What size .jpeg

[cheddar-man]

The last time I took some stills with the Mini 2, I used RAW + JPEG.
The RAW (DNG) files were 24.5Mb whereas the JPEG only about 6.5Mb. Does that sound right, so much compression on the JPEG, or have I got a setting wrong somewhere?

 

[fgurnee01]

That sounds even less compression than one might expect. JPEG can do very little loss at 10:1, according to what I read.

 

[FLDave]

RAW files are huge and they don't have corrections built in like the jpg files.

 

[thewhoosh]

To be honest I never edit jpgs as I want the most detail from an image so a 8 bit jpg is not as good as a 16bit raw file and for even more dynamic range 5x DNG AEB

 

[Eagle Eye 62]

To be honest I never edit jpgs as I want the most detail from an image so a 8 bit jpg is not as good as a 16bit raw file and for even more dynamic range 5x DNG AEB

Agreed, RAW files give you way more flexibility for editing and processing. I only shoot RAW and deliver in either TIFF (Uncompressed) or JPEG. That being said, JPEG is a variable compression algorithm but, the DJI software does not let you adjust the amount of compression as far as I can tell.

 

[lensimages]

Yes that is right Jpg’s are much smaller than the very large raw files, there is a free Adobe download to convert Raw files it’s called the DNG converter, as said it’s free, cheers Len

 

[MavicAir2Marc]

There are also various settings of quality that jpeg files can be saved as from smallest to best. Every time you resave a file, it goes through the compression routine until it ends up with artifacts and garbage. I have clients that still haven't learned that lesson and they send in pixelated junk. The compression algorithms are better nowadays but it can still be a problem over time and many saves.

 

[LoudThunder]

I would ask, why are you shooting photos in RAW as well as JPEG format. Are you doing just because you can or do you have a reason?

If you’re shooting in JPEG and you shoot a photo, that's letting all the beautiful light flood your camera sensor and record the image onto your memory card, the camera collects the information and quickly compresses it down into a reasonably sized file. That's why the file is smaller…

It judges things like the color of the sky and the temperature of the light. Even when you’ve taken the messed with the settings and taken a photo in manual mode and set everything yourself, the JPEG still needs to make some decisions as it smooshes all that information into one little file. It's still a smaller file size…

But if you shoot in RAW, the sensor stays hands-off and says “OK, Hot Shot. YOU deal with it!”

…this means that you have total, blissful control of your entire image.

…but not without some work of your own.

RAW files need to be imported into a computer program like Adobe Lightroom or Adobe Camera RAW and then either instantly exported as JPEGS (yikes!)

…or perfected according to your vision for the image with editing and then exported as a JPG or other printer-friendly format.

So just to make sure you get it I’ll say it this way: a raw file isn’t an image. It’s information gathered by the sensor and delivered to you on a memory card. It’s totally your job to then do what you want with that information before compressing it into an ‘image’.

Also, a RAW file probably won't have the in-camera sharpening that JPEG compression provides. So don’t fret when you think your image isn’t as sharp as it should be – this also needs to be done by you when you are in the editing process.

So, do you want to spend your time editing a photo if you are just shooting "snapshots" or are you a SERIOUS Photographer that wants each photo to be just so?

 

[cheddar-man]

Many thanks again LT. I guess at 83 I've become lazy and got into the habit of letting the camera do the main processing work and giving me a ready to use jpeg. I do have a reasonable processing program in iPhots on my Mac laptop so must get off my arse and just it!!!

 

[LoudThunder]

I guess at 83 I've become lazy

Hey, CM, at 83 you've earned your "arse" time. I would put it to you, what's more fun, flying your little baby, just taking photos in JPG and being able to see and share them quickly, or "working your arse off" making those RAW photos look as good as the JPGs start off at and to make them look better, you arse time will be on working overtime…

Of course, I'm prejudice, I do not shoot in 4K as my PC cannot handle the volume of data (too slow…) and I do not have any software to process RAW photos.

But as you've read, I do like my Photospheres…

I would say, Happy 4th of July, but you might think this Yank is rubbing it in…

 

[cheddar-man]

Not in the least LT, I'll return the complement when the time comes! I've just dug the Tab 2 out and firing it up ready to re set and have a go at the Photoshere thingy!!

 

[cheddar-man]

Well that's a result but honestly, not my thing

 

[cheddar-man]

Visited the pretty little village of Beer on the south Devon coast yesterday and took a few pix and videos. This is a jpeg straight off the SD card, measuring just 5.3Mb, as the title says, could this have been improved, should I have shot RAW and then post processed it?

 

[FLDave]

I don't see a problem other than you are likely too far away to get good detail.
As for jpg or raw it depends on how good you are with editing raw images. Do you think you can do a better job than DJI does automatically? If you have a great photo editing program and are skilled at using it then you should be able to do better, but what do you expect for this photo?

 

[cheddar-man]

A screen shot from a movie clip...............

 

[LoudThunder]

Well that's a result but honestly, not my thing

CM, what I see here is the "unprocessed" photosphere. The best way I can describe it is to think of the old days of actual film and "negatives." When you looked at the negative, you could see an image but all the remarkable color and sharpness of the image just was not to be seen.

So, what you have here is the "negative" of a photosphere, it is called a "Tiny Earth or an Asteroid" the image needs to be processed. Like I wrote in my topics, you can never send or email a photosphere, you can only send or email them a link to the photosphere where it is published on Google Maps.

In my topic "Photospheres Part II -- How to do it..." I explained this. Your DJI Fly App will turn this image (your back yard???) into a photosphere and then you can see what it really looks like. Just like you would process a negative to create a photograph.

Bring this image up again in the DJI Fly App and then Tap it with your finger, it will become a Photosphere and you can scroll all around the image, up down, everywhere…

If your post the actual photo, I will publish it in an inconspicuous location in Devon so you will be able to see it in all it's glory. And if you PM me your address, I can place it right in your back yard, but then it will be there for all the world to see… So you decide it you want everyone to know what's in your back yard or just wonder where this really is located.

The actual photo is about 2MB and it's size is 4096 by 2048 pixels. And it will be rectangular and it will look weird, that's because it is 25 photos that have been stitched together…

Let me kniw if yo need further assistance.

LT