+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 32
  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Smoke's Avatar

    Normal vs. Fine quality

    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?


    › See More: Normal vs. Fine quality
    Nikon D5200
    Nikon 18-55mm
    Nikon 55-300mm
    Phottix Mitros Flash



  2. #2
    Staff
    Super Mod
    Don Kuykendall's Avatar

    Re: Normal vs. Fine quality

    Quote Originally Posted by Smoke View Post
    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.
    Thanks/Like Smoke, fotojack, Bill16, ladytonya Thanks/liked this post
     

    ================================================== ============================
    D7100***AF-S 18-140 ***AF-S 70-300***Tokina 11-16***40mm Micro***SB-700***Photoshop CS6

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    siamthai1's Avatar

    Re: Normal vs. Fine quality

    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
    Thanks/Like Bill16 Thanks/liked this post
     

    Camera: Nikon D5100

    Nikon Lenses: 18-55 -- 35mm 1.8 -- 40mm 2.8 -- 50mm 1.8 -- 16-85mm -- 55-300mm

    Sigma: 10-20mm


    I
    The Spirit of Thailand and I Photowalking - Thailand

    All Images Copyright by YPE Language & Computer School and Sensemathบ้านบึง
    .
    .


  4. #4
    Senior Member
    WayneF's Avatar

    Re: Normal vs. Fine quality

    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.
    Thanks/Like Ijustwant1, Bill16, Smoke Thanks/liked this post
     
    Wayne

    Four Flash Fundamentals We Must Know

  5. #5
    Day Dreamer
    Ijustwant1's Avatar

    Re: Normal vs. Fine quality

    I only shoot raw , and I like a little PP
    Cheers Greg.
    In theory there is no difference between theory and practice
    ​but in practice there is !! "Yogi Berra"


    DID I SAY I LOVE THE 50mm f1.8G

  6. #6
    Macro Fan
    Bill16's Avatar

    Re: Normal vs. Fine quality

    I love this explanation! Thank you my friend!
    Quote Originally Posted by WayneF View Post
    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.
    Check out our Bugs and Flowers up close​​ Group!

    Come join our D700 FAN CLUB!

    Love the D300? Then join our D300 Fan Club!

    Hey join our Nikon Mirrorless Fan Club!

    Join the old school film shooters group !

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Somersetscott's Avatar

    Re: Normal vs. Fine quality

    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.
    Thanks/Like Smoke Thanks/liked this post
     

    For my dedicated photography Facebook page: LINK


    Don't forget to click like

  8. #8
    Illuminaughty Master
    Moderator
    Horoscope Fish's Avatar

    Re: Normal vs. Fine quality

    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 by Horoscope Fish; 07-24-2013 at 12:18 PM.
    Thanks/Like Smoke, fotojack Thanks/liked this post
     
    “And now here is my secret, a very simple secret:
    It is only with the heart that one can see rightly, what is essential is invisible to the eye.”
    ...
    ~ Antoine de Saint Exupéry
    ...


  9. #9
    Senior Member
    WayneF's Avatar

    Re: Normal vs. Fine quality

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill16 View Post
    I love this explanation! Thank you my friend!
    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?
    Thanks/Like Bill16 Thanks/liked this post
     
    Wayne

    Four Flash Fundamentals We Must Know

  10. #10
    Macro Fan
    Bill16's Avatar

    Re: Normal vs. Fine quality

    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!
    Quote Originally Posted by WayneF View Post
    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?
    Check out our Bugs and Flowers up close​​ Group!

    Come join our D700 FAN CLUB!

    Love the D300? Then join our D300 Fan Club!

    Hey join our Nikon Mirrorless Fan Club!

    Join the old school film shooters group !





Quick Reply Quick Reply

If you are already a member, please login above before posting.

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.


Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Nikonites uses: