I would not convert my raws to DNG . Never ever touch your raws. Rule number 1
Converting them to DNGs as Matt said you lose any manufacture coding and such. Secondly programs like Capture One are not DNG friendly. I got crap from Leica S files trying to run them.
Hard drives are cheap it's just that simple. Buy more. Nothing erks me more than spending 3200 for a camera or worse spending 40K for a MF back than buying cheap SD or CF cards to save money.
As a Pro never touch your raws and never risk card failure with cheap cards. This is death. I've seen this stuff happen way to often to others.
Just sayin. If you can't handle the file sizes than consider another camera. This one is not for you.
Simply put I am not a DNG fan at all. This goes way back to the wars over this file format.
GMPhotography wrote:
I would not convert my raws to DNG . Never ever touch your raws. Rule number 1
Converting them to DNGs as Matt said you lose any manufacture coding and such. Secondly programs like Capture One are not DNG friendly. I got crap from Leica S files trying to run them.
Hard drives are cheap it's just that simple. Buy more. Nothing erks me more than spending 3200 for a camera or worse spending 40K for a MF back than buying cheap SD or CF cards to save money.
As a Pro never touch your raws and never risk card failure with cheap cards. This is death. I've seen this stuff happen way to often to others.
Just sayin. If you can't handle the file sizes than consider another camera. This one is not for you.
Simply put I am not a DNG fan at all. This goes way back to the wars over this file format. ...Show more →
I am often converting Sony RAW files into DNG files to allow post processing of photos taken with wide rangefinder lenses like the CV 12/5.6 with the Adobe DNG Flat Field Plugin which removes corner color casts extremely well with own built calibration DNG files. I never saw any kind of difference in the DNG file compared with the Sony RAW file before I started post-processing the DNG file. After converting many files from Sony RAW into DNG, I don't think that this kind of conversion is an issue. I read that the DNG format is often used with digital Leica M cameras, too.
I am not Matt, but as a programmer, that doesn't make sense me.
An array of 4096 indexed 14 bits values, where only half of them are used, does not make it a 13 bits limitation. Antisthenes confuses the index and the content. It may still be a fully valid map of 2048 true 14 bits values.
Need another espresso but truth is I have hard fast rules and one is never ever screw with your raws. I have seen dozens of folks play this space savings game and get burned bad. I can't emphasize this enough. Personally I'm out here risking my career and reputation and you don't take risks with that. Just passing on some hard rules to go by. Btw im as calm as a baby sleeping.
Now DNG many folks don't know when this format was introduced by Abobe the bloody wars broke out over it. I mean wars, it was not pretty as bottom line Adobe was trying to Take over. OEMS do NOT want to give up there special algorithms in there file format to anyone especially Adobe.
Yeah, I assumed he meant that shifting the bits is dropping the precision to 13 bits. But as written it doesn't quite make sense.
It would be really awful is there was a flaw in dcraw's handling of craw based ARW files, but you would have though it would have been exposed by know if it were the case.
retrofocus wrote:
I am often converting Sony RAW files into DNG files to allow post processing of photos taken with wide rangefinder lenses like the CV 12/5.6 with the Adobe DNG Flat Field Plugin which removes corner color casts extremely well with own built calibration DNG files. I never saw any kind of difference in the DNG file compared with the Sony RAW file before I started post-processing the DNG file. After converting many files from Sony RAW into DNG, I don't think that this kind of conversion is an issue. I read that the DNG format is often used with digital Leica M cameras, too. ...Show more →
I know many folks do the exact same thing. Not saying not do it but store your raws offline somewhere else as you never know what may happen down the line. 3 backup rule applies. I worked in the Aerospace industry for years. Triple redundancy systems was burned into my brain. Lol
He's essentially correct, as far as why the values in the uncompressed RAW appear to be 13-bit (the minimum step size is 2). I don't share his cynicism for the accuracy of the DCRAW decompression algorithm, after all it visibly works. I will reply in more detail on dpreview.
I am not a professional Guy, and while I don't have any problem with someone presenting a case as to why they think something is a bad idea, you just seemed to come on a little strong.
You know there are people out there that shoot JPEG only? And while space is somewhat cheap, I keep my RAWs on at least two devices on premises and also back them up off site. So there is some thought in balancing your purest view against some realities of other constraints.
For example, would you suggest I sacrifice off prem backup for uncompressed RAW? Or should I sacrifice uncompressed RAW for the existing lossy compressed RAW? Should I sell my camera? What price should I sell it for?
I just think there are nuances to this that really are an individuals choice.
Sorry, I have a pet peeve about people telling me what I should or shouldn't do. I have no problem with reasoning over it, but just outright demands sort of put me off.
-Tim
GMPhotography wrote:
Need another espresso but truth is I have hard fast rules and one is never ever screw with your raws. I have seen dozens of folks play this space savings game and get burned bad. I can't emphasize this enough. Personally I'm out here risking my career and reputation and you don't take risks with that. Just passing on some hard rules to go by. Btw im as calm as a baby sleeping.
Now DNG many folks don't know when this format was introduced by Abobe the bloody wars broke out over it. I mean wars, it was not pretty as bottom line Adobe was trying to Take over. OEMS do NOT want to give up there special algorithms in there file format to anyone especially Adobe. ...Show more →
p.11 #10 · Uncompressed 14 bit for A7sii and A7rii
GMPhotography wrote:
I know many folks do the exact same thing. Not saying not do it but store your raws offline somewhere else as you never know what may happen down the line. 3 backup rule applies. I worked in the Aerospace industry for years. Triple redundancy systems was burned into my brain. Lol
You are right about this - I always keep the original RAW file unchanged with copies on different drives.
p.11 #11 · Uncompressed 14 bit for A7sii and A7rii
Matt Grum wrote:
He's essentially correct, as far as why the values in the uncompressed RAW appear to be 13-bit (the minimum step size is 2). I don't share his cynicism for the accuracy of the DCRAW decompression algorithm, after all it visibly works. I will reply in more detail on dpreview.
It doesn't say anything about uncompressed data, only decompressed data. That need to be kept totally out side. Regarding decrompressed data, it is already known that the decompressed data has maximum 13 bits precision, but that has nothing to with 2048 values out of 4069 being used. What if the array was only 2048 elements, and was initialized with 2048 monotonic increasing 14 bits values. Would that make those values 13 bits? Of course not. The mimimum value step is determined by the gamma curve, or WHAT 14 bits values you initilaize with.
p.11 #13 · Uncompressed 14 bit for A7sii and A7rii
Matt Grum wrote:
He actually said:
So the 11-bit values that come out of the delta compression are used to index this LUT, which contains 13-bit values. Only half of the LUT is populated/used. It's declared with a size of 4096 as it's used for different purposes in other parts of the program.
It also happens to contain 13-bit values. Once the LUT is applied the result is bitshifted right to get a 14-bit value (with a zero LSB). The LUT could just have easily been populated with 14-bit values (this would in fact have been marginally more efficient). How ever it would have then started 0,2,4,6,8,10 instead of 0,1,2,3,4,5 - there would be no difference in practice. ...Show more →
Yes, it happens to contain 13 bits values, because it is known from the gamma curve that this is the highest resolution you can get anyway. Still all this says nothing about uncompressed RAW, only decompressed RAW.
p.11 #14 · Uncompressed 14 bit for A7sii and A7rii
In that other thread, there was some discussion that the Sony pipeline can only support 13 bit, even after the implementation of uncompressed RAW. I have to think that is not true, but I guess the proof will come from real files produced from this new firmware.
p.11 #15 · Uncompressed 14 bit for A7sii and A7rii
alundeb wrote:
Still all this says nothing about uncompressed RAW, only decompressed RAW.
Exactly, again I think people are getting confused - the original posted was explaining why on a very mechanical level the minimum step size ends up as 2. No-one knows how many bits are fed into the compression algorithm (13 or 14), this cannot be inferred from the decompression algorithm.
Bill seemed to think that because a maximum of 13 bits came out that the ADC was likely 13-bit. I completely disagree (on the basis that Nikon gets the same chips).
p.11 #16 · Uncompressed 14 bit for A7sii and A7rii
tsdevine wrote:
I am not a professional Guy, and while I don't have any problem with someone presenting a case as to why they think something is a bad idea, you just seemed to come on a little strong.
You know there are people out there that shoot JPEG only? And while space is somewhat cheap, I keep my RAWs on at least two devices on premises and also back them up off site. So there is some thought in balancing your purest view against some realities of other constraints.
For example, would you suggest I sacrifice off prem backup for uncompressed RAW? Or should I sacrifice uncompressed RAW for the existing lossy compressed RAW? Should I sell my camera? What price should I sell it for?
I just think there are nuances to this that really are an individuals choice.
Sorry, I have a pet peeve about people telling me what I should or shouldn't do. I have no problem with reasoning over it, but just outright demands sort of put me off.
Guy's advice (and I completely understand where you are coming from otherwise) is completely as would be taught in any photo class. I do find it ironic that his #1 rule (never ever touch your raws) is the one that Sony broke in the first place and why we even have this thread, Sony basically gave us fancy jpegs to begin with instead of real raws. Now we are talking about dealing with huge, silly uncompressed raws vs lossless compressed raws.
p.11 #17 · Uncompressed 14 bit for A7sii and A7rii
tsdevine wrote:
I am not a professional Guy, and while I don't have any problem with someone presenting a case as to why they think something is a bad idea, you just seemed to come on a little strong.
You know there are people out there that shoot JPEG only? And while space is somewhat cheap, I keep my RAWs on at least two devices on premises and also back them up off site. So there is some thought in balancing your purest view against some realities of other constraints.
For example, would you suggest I sacrifice off prem backup for uncompressed RAW? Or should I sacrifice uncompressed RAW for the existing lossy compressed RAW? Should I sell my camera? What price should I sell it for?
I just think there are nuances to this that really are an individuals choice.
Sorry, I have a pet peeve about people telling me what I should or shouldn't do. I have no problem with reasoning over it, but just outright demands sort of put me off.
Totally understand . I have taught 28 workshops and from my experience I have seen so many things go bad in memory cards and storage of raws that simply put there are hard fast rules that need to be applied. If it sounds like strong statements then you are correct they are. This is one area you teach the hard rules after that play all you want . There are rules to go by than there are rules to ignore. But you must have a base and all I'm saying is be very careful in this area. Other than that do what you will but it's not just being a Pro here it's coming from years of experience in digital where I have seen really bad things happen. They usually our at the worst moments too. Take the advice or don't but I'm here to help people and not see them run into this stuff. I have no agenda but to pass on what I learned. Sometimes that may not be so political correct and sorry about that. that's just me sometimes and I'm certainly intitled to my opinion as you are.
p.11 #18 · Uncompressed 14 bit for A7sii and A7rii
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Guy's advice (and I completely understand where you are coming from otherwise) is completely as would be taught in any photo class. I do find it ironic that his #1 rule (never ever touch your raws) is the one that Sony broke in the first place and why we even have this thread, Sony basically gave us fancy jpegs to begin with instead of real raws. Now were are talking about dealing with huge, silly uncompressed raws vs lossless compressed raws.
I'm ROTFLMAO. Too funny. If the files get bigger we need to figure out how to deal with them in a proper way. Trying to save hard drive space when hard drives are pretty cheap now is something we just need to be careful of. I read this thread and my gut reaction right away reading between the lines is I might want to think about even faster SD cards now. I know OT but the Lexar 2000 might be a great choice,
Anyway carry on with the math stuff guys you know I get off the bus on this stuff but love to hear the end results.
p.11 #19 · Uncompressed 14 bit for A7sii and A7rii
You are definitely entitled to your opinion Guy, and I'm not saying you don't raise good points. But your points were intermingled with biblical "Thou shalt not.." statements which come across as condescending, and for some people it will ultimately undermine the point you are trying to make.
Anyway, let's just let this thread move along. My decision will be based on the information we'll have after we get real RAW files from this firmware. We can then confirm the size, look at whether it just resolves the high contrast area issue, or whether it helps with posterization that some have seen. If It's mainly the high contrast area issue, I might stick with the lossy compressed except for critical shooting or when I believe there would be an issue with the lossy compression. If it impacts both the high contrast area issue, and posterization, then I'd be inclined to always shoot uncompressed RAW. Then I have to decide whether I stick with the ARW files, or consider converting to DNG, etc.
Bottom line is I want lossless compressed RAW, but that isn't going to happen with this firmware release.
-Tim
GMPhotography wrote:
Totally understand . I have taught 28 workshops and from my experience I have seen so many things go bad in memory cards and storage of raws that simply put there are hard fast rules that need to be applied. If it sounds like strong statements then you are correct they are. This is one area you teach the hard rules after that play all you want . There are rules to go by than there are rules to ignore. But you must have a base and all I'm saying is be very careful in this area. Other than that do what you will but it's not just being a Pro here it's coming from years of experience in digital where I have seen really bad things happen. They usually our at the worst moments too. Take the advice or don't but I'm here to help people and not see them run into this stuff. I have no agenda but to pass on what I learned. Sometimes that may not be so political correct and sorry about that. that's just me sometimes and I'm certainly intitled to my opinion as you are. ...Show more →
p.11 #20 · Uncompressed 14 bit for A7sii and A7rii
GMPhotography wrote:
I'm ROTFLMAO. Too funny. If the files get bigger we need to figure out how to deal with them in a proper way. Trying to save hard drive space when hard drives are pretty cheap now is something we just need to be careful of. I read this thread and my gut reaction right away reading between the lines is I might want to think about even faster SD cards now. I know OT but the Lexar 2000 might be a great choice,
Anyway carry on with the math stuff guys you know I get off the bus on this stuff but love to hear the end results. ...Show more →
Just OT a bit but having recently started using compact flash cards again with another camera, I'm amazed at the speed advantage the better ones hold over their counterpart SD siblings (compare Sandisk Extreme Pro for both formats). Not only that but at some point SD cards got really flimsy and cheap with regard to build quality. I have had Sandisk Extreme Pro SD cards just break at their thinnest point recently near the contacts. By contrast, the big compact flash cards are very robust and stiff. Maybe that Lexar 2000 SD card would be even faster but I know from recently buying a Lexar 1000x SD card they are unfortunately flimsy with regard to build quality as well. I think this must have to do with the extra contacts needed for these faster, higher capacity SD cards.
Now we are talking about dealing with huge, silly uncompressed raws vs lossless compressed raws.