Normal vs. Fine quality

Smoke

Senior Member
I'd like to get your opinion on this. I took many shots when I bought the camera with "Normal" and then I tried the "Fine" resolution. Not to mention the difference in the size of the jpeg, (9Mb vs. 4Mb), I feel that the "Normal" resolution is clearer. Why is that?
 
I'd like to get your opinion on this. I took many shots when I bought the camera with "Normal" and then I tried the "Fine" resolution. Not to mention the difference in the size of the jpeg, (9Mb vs. 4Mb), I feel that the "Normal" resolution is clearer. Why is that?

Normal is never clearer. You should always be using Fine or even better use RAW if you have a post processing program that can handle it. If you use Normal you are just throwing away pixels.
 

Michael J.

Senior Member
resize on the computer your fine pic and it is clear too.

Fine and L is good for cropping I guess. You get great result.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

WayneF

Senior Member
It is the same number of pixels, but Normal is never clearer than Fine. The quality is not always the same.
Some would argue Fine JPG is none too good. :)

The D5200 image is 24 megapixels. There are three bytes of red, green, blue data for every pixel, so that is 24x3 = 72 million bytes (uncompressed, in computer memory). That is simply how large the image is, 24 megapixels and 72 million bytes (about 68 MB).

When stored in the JPG file,
Fine JPG compression squeezes this down to 12.2 MB (D5200 manual, page 241 says typical),
which is to 12/72 = 17% of original size.

Normal JPG compression squeezes this down to 6.2 MB,
which is 6/72 = 8% of original size.

This is lossy compression, meaning to be able to do this, the process has to take liberties with the data to be able to do it. Then, when taking them out of the JPG file (uncompressing), we get back the same number of pixels, but they may not be quite the same color that we thought we put into the JPG file. The color variations is the detail of the image. So this data loss is image quality losses. It can cause visible artifacts (you could say distortion, of the colors, and the detail).

Why would we spend the price, and then choose image quality losses?

See What does JPG Quality Losses Mean? for more about JPG artifacts.
 

Bill16

Senior Member
I love this explanation! Thank you my friend! :D
It is the same number of pixels, but Normal is never clearer than Fine. The quality is not always the same.
Some would argue Fine JPG is none too good. :)

The D5200 image is 24 megapixels. There are three bytes of red, green, blue data for every pixel, so that is 24x3 = 72 million bytes (uncompressed, in computer memory). That is simply how large the image is, 24 megapixels and 72 million bytes (about 68 MB).

When stored in the JPG file,
Fine JPG compression squeezes this down to 12.2 MB (D5200 manual, page 241 says typical),
which is to 12/72 = 17% of original size.

Normal JPG compression squeezes this down to 6.2 MB,
which is 6/72 = 8% of original size.

This is lossy compression, meaning to be able to do this, the process has to take liberties with the data to be able to do it. Then, when taking them out of the JPG file (uncompressing), we get back the same number of pixels, but they may not be quite the same color that we thought we put into the JPG file. The color variations is the detail of the image. So this data loss is image quality losses. It can cause visible artifacts (you could say distortion, of the colors, and the detail).

Why would we spend the price, and then choose image quality losses?

See What does JPG Quality Losses Mean? for more about JPG artifacts.
 

Somersetscott

Senior Member
Perhaps when the comparison was made some of the other factors, other camera settings, camera shake, lenses, mode etc etc.

If you're worried that this really is happening a fair test is needed, to do that every possibility of inaccuracy needs to be screwed down as much as possible.

So I'd go for a solid tripod, shutter release (wired or wireless), manual mode - all manual settings, AF onto a detailed target in a controlled environment (your house) then before taking the photo switch to manual focus. Take one on fine and one on normal and pixel peep see if it makes a difference.

Obviously some movement may take place while you change the settings from fine to normal, but just gotta be as careful as possible.



I shoot raw too, but I did shoot Fine L for a long time and noticed a difference in all the cameras I've had between fine & normal when this feature has been available.

These days i'm kinda surprised they even offer it, SD cards are relatively cheap per gb, so not alot of use in cramming more photos? Then i'm quality over quantity minded.
 

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
The reason your "Basic" JPG's look better than your "Fine" JPG's is, most likely, due to your image viewer. In short, if you're not looking at your images in your viewer at 100% magnification, you're testing your image viewer's ability to accurately display a "compressed" image more than you are image quality itself.

Look at two images, one "Basic" and one "Fine", both at 100% magnification in your image viewer, and you should see the difference in sharpness with the higher resolution image being cleaner.




....
 
Last edited:

Bill16

Senior Member
I just read that intro you wrote, and it was very detailed and demonstrative with excellent photos to see the differences! I bookmarked it to reread so to absorb the great info better! Way to go my friend, that is awesome of you! :D
Thank you Bill, I really appreciate the comment, glad if it is of any use. So since, I have embellished that same sparse info, and added it as introduction at What does JPG Quality Losses Mean?
 

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
The D5200 image is 24 megapixels. There are three bytes of red, green, blue data for every pixel, so that is 24x3 = 72 million bytes (uncompressed, in computer memory). That is simply how large the image is, 24 megapixels and 72 million bytes (about 68 MB).
This is not correct.

Each pixel is made up of three color channels: Red, Green and Blue. This has nothing to do with image size or resultant file size. While the size of the pixel itself can vary, it will always be composed of these three color channels. Always always.

The JPG image format uses 8-bit color which means each color channel (R, G & B) is allotted 256 shades for that particular channel: 256 shades of Red, 256 shades of Green and 256 shades of Blue. Doing the math we see: 256 x 256 x 256 = 16.8 million (rounding up slightly). This is the total number of colors (16.8 million) any .JPG file can display. Ever. It's the limit of the file format. This number sounds impressive until you realize that most of our digital camera's are CAPABLE of 12 or 14 bit color (but *only* when shooting RAW). 12-Bit color renders 67 million shades of color, or four times as much as 8 bit color. I don't remember the numbers for 14-bit color and I don't want to do the math.

Aaaaaaaanyway... Back to image size vs. file size.

Image size (aka "resolution") is dictated by the total number of pixels used to create the image. To calculate the megapixel size of an image you need to take the number of pixels wide and multiply it by the number of pixels tall. The resulting number, rounded to the nearest million, is the image's size in megapixels. That being said, I can record JPG's as small as 6MP on my D7100 (JPG Small = 2992 x 2000) or as large as 24MP (6000 x 4000). The D5200 can do the same thing, although the dimensions of the image are probably different.

File size (aka "how much space the file takes up on your hard drive") will be dependent on the number of MP's used to create the image but also on compression, if applied. RAW files are un-compressed, as are .TIFF files, which is why they are so much larger (in megabytes) as compared to .JPG files of the same mega-pixel size. This is because JPG is a compressed format that analyzes images in blocks of 8X8 pixels and selectively reduces the detail within each block to reduce file size.

I hope that helps to clarify things a little.



.....
 

WayneF

Senior Member
This is not correct.

Each pixel is made up of three color channels: Red, Green and Blue. This has nothing to do with image size or resultant file size. While the size of the pixel itself can vary, it will always be composed of these three color channels. Always always.
..

<sigh> It certainly is all correct, at least of JPG (the subject of discussion). 24 bits RGB is exactly 3 bytes per pixel, always, always. 48 bits is 6 bytes, and indexed color is 8 bits (or less). JPG might be 8 bit grayscale, one byte. But JPG color is always 24 bits RGB. The definition of 24 bits is three bytes, per pixel (bytes are 8 bits). So always, always for 24 bit RGB data (in memory, when not compressed in a file).

EDIT: I should have said the words of the obvious.
JPG is 8 bit channels, and three RGB channels, which is 24 bit color data.

Perhaps semantics, but Raw images only have one channel, which might contain red or green or blue data. Raw is not three channel RGB pixels (yet). However, I was speaking of JPG, specifically the JPG the camera makes.

A pixel has no size in the image file, it is simply a color definition of a specific location, of unspecified area. The camera sensor sample did have an area for where the color sample came from, but which is of no use to us out of the camera. And printing will define some area for it when we print on a paper, but in the file, a pixel is just a dimensionless color definition, of one specific color. None of that was being discussed.

..
The JPG image format uses 8-bit color which means each color channel (R, G & B) is allotted 256 shades for that particular channel: 256 shades of Red, 256 shades of Green and 256 shades of Blue. Doing the math we see: 256 x 256 x 256 = 16.8 million (rounding up slightly). This is the total number of colors (16.8 million) any .JPG file can display. Ever. It's the limit of the file format. This number sounds impressive until you realize that most of our digital camera's are CAPABLE of 12 or 14 bit color (but *only* when shooting RAW). 12-Bit color renders 67 million shades of color, or four times as much as 8 bit color. I don't remember the numbers for 14-bit color and I don't want to do the math.
...

In this part, not much is wrong, but who said anything otherwise? What does it have to do with the subject of JPG Quality? I fail to see your point.

12 bits is 4 more bits than 8 bits, but each bit is a power of 2, so it is 16 times "more" colors. I did not read very close at first. :) 14 bits is 64 times more possible colors, but it is not combinations. In Raw, it is just red or green or blue, so we probably ought not assume every shade of red is in use. :) Yes, RGB pixels will be built later by combining R, G, B from adjacent locations (for the JPG too). That is one shortcoming of digital sensors (Bayer limiting resolution), but really not much issue.

I was discussing JPG, which is 24 bit color, and so its RGB is always three bytes per pixel. This is pretty basic. And JPG compression does reduce that data size WHEN in the JPG file. Restored back into memory, it is three bytes per pixel again (if RGB).

Raw is 12 or 14 bits (smaller data than 24 bits), one 12 or 14 bit data per "pixel". But Raw is not RGB, its so-called pixel is only one color, red OR green OR blue (Bayer, etc). Which we cannot even look at it until we convert so it is RGB pixels (our monitors are RGB). The rear LCD on camera shows us a little embedded JPG for Raw, because its LCD display is also RGB.

...
Aaaaaaaanyway... Back to image size vs. file size.

Image size (aka "resolution") is dictated by the total number of pixels used to create the image. To calculate the megapixel size of an image you need to take the number of pixels wide and multiply it by the number of pixels tall. The resulting number, rounded to the nearest million, is the image's size in megapixels. That being said, I can record JPG's as small as 6MP on my D7100 (JPG Small = 2992 x 2000) or as large as 24MP (6000 x 4000). The D5200 can do the same thing, although the dimensions of the image are probably different.

File size (aka "how much space the file takes up on your hard drive") will be dependent on the number of MP's used to create the image but also on compression, if applied. RAW files are un-compressed, as are .TIFF files, which is why they are so much larger (in megabytes) as compared to .JPG files of the same mega-pixel size. This is because JPG is a compressed format that analyzes images in blocks of 8X8 pixels and selectively reduces the detail within each block to reduce file size.

....

Nikon has a couple of ways they compress NEF Raw, one of them is the Default. So your own Raw is mostly likely compressed that way, unless you used the menu to specify uncompressed Raw. One Raw compression choice is lossless. The lossy type is NOT JPG, and it is not really very bad at all.

TIF files (assuming 24 bits) and JPG, are BOTH three bytes per pixel. Exactly zero difference. That is simply what RGB is. TIF24 and JPG24 are Same exact data size (for same image size). ANY 24 bit RGB image is three bytes per pixel.
Including TIF, JPG, PNG, BMP, whatever, any type that can be 24 bits.

TIF from the Nikon camera are uncompressed, and is always 24 bit and three bytes per pixel. But otherwise, TIF can use compression, typically LZW compression, which is LOSSLESS, meaning no bad things ever happen. However, it must back away from the heroics to do lossless, so the efficiency is lower (less dramatic), and might be only say 70% or 80% of the original file data size. But since lossless, we can always get out precisely what we wrote into it. No losses. That's a big plus.

You might think of TIF as huge, but JPG data is exactly the same size (if both are 24 bit and both are same image size).
It is just that JPG ALWAYS does JPG compression which can be variable size IN THE FILE, but smaller files are always worse quality (and even JPG Quality 100 is still always JPG).

My previous that you didn't like was to point out the degree of how small the JPG file is, as compared to the actual original 24 bit data size it really is. We pay a price in image quality for that file size reduction. A small JPG file is NOT a good thing. Better quality to aim for the largest JPG file size, which is still mighty small.

Many instead shoot Raw, to bypass JPG artifacts for now, which is true, but that thought minimizes the other extreme benefits of Raw.


You left out the other "size" fundamentals.

Image size (pixel dimensions) Yes, there are menu choices. Default is Large Fine. And the sensor is Large. Nikon calls it 24 megapixels. So did I. We all know. It has nothing to do with Fine vs Normal JPG compression.

Data size (bytes). If 24 bit RGB (like JPG), then three bytes per pixel above. It IS exactly this size when in your computer memory, always, always.

File size - adds overhead to Data Size, Exif or format tags, etc. But can also add compression to be a much smaller file, JPG or LZW compresion for example. JPG always does. These choices have properties, benefits and repercussions. When opened again in computer memory, see Data Size.

Print size - the inches of paper we may print it on, not to be confused with anything else. The dpi number provides the scale to convert pixels to inches of paper, later when it is printed. Dpi is ONLY used for printing. Video and web shows pixels directly and "don't know, don't care" about dpi.

....
I hope that helps to clarify things a little.

....


Didn't help me a bit, sorry.
 
Last edited:

WayneF

Senior Member
OK then, but as for shooting JPG.... The camera default for JPG is Large Fine. Because it is the best choice of JPG, so maybe leave it alone?

Hypothetically speaking: Maybe if you are certain you will never crop or print whatever image you end up with, and if without exception, you certainly will ONLY resample it smaller for ONLY video showing, and Never Ever anything else, then maybe it would not be totally unreasonable to consider Medium image size... maybe. If you're sure one of the next ones won't be the prize winner, or your favorite. Medium Fine is a smaller image, and a smaller file, but not crummy image quality, just smaller.

But we spent at least several hundred dollars on a good camera and lenses, with the goal of better images. What possible benefit would less image quality serve? That is simply wrong headed. Yes, it may be a smaller file to store, but we cannot see it when in the file. When we open the file into computer memory, Fine quality was none too good.

If a small image size, or less quality for a smaller file size, is actually important, then really, only consider doing that operation (later resample it smaller, and save as crummy JPG quality then, for archiving) only after you have first seen the Large Fine image (which can always be discarded), after you can better judge its future potential. This is one additional save as JPG (more JPG artifacts), as would be any crop or resample operation.
 
OK then, but as for shooting JPG.... The camera default for JPG is Large Fine. Because it is the best choice of JPG, so maybe leave it alone?

Hypothetically speaking: Maybe if you are certain you will never crop or print whatever image you end up with, and if without exception, you certainly will ONLY resample it smaller for ONLY video showing, and Never Ever anything else, then maybe it would not be totally unreasonable to consider Medium image size... maybe. If you're sure one of the next ones won't be the prize winner, or your favorite. Medium Fine is a smaller image, and a smaller file, but not crummy image quality, just smaller.

But we spent at least several hundred dollars on a good camera and lenses, with the goal of better images. What possible benefit would less image quality serve? That is simply wrong headed. Yes, it may be a smaller file to store, but we cannot see it when in the file. When we open the file into computer memory, Fine quality was none too good.

If a small image size, or less quality for a smaller file size, is actually important, then really, only consider doing that operation (later resample it smaller, and save as crummy JPG quality then, for archiving) only after you have first seen the Large Fine image (which can always be discarded), after you can better judge its future potential. This is one additional save as JPG (more JPG artifacts), as would be any crop or resample operation.

Got to agree with you 100% I always save the RAW and whatever JPEG I create. Storage space is cheap now.
 

WayneF

Senior Member
Got to agree with you 100% I always save the RAW and whatever JPEG I create. Storage space is cheap now.

Right, and that JPG copy (of Raw) is expendable. When any change is needed, just discard the JPG, change the edit on the Raw original, and make a new JPG copy. Only two sets of JPG artifacts then, from the camera, and this last new one.

Raw editor can do this for JPG too (at least Adobe ACR that I use can). ACR can simply open JPG from a compact camera, and fix red eye, crop to 6x4 shape, fix white balance, boost exposure, whatever, and then output new JPG. Only 8 bits and less range possible, but this is lossless editing then. It always preserves the original unmodified JPG (with no additional JPG artifacts), and saves the list of edit changes (like Raw) in the file somewhere, and applies those changes (or edited changes) to the Original JPG file at any next time. This does not make a continued string of additional JPG artifacts.

Other image programs (viewing, printing, etc) do not understand that method, and so they can only still show the original JPG version next time. So ACR has to make a new JPG for other programs to use, like it makes a JPG for other programs to use the Raw files. But it is lossless editing, even for JPG, pretty cool.
 
I edit my wife's photos from her L120 all the time and I always open them in ACR to do the editing. The best reason is the Shadow control you have. So much better than even PhotoShop. My sister recently shot something with her phone and the picture subject was a once in a lifetime and the quality was crap. She asked me to "Do my magic" and print a 5X7 of it for my mom.
The results were better than I thought they could be. Not great by our standards. But good

IMG_1754.jpg
IMG_1754b.jpg


My 87 year old mother reading to her youngest Great Grandchild.
 

WayneF

Senior Member
The results were better than I thought they could be. Not great by our standards. But good

Yes indeed, it sparkles. It must have been incandescent lighting indoors, and the daylight outdoors (blue now) must have given Auto WB fits. :)

Just clicking the WB tool on the white book page would get close, but maybe slightly blue, which can be tweaked of course. I think many of us starting today simply don't know about things like that.
 
Yes indeed, it sparkles. It must have been incandescent lighting indoors, and the daylight outdoors (blue now) must have given Auto WB fits. :)

Just clicking the WB tool on the white book page would get close, but maybe slightly blue, which can be tweaked of course. I think many of us starting today simply don't know about things like that.

The main thing is that my mom will love it. But on a more Nikonites note people can see how important Post Processing can be even for bad cell phone pictures. Just think what you can do for a good photo from your Nikon.
 

WayneF

Senior Member
Just think what you can do for a good photo from your Nikon.


Edit seems to be a very scary word for many however. We should call it "correcting" the image, which the basics certainly are. Photoshopping a new head onto the subject is something entirely different than the plain basics, of correcting white balance, exposure, cropping, etc. Photographers just gotta know that much today, to get much out of it.

When we used color negative film, the employee at the developing lab did these corrections for us. It was not that it was not needed, it was simply done for us (so we would buy the print). But shooting digital, it is our job now. We should realize that.
 
Last edited:
Edit seems to be a very scary word for many however. We should call it "correcting" the image, which the basics certainly are. Photoshopping a new head onto the subject is something entirely different than the plain basics, of correcting white balance, exposure, cropping, etc. Photographers just gotta know that much today, to get much out of it.

When we used color negative film, the employee at the developing lab did these corrections for us. It was not that it was not needed, it was simply done for us (so we would buy the print). But shooting digital, it is our job now. We should realize that.

I managed over 100 One Hour Photo labs for years. WE had to correct for each type of film by setting up a separate channel for each type and speed of film. We used a standard negative for each one and balanced it with a densitometer. We did this with the negatives and prints. WE also had to run tests on the chemistry to keep it correct since if it was off the final prints with be off to.

Learning ViewNX2 or PhotoShop is far easier.
 
Top