On 8/1/22 13:07, [email protected] wrote:
On Monday, August 1, 2022 at 5:44:47 PM UTC-4 GnomeNomad wrote:
I have panoramas that were about 2GB as 16-bit TIFFs that became about
600-700MB as 100% quality JPGs. So what quality setting are your
JPGs at
to give you a 15x difference?
My results are somewhere between those. I guess 100% quality JPGs cost
a lot of space.
I don't know what the Sony alpha 7 III's "extra fine" quality for JPG
means (in more portable terminology). My 4Kx6K photos are 17.5 to 18.8
Mb as JPGs produced by the camera and are always 145,449,341 bytes as
tif files produced by conversion programs from the arw. So that is
about an 8 to 1 difference. The tif file holds a 144,000,000 byte image
plus various metadata. The jpg represents half that much data,
apparently getting 4 to 1 compression without any visible loss of quality.
I rarely have blown highlights. I avoid shooting that way because I
assume it would be harder to fix. So the problems are at the opposite
end. Some sections are too dark and I typically hope to mask and
selectively brighten after stitching. The jpg version is always
slightly lacking in content in the dark areas, so I would need a
separate shot with intentionally blown highlights if I were working just
with jpg (and then my expertise as a hugin user is lacking for the
problem). Working from raw, the dark areas areas are sometimes far
better than in the jpg copy and no second shot would be needed. But
when I'm not using a tripod (so getting a decent second shot is harder)
tends to be when the raw is too noisy in dark areas and thus worse than
the jpg.
Hmm, bringing up detail in underexposed areas while dealing better with
noise seems to me to be one of the strong points of shooting and
processing from raw format.
My A58's 20-megapixel RAW files run 19.7-19.8 MB in size from the
camera. I convert them to uncompressed 114MB TIFFs. There's no loss of
image quality, etc. I can address issues like shadows being too dark,
etc, in the original image when converting from raw to the TIFF. I can
also adjust noise much more specifically - like I said, a noise setting
that works on one image might not be enough on another, or might be too
much.
Using TIFF also gives Hugin more information when it comes to
calculating photometrics. (That might also help with handling dark areas.
Anyway, I guess I don't worry about disk space as much. My laptop has a
2TB SSD in it, with 744GB of free space, and I have 6 or 8 TB of storage
in the file server. Plus a collection of external drives that add
another 2TB of storage.
We'll see if I feel the same way the day after I finally get to replace
the A58 with an A7R IVA. :)
--
David W. Jones
[email protected]
wandering the landscape of god
http://dancingtreefrog.com
My password is the last 8 digits of π.
--
A list of frequently asked questions is available at:
http://wiki.panotools.org/Hugin_FAQ
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "hugin and other free panoramic software" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/hugin-ptx/69be9622-00ff-72e2-8950-4b4903720c41%40gmail.com.
