p.2 #1 · Compression vs Lossless Compression vs No Compression
If lossless compress is an option I'd definitely use it (only use lossless compressed back when I shoot Nikonn). Since it's not in any of my Sony I would use lossy compressed for normal photos and switch to uncompressed for shots like evening cityscape shots. Convert to DNG seeems a good way to save some spaces, and I haven't noticed any ill effects in doing so (maybe as long as I use LR)
Really hate I have to switch between format/compression.
p.2 #5 · Compression vs Lossless Compression vs No Compression
Canon doesn't has a uncompressed option, historically it only offered lossless compressed RAW. It has removed the smaller resolution RAW files in the latest cameras, replacing them by a optional lossy compression (which achieves the same fps plus a bigger burst).
Sony has still an enfant compression support only acceptable in the A1 but... the maximum fps drops when shooting uncompressed (likely due to the huge files) or lossless compressed (likely due to heavy compression algorithms maybe not fully assisted by hardware) so users are forced to shoot lossly compressed raws at high fps. The Sony lossy compression may also cause visible artifacts in certain situations, unlike the Canon counterpart.
I'd personally shoot lossless compressed unless needing speed (Sony A1) or lacking alternatives to uncompressed (any other Sony ). Maybe I'd consider the lossy format but only in Canon (aprox. half the size of the lossless, but perhaps I couldn't be peaceful of mind, despite its artifacts are mostly visible only at 200% or 400% on pushed shadows).
p.2 #8 · Compression vs Lossless Compression vs No Compression
ytwong wrote:
If lossless compress is an option I'd definitely use it (only use lossless compressed back when I shoot Nikonn). Since it's not in any of my Sony I would use lossy compressed for normal photos and switch to uncompressed for shots like evening cityscape shots. Convert to DNG seeems a good way to save some spaces, and I haven't noticed any ill effects in doing so (maybe as long as I use LR)
Really hate I have to switch between format/compression.
p.2 #11 · Compression vs Lossless Compression vs No Compression
I've been a Sony A7R user since the A7RIII and now have an A7RIV. I've tried switching to lossy compressed for "snapshots" and back to uncompressed for the more "serious" landscape work but find that I usually forget and end up shooting lossy compressed RAW in the landscape. Very annoying. In the end, I decided to just shoot everything uncompressed RAW and buy a bigger drive every once in a while. It's a discussion that should not be necessary if Sony were to have lossless compression available. The lossless compressed files from the 102MP Fuji GFX are smaller than uncompressed RAW from the 61MP Sony A7RIV!
p.2 #13 · Compression vs Lossless Compression vs No Compression
bs kite wrote:
Which of the 3 options have you chosen for saving RAW images?
"Lossless compressed" has exactly the same information as Uncompressed, so there is no reason to not use "Lossless" vs. Uncompressed.
So I usually use "Lossless compressed" but will use Compressed for some high-volume stuff because the visual impact is imperceptible all else being equal.
Here's the overall rundown on compression / bits:
- lossless compression - no effect at all. "lossless" means just that, much like a .zip file.
- compressed - some "visually lossless" reduction of highlight detail. Might affect recovery of nearly-blown highlights.
- 14 vs 12 bit - some "visually lossless" reduction of shadow detail. Might affect recovery of shadow / dark areas. On a D500, over ISO400, there is no difference and 12-bit may be selected without penalty.
p.2 #14 · Compression vs Lossless Compression vs No Compression
I don't like the sound of compressed, so I always shoot in lossless no compression. But I shoot landscapes mostly, so no need for the higher buffer rate
p.2 #15 · Compression vs Lossless Compression vs No Compression
Dustin Gent wrote:
I don't like the sound of compressed, so I always shoot in lossless no compression. But I shoot landscapes mostly, so no need for the higher buffer rate
Lossless means compression without loss in fidelity.
Are you saying you use lossless compression or no compression?
Mar 07, 2021 at 11:40 AM
LeifGoodwin Offline • • [X]
p.2 #16 · Compression vs Lossless Compression vs No Compression
Yes, lossless compressed means the file stores exactly the same information as uncompressed.
I use 12 bit lossless compressed. Does 14 bit make any difference in highlights?
p.2 #17 · Compression vs Lossless Compression vs No Compression
LeifGoodwin wrote:
Yes, lossless compressed means the file stores exactly the same information as uncompressed.
I use 12 bit lossless compressed. Does 14 bit make any difference in highlights?
14 bit benefits the shadows, not the highlights (this is common across all systems, as there is always more highlight resolution than shadow resolution, so any increase in resolution benefits the shadows more than the highlights. With current sensor designs 12bit really captures all the available highlight data already, but not all available shadow detail at low ISO's). The only thing that affects highlight detail is compression type, because that tends to discard highlight data.
Current FF sensors show no benefit to 14bit at ISO's of 400 or up. On Nikon PDAF banding is also only ever present on 14bit files.
There's really little reason to shoot 14 bit unless you care a lot about shadow detail and shoot in the ISO 64-320 range much of the time. But there's also no downside for landscape/studio use unless you're card space limited.
p.2 #18 · Compression vs Lossless Compression vs No Compression
At this time, Sony cameras, (except for the new A1) presumably the subject of this SONY forum, do NOT have lossless compression available, much to the chagrin of myself and many others. Comments here about using lossless compression are a bit confusing to Sony users. With current Sony cameras the choices are UNCOMPRESSED with the consequence of large file sizes (A7RIV files enter Lightroom Classic as 117MB ARW files), or LOSSY COMPRESSED, (A7RIV files are about 64MB).
p.2 #19 · Compression vs Lossless Compression vs No Compression
doc4x5 wrote:
At this time, Sony cameras, (except for the new A1) presumably the subject of this SONY forum, do NOT have lossless compression available, much to the chagrin of myself and many others. Comments here about using lossless compression are a bit confusing to Sony users. With current Sony cameras the choices are UNCOMPRESSED with the consequence of large file sizes (A7RIV files enter Lightroom Classic as 117MB ARW files), or LOSSY COMPRESSED, (A7RIV files are about 64MB).
This thread is crossposted between the Sony and Nikon forums (Canon too?)
Nikon users have been using lossless compression for more than a decade now. Uncompressed is the option which many Nikon bodies lack (like the D750 and Z5)
Mar 07, 2021 at 12:18 PM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.2 #20 · Compression vs Lossless Compression vs No Compression
I shoot Canon, raw and jpeg. Raw is supposed to be lossless, but I don't really believe it. File sizes change and it's compressed so it's difficult to believe lossless compressed isn't losing any data. But I'm not really willing to go bigger than lossless compressed file size. C-raw and HEIF look interesting instead of jpeg but my body doesn't shoot those
). Maybe I'd consider the lossy format but only in Canon (aprox. half the size of the lossless, but perhaps I couldn't be peaceful of mind, despite its artifacts are mostly visible only at 200% or 400% on pushed shadows).