I would tend to agree, I would have thought that there was no such thing as Jpeg RAW, RAW is just a file of data and not an image meaning it can be adjusted. A Jpeg is an image by which it has already been converted from the RAW image by the camera software. So Yuneecs Jpeg RAW is probably a Jpeg image with no adjustment to colour, saturation, sharpening, contrast etc. So yes a poor choice of terminologyIt still looks like sharpness falls away after a couple of feet or so to be honest, look at the brickwork on the ground, it gets sharper closer to the camera. Further away it's not as sharp.
JPG RAW is just a flat JPG, you can't adjust white balance afterwards without a big loss of quality etc. It's a really poor choice to name it RAW instead of flat.
Yes another poor ideaY
I agree 100% with the naming conventions. What is worse is that if you select DNG for a file format, it still allows you to select Natural, Gorgeous. But none of those apply because when you select DNG, every shot is in RAW with no enhancements.
Yes, I am 100% certain. As you can see in one of my pictures above of the ST16, when in CAMERA mode (not video), you have a total of 4 Image setting options.
Correct. From my experience, that is exactly what it is.I would tend to agree, I would have thought that there was no such thing as Jpeg RAW, RAW is just a file of data and not an image meaning it can be adjusted. A Jpeg is an image by which it has already been converted from the RAW image by the camera software. So Yuneecs Jpeg RAW is probably a Jpeg image with no adjustment to colour, saturation, sharpening, contrast etc. So yes a poor choice of terminology
I was looking at the street sign, and the house number across the street.
To my untrained eye they are NOT very crisp. In one of the photos I can clearly read the sign. Im most of the photos the house number is hard to make out.
I would think that even for the small size of the sensor, those 2 items should look sharper.
I do NOT know if this is due to bit rate, focus, or I am just expecting too much. My cell phone is only 5MP and it takes better pictures.
Both photos are just straight DNG photos out of the cameras (I've just resized them). So, no Natural or Gorgeous settings were used.Captain is that done with contrasts?
Haha... that is a local highschool. I guess they are big on the environment.Hey @CAPTAINDRONE. Don't know what that building is in the photo, but I love love LOVE the roof/solar panels!
If jpeg stores less data why is it preferred over dng? (both raw)
Tonight I tried the fixed image mode of GORGEOUS vs DNG. The image setting of gorgeous is good if you want to take a quick photo which you have no desire to post process. Most times the white balance will be a bit off. It is also a JPG photo format. If you set the file format to DNG, then the Image settings of Natural, Gorgeous, etc are ignored by the camera and you end up with a "blah" picture, that you have to stick in some software to do post processing. Below I took two photos of a beach near my place. The first image was set on Gorgeous JPG and the second was set on DNG file format. I had to post process the DNG File to get it to look good. The DNG file looks just a touch better (more accurate white balance) than the Gorgeous image.
View attachment 1869
View attachment 1870
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.