so many claim?

I have a DSLR and have used RAW on that, taking the time and effort to manipulate photos carefully to squeeze out the best detail and colour in stills. My conclusion on the topic was that for casual to keen amateur photography it is quicker, easier and less storage-hungry to shoot several JPGs at different exposures than to shoot RAW and edit in post. The difference between a well exposed JPG and slightly off-exposed RAW was negligible when produced by a prosumer level digital camera. I don't deny that RAW files provide more data to work with and provides greater flexibility for editing later, but I'm not yet convinced that it is as superior as many believe it to be. Convince me otherwise

DNG is your negative, JPEG is your printed photo. You can't really compare negative to the printed photos.

One needs to know how to develop the photo (work DNG) to look the way you wanted to look, and if you do, there is no comparison between auto generic development and tweaked custom process. In your case I would switch to jpeg and shoot away, you will save a lot of space on the sd card and capture a lot more images.

 

[Meta4]

In the forum, the common thread is that you must shoot raw if you are serious and a lot of less experienced drone photographers feel pressured to shoot raw.
I'll provide an alternative view.
I fully understand the differences between dng and jpg files but I choose to swim against the current and as a serious photographer, I shoot jpg.
And contrary to popular opinion, you can edit jpg images too.
I believe that for most drone photographers, most of the time, jpg will give you all the quality you want or need.

As they say in the classics, a picture is worth a thousand words.
Every pic in this gallery was shot as a jpg.

Shipping Photography Examples - Above & Beyond Photography

This gallery hosted by SmugMug; your photos look better here.

abovephotos.smugmug.com

If you want to shoot raw, that's fine, but if you are new to photography, there's no need to feel that you must shoot raw.
You can get very good results without it.

 

[BluecornNM]

I think you're missing the point. I don't think there's any question that shooting RAW with a DSLR camera gives you much more control over the final image because RAW captures the full dynamic range of the sensor. So sure, it's a matter of preference if you think it's worth the effort or JPGs are good enough. But the question is specific to the Mini 2: Does the tiny 1/2.3" sensor have enough dynamic range that capturing RAW is worth the effort? I'd like to see an example myself, because I have my doubts.

I shoot RAW because it works better for me. It's entirely subjective. I've got the point just fine. [emoji6]

I'm a landscape shooter. I prefer very dynamic light in the margins of the day. I need to shoot RAW to manage the dynamic range without introducing a ton of noise. Aerial real estate photos on the middle of the day? Who cares. Use jpg.

Really has little to do with sensor size. It's about the data thrown out by compression. The only way to get some of it back is through interpolation in your editing software, and it brings noise. So shoot RAW when it makes sense to .

 

[gogorokokoko]

here is a link with dng files from M2, from this guy on youtube

568 - DJI Mini 2- Is It Good For Photographers? - Google Drive

drive.google.com

 

[vindibona1]

I confess that I have not read all the replies thoroughly. But hopefully I have something additional to offer this discussion, which focuses on what makes RAW and JPG CAPTURES different from each other.

When you take a digital photo the sensor captures the (raw) data. What the camera does as it saves it in the PROCESSED (and compressed) JPG is to take on the role of a micro computer in addition to capture device, processing the raw data with preset parameters, with limited user input for control. In many cases the jpg images are quite good. But when a camera has the capability of SAVING *RAW* images, what it is doing is recording and storing all the raw data that the sensor captured, but stops short of doing any actual processing of the data. That is left up to specialized processing programs like Photoshop, Lightroom, On1Raw, Capture One and the like. These programs, usually on computers with larger screens and far more processing power, give the photographer much more control over every aspect of the image. Things like correcting for (some) exposure errors, dynamic range, incorrect color settings, sharpness and even some upscaling allow the photographer to address these issue from the actual sensor data, not from information that has been dyed, fried, scrambled and compressed already. In essence, as said by others, the difference might be night and day because with raw images you're not working with images that have already been partially crippled by the automated processing process.

 

[RogerDH]

...

Really has little to do with sensor size. It's about the data thrown out by compression. The only way to get some of it back is through interpolation in your editing software, and it brings noise. So shoot RAW when it makes sense to .

Yes, it does have to do with sensor size, because what RAW does is capture the full dynamic range of the sensor, and small sensors just don't have the dynamic range of large sensors. I don't know what the Mini is capable of -- that's the question -- but my point is that there is no magic in RAW that can add dynamic range beyond what the sensor can produce. The question is, how much data is the Mini -- specifically -- actually throwing out with a JPG representation, and general discussions about the advantages of RAW don't address that point.

 

[andrei193]

Hi all! I used DC Rainmaker photos and this is the result. The left is the jpeg resulted from the camera and on the right is the processed RAW file. While I was expecting to pull a little more detail from the foliage I am overall pleased with what I can recover in terms of detail and dynamic range. Jpegs have that mushiness to them that I really dislike. Raw is essential for me, I could not have pushed the colors and highlights in the jpeg without some unwanted artifacts.

 

[scro]

Hi all! I used DC Rainmaker photos and this is the result. The left is the jpeg resulted from the camera and on the right is the processed RAW file. While I was expecting to pull a little more detail from the foliage I am overall pleased with what I can recover in terms of detail and dynamic range. Jpegs have that mushiness to them that I really dislike. Raw is essential for me, I could not have pushed the colors and highlights in the jpeg without some unwanted artifacts.

Nice work, and exactly the kind of comparison I have been looking for. JPG and RAW side by side. My personal preference is for a slightly less oversaturated look... but thats just a personal preference.

However, I took the JPG you uploaded and spent 2 minutes tweaking it in snapseed on my phone and got the following result. About the only "big" difference I can spot is a hint more noise in the highlight detail sky in the top left. I could have done a smoother and better effort on my pc with slightly more professional software than some Instagram oriented basic image editor on a smartphone.

 

[boblui]

I think RAW still has an advantage over JPEG on Mini 2. This is a sample picture taken from DJI Mavic Mini 2 sample gallery



100% crops of the trees in the shadow on the right side compared after increasing the exposure by 3.1 stops. The RAW image does have more details and less noise.



The difference is not as pronounced as that seen on M2P though :

 

[andrei193]

Nice work, and exactly the kind of comparison I have been looking for. JPG and RAW side by side. My personal preference is for a slightly less oversaturated look... but thats just a personal preference.

However, I took the JPG you uploaded and spent 2 minutes tweaking it in snapseed on my phone and got the following result. About the only "big" difference I can spot is a hint more noise in the highlight detail sky in the top left. I could have done a smoother and better effort on my pc with slightly more professional software than some Instagram oriented basic image editor on a smartphone.

I see big differences with your edit and my RAW edit. You lost details in the sky (blown up highlights) and the overall upper portion. You introduced much more noise (see the large body of water, castle). Made the mushiness factor more obvious (see the castle and foliage, grass). Even if you use better software I doubt you can recover much detail and push the colors using only the jpeg (not meaning saturation necessarily). To each his own I guess. I sold my mini when I realized this feature would not come via software update and the mini 2 rumors started to leak. Would I upgrade to the mini 2 if this was the only feature added, definitely no. I was prepared to go up to the air 2 but the ocusync, much better controller, better wind performance and 4k, RAW photos and the panoramas features really swayed me to buy a mini 2 in the near future.

 

[scro]

@andrei193 I've had another look (on my big screen this time, rather than my phone) and can see the other aspects you point out better now. It also became clear the original photo is a good bit over exposed. In the JPG and the DNG a good portion of the sky is 100% white (ie clipped) and the lower 15% of the brightness range has pretty much not been used at all. A lot of potential detail has been lost in both file formats as a result. The auto exposure has been fooled in to over-exposing due to the large body of dark water in the foreground - something the live histogram or highlight clipping warning would have shown at a glance. A small amount of -ve exposure compensation would have given a better original (both in DNG and JPG) and made better use of the sensor capabilities, and put the JPG on a much better standing against the RAW.

You've done a good job of recovering highlights in the sky and distant water that are simply not there to recover in the JPG. Overall I'm pleasantly impressed by what you've managed to do with the image. I can also see the subtle tweaks to colours/detail (eg the red in the shutters of the upper windows on the castle, trees in the near background on the right) that I'm struggling to pull from the JPG. There are still clipped highlights, noticable chroma & luminance noise and colour quantization in the RAW conversion you present - These are a result of the small sensor, and over exposed original, and shooting in RAW won't fix that.

 

[Category 5]

A major benefit of RAW, on a front which JPG can never compete, is the ability to adjust the white balance.

Anyone whit a good understanding, and a workflow will know that RAW and JPG are both good, but on many fronts they just aren't comparable. JPG allows smaller files, easier storage, and good editing capability with decent dynamic range. RAW creates larger files, introduces another step into the workflow, but provides FAR greater editing latitude, greater dynamic range, the ability to sharpen (even oversharpen) without enhancing macroblocking, adjustable white balance, all even with a small sensor. The sensor still has 2-3 more dynamic range than a typical JPG produces from it.

The debate is similar to when folks wonder if they should upgrade to a DSLR /Mirrorless to get better pictures, only to conclude that their iphone gave them better and more consistent results. The latter is FAR superior, but requires a new skillset to get you there.

I have already begun playing with raw files from the Mini 2, and believe me, anyone looking to produce amazing photos from this little drone are best served shooting in raw+jpg mode. You can use the JPGs most of the time, but the RAWs will rescue you time and time again.

Even iPhone RAW images have tremendous benefit, despite the fact that the processing in the camera does an amazing job of getting you there automatically.

It's just not reasonable to waste the drone's battery on advanced image processing in real time, when it would introduce power and cooling challenges that such a small drone isn't up to solving. The JPGs are fantastic, but if you know what you are doing, or are interested in maximizing the potential, RAW is the best way to do it.

 

[karlblessing]

I think it's important to note that with the raw it's not so much about being uncompressed but what you can pull out of it. I am not sure exactly how many bit raw the Mini 2 uses, but an older camera such as my Pentax Q10 with the same sensor size from 2011 produces 12-bit raw DNG files.

A Jpeg file can only contain 8-bit color, 256 shades of red, 256 shades of green, 256 shades of blue. 12-bit color contains 2^12 shades per channel, or 4,096 shades of red, green, and blue resulting in 68 billion colors instead of 16 million. When working with raw you would do your tweaks in the raw processor first (non-destructive), then preferably open up in something like Photoshop in 16-bit mode (can contain 281 trillion possible colors).

And the reason for working in a wide 16-bit space is so that any further changes and edits you do are not as destructive in losing color data so that when you finally do get the final edit you want, the 8-bit result in the exported jpeg (for web usually, if not using TIFF or 16-bit psd for print for higher gamut printers) preserves a lot of the details rather than trying to do the same range of edits on just the jpeg straight off the camera that has already been processed and compressed ahead of time.

Far as getting more 'noise' etc, that's a result of not processing the raw file correctly. The Jpeg results are because the on-camera image processor runs the raw sensor data thru noise reduction and other algorithms, if you just open up a raw file and turn off the default reduction, it's not going to look as good as a processed jpeg out of the box. Where raw really shines is performing those processing on a home computer more powerful than the drone, and fine-tuning the level of tweaks so that the things like noise reduction are not aggressively done killing off some details in areas like shadows etc.

You don't shoot raw files with the intention of it being perfect straight off the card, you shoot raw to do your own processing at your own level of tweaks and preserving as much of the color/details as possible.