AJay wrote:
I can't speak for the A7RVI but I have used all sorts of other Sony cameras and could never tell the difference and always shoot in compressed. Even when pushing the grading, exposure, etc. -- no difference that I can see.
I nave not done tests with Sony cameras, but I have carefully compared uncompressed and lossless-compressed RAW files on other platforms and I can detect no difference whatsoever. I actually wonder why anyone uses the uncompressed version at this point.
It's a bit like FLAC vs WAV in the audio world. The FLAC compression makes absolutely no difference at all, but there's always someone who insists on having the 3x larger WAV file.
On a similar note, in the world of video I have never been able to see any difference at all between 422 10-bit vs 420 10-bit. Again, testing side-by-side footage doing extreme pushes of exposure and color. I never shoot 422, always 420. 10 bit vs 8 bit makes a BIG difference however and I always shoot in 10 bit whenever possible.
Also, unless my intention is to pull frames out of a video and make them into stills, I always shoot h.265 and not All-I.
These steps will save you all sorts of room on expensive memory chips w/o any noticeable degradation.
gdanmitchell wrote:
I nave not done tests with Sony cameras, but I have carefully compared uncompressed and lossless-compressed RAW files on other platforms and I can detect no difference whatsoever. I actually wonder why anyone uses the uncompressed version at this point.
There is no need to compare uncompressed and lossless compressed raw files visually since the uncompressed data can be generated algorithmically from the lossless compressed file, and they produce bit by bit identical RGB files after raw conversion, otherwise the format would not be lossless. Uncompressed can in some systems open faster (if the SSD or hard drive is very fast and yet processor is not that fast, I have in some cases in the past had such hardware) and/or support more software some of which might not support the compression algorithm used by the manufacturer. Currently the most important camera manufacturers' ways of producing lossless compressed files has been established sufficiently that software support is usually quite fast to appear when the camera is launched, but some of the technically-lossy but visually-(almost)-lossless compression methods might not be instantly supported by all software along with the uncompressed. So there can be reasons to use those formats.
AJay wrote:
On a similar note, in the world of video I have never been able to see any difference at all between 422 10-bit vs 420 10-bit. Again, testing side-by-side footage doing extreme pushes of exposure and color. I never shoot 422, always 420. 10 bit vs 8 bit makes a BIG difference however and I always shoot in 10 bit whenever possible.
Also, unless my intention is to pull frames out of a video and make them into stills, I always shoot h.265 and not All-I.
These steps will save you all sorts of room on expensive memory chips w/o any noticeable degradation....Show more →
If you take video of a subject which has a lot of colorful texture (such as the costumes at a samba carnival) it should be possible to see the difference between 4:2:2 and 4:2:0 when looking at the frozen image at the pixel level, and to my eye, the richness of the color for Prores 422 HQ vs. h.265 4:2:0 10-bit is evident, but if you asked me to prove that it matters when the final image is output at h.254 8-bit 4:2:0 then I wouldn't bet quite as much on it. I would need to do some more testing. :-)
ilkka_nissila wrote:
There is no need to compare uncompressed and lossless compressed raw files visually since the uncompressed data can be generated algorithmically from the lossless compressed file, and they produce bit by bit identical RGB files after raw conversion, otherwise the format would not be lossless.
You and I both know that, but I tested it anyway at a couple points just to demonstrate to the non-believers… ;-)
ilkka_nissila wrote:
If you take video of a subject which has a lot of colorful texture (such as the costumes at a samba carnival) it should be possible to see the difference between 4:2:2 and 4:2:0 when looking at the frozen image at the pixel level, and to my eye, the richness of the color for Prores 422 HQ vs. h.265 4:2:0 10-bit is evident, but if you asked me to prove that it matters when the final image is output at h.254 8-bit 4:2:0 then I wouldn't bet quite as much on it. I would need to do some more testing. :-) ...Show more →
Here's a comparison I did a few years ago, JPG vs HEIF 4:4:4 vs HEIF 4:2:2 vs 4:2:0
To be clear, uncompressed RAW is not what doc4x5 was asking about - Sony no longer offers uncompressed RAW so it’s not even a choice. The three RAW format options available on the A7R6 are Lossless Compressed, and two levels of lossy - Compressed (HQ) and Compressed.
I feel like using the lossless compressor for single frame and low ISO, but regular compression for 20-30FPS and high ISO (hi gain, non DGO) where there is more noise anyway.
