Over at Dpreview, there seems to be a debate about whether the RAW files from the A7/A7R are indeed truly lossless RAW files. I have yet to have seen any publications that suggest the 14-bit RAW files are instead 11-bit so that the file size will come out smaller. So what's the truth here? Some people think that Sony is able to achieve such a small file size simply because it's utilizing more efficient compressing algorithms while others suggest that it's a lossy RAW format. So what's the truth here? I would be extremely disappointed in Sony if it's true that their RAW files are lossy rather than lossless.
I'm assuming you were relying on that one post at the top of the page? I see a very detailed explanation, but where's the evidence? I'm surprised that no other major publications have noticed this and yet it's only been people on forums complaining about this issue. I want to believe it, but at the same time, I need to see evidence to suggest that the A7/A7R have only lossy RAW option.
One final thing and that is whether this lossy RAW format affects the NEX series as well as cameras like the RX100 and RX10?
lsquare wrote:
I see a very detailed explanation, but where's the evidence? I'm surprised that no other major publications have noticed this and yet it's only been people on forums complaining about this issue. I want to believe it, but at the same time, I need to see evidence to suggest that the A7/A7R have only lossy RAW option.
You would have to ask the guys that write the software if you really want to know. My question would be rather why would you be so "very disappointed" by this.
lsquare wrote:
I see a very detailed explanation, but where's the evidence?
That isn't a post by someone who is hypothesising, but someone who has actually worked with the compression that Sony uses. The detail is almost sufficient to start writing a Sony RAW converter. I am not sure what kind of evidence you are calling for here. I presume that dcraw will have a Sony A7/A7R converter soon, if it doesn't already, so you could go read the source code there.
lsquare wrote:
I'm assuming you were relying on that one post at the top of the page? I see a very detailed explanation, but where's the evidence? I'm surprised that no other major publications have noticed this and yet it's only been people on forums complaining about this issue. I want to believe it, but at the same time, I need to see evidence to suggest that the A7/A7R have only lossy RAW option.
One final thing and that is whether this lossy RAW format affects the NEX series as well as cameras like the RX100 and RX10?
Evidence here (source code to a Sony raw decompressor).
p.1 #10 · Lossless RAW files from the Sony A7/A7R?
slungu wrote:
You would have to ask the guys that write the software if you really want to know. My question would be rather why would you be so "very disappointed" by this.
I'm disappointed because I want the full lossless RAW file. There should be an option for that. I understand that it's unlikely that anyone is ever going to see a difference, but I still want the full lossless file. There shouldn't be an issue in regards to choice.
p.1 #11 · Lossless RAW files from the Sony A7/A7R?
lsquare wrote:
So does this affect all Sony cameras with RAW capability?
I believe it was said in another thread that the A99 (and/or RX1?) has an option for lossless RAW, but it should be possible to find out with a bit of googling.
p.1 #12 · Lossless RAW files from the Sony A7/A7R?
I agree with lsquare.
I would be extremely disappointed with this.
Yes, I could care less that you may, or may not be able to even notice any difference.
It's the point that is the issue.
Don't build a nice rig, and then cripple it. No, please, I am NOT trying to start any debate, nor discussion.
I am merely expressing my view.
I don't understand not offering the choice.
I am glad I decided to stumble upon this read.
I think now I won't purchase either model, unless this is corrected.
lsquare wrote:
I'm disappointed because I want the full lossless RAW file. There should be an option for that. I understand that it's unlikely that anyone is ever going to see a difference, but I still want the full lossless file. There shouldn't be an issue in regards to choice.
p.1 #13 · Lossless RAW files from the Sony A7/A7R?
buggz2k wrote:
I agree with lsquare.
I would be extremely disappointed with this.
Yes, I could care less that you may, or may not be able to even notice any difference.
It's the point that is the issue.
Don't build a nice rig, and then cripple it. No, please, I am NOT trying to start any debate, nor discussion.
I am merely expressing my view.
I don't understand not offering the choice.
I am glad I decided to stumble upon this read.
I think now I won't purchase either model, unless this is corrected.
my Opinion: You are missing on a great camera, I have never had as much fun with a camera and after >5000 shots I haven't noticed any compression problems ever.
p.1 #14 · Lossless RAW files from the Sony A7/A7R?
lsquare wrote:
I'm disappointed because I want the full lossless RAW file. There should be an option for that. I understand that it's unlikely that anyone is ever going to see a difference, but I still want the full lossless file. There shouldn't be an issue in regards to choice.
This is pretty much just a philosophical debate, because if you don't have an uncompressed file to compare with, you will never know exactly how much you are losing with Sony's "lossless" compression.
I can see some very subtle difference in lossless-compressed vs. uncompressed Nikon D800E files, so I would expect to see the same with the Sony files.
p.1 #15 · Lossless RAW files from the Sony A7/A7R?
^ What Phillip said. You are missing out on a great camera. In my non-scientific testing, I compared the output from the A7r to the "lossless" ginormous D800e files. If anything the A7r is marginally sharper. True AA less design. My Nikon gear is up for sale.
I also tried the A7 and was very pleased with it but for the kind of work i do, i wanted the extra resolution of the 7r.
p.1 #16 · Lossless RAW files from the Sony A7/A7R?
I haven't noticed any problems either, and I like that it keeps storage requirements down. I obviously wouldn't be upset to have a more pure raw output option, but to pan both the cameras over this seems a little strong. Obviously your decision though, no argument there.
-Tim
buggz2k wrote:
I agree with lsquare.
I would be extremely disappointed with this.
Yes, I could care less that you may, or may not be able to even notice any difference.
It's the point that is the issue.
Don't build a nice rig, and then cripple it. No, please, I am NOT trying to start any debate, nor discussion.
I am merely expressing my view.
I don't understand not offering the choice.
I am glad I decided to stumble upon this read.
I think now I won't purchase either model, unless this is corrected.
p.1 #17 · Lossless RAW files from the Sony A7/A7R?
It would be great if Sony provided the uncompressed option but it's unlikely we will see compression artifacts in the majority of our images.
I was able to replicate a situation where the compression is visible. When shooting a high contrast subject where the shadows are very close to pure black. When trying to recover the shadows, artifacts become very apparent.
The lighting condition showing this compression artifact can be easily replicated. One example can be found on my A7R review: https://www.fredmiranda.com/A7R-review
p.1 #18 · Lossless RAW files from the Sony A7/A7R?
lsquare wrote:
I'm disappointed because I want the full lossless RAW file. There should be an option for that. I understand that it's unlikely that anyone is ever going to see a difference, but I still want the full lossless file. There shouldn't be an issue in regards to choice.
I would guess this is harder to make as an option if it is done in hardware and not in the software. Also, while you have the right to feel disappointed by anything you like, try to always keep in mind that engineering is always about practical compromise. This reminds me of our first classes of electronics back in college when we were calculating resistors with utmost precision only to be asked by the professor : "who do you think would build that resistor for you and how much do you think it would cost?" So my guess is that given the processing line they have at hand Sony engineers felt that in order to meet some speed requirements they had to go this route.
Now, it might or might not be a reason to skip this particular camera, but be sure that somebody had a good reason to go this route.
p.1 #19 · Lossless RAW files from the Sony A7/A7R?
buggz2k wrote:
Yes, I could care less that you may, or may not be able to even notice any difference.
It's the point that is the issue.
Don't build a nice rig, and then cripple it.
It can only be "crippled" if you can in fact notice any difference..... or is my logic flawed in some way?
(and I don't pretend to know the answer to whether or not you can notice any difference if you try hard enough. I'm satisfied with the output as
compared to other cameras including the D800 and that's good enough for me at least until someone can identify and show the real world problems that the Sony implementation
causes).
p.1 #20 · Lossless RAW files from the Sony A7/A7R?
All, I've written a utility that analyzes A7r raws and generates an overlay PNG that highlights the areas with the maximum lossy compression. This can be used to correlate tonal compression to observed artifacts, to see if they're connected. For more information see my thread on dpreview www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52938557
Fred, can you send me the raw that shows the artifacts you mentioned?
