RAW moon vs. JPEG moon

[Ian]

Here is the same moon - really, the same frame I mean , taken this evening, but one is the original unedited JPEG (apart from cropping) and the other is one I processed from the simultaneously recorded RAW file.

The RAW moon

The JPEG moon

ISO 100, 1/250th @f/8, Olympus E-400, 100% (1 image pixel to 1 screen pixel), 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 Digital Zuiko zoom, @200mm (400mm equiv).

The camera was mounted on a cheap Velbon tripod, but I used the 12 second self timer to let the camera stabilise before the shutter fired. Might try locking the mirror up next time too - and maybe a 1.4x converter, and....

Ian

[tarzieboy]

great Ian ,interesting, i like shots of the moon, does 400mm equiv mean, picture enlarged on computor, john

[Ian]

Originally Posted by tarzieboy

great Ian ,interesting, i like shots of the moon, does 400mm equiv mean, picture enlarged on computor, john

No, the 'equiv' is my way of saying that on this camera the 200mm focal length has the same field of view as a 400mm lens on a conventional 35mm full frame film camera. Olympus Four Thirds mount cameras have a 2x factor, Canon APS sensor EOS cameras have a 1.6x factor, Nikon, Pentax and Sony have a 1.5x factor, etc.

Here is the original, un-cropped frame (resized to fit on the screen sensibly):

All I did was crop to the moon itself, leaving the 700x500 pixel area that you saw on the screen. No resizing was done at all.

Ian

[tarzieboy]

gotcha,, many thanks,,, john

[Ian]

I've been picked up on by someone who can see artefacts in my RAW moon - I have probably over-sharpened it as I use a CRT monitor mainly and this is much more forgiving of over-sharpening than an LCD, so here is another version with less aggressive sharpening:

Ian

[Stephen]

Just by way of an aside Ian, here's one I took today. I think it would make a good title for a book Whadaya think?

[tarzieboy]

the ascent of man !

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by tarzieboy

the ascent of man !

Err, did David Niven write that one?

[easty-uk]

I think the raw moon looks better as it looks sharper, but I like the colour in the jpeg moon better.
Here's one I took awhile ago using the canon 400mm 5.6L and the 350d. I sharpened it in elements also, but maybe a little too bright.

easty-uk

[Patrick]

Originally Posted by Ian

I've been picked up on by someone who can see artefacts in my RAW moon - I have probably over-sharpened it as I use a CRT monitor mainly and this is much more forgiving of over-sharpening than an LCD, so here is another version with less aggressive sharpening:

Ian

Ian
Try this method of sharpening, you can be as aggressive as you like.

Go to channels. Select one of the three colours, rule of thumb is red for portraits, green for landscaped, and blue if it works well. Experiment to fine the best one. For the moon blue would give best result, so duplicate that channel (only works on a copy)

As this method sharpens the light areas most and graduates to zero in the darkest areas, invert the copy blue channel to a negative Ctrl+I, next holding curser over this channel press Ctrl and a selection is made. Return to image in layers and use unsharp mask in the normal way.

It’s the best sharpening method I have used by a long way.

Patrick

[marcof]

Originally Posted by Ian

I've been picked up on by someone who can see artefacts in my RAW moon - I have probably over-sharpened it as I use a CRT monitor mainly and this is much more forgiving of over-sharpening than an LCD, so here is another version with less aggressive sharpening:

http://dpnow.com/galleries/data/547/moon4.jpg

Ian

Bah, you had me register at dpnow now Ian

as I said in 43rdphoto.com I still see the artefacts. I don't think it has to do with the sharpening, but I think it is the dreaded maze effect that bugged olympus cameras in early ACR versions (and C1 for istance). I'm not a pixel peeper usually, but this artefact really shows (probably not on print though).

I don't know if you can look if studio or silkypix output shows similar effect?

ta,

Marco

[tarzieboy]

someone put me right please, i thought artifacts , were man made objects, none of those are visible, can someone enlighten me please, as to how these show on the pic, i,m always eager to learn,,, john

[marcof]

Originally Posted by tarzieboy

someone put me right please, i thought artifacts , were man made objects, none of those are visible, can someone enlighten me please, as to how these show on the pic, i,m always eager to learn,,, john

from the dictionary:
artifact = A structure or feature not normally present but visible as a result of an external agent or action.

hence, something that has been generated by any processing (like raw->JPG conversion).. in the raw conversion image, there is a very clear mazing pattern visible, which should not be there.

[tarzieboy]

thanks for that Marcof,,,,john

[Ian]

Originally Posted by marcof

Bah, you had me register at dpnow now Ian

as I said in 43rdphoto.com I still see the artefacts. I don't think it has to do with the sharpening, but I think it is the dreaded maze effect that bugged olympus cameras in early ACR versions (and C1 for istance). I'm not a pixel peeper usually, but this artefact really shows (probably not on print though).

I don't know if you can look if studio or silkypix output shows similar effect?

ta,

Marco

Sorry for the delay, Marcof - but here is a version of the same RAW moon processed in Olympus Studio. Maximum sharpening was applied and then I sharpened (Smart Sharpen) further in Photoshop after exporting a 16-bit TIFF from Studio. I think you are right - the ACR version is quite bad on reflection!

Ian