Chris_88 wrote:
How long will it take for the first guy to bitch that his computer can't handle those files.
Wouldn't the exact opposite happen ? One thing I've noticed is that Capture One feels faster in use with files from a Canon 5DS R than ones from the A7RII, as if there was less computing involved in processing them.
Do you have any uncompressed D810 RAWs to hand? I think the manual may be wrong - the uncompressed file at 14-bit per pixel and 7360x4920 pixels should be 60.3 MB + metadata & thumbnail.
An uncompressed RAW from the A7R II should be about 70.8 MB + up to around 1.5 MB in metadata and embedded JPEG thumbnail.
Matt Grum wrote:
Do you have any uncompressed D810 RAWs to hand? I think the manual may be wrong - the uncompressed file at 14-bit per pixel and 7360x4920 pixels should be 60.3 MB + metadata & thumbnail.
An uncompressed RAW from the A7R II should be about 70.8 MB + up to around 1.5 MB in metadata and embedded JPEG thumbnail.
Hi Matt...
No, unfortunately I don't own a D810, so the data from the user manual was as close as I could get.
Sep 15, 2015 at 06:34 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Chris_88 wrote:
It's nice to see them actually reacting to user requests. Better late than never, I guess.
However, I'm curious about two things: 1. How long will it take for the first guy to bitch that his computer can't handle those files. 2. Is going to satisfy the "I can't get no satisfaction (from any camera not called D810) crowd" (e.g. Ming Thein or Lloyd Chambers) .
Answer to no 1 - five minutes
Answer to no 2 - no, now lossless compression will be seen as so very much better.
Matt Grum wrote:
Do you have any uncompressed D810 RAWs to hand? I think the manual may be wrong - the uncompressed file at 14-bit per pixel and 7360x4920 pixels should be 60.3 MB + metadata & thumbnail.
An uncompressed RAW from the A7R II should be about 70.8 MB + up to around 1.5 MB in metadata and embedded JPEG thumbnail.
Supposedly Nikon actually stores 16bits by adding two dummy ones, to speed up processing. So the file is actually 16bit per channel.
ecarlino wrote:
Someone schooled me a way back that a lossless algo was more involved than a lossy one (even though I was a comp sci major, I had that reversed in my memory).
Lossy compression algorithms can be simple and fast (Nikon/Sony lossy RAW) or complex and computationally expensive (JPEG / wavelet compression).
Any effective lossless algorithm will be more involved than a simple lossless scheme (but not necessarily any more involved than the most complex lossy one, see h.265 for example!)
The ITU-T81 algorithm that Canon use for lossless compression is certainly more complex than the existing Sony lossy algorithm, which is why the only alternative might be completely uncompressed, at first.
I simply don't believe the hardware isn't capable of doing lossless compression (after all they can resample the entire RAW file to implement distortion and CA correction), but there will be much more development work and testing required.
ecarlino wrote:
The real question is how early in the pipeline are they dumping the data, because as Lloyd and others have recently speculated, some of the artifacts that are sometimes noticed may be the result of cooking raw files rather than the lossy algo itself.
It's very easy to tell what artifacts are caused by lossy compression - you can read the compression levels straight out of the RAW file. It's harder to tell what could be the result of RAW cooking and what is noise or part of the actual image!
In all likelihood they will dump it at the end of the pipeline after all RAW cooking has taken place (just before the lossy compresson would kick in).
ecarlino wrote:
Hopefully this means the next gen will have an upgraded BIONZX that can process/save uncooked lossless compressed raw.
Only if the same number of people complain about lack of lossless option and about CA correction being baked into RAW files!
KiboOst wrote:
... will 14bit uncompressed work for bulb mode, and will it change chroma noise ?? This is what prevent me from changing my A7R to II actually ...
Exactly - if this would be fixed in this firmware update also, it would at once remove the two main issues I currently see with the A7R II. It would be nice if the 14bit uncompressed RAW would be also made available for the A7/A7R/A7S series and not just for the latest camera models.
Why do I really wish the official statement made mention of "lossless"...I'm sure it's not the case but wouldn't it be funny - not "ha ha" funny - if Sony gave us uncompressed, lossy raw dumped from the Bionz processor (if that processor say was not capable of lossless).
cputeq wrote:
Hopefully they can upgrade some of their older bodies, but this is Sony. They'd much rather sell you their correction in the form of a new body
I hope this is not the case, but you might be right. I am pretty sure this firmware upgrade would work even for the now older A7 system, but it is possible that Sony marketing wants to push A7(R, S) II series products by only uppgrading the latest camera products. It will be interesting to see what happens here!
I wonder if we can get the message across to Sony that lossless compression as well as no compression are what's preferred. It sounds like there may be a month + before the firmware is available (if it's offered on the Ar7ii some time after the A7Sii ships).
retrofocus wrote:
I hope this is not the case, but you might be right. I am pretty sure this firmware upgrade would work even for the now older A7 system, but it is possible that Sony marketing wants to push A7(R, S) II series products by only uppgrading the latest camera products. It will be interesting to see what happens here!
Sony's choice here will definitely affect this customers future Sony loyalty/ purchase decisions.
Matt Grum wrote:
Only if the same number of people complain about lack of lossless option and about CA correction being baked into RAW files!
Hmmm, are you sure that CA correction is always baked into the raw file?
I ask because I can turn this feature off under Lens Comp. (Chro. Aber. Comp. = Off) when shooting in raw only and with a native FE lens. Or are we not talking about the same thing?
.
