Not 36MP!!

^^^
It's an average, sometimes I get 11mb files, sometimes I get 13, but 90% of them are 12mb, at least for my style of shooting.

RhysPhotograph.Me wrote in post #13935709
^^^
It's an average, sometimes I get 11mb files, sometimes I get 13, but 90% of them are 12mb

ok, that makes more sense.

I hardly ever use 21MP on my 5DMII. I considered bying the 5Dc but I had the $$$ for the MKII so I opted for that and am happy with the purchase. It's nice knowing that if I ever needed to I could shoot 21MP shots but 10MP is just fine for me ATM.

mafoo wrote in post #13935647
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.

Looks like an average size - see the number of pictures to the right?

mwsilver wrote in post #13935235
"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.

That may be true in audio "algorithms" but if they do not allow complete reconstruction of the original file, then, no matter what the purveyors say, they are not lossless. Period. If there is a string of values that should be 128 - a gray of some sort in any of the color channels, then it's far more efficient to encode that as "1000 values of 128", than to repeat the code for the value for "128 one thousand times" in the file. That's what lossless encoding/compression is all about.

Common example of lossless compression: zip.

While I would not be totally shocked to see Apple try to re-define the word "lossless", I seriously doubt they did. If I use a lossless audio compression for ripping a CD track, when the file is decompressed, the original CD track comes back exactly. If Apple "Lossless" cannot do that, it is not lossless, regardless of what Apple names it. But, I expect it is actually lossless.

If Nikon claims to have a lossless compression of their RAW files, it is no doubt actually lossless (i.e. the original RAW file can be reproduced exactly). The "cost" for using it is most likely performance... it probably takes longer to write the file.

^^^
No, the sacrifice is a slightly reduced buffer, however as the files are smaller they are written to card faster.


"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."

If 36MP is too much then shoot in a smaller resolution.

^^^
Lossless compressed full res raw's should be around 40mb.
But you don't get an s or mraw option, at least with Nikon...

mafoo wrote in post #13935694
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.

I have no argument with your assessment. For audiophiles the issues is an ongoing one and most of us listen to uncompressed FLAC, WAV or AIFF files as a result. But if differences can be heard between lossless and uncompressed audio files, how confident can we be that similar issues won't occur for image files? I've read that there have been documented differences between RAW files processed in ACR and DPP. Perhaps these differences are now resolved. However, given the number of RAW programs and converters out there, other than to save space, why would we risk conversion or recovery issues with MRAW and SRAW if space was not an issue?

^^^
MRAW and SRAW are completely different, they reduce the size (resolution) of the entire image.

RhysPhotograph.Me wrote in post #13936665
^^^
No, the sacrifice is a slightly reduced buffer, however as the files are smaller they are written to card faster.


"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."

This is true is all you are measuring is literally the time to write the file. However, actually compressing the file takes time, too.

^^^
No doubt it does, but it certainly doesn't seem to be noticeable with my D700.
I presume the processor die has some dedicated transistors to accomplish this without noticeable penalty, it may even provide a benefit if the CF card speed is a bottleneck.
(Intel's quick sync is a good example of hardware Vs software efficiency gains)

mwsilver wrote in post #13936813
I have no argument with your assessment. For audiophiles the issues is an ongoing one and most of us listen to uncompressed FLAC, WAV or AIFF files as a result. But if differences can be heard between lossless and uncompressed audio files, how confident can we be that similar issues won't occur for image files? I've read that there have been documented differences between RAW files processed in ACR and DPP. Perhaps these differences are now resolved. However, given the number of RAW programs and converters out there, other than to save space, why would we risk conversion or recovery issues with MRAW and SRAW if space was not an issue?

WAV and AIFF are uncompressed, but can use many bitrates bitdepths, so they aren't necessarily "perfect", although they can be. The L in FLAC stands for lossless:

. The other compressors are more or less lossy - like jpeg at various "quality" levels, while lossless image compressors decompress into an identical copy ...

AJSJones wrote in post #13941202
WAV and AIFF are uncompressed, but can use many bitrates bitdepths, so they aren't necessarily "perfect", although they can be. The L in FLAC stands for lossless:

I know about the FLAC files. I myself do not use them. I mostly listen to Redbook CD's and LP's. Yes LPs. When I listen to wireless streaming music from my computer to my main stereo only system I usually listen to AIFF files.The whole process of listening to high definition streaming data is still in a somewhat transitional phase. I can't imagine that there are not similar issues and concerns with digital image files.