E1 and Megapixels

[sclamb]

Rob

Is there any reason you shot RAW files and applied the sharpening in post processing rather than just taking JPEG images? It would be interesting to see if the in-camera sharpening on the JPEG images reflected your findings from the RAW conversion sharpening.

Also, what software did you use to convert the RAW files (I am assunming Viewer or Studio).
Simon

 

[andy_radcliffe]

The previous two postings prompted me to do a few tests and I have to say that I can find no unexpected anomalies in my results.
I took a series of both TIFF and JPEG test shots (tripod mounted with remote release) over the range of in camera sharpness settings from -3 to +5. I then compared these on screen at 100% and my verdict was that the progression of sharpening is pretty much what you would expect - in other words if I was to make a print from each of these test shots it would be possible to lay them out in order of the sharpening settings.
I also took one RAW image under the same conditions and converted it in Olympus Studio over the full range of sharpness settings (from -5 to +5 in v1.20)- again the sharpness was predictably progressive.
Possibly the unexpected softness at the +4 setting in Rob's test images was due to camera shake and not some glitch in the RAW converter software?

Andy.

 

[predatek]

Simon, I always shoot RAW images to give best post-processing possibilities. However, for the tests I changed the sharpness settings 'in-camera' and did no post-processing with Olympus Viewer or Photoshop (other than to convert the files from RAW to TIFF using Viewer). So the sharpness differences (or lack of) that I was seeing were straight from camera's processor. I wouldn't try to compare JPGs because artefacts from JPG processing would 'contaminate' the results anyway.

 

[predatek]

Andy, you could be right about the sharpness differences in my tests. However, I did shoot the images with camera on a tripod, using self-timer and an anti-shock setting of 2 seconds (to remove the possibility of camera shake). I am going to do some more tests today using a different subject. If I can get linear progression in the sharpness results I'll be happy. Thanks for your input.

 

[predatek]

I did some more tests today and discovered that Andy was right - it was not the camera's fault that my previous test didn't show linear progression of sharpness settings; Perhaps because I shot with relatively long exposures under available light in the first tests.

Today I shot in daylight and the sharpness settings did prove linear.

Here are my notes from today for anyone that is interested to read them.

In-camera CONTRAST settings (-2 to +2) make little or no difference to output image (TIFF or JPG). They are not discernable, at least, when viewed on my computer monitor.

*SHARPNESS
In-camera sharpness settings (-2 to +5) are linearly progressive (contrary to my initial impressions).

Comparing RAW images shot at maximum sharpness and variations of CONTRAST (-2, 0 and +2) it was hard to distinguish any differences. Perhaps contrast works in concert with sharpness to affect image quality but I can't see it.

Compared an image shot at sharpness +5 with one shot at sharpness -3 and then post-processed in Olympus Viewer to sharpness +5. There was no appreciable difference.

Compared an image shot at sharpness -3 with one shot at sharpness +5 and then post-processed in Olympus Viewer to sharpness -3. There was no appreciable difference.

Compared an image shot at contrast +2 with one shot at contrast -2 and then post-processed in Olympus Viewer to contrast +2. There was no appreciable difference.

CONCLUSION: When shooting RAW it doesn't matter what sharpness or contrsat settings you use 'in camera'; they can be safely overridden (without loss of quality) during the computer RAW processing phase.

*ISO settings
I could detect little if any difference between quality at ISO 100, 200 and 400 on my test subject. ISO 800 may have been slightly grainier than 400 but it was hard to tell for sure. There is an agument for leaving ISO on 400 at all times except when light is too bright!

*SATURATION
I shot 5 images with 200mm lens using colour saturation (CSx) settings CS0 to CS4. They showed different saturations in Viewer. Then I RAW processed them in Viewer and specified that they all have the same saturation (CS3) when converted to TIFF. The resulting TIFFs appeared identical, colour-wise, in Photoshop.

CONCLUSION: When shooting RAW it doesn't matter what saturation settings you use in-camera. They can be safely overridden when processing the RAW image.

I shot 4 images with 135mm lens using memory colour emphasis settings CM1 to CM4. They showed different saturations in Viewer. Then I RAW processed them in Viewer and specified that they all have the same saturation (CS0) when converted to JPG. The resulting JPGs appeared identical, colour-wise, in Photoshop.

CONCLUSION: It doesn't matter what memory colour emphasis (CMx) settings you use in-camera. They can be safely overridden when processing the RAW image.

 

[andy_radcliffe]

Rob-
I'm glad you are happier with your test results this time, many thanks for posting them.
My understanding of the RAW format is that regardless of what sharpness,contrast etc. settings you apply at the time of shooting the actual captured information is always the same - the set parameters only serve to modify the reviewed image on the camera monitor and to act as a starting point (the shooting settings) when you come to do the RAW conversion. These would therefore be the settings used if you choose to save directly (as a TIFF for ex&le) with no intervention.If I have this wrong I'm open to being enlightened!

Andy.