Why my D200 RAW files look like crap? Why my D200 cannot render sky properly? Well, here is why:
http://i45./2znwryw.jpg
Raw Compression (right image uncompressed). Something that I had enabled long ago or it is enabled by default, I don't know, but I'm glad I realized what it was because I'm a huge fan of D200 and its sensor.
Well then what Adam said above is probably correct. I use lossless compression on my D700 and have never noticed any ill effects. That is the concensus on the internet as well.
Does the D200 have a lossless compression? Or just lossy? If it didn't have lossless, I would shoot with no compression, just as you are.
I think all RAW compression is supposedly lossless, otherwise the file is no longer RAW. But I could be wrong.
While I'm happy and relived to have found the problem with my D200, I suggest others do some test before making their own minds. D200 is an old camera and has an old compression engine.
The D200 is before my time, but doing some searches on its raw options, it appears Nikon applied some different processing to the D200's compressed raw. Highlights, shadows and possibly even solid patches of color might be effect negatively according to some different comments I read.
Space is fairly cheap now, so you should just use the option for no compression on your D200.
In fact RAW compression is so bad in D200 that its much better to shoot fine jpg than compressed RAW, at least with jpgs the highlight detail and color rendition is not compromised.
The lossy RAW compression in modern DSLRs makes sense because sometimes when WB is too tricky its better to shoot that way than fine jpg, otherwise loss of anything in a compression is not a good idea.
Some of the entry level DSLR compress RAW by default.
Exdsc wrote:
I think all RAW compression is supposedly lossless, otherwise the file is no longer RAW. But I could be wrong.
Looks like you are wrong.
There is the subtle difference of "visually lossless" and "mathematically lossless". Due to the computational effort required, early compression was visuall lossless only. Later on, advances in CPUs allowed manufacturers to include mathematicall lossless as well.
Exdsc wrote:
In fact RAW compression is so bad in D200 that its much better to shoot fine jpg than compressed RAW, at least with jpgs the highlight detail and color rendition is not compromised.
I didn't have the same experience with my D200.
The lossy RAW compression in modern DSLRs makes sense because sometimes when WB is too tricky its better to shoot that way than fine jpg, otherwise loss of anything in a compression is not a good idea.
Just in case: JPEG is only able to store in a lossy format. Lossless is not an option. In addition, JPEG is also exposed to the Gamma transformation which is loss as well.
It comes back to the processing after the shot, which has much more impact than any format and storage discussion. BTW, what is your postprocessing software for RAW and JPEG files. Which version of the respective software?
Some of the entry level DSLR compress RAW by default.
To be more precise:
Entry level cameras by Nikon are factory default on JPEG only.
If the user switches to RAW, lossy compression is not the default option, it is the only option. Lossless is not available.
I could never tell the difference between compressed and uncompressed raw, so I just left my D200 on compressed. Would hate to think I've been doing it wrong for almost 7 years!
Your photos appear to be exposed at least a stop apart (check the trees next to the telephone pole), so there's your blown-out sky.
waysaz wrote:
I could never tell the difference between compressed and uncompressed raw, so I just left my D200 on compressed. Would hate to think I've been doing it wrong for almost 7 years!
Your photos appear to be exposed at least a stop apart (check the trees next to the telephone pole), so there's your blown-out sky.
Its easy to find out, photograph a patch of blue sky with clouds in both modes.
I think you might have something else going on here.
I'd reset your camera to base settings and try samples under more controlled conditions, or at least shots much closer together to minimize differences. If those shots aren't processed, the exposure seems much different...
AndreasE wrote:
If the user switches to RAW, lossy compression is not the default option, it is the only option. Lossless is not available.
rgds,
Andy
Andy, you are the most qualified person to answer my next question... Is there any CCD powered Nikon body that let you to shoot RAW either uncompressed or lossless compressed?
Andy, you are the most qualified person to answer my next question... Is there any CCD powered Nikon body that let you to shoot RAW either uncompressed or lossless compressed?
Uncompressed for CCD senors is available on: D1X and D1H
Lossless compression is computationally much more intensive than lossy compression. The first CPUs in DSLRs weren't that powerful given the energy envelope they had to cope with. Only later CPU generations offered the power for doing so, but this period of CPU performance was deep into the "CMOS timeline" most sensors went into.
AndreasE wrote:
Uncompressed for CCD senors is available on: D1X and D1H
Lossless compression is computationally much more intensive than lossy compression. The first CPUs in DSLRs weren't that powerful given the energy envelope they had to cope with. Only later CPU generations offered the power for doing so, but this period of CPU performance was deep into the "CMOS timeline" most sensors went into.
rgds,
Andy
Thanks a lot Andy! I'm shocked that even D3000 which was launched less than three years ago if I remember right does not have the lossless compression available. What about the new CMOS entry level like D3100 and D3200?
Mishu01 wrote:
Thanks a lot Andy! I'm shocked that even D3000 which was launched less than three years ago if I remember right does not have the lossless compression available. What about the new CMOS entry level like D3100 and D3200?
Why are you shocked?
1) The full consumer range starting with the D50 never had lossless compression. Here it is not a differentiation by technology, but by positioning.
2) "Consumers" with an understanding or need for lossless compression would move up the ladder to a D7000 or the like.
3) the majority of (real) consumers would be more confused than supported by this choice.This is in line with many other options Nikon offers in higher lines (think of setting MF lens data, bracketing options, AF fine adjustment, etc ...)
Is there any CCD powered Nikon body that let you to shoot RAW either uncompressed or lossless compressed?