justruss wrote:
I predict very, very little change-- and some of the louder voices calling for uncompressed RAW to try the new option and then quietly return to shooting lossy, compressed RAW.
Agree. The file size penalty will be too big for the insurance value.
First we will have the new topics "I still see posterization in blue skies with uncompressed raw".
Posterization in areas without high contrast details was not caused by the compression.
alundeb wrote:
First we will have the new topics "I still see posterization in blue skies with uncompressed raw".
Posterization in areas without high contrast details was not caused by the compression.
i'm curious about this because none of the posterization explanations i've heard attributing it to lossy compression make much sense to me, but my a7 and rx1 are clearly more prone to it than any of the other cameras i've had. what do think the cause is?
sebboh wrote:
i'm curious about this because none of the posterization explanations i've heard attributing it to lossy compression make much sense to me, but my a7 and rx1 are clearly more prone to it than any of the other cameras i've had. what do think the cause is?
I have not seen it in my A7r, stretching low contrast low gradation areas to the extreme, and don't have any suggested explanation in general. It would need to be investigated in each case. Posterization is always visible with my Sony files in the preview in CaptureOne though, due to the simplified processing, but not in the TIFF output.
alundeb wrote:
I have not seen it in my A7r, stretching low contrast low gradation areas to the extreme, and don't have any suggested explanation in general. It would need to be investigated in each case. Posterization is always visible with my Sony files in the preview in CaptureOne though, due to the simplified processing, but not in the TIFF output.
I thought that the vast majority of Sony posterization cases was the result of cooked RAW-- specifically peripheral illumination correction (or whatever it is they call the feature to correct light falloff).
I haven't seen it yet after a few weeks with an A7rII and 28mm f/2 (with correction on, I believe). But I also haven't really processed much, and have only been reviewing on my 12 inch retina Macbook (which takes some time to render the previews!).
alundeb wrote:
I have not seen it in my A7r, stretching low contrast low gradation areas to the extreme, and don't have any suggested explanation in general. It would need to be investigated in each case. Posterization is always visible with my Sony files in the preview in CaptureOne though, due to the simplified processing, but not in the TIFF output.
justruss wrote:
I thought that the vast majority of Sony posterization cases was the result of cooked RAW-- specifically peripheral illumination correction (or whatever it is they call the feature to correct light falloff).
I haven't seen it yet after a few weeks with an A7rII and 28mm f/2 (with correction on, I believe). But I also haven't really processed much, and have only been reviewing on my 12 inch retina Macbook (which takes some time to render the previews!).
i don't know about the a7r or a7rII, but my a7 and rx1 always have corrections turned off and i seem to have posterization issues much more frequently than on other cameras i've used. pretty much every time there is a large chunk of blue sky in the frame.
johnvanr wrote:
Really? Fuji has always done this. Olympus has just announced another major firmware upgrade for its E-M1.
Sony charges an arm and a leg to upgrade the A7R to the camera it should have been in the first place.
And they haven't told us how far back they will go: A7 II? A7S? A7R? A7? Fuji and Olympus go way back with their updates. We still have to see what Sony does.
And now Sony apparently introduces uncompressed RAW, while others offer lossless compressed RAW. I've never been bothered by this RAW issue, so I wasn't one of the complainers. Still, even with this step, Sony isn't matching what others offer in terms of a combination of optimal file size and optimal image quality.
In short, I beg to differ with your high opinion of Sony listening to their customers....Show more →
Let me know when Olympus and Fuji offer a FF mirrorless camera. Sony did that and has then modified it fairly well, although not perfectly, and largely based on the typical comments found in any forum. I think this is commendable.
ecarlino wrote:
Lee, as the perennial "most abrasive poster" around here (me, not you) I like your style, but have to suggest that the most likely explanation for uncompressed rather than lossless compressed has something to do with hardware that can't be modified. Hopefully this small step forward is an indication that the next gen of hardware may offer lossless compressed.
Haha I try to be constructive and helpful as much as I can, but when it comes to Sony intentionally crippling the first A7 generation so they could sell a second A7 generation barely a year later...I'm gonna tell the truth.
I'm sure you're right about why they can't retrofit lossless compression into older cameras, but based on the timing of these announcements they obviously knew they were going to be changing the raw while they were developing the A7sII so it should've appeared there.
JohnJ wrote:
Let me know when Olympus and Fuji offer a FF mirrorless camera. Sony did that and has then modified it fairly well, although not perfectly, and largely based on the typical comments found in any forum. I think this is commendable.
Meh. Other than IBIS and PDAF pixels most of what they changed in the second generation absolutely should've been there in the first. Most of the flaws of the first A7 like the unusable grip could've been avoided by looking at any Canon or Nikon from the last 15-20 years. It's not like we're talking about innovations here.
sebboh wrote:
i'm curious about this because none of the posterization explanations i've heard attributing it to lossy compression make much sense to me, but my a7 and rx1 are clearly more prone to it than any of the other cameras i've had. what do think the cause is?
Could be the dyes used in the CFA and the resulting colour transformations which may stretch a small portion of one channel out to the point where posterisation becomes visible.
Wow Lee, how did you get access to the top secret Sony plans! Any more info you can share?
I guess Sony was taking cues from the Canon EOS M....?
If you can't tell, I'm skeptical of your conspiracy theories on this one....
-Tim
Lee Saxon wrote:
Haha I try to be constructive and helpful as much as I can, but when it comes to Sony intentionally crippling the first A7 generation so they could sell a second A7 generation barely a year later...I'm gonna tell the truth.
I'm sure you're right about why they can't retrofit lossless compression into older cameras, but based on the timing of these announcements they obviously knew they were going to be changing the raw while they were developing the A7sII so it should've appeared there.
Meh. Other than IBIS and PDAF pixels most of what they changed in the second generation absolutely should've been there in the first. Most of the flaws of the first A7 like the unusable grip could've been avoided by looking at any Canon or Nikon from the last 15-20 years. It's not like we're talking about innovations here....Show more →
Lee Saxon wrote:
If they're not offering lossless compression at least as an option, it's because they're too lazy to implement it or because they're intentionally being assholes, no other reasons.
It's nothing to do with laziness, it's all down to cost. It costs money to develop and test new features. If the expected revenue to be gained from having lossless compression is less than the cost to implement it then it doesn't make commercial sense for them to do so, when they can offer uncompressed to anyone who objects to the artifacts (or even the idea that some data is lost). The same applies to rolling out the changes to older camera models.
"intentionally being assholes" is also not a sound business strategy.
Lee Saxon wrote:
when it comes to Sony intentionally crippling the first A7 generation so they could sell a second A7 generation barely a year later...
Seriously? You think they had IBIS, BSI sensors, internal 4K all developed, tested and ready to go, but thought, let's release cameras without them first? Sony's strategy is clearly to pursue an aggressive development schedule and get features out ahead of the competition in order to win market share. They're forced to do this because they can't rely on their brand name, history, lens catalogue, or userbase. Unfortunately for some this means new models are released sooner than expected and the resale value of earlier generations decreases.
I don't think sitting on new technology doing nothing with it for over a year fits in with this strategy...
Spyro P. wrote:
Fuji released a camera that a lot of people bought. Good camera or bad camera, better than the competition, worse than the competition, it doesn't matter because the fact is that those people bought it for whatever reason. Done, sold, cash collected. Fuji could easily make a lot of those people buy it again (XT2 now with improved AF! etc) but instead they chose to give a free upgrade. And those people are therefore happy and $1.2k less poor. Not sure what's so hard to understand.
Back on topic: well done to Sony, once again, they're on a roll
Hopefully it will put some added pressure to the giants ...Show more →
It's a Catch-22 though. They improve their existing camera which keeps existing buyers happy and probably minimizes their R&D costs, but doesn't add to their bottom line by not selling newer cameras. They want to sell more cameras and they can do so by releasing substantial improvements in a new camera.
alundeb wrote:
First we will have the new topics "I still see posterization in blue skies with uncompressed raw".
Posterization in areas without high contrast details was not caused by the compression.
Compression is involved in the posterization issue, it just isn't the sole factor in causing the posterization and the compression step that causes posterization is different from the step that causes high contrast artifacts. Since there is more than one factor involved in posterization it is hard to say how much lossless will help, but it should help to some degree.
kwalsh wrote:
Compression is involved in the posterization issue, it just isn't the sole factor in causing the posterization and the compression step that causes posterization is different from the step that causes high contrast artifacts. Since there is more than one factor involved in posterization it is hard to say how much lossless will help, but it should help to some degree.
I assume you refer to the 11 bits nonlinear. The part of the posterization that could be a result of this, wouldn't that be visible as a pattern following the patches / stripes of grouped pixels from the encoding scheme?
Matt Grum wrote:
Seriously? You think they had IBIS, BSI sensors, internal 4K all developed, tested and ready to go, but thought, let's release cameras without them first? Sony's strategy is clearly to pursue an aggressive development schedule and get features out ahead of the competition in order to win market share. They're forced to do this because they can't rely on their brand name, history, lens catalogue, or userbase. Unfortunately for some this means new models are released sooner than expected and the resale value of earlier generations decreases.
If you'll look back you'll see that I specifically excluded real features such as IBIS or PDAF pixels. I'm talking about things like having an unusable grip, lossy raw compression, a battery they couldn't possibly think is big enough.
But now that I think about it the amount of stuff they weren't able to get ready in the however many years they were planning the A7's while testing the water with the NEX's, but which they were able to pull together in the less-than-two-years since...sure is impressive. Funny how fast their R&D suddenly got.
Planned obsolescence is how consumer electronics companies work. How all of them work. It's how Nikon and Canon work too, we just don't notice it quite as much because since they're not hailing from the consumer electronics business their philosophy is longer lifespans. A few years ago on Reduser someone found documents detailing the exact date that Sony had planned to finally retire their $100k-overpriced cost-nothing-to-produce-at-this-point 1080p CineAltas and introduce 4K cameras if the Red One hadn't come along - a date some five years in the future. Sony knew what features were going to be the A7rIII before they released the A7rI, and they'd probably done a big chunk of the R&D for it. That's how this works. don't see any point in being in denial about it.
JohnJ wrote:
Let me know when Olympus and Fuji offer a FF mirrorless camera. Sony did that and has then modified it fairly well, although not perfectly, and largely based on the typical comments found in any forum. I think this is commendable.
What does sensor size have to do with customer orientation? I for one hope Olympus will keep its sensor small, so the gear stays small. I think Fuji is moving toward a compromise of a smallish sensor and largish lenses, which seems a losing battle to me long term, as Sony will beat them on the IQ front while having gear only marginally larger.
alundeb wrote:
Agree. The file size penalty will be too big for the insurance value.
I don't know about that, Anders.
Having peace of mind can be well worth the bigger size, since now you can just shot without having to analyze the scene in front of your all the time looking for areas which might cause artifacts.
I hate the idea about my raw files being less an in pristine condition if I suddenly decide when I get back home that I want to go nuts with the post processing. You never know when that is the right way to get a interesting image out of a dull capture.
Personally I'm not stressed out about that size, but I have to decide whether converting some of my photos into DNG and save space might be a solution. Hmmmm....
alundeb wrote:
I assume you refer to the 11 bits nonlinear. The part of the posterization that could be a result of this, wouldn't that be visible as a pattern following the patches / stripes of grouped pixels from the encoding scheme?
Yes the 11 bit nonlinear coding is the culprit but this would not follow a patch/stripe pattern for something like posterization of blue sky.
The algorithm is described as "11+7" meaning 11 bit non-linear companding and 7 bit delta encoding.
The first step, 11 bit companding, is *always* lossy. It is applied to every sensor value converting a 14 bit linear value from the sensor to a 11 bit non linear value. This in itself is not a bad idea if done "right" since we don't need so many levels in the highlights. The problem is Sony was too aggressive here, especially for low values, and in fact there is no portion of the curve that ever represents deltas as small as the original 14 bit linear data. Effectively the lowest values are only ever equivalent to 13 bit linear data.
The second step, 7 bit delta encoding, is only *sometimes* lossy. When there isn't high contrast in a stripe then the 7 bit delta encoding actually perfectly represents the "original" 11 bit companded values. It is only when there is high contrast that the 7 bit deltas are scaled and now the recovered 11 bit non linear values have additional quantization/rounding. For the case of a uniform blue sky the 7 bit delta encoding would be "lossless" during this step. For something like star trails with very high contrast this delta encoding step is very lossy.
Important to recall also that for something like a blue sky posterization is caused by the low valued channels - red and green. Detail, including "false detail" from posterization, comes from the least exposed channels. So a blue sky, or deep blue water, is going to be subject to posterization in the red and green raw data. That data for the Sony cRAW format is effectively only 13 bit data, not the 14 bit data you'd get from lossless compression like Nikon.
How much of a difference is 13 bit red channel vs 14 bit red channel in a blue sky really going to make in the end? Well, most of the time very little but in some cases - including digiloyd's notorious lake photo - the lossy RAW data itself clearly shows posterization and the number of red levels would in fact double if the compression had be lossless. So it certainly would help, going from 200 to 400 unique color values is not a trivial thing.
So again, for low contrast shots it is only the 11 bit companding step that is "lossy" while the 7 bit delta step is actually "lossless". That 11 bit step is only very slightly lossy, but it is always lossy. The 7 bit step is sometimes entirely lossless but in certain cases can be very lossy.
kwalsh wrote:
Yes the 11 bit nonlinear coding is the culprit but this would not follow a patch/stripe pattern for something like posterization of blue sky.
The algorithm is described as "11+7" meaning 11 bit non-linear companding and 7 bit delta encoding.
The first step, 11 bit companding, is *always* lossy. It is applied to every sensor value converting a 14 bit linear value from the sensor to a 11 bit non linear value. This in itself is not a bad idea if done "right" since we don't need so many levels in the highlights. The problem is Sony was too aggressive here, especially for low values, and in fact there is no portion of the curve that ever represents deltas as small as the original 14 bit linear data. Effectively the lowest values are only ever equivalent to 13 bit linear data.
The second step, 7 bit delta encoding, is only *sometimes* lossy. When there isn't high contrast in a stripe then the 7 bit delta encoding actually perfectly represents the "original" 11 bit companded values. It is only when there is high contrast that the 7 bit deltas are scaled and now the recovered 11 bit non linear values have additional quantization/rounding. For the case of a uniform blue sky the 7 bit delta encoding would be "lossless" during this step. For something like star trails with very high contrast this delta encoding step is very lossy.
Important to recall also that for something like a blue sky posterization is caused by the low valued channels - red and green. Detail, including "false detail" from posterization, comes from the least exposed channels. So a blue sky, or deep blue water, is going to be subject to posterization in the red and green raw data. That data for the Sony cRAW format is effectively only 13 bit data, not the 14 bit data you'd get from lossless compression like Nikon.
How much of a difference is 13 bit red channel vs 14 bit red channel in a blue sky really going to make in the end? Well, most of the time very little but in some cases - including digiloyd's notorious lake photo - the lossy RAW data itself clearly shows posterization and the number of red levels would in fact double if the compression had be lossless. So it certainly would help, going from 200 to 400 unique color values is not a trivial thing.
So again, for low contrast shots it is only the 11 bit companding step that is "lossy" while the 7 bit delta step is actually "lossless". That 11 bit step is only very slightly lossy, but it is always lossy. The 7 bit step is sometimes entirely lossless but in certain cases can be very lossy....Show more →
Thanks a lot for this explanation. Much appreciated!
Lee Saxon wrote:
If you'll look back you'll see that I specifically excluded real features such as IBIS or PDAF pixels. I'm talking about things like having an unusable grip, lossy raw compression, a battery they couldn't possibly think is big enough.
But now that I think about it the amount of stuff they weren't able to get ready in the however many years they were planning the A7's while testing the water with the NEX's, but which they were able to pull together in the less-than-two-years since...sure is impressive. Funny how fast their R&D suddenly got.
Planned obsolescence is how consumer electronics companies work. How all of them work. It's how Nikon and Canon work too, we just don't notice it quite as much because since they're not hailing from the consumer electronics business their philosophy is longer lifespans. A few years ago on Reduser someone found documents detailing the exact date that Sony had planned to finally retire their $100k-overpriced cost-nothing-to-produce-at-this-point 1080p CineAltas and introduce 4K cameras if the Red One hadn't come along - a date some five years in the future. Sony knew what features were going to be the A7rIII before they released the A7rI, and they'd probably done a big chunk of the R&D for it. That's how this works. don't see any point in being in denial about it. ...Show more →
There’s a stark difference between deliberate planned obsolescence and real technological improvements and developments that allow for better performance at a given price point over time.
Purposely holding back features is suicidal in competitive consumer electronics market segments, unless there’s some sort of collusion between the competitors, as innovation is where the value proposition lies in the consumer electronics space. Those who do not innovate in this space, die. If you, as a player in a consumer electronics space, deliberately do not put your best innovations into your current products, your competition will.
Holding back innovations only works at best, within a duopoloy, where two competitors indirectly collude to not innovate. Game theory comes into play here, as the competitive value of innovating will be immediately made null when the single other competitor reacts, thus eliminating any incentive to innovate and lengthening product life cycles. This is precisely the reason that within the duolopoly of Canon and Nikon, neither have made real efforts to go mirrorless until Sony disrupted the market and the market for prosumer cameras truly (in my mind) became a competitive one. Sony has disrupted this space by specifically deciding to innovate where Canon and Nikon did not, and now, none of them have any incentive to hold back innovations. Should be interesting times in the world of cameras.
Planned obsolescence does occur in the realm of competitive consumer electronics…but in an area that most of us don’t suspect: durability. You don’t really see this with prosumer cameras as these are specifically designed to be durable (because the demands of photographers require them to be), but you do see them most blatantly in smartphones. Glass screens surrounded by thinner bezels, non-replaceable batteries, proprietary screws, metal casings that warp when you pry them open, software updates that becomes increasingly more resource heavy etc etc . Smartphone makers have cleverly conditioned us to believe that its normal to replace $500+ cell phones every other year.
