Now it’s getting really interesting. I aks my trusted source if the following info I got now could be correct:
“Concerning Honami/i1, there’s a few more things I would like you to confirm with your sources if you don’t mind. As you already know, SONY is working on a new JPEG algorithm for this particular phone, which is suppose to be from the imaging department of SONY. Based on current rumors so far, this new algorithm is also, “supposedly”, developed for their Alpha, NEX, and other cameras because their JPEG processing is horrible(base on user feedbacks). Can you confirm how true is that, and are we getting a new JPEG processing algorithm for NEX, Alpha, etc lineups?”
I will give you some feedback as soon as my trusted sources contact me. Anyway, if true this is a greta news. The JPEG image quality is not on par with the best in it’s class (Canon-Nikon-Fuji). I hope this will change soon!
P.S.: As noticed by SAR readers the new Sony “honami” would be the second smart phone having a large sized sensor. The first has been the Nokia PureView Smartphone (here at Amazon).
——–
Message to sources: You can send me more info anonymously by using the contact form you see on the very right of your browser. You can also contact me directly at sonyalpharumors@gmail.com.
For readers: Subscribe the RSS feed (Click here) and Twitter (Click here) stream and the Facebook fan page (Click here) in order to not miss any news!
——–
Reminder (SR = Sonyrumor):
SR1=probably fake rumor
SR2=rumor from unknown sources
SR3=50% chance it is correct
SR4=rumor from known sources
SR5=almost certainly correct!
63 Responses
And the intriguing question is, will it be possible to include this new improved jpeg engine in future firmware updates of present cameras? For instance the A77/A99?
The answer is almost certainly ‘no’. Firmware is is very closely tied to hardware.
You are probably right, but I can’t stop myself from hoping. 🙂
How is it tied???
It’s usually they want more $$$ so they don’t update older cameras to suggest users to buy new ones.
You can make improvements to firmware, tweak or add settings at times. But, you cannot make changes to the core driving software without also making changes to the processor and circuitry.
Epic BS.
Its not Epic BS. Seriously? You must not think very well.
If this was ‘BS’ than we would have ONE camera and they could always update the firmware to give us new features, burst rates, sensor megapixels…
Wow some people are super dense. Your mind is a black hole.
So I guess the developers of the Magic Lantern firmware for Canon SLRs must be sorcerers, right?
Don’t forget that the JPEG conversion happens in real time (at somewhere near the fps rate), so JPEG compression probably relies heavily on the hardware. So its fundamentally different from something you see on a desktop PC, where image conversion has no time limits.
I’m not sure the JPEG engine is even in firmware because of the time constraints: at least some of it will have to be a custom hardware pipeline. I wouldn’t be surprised if it was ALL hardware.
It’s like installing new software on an old computer. It may works, but slow. Most software are not compatible with older PC. So I think firmware performance is related to hardware. Think before shouting BS to others.
Or not at all.
We are talking about jpg here not RAW (that I can understand is hardware connected).
Sure it can be updated. It’s downstream processing of the sensor readout.
I am concerned for A77 firmware update too, guys if someone knows anything let me know too!
No, because they don’t want to. They want to sell you a new Camera.
Supporting older models dosn’t make sense.
“The JPEG image quality is not on par with the best in it’s class (Canon-Nikon-Fuji)”
I would not include Nikon in this list, its high ISO JPEGs have ugly color splotches in all their new cameras.
Those with a Sony sensor?
Minus 1.
What I would like to know, are there really pros out there using high end cameras (D4/D800, A99, 5DMIII) who actually use JPG? I havent touched JPG in years, and no one I know uses JPG. Why do these cameras even have a JPG mode?
Of course, mostly journalists. They just want to get their shot right at the right time. The don’t care about RAW.
I am very happy with the jpgs coming from my sony and olympus cameras, switching from one of the professional systems you mention. There isn’t really a need for RAW anymore unless you blow a shot, or you are a fine art printer and need to expand 16-bit tones for a LFP. If a pro can’t get it right in camera/jpg, he/she isn’t a pro in my book.
I got enough things to think about when I shoot, mostly ISO, shutter speed and aperture and how they interact with each other, that I don’t want to also have to think about my White balance and the creative mode I’m in for my jpeg. Sunset, saturation +2, sharpness -1, DRO +4, WB on sunlight, boring stuff to think about while shooting, I’d rather do that in post.
> If a pro can’t get it right in camera/jpg, he/she isn’t a pro in my book.
well maybe you right, but all Sony Alpha cameras are for amateurs, even if some ppl do money with them this doesn’t change fact they’re designed for amateurs.
Wrong. A850, A900, A99. These were designed for the professional. Even if they didnt hit the target, that was the goal.
Raw can save your ass if you blow a shot but why would you purchase camera then shoot jpeg?? That is almost a total waste. Pictures never come out perfect and depending on what you do You want to get the best out of your pictures there will need to be some work done. Raw basically equals freedom that a jpeg will never have. Another reason is if you shoot jpeg and someone takes your picture and says they took it then it may end up being your word against his/her but if you shoot raw then you will be the only one with that raw file as proof you took your picture.
Off topic: i found to be the JPEG engine from Sony nex (5n, f3) rather well :s. With most RAW software it is difficult to line up its noise reduction with sharpness compared to the jpegs. Also colors are mostly nice. I only shoot RAW to correct or change whitebalance and contrast sometimes and of course for more heavy editting.
When I have compared the results in the camera of RAW and jpeg xtra fine on low ISO, I could not see a difference. On higher compression though there was a clear difference
It really depends on the person, you know. Some people like it, other don’t.
I don’t care. Even if Sony would have the best JPG engine out of all manufacturers – I still would shoot RAW only.
I agree. Its like those who love good food. Some like to go to restaurants and have others prepare it for them. Some like to cook it themselves.
Finally. Maybe in the future I can use jpeg again. I gave up using it on any Sony camera because it was always so crappy. I don’t need RAW for photos that are just for the family, but I can’t use JPEG on the Sony because it just softens things up to much and eliminates too much detail.
is there any website comparing sony JPEG with canikon ?
I tried to see any difference in the Dpreview studio comparaison tool and I don’t really see any differences even in high ISO. I’m speaking about the A99 here.
Nah, people overreact. Or still think that the most recent camera Sony made is A100.
You mean to tell me that Sony has made cameras since the A100?! I was under the impression that they were all just rumors.
Wow, I feel embarrassed.
The RX1 has the best jpg engine in the business…period. Sony need only look to their own engineers for Alpha and NEX OOC jpg improvement’s.
Instead of that, I think Sony should have added option to use lossless RAW.
7-bit RAW on $2400 A99 is not serious.
+1
Sony RAWs on A99 have 14bit raw not 7bit. No Sony Alpha or NEX cam has 7bit. They have at least 12bit.
The raw files from current Sony cameras use lossy compression… that’s why files from 24mpx A99 are 24 mb in size. Lossy compression isn’t a bad thing per se, but Sony’s is too strong and badly done.
What’s the point of using 7-bit raw when there’s 8-bit jpg?
JPEGs do not have 8 bit per pixel, it’s what in its output.
JPEGs store amplitudes of harmonics, most of which are quantized much, much coarser than 8 bit.
As a STRICT jpeg shooter who’s shot every single brand of camera out there, I do not understand where this horrible jpeg reputation is coming from about Sony. My NEX deliver very satisfactory jpeg. If you want hard to deal with Jpeg, Panny is a fairly good example….
I get FAR better output from LR than OOC jpeg.
The a57 jpg engine is awesome. One of the reasons I sold my a55 and got the a57.
http://komorkomania.pl/2013/05/04/sony-honami-z-aparatem-20-mpix-i-ekranem-triluminous-czekam-z-niecirpliwoscia
I don’t get it! Don’t most cameras above $300 have a setting for JPEG+Raw where you have the best of both worlds?
What?
I shoot only in RAW and convert to DNG as part of my “professional” work flow.
I guess I just didn’t know that “real” photographers only shoot .jpg.
Me too. How unprofessional we are
We better be careful. If they find out we don’t shoot in P mode, we’ll be in for it.
Not all Alphas have horrible Jpegs.
A99 is producing very convenient JPegs. Nothing behind 5DMK3!
However – if they are able to improve that, they’ll stick needles into Canikon.
Hey boys and girls!
Before you write rubbish about RAW and JPEG and bits etc. At least do a little Googling for facts!!
Sometimes the fiction has a higher google rank than the facts do, though.
Coming with a new nex 7 firmware could be so great !!!
canon & nikon have a good jpeg quality? Olympus & fuji have a very good jpeg. not canon or nikon.
Not even a state-of-the art general purpose CPU is able to compress 12 images per second (A77) to JPEG. Thus, JPEG compression is most likely done in hardware by the BIONZ processor. I doubt they will be able to upgrade existing cameras.
The NEX-5N (and probably all newer NEX cameras) have pretty good JPEG’s IMO, significantly better than the NEX-3 and NEX-5- although I wish I could tone down the noise reduction more. Probably helps to start with such a good sensor…
Mmmm, I think you need to use a few other brands before you make a pronouncement that Sony’s JPEGs are perfect. Personally, I am happy Sony will re-jigger their JPEGs. I love Sony’s technology, but I got tired of making Sony RAWs emulate other camera’s outputs before conversion. Sony’s JPEG’s are the worst in the industry, the best is Fuji and Olympus.
For the poster who said using a camera’s JPEGs instead of converting from RAW was a sign of a true professional; I challenge you to prove to us all here that ANY camera’s JPEG is superior to a converted RAW file.
Hi Zony, Of course they aren’t perfect, but I am reasonably pleased with the JPEG output. I do like Olympus output better (have never owned a Fuji), but I like the output from my 5N is bad, aside from wanting less NR. Output from older NEX and from Alpha samples I have seen are not very good IMO though. Improvements are always welcome!
Also, the RAWs (at least from ISO1600 and up) have already some NR applied on them for some reason…
CORREcTION: Nokia’s N8 phone already had a large sensor 1/1.7, and it delivers still better images than most of the new bunch. If Sony want to achieve something they better go against Nokia, which set standards.
Well, they can beat them with flashy Zeiss optics.
That won’t happen because right now Nokia has exclusivity on CZ optics for mobile phones. Unless, depending on the contract CZ has with Nokia, SONY might be able to use it if they sell the phone in a different branding/marketing style. Highly doubt that would work though.
“best in it’s class (Canon-Nikon-Fuji)”
You forgot to mention Olympus that for a long time has been a leader in JPEG in-camera processing. As you know, Sony and Olympus are now cooperating.
^ i will be happy to see Olympus style jpeg on my 5n.
i sometimes shoot Raw, sometimes Jpeg, improvement is definitely welcome!