Welcome, Autel Pilots!
Join our free Autel drone community today!
Join Us

DNG files lower quality then JPG?

sol

Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Age
44
I have JPG+DNG mode enabled for my pics. When comparing the same picture between the two file formats the DNG seems to be much lower quality. This is especially noticeable when I zoom in on something in the picture. I thought DNG (RAW) was supposed to be a higher quality file format with no compression?
 

Tuna

Member
Joined
May 24, 2017
Messages
12
Reaction score
6
Age
51
Remember that the DNG has not been processed in any way (hence - raw). The JPG will have been sharpened, and brightness, saturation and contrast pushed up. That will make it look 'better' when you inspect it.

The problem is, you have no control over the sharpening, and colour adjustments applied to the JPG - it's a 'best guess' set of parameters and it'll never get the most out of the image. If you want to adjust it more, you're loosing quality and will get more and more artefacts and jaggies with each additional edit. Basically you've lost creative control.

The DNG will look soft and dull in comparison, but you have regained that control. There are no compression artefacts and you have all of the data the sensor could produce. You can now apply Unsharp mask to accurately sharpen it to your taste, adjust curves and saturation and apply color grading as appropriate. Then when you save, you can choose the level of compression to get the best quality image at the size that's appropriate for your needs. Note that all of these steps need you to adjust parameters to get the best results - and your judgement in getting those parameters just right for the image can be much better than the preset guesses that the camera uses when it creates a JPG.

So if you just want a quick picture that you don't have to edit - use the JPG. If you want to edit and adjust the picture to get best quality and suit your personal style - use the DNG.
 
  • Like
Reactions: brian bwin

PRMath

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 13, 2017
Messages
411
Reaction score
106
Location
NW FL panhandle
I have JPG+DNG mode enabled for my pics. When comparing the same picture between the two file formats the DNG seems to be much lower quality. This is especially noticeable when I zoom in on something in the picture. I thought DNG (RAW) was supposed to be a higher quality file format with no compression?
A Raw file is like a digital negative....... it records 100% of the image data uncompressed and gives You the option of compression or format....... whatever you decide. Just remember, Raw uses the settings the camera tells it to use. Auto or manual.
I shoot Raw, then after saving the original, I work with the copy and THEN ......
save it to whatever format I desire
 
Last edited:

Agustine

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2017
Messages
6,824
Reaction score
5,243
Age
64
Location
Northern Ontario
Remember that the DNG has not been processed in any way (hence - raw). The JPG will have been sharpened, and brightness, saturation and contrast pushed up. That will make it look 'better' when you inspect it.

The problem is, you have no control over the sharpening, and colour adjustments applied to the JPG - it's a 'best guess' set of parameters and it'll never get the most out of the image. If you want to adjust it more, you're loosing quality and will get more and more artefacts and jaggies with each additional edit. Basically you've lost creative control.

The DNG will look soft and dull in comparison, but you have regained that control. There are no compression artefacts and you have all of the data the sensor could produce. You can now apply Unsharp mask to accurately sharpen it to your taste, adjust curves and saturation and apply color grading as appropriate. Then when you save, you can choose the level of compression to get the best quality image at the size that's appropriate for your needs. Note that all of these steps need you to adjust parameters to get the best results - and your judgement in getting those parameters just right for the image can be much better than the preset guesses that the camera uses when it creates a JPG.

So if you just want a quick picture that you don't have to edit - use the JPG. If you want to edit and adjust the picture to get best quality and suit your personal style - use the DNG.


LOL good to see you posting over here buddy, Jaguerbomb 52 welcomes you over here :) I read your other posts on how Autel is keeping you in the dark about the APK. Hope they come around and get you started on making something better than what they have.
They better throw you a free X-Star also :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tuna

WildDoktor

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2017
Messages
390
Reaction score
161
Dredging this topic back up, as I still don't understand!

I took some AEB JPG+DNG photos today. I've downloaded them to my pc and I'm looking at the properties of the same picture; one in jpg and one in dng.

JPEG: 3.7Mb, 4000x2250 pixels, 72 dpi, 24 bit depth, lots of camera setting info and gps data. Camera maker: Autel Robotics Co., Ltd. Camera model: XB004
DNG: 17.6mB, 960X540 pixels, 96 dpi, 24 bit depth. No camera setting info or gps data. Camera maker: Autel. Camera model: Model 323

I open each file in irfanview64 with the DNG plugin. At 100% zoom on a 1080p monitor the jpeg is huge and clear; the dng is small and mostly clear. at 500% zoom, the jpeg is a bit blurry, and the dng is terrible. The first attached clip is a screen-grab of the dng at 500% zoom; the second is of the jpg at 500% zoom.

I don't understand how opening the DNG in an image editing program could make the dng somehow spring to life? Not working for me... dng.jpg jpg.jpg
 

brian bwin

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2016
Messages
153
Reaction score
89
Location
Wilmington, DE USA
Website
okvideode.com
The DNG should be the exact same size, 4,000x2,250 for 16:9 and 4,000x3,000 for 4:3. 960x540 is definitely not even an option in the X-Star settings. I did just double check some of my images and they are the same size. Perhaps the irfanview plugin is buggy and isn't recognizing the DNG properly?

I haven't noticed any difference in quality but have been shooting JPG only lately because of buffering time and the fact that the DNGs don't include all that juicy metadata that the JPGs do.
 

PRMath

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 13, 2017
Messages
411
Reaction score
106
Location
NW FL panhandle
Dredging this topic back up, as I still don't understand!

I took some AEB JPG+DNG photos today. I've downloaded them to my pc and I'm looking at the properties of the same picture; one in jpg and one in dng.

JPEG: 3.7Mb, 4000x2250 pixels, 72 dpi, 24 bit depth, lots of camera setting info and gps data. Camera maker: Autel Robotics Co., Ltd. Camera model: XB004
DNG: 17.6mB, 960X540 pixels, 96 dpi, 24 bit depth. No camera setting info or gps data. Camera maker: Autel. Camera model: Model 323

I open each file in irfanview64 with the DNG plugin. At 100% zoom on a 1080p monitor the jpeg is huge and clear; the dng is small and mostly clear. at 500% zoom, the jpeg is a bit blurry, and the dng is terrible. The first attached clip is a screen-grab of the dng at 500% zoom; the second is of the jpg at 500% zoom.

I don't understand how opening the DNG in an image editing program could make the dng somehow spring to life? Not working for me... View attachment 672 View attachment 673
a Raw file is basically a digital negative. Exactly what the camera captured. Zero fixes or enhancements....... Raw
The jpeg is the raw file that is doctored up by the onboard software.... the settings are either set to auto or controlled by you.
Always good idea to save a permanant copy of the raw images for future conversion to your liking
 

WildDoktor

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2017
Messages
390
Reaction score
161
I sent this question to autel support; I can't imagine that 960x540 is correct for the dng photos! I'll report back with their response.
 

WildDoktor

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2017
Messages
390
Reaction score
161
Could a couple of you that run Windows 10 and have some DNG files please check the properties on a few of your DNG's? What size (pixels and Mb) are yours?

I just checked several DNG's from the few times I took jpg+dng photos:

On 3-17: 960x720, 23Mb
On 5-17: 960x540, 17.2Mb
On 6-26: 960x540, 17.2Mb

They're shrinking. o_O

Maybe the camera is getting old? :D
 

Tuna

Member
Joined
May 24, 2017
Messages
12
Reaction score
6
Age
51
I really think it's unlikely to be Autel at fault here - I'd try a different viewer first. The file size is consistent with a high resolution file, and it doesn't seem anyone else is experiencing this problem.
 

Agustine

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2017
Messages
6,824
Reaction score
5,243
Age
64
Location
Northern Ontario
It all depends on what you have set your camera to. I have both sizes of DNG files that you have listed. I have never kept track of the settings but I guess someone could make a chart if they had the time. :)
 

WildDoktor

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2017
Messages
390
Reaction score
161
Here are the camera settings from the 3-17 DNGs. Does this somehow translate down to 960x720? The Jpgs are all 4000x3000.

1.jpg
 

WildDoktor

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2017
Messages
390
Reaction score
161
Ok, mystery solved. You guys are correct about having to open dng's with the appropriate app; the problem is that once you associate dng's with the wrong app, suddenly all dng's get a wrong resolution, and I can't yet figure out how to get the proper resolution back without re-copying from another source.

Here's my current situation:
On one windows PC, I had associated dng files with Windows Photos, or something like that. On that PC, all the dng files are the weird sized I stated above.
On another windows PC, I hadn't associated dng files with anything. On that PC, if I open a dng in PhotoDirector 8, they come up fine, and seem to have the same resolution as their jpg counterparts. If I then export those to a jpg or png, they're at the proper resolution (4000x3000).

I'm currently trying to "disassociate" dng files from everything on the first PC, but it seems that windows has the strange resolution locked-in, so none of the dng files currently on that pc are changing. I'll hopefully be flying today; if so, I'll take some dng's and copy them to that PC and see if they inherit the badness of the current ones, or simply copy over as "dissociated". We shall see.
 

Tom Z

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2016
Messages
92
Reaction score
63
Age
47
WildDoktor,

unless you open your DNG file with software that can actually edit RAW or DNG files it doesn't matter what software is associated with it. There is also a possibility that the small size you are seeing is the preview size (aka thumbnail) or something like that.

" If I then export those to a jpg or png, they're at the proper resolution (4000x3000)." what is the point of exporting the DNG to a JPG you are not gaining anything from this.

If you use Adobe Lightroom or similar you can edit the DNG files and easily set your own white balance, sharpness, etc. then export to JPG if you want.
 

WildDoktor

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2017
Messages
390
Reaction score
161
Oddly, on the pc where the dngs are associated with an app, it doesn't matter now if I open them in an app that can natively read dng files; the files open in the 960x540 low resolution, even tho they are 17mb. Super wierd! So I won't be downloading any dngs to that pc until I can "dis associate" them from all apps again.

The point of exporting to jpg was to test; open the dng, edit it, export it.

I'm using cyberlink photodirector 8 (latest version), and I see no difference between the dng and jpg files as far as ability to manipulate them. In fact, I have to do more processing on the dng's. I may have to spin up a free trial of Lightroom or photoshop and see if there's a difference.
 

Tom Z

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2016
Messages
92
Reaction score
63
Age
47
can't speak much for DNG files, as I don't use them very often but the offical RAW files coming from my Nikon cameras are so much better than a jpg could ever be. This true especially if you don't nail the exposure just right and the photos are way too dark . With the JPG there is only so much you can boost the brightness until the image is unusable. If I try the the same with a raw file, I can go from a picture that is completely dark to the point where you almost can't see anything to a very usable image.
 

Kcender

Active Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2017
Messages
33
Reaction score
4
Age
69
LOL good to see you posting over here buddy, Jaguerbomb 52 welcomes you over here :) I read your other posts on how Autel is keeping you in the dark about the APK. Hope they come around and get you started on making something better than what they have.
They better throw you a free X-Star also :)
Agustine, you are very knowledgeable and I am having a problem with resolution that Autel hasn't so far been able to help me with. When I first got my XPS I could get wicked recorded vid on my 2k monitor. Even after it crashed once, it still worked just fine. Moving forward, the reso is horrible now. I inadvertently moved the camera wheel on the right side of my controller, but have put it back to auto. Problem still persist with the low reso. Is that enough info to point me in the right direction to reclaim my former resolution or as one contributor suggested, I have maybe a hardware problem? The last thing we did was to go to MP4 from MOV. , but that hasn't helped. My computer is not the issue IMO. Watching on my cell phone is clear while monitoring the flight.
 

Latest threads

Forum statistics

Threads
8,043
Messages
75,795
Members
5,916
Latest member
harley021668