This site is supported by the advertisements on it, please disable your AdBlocker so we can continue to provide you with the quality content you expect.

C1X vs LR (difference in file size output as well as quality)

Discussion in 'Post Processing/Software Forum' started by Irene McC, Nov 7, 2018 at 1:44 PM.

  1. Irene McC

    Irene McC Premium Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2017
    Messages:
    3,436
    Likes Received:
    6,223
    Location:
    Cape Town, South Africa

    -Return to Top-

    These images are both exported from their editing software programmes at 100% full size 100% quality settings. They will be crunched down by the forum software, but to my eye the Capture One (Express, free for Fuji) does a way better job of the greenery on the little island as well as the stones.

    What does surprise me as well is the size of the files. I cropped both of them to a 16x9 aspect ratio, clearly not exact - since the one from LightRoom has somewhat larger dimensions.

    Even so : larger dimensions and all, the LR file is very much smaller (in KG's) than the Capture One file. Almost half, in fact - making LR's jpg conversion a more 'lossy' algorithm.

    First example, the LightRoom file:
    FUJZ3852-Full Size CoL Island LightRoom.jpg

    Second example, the Capture One Express file:
    FUJZ3852_Full Size CoL Island C1X.jpg

    Difference in output :
    x-Output size difference C1X vs LR.JPG
     
    JimFenner likes this.
  2. streetsntravel

    streetsntravel Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2011
    Messages:
    1,193
    Likes Received:
    750
    Location:
    USA

    -Return to Top-

    Thank for the comparison. C1X is next on my list for testing. I've been experimenting with other software and it seems to me that there is more than one good choice when it comes to that first demosaicing step. I've beta tested a couple of C1P releases and it's been very good at X-trans files. With this new "collaboration" with Fuji, I'm even more intrigued by these possibilities. My hesitation is whether I'm fully in the Fuji camp.

    However, in terms of relative file size I wonder if there may be more at work here than just the pure jpg compression. The LR files show less detail in the areas you mention. Detail is information and increased/decreased information is going to make a noticeable change in resulting file size. So if LR is resolving less detail (and the demosaicing and sharpness settings are going to contribute to that also) then the file size would be less. The default jpg quality settings on export can also have a huge difference in final size.

    You may have taken all these things into account.

    Hoping to see more from your C1X usage. Do you envision C1X being a Adobe replacement in your workflow?

    I've been trying to work with Luminar and there are parts that are very intriguing, but it still isn't the PS replacement I've been hoping for and even C1P was not quite there with layers operations in release 10 but we've moved on from there and I'm not sure about release 11+.
     
  3. Irene McC

    Irene McC Premium Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2017
    Messages:
    3,436
    Likes Received:
    6,223
    Location:
    Cape Town, South Africa

    -Return to Top-

    Hi @streetsntravel - thank you for your response. Yes : both files were set to output from their relative editing programmes at 100% size selected and at 100% quality settings.

    No harm done in downloading the Fuji free version of Capture One :) It is easy and intuitive to learn, with pleasing results

    Not fully at this stage since I am also a Nikon shooter and know my way around LightRoom backwards.
    That being said, I do use C1X as a first go-to on my laptop when away from home, where I don't have the Adobe suite installed.
     
  4. runswithsizzers

    runswithsizzers Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2017
    Messages:
    1,377
    Likes Received:
    2,350
    Location:
    on the edge

    -Return to Top-

    Irene, what are your Sharpen settings in Lightroom?
     
  5. Irene McC

    Irene McC Premium Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2017
    Messages:
    3,436
    Likes Received:
    6,223
    Location:
    Cape Town, South Africa

    -Return to Top-

    Very low sharpening due to that increasing the worming effect


    upload_2018-11-7_17-30-22.png
     
  6. runswithsizzers

    runswithsizzers Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2017
    Messages:
    1,377
    Likes Received:
    2,350
    Location:
    on the edge

    -Return to Top-

    Are you saying you tried the Default Lightroom Sharpen settings on this image, and you saw the "worm" effect using those settings? That is, did you choose those sharpening setting to fix a real problem with this particular image, or to prevent a theoretical problem, in general?

    I can't comment about worms, because in my experience with 2,300 XE2 RAF files and default Lightroom Detail settings, I haven't really noticed anything significant.

    But your sharpening settings are quite different from the Lightroom defaults which I typically use with good results. I just tried out your settings on several RAW files (landscapes) from my XE2, and in every case the results were noticably fuzzy and lacking fine detail compared to Lightroom's default settings (latest version).

    I tried exporting a full size, 100% JPEG using your sharpening settings (16.5MB), then again with the LR defaults (19MB). So LR sharpening settings can definitely affect file size, but I did not see as much difference as you did, comparing the 2 applications.

    Also, notice that Lightroom has a setting in the Export panel for Output Sharpening which can be for screen or printing in low, standard and high amount.

    PS. I assume you are aware of the secret modifier key which can be used with the sliders for Detail, Masking, and Luminance which convert the image to monotone for a more critical evaluation of the result? (Option key on the Mac, Alt on Windows)
     
  7. Tilphot

    Tilphot Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2015
    Messages:
    1,100
    Likes Received:
    609
    Location:
    Germany

    -Return to Top-

    Couldn’t the comparably strong noise reduction be responsible for the lack of detail?
     
    runswithsizzers likes this.
  8. Irene McC

    Irene McC Premium Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2017
    Messages:
    3,436
    Likes Received:
    6,223
    Location:
    Cape Town, South Africa

    -Return to Top-

    I'm sure there are variations within LR that might result in better sharpness, but I do find the wormy effect is visible
    in vegetation.

    Yes, @runswithsizzers I know about the ALT key.
     
  9. DaveX

    DaveX Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2017
    Messages:
    1,562
    Likes Received:
    1,989
    Location:
    South Coast UK

    -Return to Top-

    Nice one Irene, I `m glad you are getting use to C1 as imo I like it a lot more than when I used LR6. Plus I find the default sharpening in C1 is just right at 140.
     
    Irene McC and Shadowside like this.
  10. Shadowside

    Shadowside Good Glass is Forever...

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2013
    Messages:
    2,307
    Likes Received:
    2,094
    Location:
    Winnipeg, Canada

    -Return to Top-

    Hi Irene

    I know this is about output, but here's something I noticed when I moved from LR to C1 - The RAW files (once imported) were also different sizes - not huge but still. I assume, though I haven't looked into it further, this is due to differences in the interpolation that each engine does. I don't know that they each each the same engine to create jpg's so there could be some differences based upon this too, but not likely as much as you have seen.
     
    Irene McC likes this.
  11. Shadowside

    Shadowside Good Glass is Forever...

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2013
    Messages:
    2,307
    Likes Received:
    2,094
    Location:
    Winnipeg, Canada

    -Return to Top-

    Depending upon content I agree, mine is at 130-145 for 90% of my PP, but I have gone as high as 225 without hideous artifacts. I also agree, C1 is vastly superior and I actually like the DRM better now, although at first I did not. I love the fact that I can have a collective catalog and a stand-alone event or project Session catalog. The latter is so very handy for archiving gigs that you want to keep but not in your master library. There are some elements that are more intuitive in LR, but overall (especially in IQ) I find C1 superior.

    The licensing model is more to my liking as well... :)
     
    DaveX and Irene McC like this.
  12. Aureliano Buendia

    Aureliano Buendia Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2015
    Messages:
    101
    Likes Received:
    347
    Location:
    venus

    -Return to Top-

    Irene,
    Beyond any other consideration, if the file size is a problem for you, can I recommend jpegmini?
     
  13. Irene McC

    Irene McC Premium Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2017
    Messages:
    3,436
    Likes Received:
    6,223
    Location:
    Cape Town, South Africa

    -Return to Top-

    Ohhhh no! The bigger the better. Don't quote me on that ...! I mean, it implies there is more information in the file
    so I'm glad for it to be bigger.
     
    Shadowside likes this.
  14. Aureliano Buendia

    Aureliano Buendia Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2015
    Messages:
    101
    Likes Received:
    347
    Location:
    venus

    -Return to Top-

    not necessarily. depends on the efficiency of the compression algorithm. it's always a matter of compromise, but a very efficient algorithm can return smaller files without appreciable loss of quality.
     
  15. ru2far2c

    ru2far2c Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2014
    Messages:
    328
    Likes Received:
    208
    Location:
    Cuenca, Ecuador

    -Return to Top-

    Having a hard time understanding your numbers.
    When I crop a 6000x4000 px full frame image to 16:9 in C1 I get 6000x3375. I export it from C1 I get a 11.9mb file with the same dimensions. Don't have a copy of LR so can not compare the two..

    Summary.png
    (Not sure if the above window is available in C1 Express)

    Most of the time I export files at 80% JPG quality 3000px on the longest side because that is all I need or my client needs. File size about 865kb give or take a bit. If I export at 100% scale and 100% JPG I get 10 to 15 mb files. I understand you are using the express version of C1. For me it would be hard to image that the exporting algorithm would be that different between the two. Or it would be that different between a PC or a MAC.
    Don't get me wrong I'm glad you are getting files to your liking. I just mystified at your file size is all.
     

Share This Page

  1. fujix-forum.com uses cookies to help personalize content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice