p.1 #5 · Compression vs Lossless Compression vs No Compression
bs kite wrote:
Which of the 3 options have you chosen for saving RAW images?
Decided to post this to the Canon and Sony forums too.
Up until the recent R cameras, all Canon RAW files are losslessly compressed.
I last used lossy on a Nikon (D7100) due to the crappy little buffer, and then only for action.
p.1 #7 · Compression vs Lossless Compression vs No Compression
buffalowolff wrote:
Is there a viable reason not to use lossless compressed now that we have it in the a1?
If you would have chosen uncompressed (which I generally do), then lossless compressed is the obvious choice (once it is supported by your RAW converter of choice, of course).
On the A1, lossy compressed is one of the requirements to reach 30fps, so yes, there is a "viable" reason not to use lossless compressed - if you want 30fps.
p.1 #8 · Compression vs Lossless Compression vs No Compression
buffalowolff wrote:
Is there a viable reason not to use lossless compressed now that we have it in the a1?
Absolutely none on the camera side. On the computer side it will make processing large RAW files even slower, as lossless algorithms are CPU-intensive. Not an issue on a 24MP camera, but on 36MP+ it can be noticeable if you are not running the fastest processing setup.
The A1 likely will force 12bit lossy silently when you pick a drive mode that requires it, that's the usual Sony behaviour. In Nikon land it usually works the other way around, you can't pick the other mode when you have a non-supported Quality configuration, the shooting mode gets greyed out.
p.1 #9 · Compression vs Lossless Compression vs No Compression
Right, I mean over uncompressed, not when needing 30fps.
Tony Ross wrote:
If you would have chosen uncompressed (which I generally do), then lossless compressed is the obvious choice (once it is supported by your RAW converter of choice, of course).
On the A1, lossy compressed is one of the requirements to reach 30fps, so yes, there is a "viable" reason not to use lossless compressed - if you want 30fps.
---------------------------------------------
Pretty sure the Sony changes the 'meaning' of H+ based on what file type you are in, it doesn't override the file type based on your selected shooting speed. I might be wrong but I don't think I am.
mawz wrote:
Absolutely none on the camera side. On the computer side it will make processing large RAW files even slower, as lossless algorithms are CPU-intensive. Not an issue on a 24MP camera, but on 36MP+ it can be noticeable if you are not running the fastest processing setup.
The A1 likely will force 12bit lossy silently when you pick a drive mode that requires it, that's the usual Sony behaviour. In Nikon land it usually works the other way around, you can't pick the other mode when you have a non-supported Quality configuration, the shooting mode gets greyed out.
p.1 #10 · Compression vs Lossless Compression vs No Compression
I use lossless compressed, 14-bit virtually all of the time. The quality difference between lossless compressed and uncompressed is not visible -- however, the downside might be a bit longer write time vs uncompressed -- at least it was with my D810, I have not confirmed that with the Z!
p.1 #12 · Compression vs Lossless Compression vs No Compression
lossy compressed RAW is a no no for me. Sony's one is not too bad but if the lossy artifact occurs, there is not much that can be done so I avoid it like a plague. Never had problem with lossless compression in other cameras so at the moment, lossless compressed RAW on my Nikon and GFX, no compression on my A7r IV. Hopefully Sony will add fw to A7r IV to support lossless compressed RAW finally, after waiting for 4 itineration of A7r .
p.1 #13 · Compression vs Lossless Compression vs No Compression
Lossless compressed, 14 bit always with Nikon. I have no idea if lossy compressed is good enough so that the end result wouldn't suffer, but why even wonder about it when you can use lossless? My 20MP D500 don't really take up too much space, maybe 2GB per day of full-shooting after I toss away the obviously horrible ones, sometimes less. I have seen a few examples online of artifacts appearing and wouldn't it be sad if an awesome, 5-star printable image got marred by artifacts?
p.1 #14 · Compression vs Lossless Compression vs No Compression
suteetat wrote:
lossy compressed RAW is a no no for me. Sony's one is not too bad but if the lossy artifact occurs, there is not much that can be done so I avoid it like a plague. Never had problem with lossless compression in other cameras so at the moment, lossless compressed RAW on my Nikon and GFX, no compression on my A7r IV. Hopefully Sony will add fw to A7r IV to support lossless compressed RAW finally, after waiting for 4 itineration of A7r .
I believe it's likely that Sony will introduce the a7R V this year with the new menus and processor and EVF and save lossless RAW compression for that camera.
p.1 #16 · Compression vs Lossless Compression vs No Compression
For Nikon I usually shoot lossy compressed. I've never experienced a situation where the compression impacted my images in any noticeable way. And until recently I've never heard of an instance of the compression affecting others either. However in the past week someone discovered the compression can cause posterization rings in certain astrophotography situations, discussed here: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/64829669
p.1 #18 · Compression vs Lossless Compression vs No Compression
Lossy Compressed is extremely good on Nikon (it's a much better algorithm than say Sony's original lossy compressed algorithm from the A7 which produced visible posterization in skies often enough to note, Sony's improved their algorithm over the years).
There are some significant advantages to lossy compressed, especially 12 bit. Mostly around buffer performance on the bodies which are fast but not deep, it can give you as much as 50% more buffer.
That said, the files aren't that much smaller than lossless compressed, most of the performance gains come simply from the lower CPU load as lossy algorithms tend to be much lighter on the CPU than lossless.
If you aren't buffer or card space sensitive, lossless makes the most sense to me. Even if lossy is really good, why throw away data for no perceptible gain.
I do use 12 bit lossy, but only when I need buffer performance.
p.1 #20 · Compression vs Lossless Compression vs No Compression
buffalowolff wrote:
Pretty sure the Sony changes the 'meaning' of H+ based on what file type you are in, it doesn't override the file type based on your selected shooting speed. I might be wrong but I don't think I am.
Yes this is correct. You will "hear" this mistake being made in some of the early hands on reviews when the reviewers say "hey listen to 30FPS" and it sounds like 20FPS...why?... because they didn't change the camera into Lossy Compressed mode. Switching the top dial to H+ does not force the camera into Lossy Compressed. Sony made the decision to honour your compression method (and only shoot at 20FPS in H+) and not to honour the FPS you think you should be given by changing the RAW compression behind your back.
I probably would rather have had it the other way around. Set the camera to Lossless Compressed and forget about it. Shoot with the knowledge that if I go to H+ I will get 30FPS but get Lossy Compressed files. But alas, Sony chose the other route so I'll probably just end up setting the camera to Lossy Compressed like I have for all my other Sony cameras....it hasn't bothered me yet with them so don't think I'll care with the A1 either.
