JPEG files are adequate when you want to use the images SOOC for web use, or do very little post-production work. RAW files are significantly more malleable so you can extract the most detail out of your images and make all kinds of edits while still preserving the integrity of your original files.
molson wrote:
Which I guess proves Ken Rockwell was right - JPEGS really are good enough!
When you set up picture styles correctly, or make your own custom ones and upload to the camera, and you nail the exposure, jpegs are more than sufficient fire anything including large prints. Raw comes into play when you have to fix something.
kezeka wrote:
Just going through the information again here, so mechanical and first curtain electronic at 12fps is 13 but raw, at 8 FPS is 14-but raw.
I'm trying to learn about this. I looked it up and most of the hits talk about colour when dropping from 14 to 12 bits. That's pretty basic. What else is effected? Is it still RAW?
Also about that uncompressed option. I we can select it then why the concern? If anyone could take a few minutes do a quick summary it would be very helpful as I continue to explore this on the net.
Zenon Char wrote:
I'm trying to learn about this. I looked it up and most of the hits talk about colour when dropping from 14 to 12 bits. That's pretty basic. What else is effected? Is it still RAW?
Also about that uncompressed option. I we can select it then why the concern? If anyone could take a few minutes do a quick summary it would be very helpful as I continue to explore this on the net.
Zenon Char wrote:
This is all new to me. So if choose uncompressed the I'll get 14 bit at 12 fps?
No, the Sony cameras drop you down to 12-bit in many different modes, regardless of how you set the file compression. If you also choose compressed RAW, you end up with not much more than a bloated JPEG file, which I guess is okay of you're one of those people who claim they can't (or won't) see a difference...
molson wrote:
No, the Sony cameras drop you down to 12-bit in many different modes, regardless of how you set the file compression. If you also choose compressed RAW, you end up with not much more than a bloated JPEG file, which I guess is okay of you're one of those people who claim they can't (or won't) see a difference...
I see. You want uncompressed RAW. Thanks very much.
molson wrote:
No, the Sony cameras drop you down to 12-bit in many different modes, regardless of how you set the file compression. If you also choose compressed RAW, you end up with not much more than a bloated JPEG file, which I guess is okay of you're one of those people who claim they can't (or won't) see a difference...
Uncompressed RAW is 14-bit in every mode as confirmed by Jim Kasson. The downside is that uncompressed RAW the FPS drops from 10 to 6.
Zenon Char wrote:
I see. You want uncompressed RAW. Thanks very much.
(May sound picky, but I think the issue here is whether the compression is lossless or lossy, not whether it compressed or not.)
molson wrote:
If you also choose compressed RAW, you end up with not much more than a bloated JPEG file, which I guess is okay of you're one of those people who claim they can't (or won't) see a difference...
Can you elaborate on this more or show me where or how the IQ of raw vs C-raw file is different?
I ask because I'm apparently one of "those people" that can't see a difference. I've been shooting C-raw for the past year and asked specifically here on FM if anyone could tell or show me the difference and nobody did or could.
If I'm leaving some goodness on the table I'd like to know.
