This topic is in the 2015 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2015A7rII rumour
p.3 #1A7rII rumour
I suspect they will have the lossy compression.
It doesn't worry me: the scenarios in which it is visible are rare; I push a lot and haven't been bitten by it. And they have modified the scheme a bit, it seems, to reduce the (already very rare) artefacts.
Other things being equal I would like to have the option to turn it off, of course, and have more pure RAW
But there's a reason it's there: in a small body it makes pushing the data around much easier. The small body part is relevant because (a) there's not room for twin processors and (b) there's a heat issue if you up the processing power and (c) there's a batter life issue.
No doubt one day, maybe soon, all these issues can be resolved. But until then I'd prefer to have a compact body with very slightly lossy raw compression, than uncompressed raw in a larger body.
It doesn't worry me: the scenarios in which it is visible are rare; I push a lot and haven't been bitten by it. And they have modified the scheme a bit, it seems, to reduce the (already very rare) artefacts.
Other things being equal I would like to have the option to turn it off, of course, and have more pure RAW
But there's a reason it's there: in a small body it makes pushing the data around much easier. The small body part is relevant because (a) there's not room for twin processors and (b) there's a heat issue if you up the processing power and (c) there's a batter life issue.
No doubt one day, maybe soon, all these issues can be resolved. But until then I'd prefer to have a compact body with very slightly lossy raw compression, than uncompressed raw in a larger body.
Mar 18, 2015 at 06:35 PM
p.3 #2A7rII rumour
Having the A7r modified thin filter by Kolari Vision has now changed my perspective. The A7r even with the noisy shutter, is small and light. Yes you have to increase the shutter speed with the higher MP's, but it is a small package.
Having the A7rII basically modified for IBIS with the same sensor, I will be reluctant to upgrade unless Kolari Vision can provide the thin filter modification. The 36MP is fine, but filter is the issue with M mount lenses. Maybe with the A7rII there will be some filter changes to accommodate M lenses ?? This would be a smart strategy for Sony until their FE lineup is more complete.
Of course we would prefer no compression, but as suggested this may not be technically possible yet for the targeted design size.
If the A7rII has the new 50MP, then this will be an interesting option. Not the 50MP but the later technology in the design of the sensor and how it relates to the DR and IQ
Having the A7rII basically modified for IBIS with the same sensor, I will be reluctant to upgrade unless Kolari Vision can provide the thin filter modification. The 36MP is fine, but filter is the issue with M mount lenses. Maybe with the A7rII there will be some filter changes to accommodate M lenses ?? This would be a smart strategy for Sony until their FE lineup is more complete.
Of course we would prefer no compression, but as suggested this may not be technically possible yet for the targeted design size.
If the A7rII has the new 50MP, then this will be an interesting option. Not the 50MP but the later technology in the design of the sensor and how it relates to the DR and IQ
Mar 18, 2015 at 06:54 PM
p.3 #3A7rII rumour
charles.K wrote:
Having the A7r modified thin filter by Kolari Vision has now changed my perspective. The A7r even with the noisy shutter, is small and light. Yes you have to increase the shutter speed with the higher MP's, but it is a small package.
Having the A7rII basically modified for IBIS with the same sensor, I will be reluctant to upgrade unless Kolari Vision can provide the thin filter modification. The 36MP is fine, but filter is the issue with M mount lenses. Maybe with the A7rII there will be some filter changes to accommodate M lenses ?? This would be...Show more →
Depending upon what Sony does for the A7rII and the A9, I may decide to get the Kolari Vision sensor stack modification on my A7r and quite possibly purchase a 2nd A7r after the price drop and introduction of the A7rII (particularly after we get more information about the A9).
Rich
Having the A7r modified thin filter by Kolari Vision has now changed my perspective. The A7r even with the noisy shutter, is small and light. Yes you have to increase the shutter speed with the higher MP's, but it is a small package.
Having the A7rII basically modified for IBIS with the same sensor, I will be reluctant to upgrade unless Kolari Vision can provide the thin filter modification. The 36MP is fine, but filter is the issue with M mount lenses. Maybe with the A7rII there will be some filter changes to accommodate M lenses ?? This would be...Show more →
Depending upon what Sony does for the A7rII and the A9, I may decide to get the Kolari Vision sensor stack modification on my A7r and quite possibly purchase a 2nd A7r after the price drop and introduction of the A7rII (particularly after we get more information about the A9).
Rich
Mar 18, 2015 at 07:26 PM
p.3 #4A7rII rumour
naturephoto1 wrote:
Having the A7rII basically modified for IBIS with the same sensor, I will be reluctant to upgrade unless Kolari Vision can provide the thin filter modification. The 36MP is fine, but filter is the issue with M mount lenses. Maybe with the A7rII there will be some filter changes to accommodate M lenses ?? This would be a smart strategy for Sony until their FE lineup is more complete.
Of course we would prefer no compression, but as suggested this may not be technically possible yet for the targeted design size.
If the A7rII has the new 50MP, then this will be an interesting option. Not the 50MP but the later technology in the design of the sensor and how it relates to the DR and IQDepending upon what Sony does for the A7rII and the A9, I may decide to get the Kolari Vision sensor stack modification on my A7r and quite possibly purchase a 2nd A7r after the price drop and introduction of the A7rII (particularly after we get more information about the A9).
Rich
It is interesting times! If Kolari cannot modify the IBIS based systems, I am more likely to upgrade my A7II to the A7rII and keep my modified A7r and possibly modify my A7s.
charles.K wrote
Having the A7r modified thin filter by Kolari Vision has now changed my perspective. The A7r even with the noisy shutter, is small and light. Yes you have to increase the shutter speed with the higher MP's, but it is a small package.Having the A7rII basically modified for IBIS with the same sensor, I will be reluctant to upgrade unless Kolari Vision can provide the thin filter modification. The 36MP is fine, but filter is the issue with M mount lenses. Maybe with the A7rII there will be some filter changes to accommodate M lenses ?? This would be a smart strategy for Sony until their FE lineup is more complete.
Of course we would prefer no compression, but as suggested this may not be technically possible yet for the targeted design size.
If the A7rII has the new 50MP, then this will be an interesting option. Not the 50MP but the later technology in the design of the sensor and how it relates to the DR and IQ
Rich
It is interesting times! If Kolari cannot modify the IBIS based systems, I am more likely to upgrade my A7II to the A7rII and keep my modified A7r and possibly modify my A7s.
Mar 18, 2015 at 07:36 PM
p.3 #5A7rII rumour
DavidBM wrote:
I suspect they will have the lossy compression.
It doesn't worry me: the scenarios in which it is visible are rare; I push a lot and haven't been bitten by it. And they have modified the scheme a bit, it seems, to reduce the (already very rare) artefacts.
Other things being equal I would like to have the option to turn it off, of course, and have more pure RAW
But there's a reason it's there: in a small body it makes pushing the data around much easier. The small body part is relevant because (a) there's not room for twin processors and...Show more →
Yes, for us non-action still shooters it would be great to have an uncompressed full 14bit RAW option.
I suspect they will have the lossy compression.
It doesn't worry me: the scenarios in which it is visible are rare; I push a lot and haven't been bitten by it. And they have modified the scheme a bit, it seems, to reduce the (already very rare) artefacts.
Other things being equal I would like to have the option to turn it off, of course, and have more pure RAW
But there's a reason it's there: in a small body it makes pushing the data around much easier. The small body part is relevant because (a) there's not room for twin processors and...Show more →
Yes, for us non-action still shooters it would be great to have an uncompressed full 14bit RAW option.
Mar 18, 2015 at 09:31 PM
p.3 #6A7rII rumour
DavidBM wrote:
I suspect they will have the lossy compression.
It doesn't worry me: the scenarios in which it is visible are rare; I push a lot and haven't been bitten by it. And they have modified the scheme a bit, it seems, to reduce the (already very rare) artefacts.
Other things being equal I would like to have the option to turn it off, of course, and have more pure RAW
But there's a reason it's there: in a small body it makes pushing the data around much easier. The small body part is relevant because (a) there's not room for twin processors and...Show more →
Yes, uncompressed raw in a larger body is the D800e. I'd much rather live with this lossy compression which I have yet to see than to bulk up the body to DSLR standards.
I suspect they will have the lossy compression.
It doesn't worry me: the scenarios in which it is visible are rare; I push a lot and haven't been bitten by it. And they have modified the scheme a bit, it seems, to reduce the (already very rare) artefacts.
Other things being equal I would like to have the option to turn it off, of course, and have more pure RAW
But there's a reason it's there: in a small body it makes pushing the data around much easier. The small body part is relevant because (a) there's not room for twin processors and...Show more →
Yes, uncompressed raw in a larger body is the D800e. I'd much rather live with this lossy compression which I have yet to see than to bulk up the body to DSLR standards.
Mar 18, 2015 at 09:46 PM
p.3 #7A7rII rumour
DavidBM wrote:
But there's a reason it's there: in a small body it makes pushing the data around much easier. The small body part is relevant because (a) there's not room for twin processors and (b) there's a heat issue if you up the processing power and (c) there's a batter life issue.
I'm not sure why Sony does lossy compression and claim it's a raw file but it cannot be for these reasons. It's the same lossy compression on the 12 mix A7S, right? While there are smaller cameras such as the 16mpix Ricoh GR that have proper RAW files.
Compressing the raw data lossy or not - burns more CPU cycles than not compressing it - so you need more processing power, and it generates more heat and draws more from the battery. Sure, they probably use specialized processor for this rather than doing it purely in software but it's still more than not doing it at all.
What it gives you for sure is being able to fit more frames in the buffer and also faster write times to the SD card since files are smaller.
But there's a reason it's there: in a small body it makes pushing the data around much easier. The small body part is relevant because (a) there's not room for twin processors and (b) there's a heat issue if you up the processing power and (c) there's a batter life issue.
I'm not sure why Sony does lossy compression and claim it's a raw file but it cannot be for these reasons. It's the same lossy compression on the 12 mix A7S, right? While there are smaller cameras such as the 16mpix Ricoh GR that have proper RAW files.
Compressing the raw data lossy or not - burns more CPU cycles than not compressing it - so you need more processing power, and it generates more heat and draws more from the battery. Sure, they probably use specialized processor for this rather than doing it purely in software but it's still more than not doing it at all.
What it gives you for sure is being able to fit more frames in the buffer and also faster write times to the SD card since files are smaller.
Mar 18, 2015 at 10:24 PM
p.3 #8A7rII rumour
That's why I talked about "pushing the data around"; the competition is done on the fly as the sensor is read. It then reduces the bandwidth needed. I agree that it was just lazy to leave it there for the A7s. I suspect though that in a high MP model it saves net power and overall bandwidth, despite the cost of compressing. But in any case I agree that it'd be good to be able to turn it off. I just suspect though that if it slows things down a lot Sony won't allow it, because people will say "at its best IQ the camera is as slow as molasses" which is worse marketing than people saying "the undeomosaiced data is not purely RAW due to the 11+7 compression scheme".
But yes I'd prefer that, but it's not right up there at the top of my list as it is with some...
But yes I'd prefer that, but it's not right up there at the top of my list as it is with some...
Mar 18, 2015 at 11:42 PM
p.3 #9A7rII rumour
I find the rumour on which this thread started rather flimsy. No dates, no specs, no SR5. Just a rumour which will turn out to be true, eventually...
Mar 19, 2015 at 01:35 AM
p.3 #10A7rII rumour
philber wrote:
I find the rumour on which this thread started rather flimsy. No dates, no specs, no SR5. Just a rumour which will turn out to be true, eventually...
Yes, the referenced rumor was written about as awfully as can be. He starts off with the announcement that at long last "the wait is over". Well, someone help me out here: the "wait is over" for what exactly?
We are still waiting for Sony's announcement of the product. We are still waiting for the product to begin shipping. And we're still waiting to find out the full camera details; details like: Does it have an EFCS? a new sensor? Anything other than a new body and IBIS to match the a7 II? In fact, we're very much still waiting on just about everything.
Maybe someone was waiting with great anticipation for an announcement that the wait is over because that's all we have: an announcement that the wait is over.
I find the rumour on which this thread started rather flimsy. No dates, no specs, no SR5. Just a rumour which will turn out to be true, eventually...
Yes, the referenced rumor was written about as awfully as can be. He starts off with the announcement that at long last "the wait is over". Well, someone help me out here: the "wait is over" for what exactly?
We are still waiting for Sony's announcement of the product. We are still waiting for the product to begin shipping. And we're still waiting to find out the full camera details; details like: Does it have an EFCS? a new sensor? Anything other than a new body and IBIS to match the a7 II? In fact, we're very much still waiting on just about everything.
Maybe someone was waiting with great anticipation for an announcement that the wait is over because that's all we have: an announcement that the wait is over.
Mar 19, 2015 at 03:21 AM
p.3 #11A7rII rumour
+1 for 50mp
+1 for lossless "compression"
+1 for even better DR (but i will be satisfied with current DR as long as 1 & 2 are happening)
+1 for thinner sensor stack
I really hope sony has done something to eliminate the phenomenon of gritty starbursts in night shots. Whether it's the sensor stack or compression, i hope it's gone on the next release.
I have seen no one yet naming better batteries helping battery life increase. It's no priority but would be highly appreciated.
Also a better light leak proof mount would be welcomed.
Most of all, i hope they'll announce something soon.
+1 for lossless "compression"
+1 for even better DR (but i will be satisfied with current DR as long as 1 & 2 are happening)
+1 for thinner sensor stack
I really hope sony has done something to eliminate the phenomenon of gritty starbursts in night shots. Whether it's the sensor stack or compression, i hope it's gone on the next release.
I have seen no one yet naming better batteries helping battery life increase. It's no priority but would be highly appreciated.
Also a better light leak proof mount would be welcomed.
Most of all, i hope they'll announce something soon.
Mar 19, 2015 at 03:24 AM
p.3 #12A7rII rumour
A thin sensor stack is unlikely for a standard camera cause they will loose compatibility with their own fast lenses. At the moment there are not very fast lenses, but I think even the 55/1.8 will loose quality with a much thinner sensor stack and ~50 megapixel. And I supppose f/1.4 or faster lenses are planned.
For a camera dedicated for alternative old lenses this could be an option, but I doubt Sony will do this.
For a camera dedicated for alternative old lenses this could be an option, but I doubt Sony will do this.
Mar 19, 2015 at 04:29 AM
p.3 #13A7rII rumour
Now 2 cameras, 36MP A7R II & 50MP A9 w/ April or May announcement. :
(SR4) Sony to announced the new 50 Megapixel camera within weeks. Image quality outperforms the Canon 5ds?
The two new Sony Full Frame camera that Sony will introduce the coming weeks should be:
1) The Sony A7rII Full Frame E-mount camera (with the same A7II 5 axis stabilization and improved autofocusing). Shipment in May-June. I am yet not sure about the sensor but so far I “believe” it uses the same or tweaked version of the current 36MP sensor. But that’s just my “feeling” and not a “rumor” coming from sources.
2) The official Canon 5Ds competitor! A new 50 Megapixel Sony camera using a new Sony sensor (not the Canon 5ds sensor). It is yet unclear if the new 50MP camera is the long time rumored A9 PRO E-mount camera or the new A-mount camera flagship. I actually hope Sony is thinking to release both at the same time…but that’s again just a wish of mine and not a rumor. Both cameras are rumored to comes in a special April (or at last May) announcement. For now sources could nor confirm or deny if there will be also some RX and...Show more →
Some behind the scene rumors: The new Sony 50MP camera is said to “easily OUTPERFORM” the Canon 5ds camera in terms of image quality at low ISO.
(SR4) Sony to announced the new 50 Megapixel camera within weeks. Image quality outperforms the Canon 5ds?
The two new Sony Full Frame camera that Sony will introduce the coming weeks should be:
1) The Sony A7rII Full Frame E-mount camera (with the same A7II 5 axis stabilization and improved autofocusing). Shipment in May-June. I am yet not sure about the sensor but so far I “believe” it uses the same or tweaked version of the current 36MP sensor. But that’s just my “feeling” and not a “rumor” coming from sources.
2) The official Canon 5Ds competitor! A new 50 Megapixel Sony camera using a new Sony sensor (not the Canon 5ds sensor). It is yet unclear if the new 50MP camera is the long time rumored A9 PRO E-mount camera or the new A-mount camera flagship. I actually hope Sony is thinking to release both at the same time…but that’s again just a wish of mine and not a rumor. Both cameras are rumored to comes in a special April (or at last May) announcement. For now sources could nor confirm or deny if there will be also some RX and...Show more →
Some behind the scene rumors: The new Sony 50MP camera is said to “easily OUTPERFORM” the Canon 5ds camera in terms of image quality at low ISO.
Mar 19, 2015 at 05:18 AM
p.3 #14A7rII rumour
DavidBM wrote:
But there's a reason it's there: in a small body it makes pushing the data around much easier. The small body part is relevant because (a) there's not room for twin processors and (b) there's a heat issue if you up the processing power and (c) there's a batter life issue.
I'm sorry, I don't buy the power saving / heating / data throughput argument for a second. Firstly a lossless compressed A7 raw would be no larger than a lossy A7ʀ raw on average, whilst an uncompressed A7s raw would be smaller still. So why not make lossy raws compulsory only on the A7ʀ?
Secondly Sony's RAW compression scheme far predates the A7 series of mirrorless cameras, and has been the only option in large SLT bodies with lower pixel counts and no reason to worry about heat or power saving.
Why then is it not optional?
Because Sony genuinely think they're doing you a favour. They believe the compression is "visually lossless" (and it is in the majority of cases). Why would you disable something that has no visual impact on the image but that makes your camera quicker, saves space on your card and also your hard disk/archive?
The problem is it's not visually lossless in all cases, especially if you push certain types of image, or you want to benefit from the full dynamic range available. This highlights some very disjointed thinking between different teams at Sony. Sensor development have aggressively pushed the boundaries of dynamic range, whilst the image-processing / firmware team are oblivious to the fact that people might boost the shadows significantly in post (otherwise they certainly wouldn't have chosen that particular compression scheme).
You see the same type of thinking at Canon, they don't believe their dynamic range is a problem (because it isn't a problem if you never raise the shadows) and thus haven't prioritised fixing it. So don't hold your breath for a lossless option from Sony.
But there's a reason it's there: in a small body it makes pushing the data around much easier. The small body part is relevant because (a) there's not room for twin processors and (b) there's a heat issue if you up the processing power and (c) there's a batter life issue.
I'm sorry, I don't buy the power saving / heating / data throughput argument for a second. Firstly a lossless compressed A7 raw would be no larger than a lossy A7ʀ raw on average, whilst an uncompressed A7s raw would be smaller still. So why not make lossy raws compulsory only on the A7ʀ?
Secondly Sony's RAW compression scheme far predates the A7 series of mirrorless cameras, and has been the only option in large SLT bodies with lower pixel counts and no reason to worry about heat or power saving.
Why then is it not optional?
Because Sony genuinely think they're doing you a favour. They believe the compression is "visually lossless" (and it is in the majority of cases). Why would you disable something that has no visual impact on the image but that makes your camera quicker, saves space on your card and also your hard disk/archive?
The problem is it's not visually lossless in all cases, especially if you push certain types of image, or you want to benefit from the full dynamic range available. This highlights some very disjointed thinking between different teams at Sony. Sensor development have aggressively pushed the boundaries of dynamic range, whilst the image-processing / firmware team are oblivious to the fact that people might boost the shadows significantly in post (otherwise they certainly wouldn't have chosen that particular compression scheme).
You see the same type of thinking at Canon, they don't believe their dynamic range is a problem (because it isn't a problem if you never raise the shadows) and thus haven't prioritised fixing it. So don't hold your breath for a lossless option from Sony.
Mar 19, 2015 at 05:30 AM
p.3 #15A7rII rumour
Matt Grum wrote:
I'm sorry, I don't buy the power saving / heating / data throughput argument for a second. Firstly a lossless compressed A7 raw would be no larger than a lossy A7ʀ raw on average, whilst an uncompressed A7s raw would be smaller still. So why not make lossy raws compulsory only on the A7ʀ?
I have been hoping (and defending that hope) for LOSSLESS compression since the a7r's release. While many have said LOSSY is good enough and have never seen an issue, I think LOSSLESS absolutely should be included.
HOWEVER, you are incorrect regarding the heat, etc.
LOSSY requires less CPU to generate and the resulting files will be significantly smaller.
In such a tiny camera body and so close to the sensor, heat becomes a major issue. It also affects the whole data chain - everything would either have to be bigger/faster (buffer, etc), or burst mode shooting would be reduced.
Perhaps a larger body (a7ii or a-mount) is the solution.
it would be nice to have the option. if you needed long bursts, perhaps using LOSSY would be an option. If you were shooting single-shot, LOSSLESS would be your choice.
DavidBM wrote
But there's a reason it's there: in a small body it makes pushing the data around much easier. The small body part is relevant because (a) there's not room for twin processors and (b) there's a heat issue if you up the processing power and (c) there's a batter life issue.I have been hoping (and defending that hope) for LOSSLESS compression since the a7r's release. While many have said LOSSY is good enough and have never seen an issue, I think LOSSLESS absolutely should be included.
HOWEVER, you are incorrect regarding the heat, etc.
LOSSY requires less CPU to generate and the resulting files will be significantly smaller.
In such a tiny camera body and so close to the sensor, heat becomes a major issue. It also affects the whole data chain - everything would either have to be bigger/faster (buffer, etc), or burst mode shooting would be reduced.
Perhaps a larger body (a7ii or a-mount) is the solution.
it would be nice to have the option. if you needed long bursts, perhaps using LOSSY would be an option. If you were shooting single-shot, LOSSLESS would be your choice.
Mar 19, 2015 at 05:40 AM
p.3 #16A7rII rumour
ecarlino wrote:
Perhaps a larger body (a7ii or a-mount) is the solution.
it would be nice to have the option. if you needed long bursts, perhaps using LOSSY would be an option. If you were shooting single-shot, LOSSLESS would be your choice.
Please no larger camera body....I was already not too intrigued what Sony did with the new A7 II and its bigger more bulky grip. Isn't it funny - smartphones were delevoped to have something small and easily portable with you, and now many of them get larger and larger for a bigger display. They don't easily fit into a pocket anymore! Does the same now happen with the A7 series - developed as small but powerfull FF camera, and now some wish to have it more bulky...
I believe the main reason for the compressed RAW files was to accommodate the file size with the built in image processor in the A7 series. I would expect that Sony upgrades the processor in the new models which would then allow to get uncompressed files. I doubt that a new buffer/processor array needs a larger camera body.
Perhaps a larger body (a7ii or a-mount) is the solution.
it would be nice to have the option. if you needed long bursts, perhaps using LOSSY would be an option. If you were shooting single-shot, LOSSLESS would be your choice.
Please no larger camera body....I was already not too intrigued what Sony did with the new A7 II and its bigger more bulky grip. Isn't it funny - smartphones were delevoped to have something small and easily portable with you, and now many of them get larger and larger for a bigger display. They don't easily fit into a pocket anymore! Does the same now happen with the A7 series - developed as small but powerfull FF camera, and now some wish to have it more bulky...
I believe the main reason for the compressed RAW files was to accommodate the file size with the built in image processor in the A7 series. I would expect that Sony upgrades the processor in the new models which would then allow to get uncompressed files. I doubt that a new buffer/processor array needs a larger camera body.
Mar 19, 2015 at 05:52 AM
p.3 #17A7rII rumour
Matt Grum wrote:
I'm sorry, I don't buy the power saving / heating / data throughput argument for a second. Firstly a lossless compressed A7 raw would be no larger than a lossy A7ʀ raw on average, whilst an uncompressed A7s raw would be smaller still. So why not make lossy raws compulsory only on the A7ʀ?
The compression ratio of Sony's older lossless raw is approximately 2:1 versus 3:1 for lossy compressed so there is a little difference (my Sony a900 24MP compressed lossless raws are approximately the same size as my a7r 36MP lossy compressed raws).
"Visually lossless" comes with conditions of course and for a raw file, the ultimate utility of using raw is compromised in certain situations where "visually lossless" breaks down, however rare. Maybe Sony should rename these files jpeg raws or something similar because calling them "raw" is just as much a contradiction of terms/ oxymoron.
I'm sorry, I don't buy the power saving / heating / data throughput argument for a second. Firstly a lossless compressed A7 raw would be no larger than a lossy A7ʀ raw on average, whilst an uncompressed A7s raw would be smaller still. So why not make lossy raws compulsory only on the A7ʀ?
The compression ratio of Sony's older lossless raw is approximately 2:1 versus 3:1 for lossy compressed so there is a little difference (my Sony a900 24MP compressed lossless raws are approximately the same size as my a7r 36MP lossy compressed raws).
"Visually lossless" comes with conditions of course and for a raw file, the ultimate utility of using raw is compromised in certain situations where "visually lossless" breaks down, however rare. Maybe Sony should rename these files jpeg raws or something similar because calling them "raw" is just as much a contradiction of terms/ oxymoron.
Mar 19, 2015 at 05:59 AM
p.3 #18A7rII rumour
ecarlino wrote:
HOWEVER, you are incorrect regarding the heat, etc.
LOSSY requires less CPU to generate and the resulting files will be significantly smaller.
Lossy requires more computation (note it wont be done by a CPU but by some parallel ASIC) to generate the files as each block requires many calculations to encode. It does however require less time to move files into the buffer, get them out again, and write them to the memory card.
ecarlino wrote:
In such a tiny camera body and so close to the sensor, heat becomes a major issue.
So your argument is "they have to use lossy compression otherwise there would be too much heat in the small camera body".
If that is the case, then:
The answer is that it's nothing to do with heat, and everything to do with Sony not believing there is any downside, and thus compressing raws is "common sense".
ecarlino wrote:
It also affects the whole data chain - everything would either have to be bigger/faster (buffer, etc), or burst mode shooting would be reduced.
Burst mode shooting would have to be reduced (just like the highest resolution options on Canon/Nikon cameras). That is all.
ecarlino wrote:
Perhaps a larger body (a7ii or a-mount) is the solution.
They already have a larger A-mount body, the A99, and guess what: it doesn't have a lossless option.
HOWEVER, you are incorrect regarding the heat, etc.
LOSSY requires less CPU to generate and the resulting files will be significantly smaller.
Lossy requires more computation (note it wont be done by a CPU but by some parallel ASIC) to generate the files as each block requires many calculations to encode. It does however require less time to move files into the buffer, get them out again, and write them to the memory card.
ecarlino wrote:
In such a tiny camera body and so close to the sensor, heat becomes a major issue.
So your argument is "they have to use lossy compression otherwise there would be too much heat in the small camera body".
If that is the case, then:
- Why doesn't the A7ʀ overheat, as it produces bigger files than the A7?
- Why doesn't the A7s not offer a lossless option as that would generate less heat than the lossy operation of the A7?
- Why don't any of newer SLT models with their large bodies offer a lossless option?
- Why did they develop the lossy compression scheme before the advent of mirrorless cameras when heat wasn't a problem?
The answer is that it's nothing to do with heat, and everything to do with Sony not believing there is any downside, and thus compressing raws is "common sense".
ecarlino wrote:
It also affects the whole data chain - everything would either have to be bigger/faster (buffer, etc), or burst mode shooting would be reduced.
Burst mode shooting would have to be reduced (just like the highest resolution options on Canon/Nikon cameras). That is all.
ecarlino wrote:
Perhaps a larger body (a7ii or a-mount) is the solution.
They already have a larger A-mount body, the A99, and guess what: it doesn't have a lossless option.
Mar 19, 2015 at 06:07 AM
p.3 #19A7rII rumour
Matt Grum wrote:
The answer is that it's nothing to do with heat, and everything to do with Sony not believing there is any downside, and thus compressing raws is "common sense".
There was a time when it was common place for Sony to force no option, "common sense" formats onto the consumers of their products. That often did not turn out so well for them. In general, consumers do want options and Sony of all companies should have learned that lesson long ago.
It has been reported by users that the a99 does in fact have a hidden lossless compressed raw mode when used at slower frame rates.
The answer is that it's nothing to do with heat, and everything to do with Sony not believing there is any downside, and thus compressing raws is "common sense".
There was a time when it was common place for Sony to force no option, "common sense" formats onto the consumers of their products. That often did not turn out so well for them. In general, consumers do want options and Sony of all companies should have learned that lesson long ago.
It has been reported by users that the a99 does in fact have a hidden lossless compressed raw mode when used at slower frame rates.
Mar 19, 2015 at 06:19 AM
p.3 #20A7rII rumour
Matt Grum wrote:
LOSSY requires less CPU to generate and the resulting files will be significantly smaller.Lossy requires more computation (note it wont be done by a CPU but by some parallel ASIC) to generate the files as each block requires many calculations to encode. It does however require less time to move files into the buffer, get them out again, and write them to the memory card.
So your argument is "they have to use lossy compression otherwise there would be too much heat in the small camera body".
If that is the case, then:
The answer is that it's nothing to do with heat, and everything to do with Sony not believing there is any downside, and thus compressing raws is "common sense".
Burst mode shooting would have to be reduced (just like the highest resolution options on Canon/Nikon cameras). That is all.
They already have a larger A-mount body, the A99, and guess what: it doesn't have a lossless option.
...Show more →
you are INCORRECT to suggest that LOSSY requires more computation than LOSSLESS. the advantages to designers of using LOSSY over LOSSLESS are: simpler computation and smaller resulting file size.
my comments regarding heat are not my own, but rather from conversations with people much smarter than me (2 of whom would be well known to most people frequenting these boards) and it makes sense. generally, using LOSSLESS will require an increase in the computational power and bandwidth of the entire system - that would require larger space and generate more heat. Heat being a major problem for sensors, so heat dissipation would be an issue. In the a7 series body size is at a premium. In the a-mount, I have no idea, but could guess that 'cheaper parts' were also a priority.
ecarlino wrote
HOWEVER, you are incorrect regarding the heat, etc.LOSSY requires less CPU to generate and the resulting files will be significantly smaller.
ecarlino wrote
In such a tiny camera body and so close to the sensor, heat becomes a major issue.If that is the case, then:
- Why doesn't the A7ʀ overheat, as it produces bigger files than the A7?
- Why doesn't the A7s not offer a lossless option
The answer is that it's nothing to do with heat, and everything to do with Sony not believing there is any downside, and thus compressing raws is "common sense".
Burst mode shooting would have to be reduced (just like the highest resolution options on Canon/Nikon cameras). That is all.
They already have a larger A-mount body, the A99, and guess what: it doesn't have a lossless option.
...Show more →
ecarlino wrote
It also affects the whole data chain - everything would either have to be bigger/faster (buffer, etc), or burst mode shooting would be reduced.ecarlino wrote
Perhaps a larger body (a7ii or a-mount) is the solution.you are INCORRECT to suggest that LOSSY requires more computation than LOSSLESS. the advantages to designers of using LOSSY over LOSSLESS are: simpler computation and smaller resulting file size.
my comments regarding heat are not my own, but rather from conversations with people much smarter than me (2 of whom would be well known to most people frequenting these boards) and it makes sense. generally, using LOSSLESS will require an increase in the computational power and bandwidth of the entire system - that would require larger space and generate more heat. Heat being a major problem for sensors, so heat dissipation would be an issue. In the a7 series body size is at a premium. In the a-mount, I have no idea, but could guess that 'cheaper parts' were also a priority.
Mar 19, 2015 at 06:37 AM