Author Topic: Level 10 or Level 12 File Quality (Read 3109 times)

RacePhoto · « **on:** November 11, 2009, 22:53 »

The debate is interesting. How much difference is there between Level 10 save and Level 12? Can people really see it, or are we being superstitious? Well here's the test. I'm the only one who knows the answer, so lets play a game. 11 day poll ends Sunday the 22nd.

View the two images, full size crops of a smaller section of the sample photo. Both saved from the identical TIF original. One as Level 10, one as Level 12. Then the JPGs were converted back (uncompressed) to BMPs so you could view them on the web. The crops are 100% of a small section of that full size uncompressed file.

http://stock-photo.bravehost.com/jpgtest/

Then vote with your eyes.

No I can't vote, because I'd be right.

Allen · « **Reply #1 on:** November 11, 2009, 23:05 »

I`m pretty sure the top photo is level 12 file quality. It`d be funny if I was wrong though. I would say I am 80% sure.

SC · « **Reply #2 on:** November 11, 2009, 23:09 »

Quote from: dragon_fang on November 11, 2009, 23:05

I`m pretty sure the top photo is level 12 file quality. It`d be funny if I was wrong though. I would say I am 80% sure.

2nd that

The top one looks truer to the original in color-
Bottom image looks warmer in the feet and legs and in the birds breast.

KB · « **Reply #3 on:** November 11, 2009, 23:10 »

The bottom one has much more color noise.

Oddly, these are much more different than I expected. Based on what was in the other thread, I assumed there was no visible difference between level 10 & 12.

Freedom · « **Reply #4 on:** November 12, 2009, 01:10 »

Yep, top is 12, lower 10.

leaf · « **Reply #5 on:** November 12, 2009, 03:51 »

I just thought I would link these two threads,
here is the jpg quality discussion

etienjones · « **Reply #6 on:** November 12, 2009, 04:34 »

Big difference, I guess the discussion is over.

Etien

Vonkara · « **Reply #7 on:** November 12, 2009, 10:59 »

I'm on my laptop and I see the difference. Top one 12

There is color lost in the bottom one

lisafx · « **Reply #8 on:** November 12, 2009, 11:23 »

Even before seeing the other responses I could see very noticeable color noise in the bottom image. Has to be the top one.

I agree with KB - I did not expect there to be such a visible difference.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #9 on:** November 12, 2009, 12:32 »

Quote from: lisafx on November 12, 2009, 11:23

Even before seeing the other responses I could see very noticeable color noise in the bottom image. Has to be the top one.

I agree with KB - I did not expect there to be such a visible difference.

Could be that I should have picked a better subject photo with less noise in the water, and I might have not done the best job of adjusting the shadows. But that's life, no changing in the middle of a discussion. No noise reduction applied, which I never do anyway. Not a particularly sharp zoom lens, 28-135 at 135. f/5.6 ISO 100 at 1/1000 which is acceptable.

This could also be viewed as a monitor test. If someone can't see the difference in color or noise, they may need something that displays more levels and has a better black point.

Here's a really interesting monitor test that someone sent me. In daylight, with the monitor in the shadows, (Sunlight) I can still see the change at 1 on the CRT and my desktop. At night with the indirect lighting bounced off the ceiling, which is what I use when I'm doing my Alamy files, it's easier to see the change from 0 to 1.

http://www.drycreekphoto.com/Learn/Calibration/monitor_black.htm

There are some other issues here. If someone is downsizing to 4MP for Micro, I'm not sure the difference would show as much. The test photo has extreme light and dark areas, blown out highlights to dark shadows. The bird is a dirty white. What do you expect from a seagull?

When I set the black point to the dark of the seagulls eye, the photo turned blue! I also see that I was playing with the in camera contrast and saturation that day, which I now have set to 0 because I didn't like what it was doing to the photos and how it limited the post-processing adjustments.

So many things wrong, which I didn't realize when I was making up the examples last night. Oh well. $:-\$

Jonathan Ross · « **Reply #10 on:** November 12, 2009, 14:05 »

Hi Race,

Still helpful and also showed your willingness to help. All good things, thanks for your efforts.

Best,
Jonathan

Allen · « **Reply #11 on:** November 12, 2009, 14:10 »

Quote from: Jonathan Ross on November 12, 2009, 14:05

Hi Race,

Still helpful and also showed your willingness to help. All good things, thanks for your efforts.

Best,
Jonathan

I agree. It was fun and different for a change. I wouldn't mind seeing another example.

madelaide · « **Reply #12 on:** November 12, 2009, 15:08 »

I would make a different question: do you see problem in the second image? Because on thing is when you compare two images side by side, another is when you view one of them only.

In PSP the smaller number is the least compressed file.

7fttallrussian · « **Reply #13 on:** November 28, 2009, 05:14 »

Could you place one crop on top of the other, so they will change on mouseover?
Here is the example. You need javascript for that, but it will make difference way easier to spot.

Quote from: RacePhoto on November 11, 2009, 22:53

View the two images, full size crops of a smaller section of the sample photo. Both saved from the identical TIF original. One as Level 10, one as Level 12. Then the JPGs were converted back (uncompressed) to BMPs so you could view them on the web. The crops are 100% of a small section of that full size uncompressed file.