Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
Thread started 06 Feb 2012 (Monday) 22:30
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Not 36MP!!

 
RhysPhotograph.Me
Senior Member
Avatar
504 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Nov 2011
     
Feb 21, 2012 06:37 |  #211
bannedPermanent ban

^^^
No, with my D700, I can set it to compress the raw (nef) file to save on file size, my raw files are typically only 12mb. This is a lossless conversion, which mean no information is lost.


Wedding photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
smorter
Goldmember
Avatar
4,506 posts
Likes: 19
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Feb 21, 2012 07:09 |  #212

You can't lose what's not there in the first place!


Wedding Photography Melbourneexternal link
Reviews: 85LII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mwsilver
Goldmember
4,034 posts
Gallery: 54 photos
Likes: 604
Joined Oct 2011
Location: Central New Jersey
     
Feb 21, 2012 07:33 |  #213

RhysPhotograph.Me wrote in post #13934813 (external link)
^^^
No, with my D700, I can set it to compress the raw (nef) file to save on file size, my raw files are typically only 12mb. This is a lossless conversion, which mean no information is lost.

I actually just did a little research on RAW, MRAW and SRAW, including two scholarly papers which I barely understood, and lots of posts by camera owners. As you might expect, opinions on this question are all over the place.

The thing aboput lossless technology, something I know a bit about as a high-end audio enthusiast, is that there is no free lunch. Less is less. On a highly resolving, high-end system, formats such as apple lossless noticeably degrade the sound when compared to uncompressed files.

Whether we're talking about sound files or RAW image files, if the lossless file formats results were absolutely identical in every respect, why would anyone ever use a larger format?

The real question is, I believe, is whether the results from raw and mraw are visually identical in every respect in a 100% crop and whether there is any difference in the results when processing the raw file in each size. I have no experience with this and therefore no opinion, but I think until size becomes a real storage issue I will probably tend to continue using RAW just to be sure.


Mark
Canon 7D2, 60D, T3i, T2i, Sigma 18-35 f/1.8, 30 f/1.4. Canon EF 70-200 L f/4 IS, EF 35 f/2 IS, EFs 10-18 STM, EFs 15-85, EFs 18-200, EF 50 f/1.8 STM, Tamron 18-270 PZD, B+W MRC CPL, Canon 320EX, Vanguard Alta Pro 254CT & SBH 250 head. RODE Stereo Videomic Pro, DXO PhotoLab Elite, ON1

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mafoo
Goldmember
Avatar
1,503 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Dec 2011
     
Feb 21, 2012 08:05 |  #214

mwsilver wrote in post #13934946 (external link)
Whether we're talking about sound files or RAW image files, if the lossless file formats results were absolutely identical in every respect, why would anyone ever use a larger format?

I know nothing about how the D700 does it's compression, but I can answer this.

Let's say I had 100 buckets in a row, and people who wanted to donate funds could just drop money into whatever bucket they wanted.

If at the end of the night, I needed to record how much money was in each bucket, I could just make a list from 1 to 100 (one for each bucket), and record the dollar amount of each.

This would guarantee my file was always 100 lines long. If I wanted to do some "lossless compression" of that information, I could instead record the dollar amounts, and then next to them put the bucket number that corresponds to that dollar amount.

Worse case is I still get 100 lines (each bucket had a different amount of money in it). However if no one donated anything that day, I would have 1 line (best case).

In any case however, when I am done, I still know exactly how much money was put in each bucket, without lossing any information.

This is true lossless compression, and information is never lost (if the algorithm is truly lossless).


-Jeremy
5D Mk II | SL1 | 24-105 f4.0L IS | 70-200 f2.8L IS | S35 1.4 | 40 2.8 Pancake | Samyang 14 2.8 | 430EX II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mafoo
Goldmember
Avatar
1,503 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Dec 2011
     
Feb 21, 2012 08:17 |  #215

Oh, and to answer "why would anyone ever use the larger format":

Of the two examples I gave, what option do you think would take me more time? The compressed version would take a lot longer to put together, then just going down one by one and recording each bucket. Sure, the file is almost always going to be larger, but the time taken to create it is a lot faster.

This is true in computing as well. Lossless compression will generate what's considered a more desirable file every time, however it comes at a cost of CPU power. If size is not the most important thing, it's not the best answer.

Personally, I can think of a lot of things I would want the CPU in my camera to do for me, before I get to "make my files smaller"


-Jeremy
5D Mk II | SL1 | 24-105 f4.0L IS | 70-200 f2.8L IS | S35 1.4 | 40 2.8 Pancake | Samyang 14 2.8 | 430EX II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RhysPhotograph.Me
Senior Member
Avatar
504 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Nov 2011
     
Feb 21, 2012 08:30 |  #216
bannedPermanent ban

mwsilver wrote in post #13934946 (external link)
Snip...

No it doesn't lose any, but you do also have the option to use lossy compression for the lowest possible sized raw file.
Personally I'm happy with 12mb lossless raw's...


Wedding photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RhysPhotograph.Me
Senior Member
Avatar
504 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Nov 2011
     
Feb 21, 2012 08:34 |  #217
bannedPermanent ban

mafoo wrote in post #13935088 (external link)
Oh, and to answer "why would anyone ever use the larger format":

Of the two examples I gave, what option do you think would take me more time? The compressed version would take a lot longer to put together, then just going down one by one and recording each bucket. Sure, the file is almost always going to be larger, but the time taken to create it is a lot faster.

This is true in computing as well. Lossless compression will generate what's considered a more desirable file every time, however it comes at a cost of CPU power. If size is not the most important thing, it's not the best answer.

Personally, I can think of a lot of things I would want the CPU in my camera to do for me, before I get to "make my files smaller"

I think you basically just lose a couple of frames of buffer reserve. So unless you often shoot so fast that you run out of buffer there isn't much of a downside. Also the files themselves shouldn't take so long to actually be written to the CF Card, which is better for slower CF's. Then there is the time saved when transferring them over to your PC.


Wedding photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
boerewors
Goldmember
Avatar
1,948 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Sep 2009
Location: South African living in Indonesia
     
Feb 21, 2012 08:44 |  #218

Shoot RAW and downsize in ACR. Its what i do now with my 60D 18mp files. I open all my wedding RAWs' as 1.6mp 16 bit tiffs and studio stuff anywhere between 1.6mp and the original 18mp depending on how large i want to print.
I think ACR does the best quality resize out of all softwares.
However i would still prefer a camera focused on high ISO performance than a camera focused on Megapixels. I am very sure canon knows that the market is split in these 2 directions and they will cater for them both. The 5Diii will not be the only alternative to the 1Dx, there will be more to come. If the 5Diii is low mp but has good ISO, half of everyone will be dissapointed, if the 5Diii is a high mp studio camera that does not need high ISO performance then half of everyone will still be dissapointed. So whats the fuss? Forget the megapixels, more FF bodies will come. The market is changing.


The most important piece of gear you own, resides in your head and its called your brain.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RhysPhotograph.Me
Senior Member
Avatar
504 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Nov 2011
     
Feb 21, 2012 08:47 |  #219
bannedPermanent ban

Below are the D700 files sizes, as reported by letsgodigital (external link)

NEF (RAW) - Uncompressed - 12-bit - 18.8MB - 100 pictures
NEF (RAW) - Uncompressed - 14-bit - 24.7MB - 77 pictures
NEF (RAW) - Lossless compressed - 12-bit - 13.3MB - 100 pictures
NEF (RAW) - Lossless compressed - 14-bit - 16.3MB - 77 pictures
NEF (RAW) - Compressed - 12-bit - 11.0MB - 138 pictures
NEF (RAW) - Compressed - 14-bit - 13.8MB - 114 pictures

Going from 14 bit non-compressed to 14 bit lossless compressed saves you quite a substantial amount of file space on your CF cards, as well as HDD's.

My 14 bit lossless compressed files are only 12mb rather than 16mb, but maybe because I'm a bokeh wh**e, my files don't have so much info in the frame.


Wedding photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mwsilver
Goldmember
4,034 posts
Gallery: 54 photos
Likes: 604
Joined Oct 2011
Location: Central New Jersey
     
Feb 21, 2012 08:49 |  #220

mafoo wrote in post #13935044 (external link)
This is true lossless compression, and information is never lost (if the algorithm is truly lossless).

"if the algorithm is truly lossless". That's the thing. I was a software developer and have some knowledge about compression algorithms, and addtionally I know from my audio experience that lossless compression is not truly lossless on a high resolution sound system. The technology is only as "lossless" as the algorithms used allow. Once you've converted the original data, that data no longer exists. You're looking at a modified copy. With regard to your example, it was of course simplistic to make a point. However. conversion of a highly complex digital image is anything but simplistic. Again to use audio as a comparison, there are a number of lossless sound file technologies based on different algorithms resulting in different sounding files on a high resolution system. Of course on the kind of sound system that 95% of the public owns the results will "sound" identical. I suspect the same could be true of lossless raw files, but unlike audio I have no expertise. In the mean time, I'll stick with RAW. I don't want to hope that compression does not degrade the image when I can have the whole enchilada.


Mark
Canon 7D2, 60D, T3i, T2i, Sigma 18-35 f/1.8, 30 f/1.4. Canon EF 70-200 L f/4 IS, EF 35 f/2 IS, EFs 10-18 STM, EFs 15-85, EFs 18-200, EF 50 f/1.8 STM, Tamron 18-270 PZD, B+W MRC CPL, Canon 320EX, Vanguard Alta Pro 254CT & SBH 250 head. RODE Stereo Videomic Pro, DXO PhotoLab Elite, ON1

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RhysPhotograph.Me
Senior Member
Avatar
504 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Nov 2011
     
Feb 21, 2012 08:55 |  #221
bannedPermanent ban

mwsilver wrote in post #13935235 (external link)
"if the algorithm is truly lossless". That's the thing. I was a software developer and have some knowledge about compression algorithms, and addtionally I know from my audio experience that lossless compression is not truly lossless on a high resolution sound system. The technology is only as "lossless" as the algorithms used allow. Once you've converted the original data, that data no longer exists. You're looking at a modified copy. With regard to your example, it was of course simplistic to make a point. However. conversion of a highly complex digital image is anything but simplistic. Again to use audio as a comparison, there are a number of lossless sound file technologies based on different algorithms resulting in different sounding files on a high resolution system. Of course on the kind of sound system that 95% of the public owns the results will "sound" identical. I suspect the same could be true of lossless raw files, but unlike audio I have no expertise. In the mean time, I'll stick with RAW. I don't want to hope that compression does not degrade the image when I can have the whole enchilada.

Right? so lossy compression is lossy? and lossless compression is also lossy?
Tbh that doesn't sound right to me, and even if your right the difference must be extremely minuscule, and if you care that much about image quality to such an extreme degree, then I think it's about time you updated your sig when you get a chance as your photography is missing out on the whole enchilada.


Edit:

The Nikon website says:

There are 3 different types of method of recording RAW files. These are selectable from the shooting menu in the camera.

Lossless Compressed

This method uses a compression algorithm that is reversible. This means that the images are compressed to save space on the card but the type of compression used can be reversed so that the image is restored to it's full quality when opened.
Lossless compression allows the best image quality to be recorded whilst saving space on the memory card. This method of saving RAW files is ideal for users of Capture NX or View NX


Compressed

This method also compresses the data to reduce it's size on the card but this method uses a non reversible algorithm. Therefore data that has been removed from the image can not be restored later.
Compressed is most useful where available space is an issue on cards but the NEF format is still required.


Uncompressed

This file format does not apply any compression to the images when recorded on the card. This means that files will be larger and take longer to write to the card than when using compression.
Uncompressed offers the best image quality without applying any compression to the file. This method is useful for customers who wish to use 3rd party software to open their images.

The file size that is recorded in the camera is dependent on the type of RAW compression used. The chart below shows the percentage of reduction in file size depending on which method of storing the file is used.


Wedding photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mafoo
Goldmember
Avatar
1,503 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Dec 2011
     
Feb 21, 2012 09:35 |  #222

RhysPhotograph.Me wrote in post #13935218 (external link)
Below are the D700 files sizes, as reported by letsgodigital (external link)

NEF (RAW) - Uncompressed - 12-bit - 18.8MB - 100 pictures
NEF (RAW) - Uncompressed - 14-bit - 24.7MB - 77 pictures
NEF (RAW) - Lossless compressed - 12-bit - 13.3MB - 100 pictures
NEF (RAW) - Lossless compressed - 14-bit - 16.3MB - 77 pictures
NEF (RAW) - Compressed - 12-bit - 11.0MB - 138 pictures
NEF (RAW) - Compressed - 14-bit - 13.8MB - 114 pictures

Going from 14 bit non-compressed to 14 bit lossless compressed saves you quite a substantial amount of file space on your CF cards, as well as HDD's.

My 14 bit lossless compressed files are only 12mb rather than 16mb, but maybe because I'm a bokeh wh**e, my files don't have so much info in the frame.

Not sure why he has a constant file size for the compressed files. The size should change with the complexity of the data. Unless what they are compressing is not the image data itself, and other information in the RAW file that is constant across all captures.


-Jeremy
5D Mk II | SL1 | 24-105 f4.0L IS | 70-200 f2.8L IS | S35 1.4 | 40 2.8 Pancake | Samyang 14 2.8 | 430EX II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RhysPhotograph.Me
Senior Member
Avatar
504 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Nov 2011
     
Feb 21, 2012 09:43 |  #223
bannedPermanent ban

Sorry, I don't see a constant file size? ???


Wedding photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mafoo
Goldmember
Avatar
1,503 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Dec 2011
     
Feb 21, 2012 09:44 |  #224

mwsilver wrote in post #13935235 (external link)
"if the algorithm is truly lossless". That's the thing. I was a software developer and have some knowledge about compression algorithms, and addtionally I know from my audio experience that lossless compression is not truly lossless on a high resolution sound system. The technology is only as "lossless" as the algorithms used allow. Once you've converted the original data, that data no longer exists. You're looking at a modified copy. With regard to your example, it was of course simplistic to make a point. However. conversion of a highly complex digital image is anything but simplistic. Again to use audio as a comparison, there are a number of lossless sound file technologies based on different algorithms resulting in different sounding files on a high resolution system. Of course on the kind of sound system that 95% of the public owns the results will "sound" identical. I suspect the same could be true of lossless raw files, but unlike audio I have no expertise. In the mean time, I'll stick with RAW. I don't want to hope that compression does not degrade the image when I can have the whole enchilada.

I currently am, and have been for over 20 years, a software developer. I have written some compression algorithms as well.

If you have a lossless compression algorithm, you can get "bit for bit", back to the original file. If you can not recover every bit of data, then it's by definition not lossless.

The delta in sound quality I suspect you are hearing, is due to how different software decides to represent the bit stream, based on the algorithm. Also, there is no guarantee that an application that tries to implement a lossless standard, did it right.


-Jeremy
5D Mk II | SL1 | 24-105 f4.0L IS | 70-200 f2.8L IS | S35 1.4 | 40 2.8 Pancake | Samyang 14 2.8 | 430EX II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mafoo
Goldmember
Avatar
1,503 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Dec 2011
     
Feb 21, 2012 09:45 |  #225

RhysPhotograph.Me wrote in post #13935692 (external link)
Sorry, I don't see a constant file size? ???

"NEF (RAW) - Lossless compressed - 14-bit - 16.3MB - 77 pictures "

He states that a lossless compressed image is 16.3MB in size. did he mean average, or is it always that size?


-Jeremy
5D Mk II | SL1 | 24-105 f4.0L IS | 70-200 f2.8L IS | S35 1.4 | 40 2.8 Pancake | Samyang 14 2.8 | 430EX II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

30,877 views & 0 likes for this thread
Not 36MP!!
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Sly tuna
789 guests, 192 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.