Go to a  "printer friendly" view of this message which allow an easy print Printer-friendly copy Go to the page which allows you to send this topic link and a message to a friend Email this topic to a friend
Forums Lobby GET TO KNOW YOUR CAMERA & MASTER IT Nikon D5300/D5200/D5100/D5000/D3300/D3200/D3100/D3000 (Public) topic #9563
View in linear mode

Subject: "D3300 COMPRESSED RAW?" Previous topic | Next topic
largebore Silver Member Nikonian since 17th Jan 2011Wed 16-Apr-14 11:51 AM
666 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
"D3300 COMPRESSED RAW?"
Wed 16-Apr-14 10:59 PM by largebore

Clarks Summit, US
          

I was thinkng of getting a D3300 body because of the sensor.
I only need manual mode for studio so all other issues seem uninportant except that the raw is compressed.

Is this an issue that will compromise the quality as I only shoot raw?

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

Replies to this topic
Subject Author Message Date ID
Reply message RE: D3300 COMPRESSED RAW?
agitater Gold Member Donor Ribbon awarded for his very generous support to the Fundraising Campaign 2014
16th Apr 2014
1
Reply message RE: D3300 COMPRESSED RAW?
largebore Silver Member
16th Apr 2014
2
     Reply message RE: D3300 COMPRESSED RAW?
JosephK Silver Member Fellow Ribbon awarded for his excellent and frequent contributions and sharing his in-depth knowledge and experience with the community in the Nikonians spirit.
16th Apr 2014
3
     Reply message RE: D3300 COMPRESSED RAW?
Covey22 Moderator Expert in various fields including aviation photography Awarded for his contributions to the Resources and The Nikonian eZine
16th Apr 2014
4
          Reply message RE: D3300 COMPRESSED RAW?
largebore Silver Member
16th Apr 2014
5
Reply message RE: D3300 COMPRESSED RAW?
sl01
17th Apr 2014
6
Reply message RE: D3300 COMPRESSED RAW?
largebore Silver Member
17th Apr 2014
7
     Reply message RE: D3300 COMPRESSED RAW?
pjonesCET Gold Member
17th Apr 2014
8
          Reply message RE: D3300 COMPRESSED RAW?
agitater Gold Member Donor Ribbon awarded for his very generous support to the Fundraising Campaign 2014
17th Apr 2014
9
          Reply message RE: D3300 COMPRESSED RAW?
PBlais Silver Member
18th Apr 2014
10
          Reply message RE: D3300 COMPRESSED RAW?
Floyd Davidson Gold Member
18th Apr 2014
12
          Reply message RE: D3300 COMPRESSED RAW?
pjonesCET Gold Member
18th Apr 2014
13
               Reply message RE: D3300 COMPRESSED RAW?
PBlais Silver Member
18th Apr 2014
15
          Reply message RE: D3300 COMPRESSED RAW?
Floyd Davidson Gold Member
18th Apr 2014
11
               Reply message RE: D3300 COMPRESSED RAW?
pjonesCET Gold Member
18th Apr 2014
14

agitater Gold Member Donor Ribbon awarded for his very generous support to the Fundraising Campaign 2014 Nikonian since 18th Jan 2007Wed 16-Apr-14 12:28 PM
4177 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#1. "RE: D3300 COMPRESSED RAW?"
In response to Reply # 0


Toronto, CA
          

The D3300 can capture 12-bit NEF compressed files. If there's something about that file format that might compromise the image quality or detail you want, buy the D5300 instead. The D5300 can capture 14-bit lossless compressed RAW files.

My Photo.Net Gallery
My Nikonians Gallery

Howard Carson

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
largebore Silver Member Nikonian since 17th Jan 2011Wed 16-Apr-14 06:05 PM
666 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#2. "RE: D3300 COMPRESSED RAW?"
In response to Reply # 1


Clarks Summit, US
          

>The D3300 can capture 12-bit NEF compressed files. If there's
>something about that file format that might compromise the
>image quality or detail you want, buy the D5300 instead. The
>D5300 can capture 14-bit lossless compressed RAW files.

As I have no experience with compressed raw files I have no idea what compromises are in play. That is why I am asking.
>

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
JosephK Silver Member Fellow Ribbon awarded for his excellent and frequent contributions and sharing his in-depth knowledge and experience with the community in the Nikonians spirit. Nikonian since 17th Apr 2006Wed 16-Apr-14 07:36 PM
4730 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#3. "RE: D3300 COMPRESSED RAW?"
In response to Reply # 2


Seattle, WA, US
          

There are two types of compression:
lossless - no data is changed/lost during the compression; you get back exactly what you put in.
lossy - some data is changed/discarded so that a higher compression is possible; the data you get out is not the exact same as what went in.

JPG files use a lossy compression.

NEF files can be uncompressed, lossless compressed, and/or lossy compressed. In the case of the D3300, it would seem that only the lossy compression is supported.

Nikon claims that the lossy compression for NEF files is "visually lossless", but that assumes the standard poor abilities of the human eyes. (Most of the data loss is in the bright areas, if I remember correctly.)

---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
Joseph K
Seattle, WA, USA

D700, D200, D70S, 24-70mm f/2.8, VR 70-200mm f/2.8 II, TC20e3,
50mm f/1.4 D, 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR, 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 DX

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
Covey22 Moderator Expert in various fields including aviation photography Awarded for his contributions to the Resources and The Nikonian eZine Charter MemberWed 16-Apr-14 08:53 PM
10839 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#4. "RE: D3300 COMPRESSED RAW?"
In response to Reply # 2


US
          

Just to add to the discussion - 12 vs 14-bit, you're headed down the ever slippery slope of one having more tonal range than the other. For most practical applications, I can't see the difference, and certainly most of my audience looking at the photos on the web can't either. I'm sure it's there, but I have no time to peep at grayscale ranges.

"Toodle-loo from Covey22!"

-Armando
Nikonians Team
Nikonians News - Fresh Everyday!

The Covey Blog!

My Plan:

Get out of the car.
Get closer to the subject.
Pick the right mid-tone this time.

See My Nikonians Gallery

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
largebore Silver Member Nikonian since 17th Jan 2011Wed 16-Apr-14 10:52 PM
666 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#5. "RE: D3300 COMPRESSED RAW?"
In response to Reply # 4
Wed 16-Apr-14 11:03 PM by largebore

Clarks Summit, US
          

>Just to add to the discussion - 12 vs 14-bit, you're headed
>down the ever slippery slope of one having more tonal range
>than the other. For most practical applications, I can't see
>the difference, and certainly most of my audience looking at
>the photos on the web can't either. I'm sure it's there, but I
>have no time to peep at grayscale ranges.

Yes, thank you.


Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

sl01 Registered since 07th Jan 2014Thu 17-Apr-14 07:38 AM
83 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#6. "RE: D3300 COMPRESSED RAW?"
In response to Reply # 0


PL
          

Here is an attempt to analyze nef compression:
http://regex.info/blog/photo-tech/nef-compression
I don't think you should bother the numbers, unless you are going to edit very heavily your files. I think, camera's hardware and processing engine (and photoghapher's abilities!) are much more important than the differences mentioned here.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
largebore Silver Member Nikonian since 17th Jan 2011Thu 17-Apr-14 11:58 AM
666 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#7. "RE: D3300 COMPRESSED RAW?"
In response to Reply # 6


Clarks Summit, US
          

>Here is an attempt to analyze nef compression:
>http://regex.info/blog/photo-tech/nef-compression
>I don't think you should bother the numbers, unless you are
>going to edit very heavily your files. I think, camera's
>hardware and processing engine (and photoghapher's abilities!)
>are much more important than the differences mentioned here.

Awesome article. Should be pinned or something.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
pjonesCET Gold Member Nikonian since 11th Jul 2011Thu 17-Apr-14 09:42 PM
613 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to send message via AOL IM
#8. "RE: D3300 COMPRESSED RAW?"
In response to Reply # 7


Martinsville, US
          

The compression is going to add more compression when working in LightRoom
Adobe converts NEF to DNG which they say is the proper Format. (They claim Nikon just made up a name, when the Proper for all Digital Photos should be DNG.)

Anyway I have to Convert NEF to DNG Then in Photoshop from DNG to Jpeg.

Now with the Compressed NEF converted to DNG detail is lost. Then with the DNG converted to jpeg detail is lost again.

Fortunately the person in the article linked here says That you have a choice of uncompressed NEF, Compressed NEF (Lossy) or jpeg.

I believe I'll stick with uncompressed were I to go to the 3300.

Phillip M Jones, CET
pjonescet@comcast.net
http://www.phillipmjones.net/

Visit my Nikonians gallery.


https://www.flickr.com/photos/pjonescet/
http://www.phillipjones-cet.net

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
agitater Gold Member Donor Ribbon awarded for his very generous support to the Fundraising Campaign 2014 Nikonian since 18th Jan 2007Thu 17-Apr-14 11:45 PM
4177 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#9. "RE: D3300 COMPRESSED RAW?"
In response to Reply # 8


Toronto, CA
          

>The compression is going to add more compression when working
>in LightRoom
>Adobe converts NEF to DNG which they say is the proper Format.
>(They claim Nikon just made up a name, when the Proper for all
>Digital Photos should be DNG.)

Nikon didn't just make up a name for anything. The NEF format is a proprietary method of storing RAW sensor data in a usable file. You can use Adobe Lightroom or Adobe Photoshop CS or ACDSee Pro or any one of a number of other excellent RAW file processors that offer NEF compatibility to make editorial changes to your NEF files and then save them in a variety of lossless file formats for further editing. Those formats include TIF (RGB and CYMK), DNG and PSD. If you're going to do additional editing prior to either printing or posting your photos, there's no need to save them as JPG files. Even if you do, the original NEF version and the DNG or PSD or TIF you created are still on your hard drive and can be edited and repeatedly resaved without any deterioration.

>Anyway I have to Convert NEF to DNG Then in Photoshop from DNG
>to Jpeg.

No you don't, at least not unless you absolutely need a JPG.

>Now with the Compressed NEF converted to DNG detail is lost.
>Then with the DNG converted to jpeg detail is lost again.

Neither points are accurate. Sorry. DNG is not a lossy format. Why convert a DNG into anything else when you can "Save As" in a separate file if you absolutely need a JPG for use online. In any case, the original NEF, and the DNG or TIF or PSD file you created are still there.

JPG is the only lossy file format here where re-saving and re-editing is concerned.

My Photo.Net Gallery
My Nikonians Gallery

Howard Carson

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
PBlais Silver Member Nikonian since 19th Jan 2014Fri 18-Apr-14 02:22 PM
764 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#10. "RE: D3300 COMPRESSED RAW?"
In response to Reply # 9


Hayes, US
          

The whole issue is complicated partly because of JPG files. Every Time you save a JPG file it reapplies the compression. Withe other formats like TIF, PSD and a host of other formats there is no compression. With JPG you are talking 8 bit files and that is what most monitors and printers work with. The concept of editing making images worse is clear to see with JPG.

When you work with uncompressed files like say merging a 7 bracket set into an HDR finished image you'll along the way generate a 32 bit file to hold the extra dynamic range then use a process. You can artistically remap the colors pace down to something that looks fantastic using tone mapping.

You can't see or display or print a 32 bit file. The better wide gamut monitors only display 10 bits and so you see (in my eyes) two extra stops of black and two more of white compared to the best made 24 bit monitors. In a 32 bit color file more than 1/2 of all the color space is shades of white the human eye can never see.

As you edit uncompressed files they process mathematically and need to round off the end digits. Using 12 bit NEF file rounding still leaves a LOT of room inside 12 bits that you can never see. Unlike JPG processing it's not a recompression process when you save a file.

The arguments with JPG files getting worse are pretty well founded and easy to see but it's not what raw processing is about. The extra bits in a raw file isn't really why they are better it's the lack of recompression with each saved generation.

The debate between 12, 14, and 16 bit raw files seems to go on all the time. In my mind even with 12 bits you have two orders of magnitude to lose before you could see it then a third one that you can't print or otherwise reproduce. A factor of 1000 for rounding should be enough but if you shoot 14 bits it bumps to 100,000. 16 would boost it to one million. At 16 bite you could lose more than you had and never see it. We face a mathematical challenge in that we can process more bits than we can see. We eventually will capture more but we will never see any more. I shoot 14 bits because I can. I used to shoot 12 and can't tell the difference now.

None of this will make a crappy shot better.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                    
Floyd Davidson Gold Member Nikonian since 24th Jan 2014Fri 18-Apr-14 08:28 PM
169 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#12. "RE: D3300 COMPRESSED RAW?"
In response to Reply # 10


Barrow, Alaska, US
          

>The whole issue is complicated partly because of JPG files.
>Every Time you save a JPG file it reapplies the compression.

True, because when you uncompress the JPEG data it will not be the same data that was compressed. No matter what use is made of it, it is not the same as the original data.

>Withe other formats like TIF, PSD and a host of other formats
>there is no compression.

In fact there can, and usually is, compression with other file formats. It is not lossy compression though. That means when you load the image file into an editor the data will be exactly the same as the data that was available before it was saved to the file you load.

The data can be loaded and resaved multiple times because each time a file is loaded the data is exactly the same as existed before it was saved the previous time. There is no loss of accuracy.

><...>
>When you work with uncompressed files like say merging a 7
>bracket set into an HDR finished image you'll along the way
>generate a 32 bit file to hold the extra dynamic range then
>use a process. You can artistically remap the colors pace down
>to something that looks fantastic using tone mapping.

That is not what happens. Each uncompressed data set, regardless of whether it had ever been compressed or not, can be an 8 bit format in the editor too, but each will represent a different range of tones in the original scene. Each will have the same data value range though, due to different exposure. The process of combining them is done by first tone mapping each to an appropriate range (with a reduced range of tonal values) and only then combining them. For example, if a scene has a tonal range of 21 fstops and the camera has a dynamic range of 10 fstops, there might be 4 images shot, each with a distinct range of 8 stops plus an overlap of one stop at the top and the bottom. Each of those images is then tone mapped to give that 8 distinct fstop range a new range that is only 2 fstops. Each of them is arranged to have that 2 fstop range exactly aligned with the images just above and just below it. The result is ancombined image with a total of 8 stop of dynamic range in the data, which can be saved to a JPEG image format. Those 8 stops were originally a 24 stop range of potential in the scene, of which 21 will be visible in the final image.

Using 16 bit or 32 bit images rather than 8 bit merely makes the process smoother, but if done carefully there would be zero difference when printed.

>You can't see or display or print a 32 bit file. The better
>wide gamut monitors only display 10 bits and so you see (in my
>eyes) two extra stops of black and two more of white compared
>to the best made 24 bit monitors. In a 32 bit color file more
>than 1/2 of all the color space is shades of white the human
>eye can never see.

It can be made to work that way, but that is not necessarily done.

>As you edit uncompressed files they process mathematically and
>need to round off the end digits. Using 12 bit NEF file
>rounding still leaves a LOT of room inside 12 bits that you
>can never see. Unlike JPG processing it's not a recompression
>process when you save a file.
>
>The arguments with JPG files getting worse are pretty well
>founded and easy to see but it's not what raw processing is
>about. The extra bits in a raw file isn't really why they are
>better it's the lack of recompression with each saved
>generation.

No, recompression has nothing to do with it and the extra bits
have everything to do!

If you shoot with a 10 bit RAW format the best the camera can possibly record is 10 fstops of dynamic range. Which will work perfectly fine if you nail exposures and never try to edit images by doing things like sharpening, white balance, contrast, or brightness adjustments.

If there is a need for those types of editing it can only be accomplished to the degree that extras space for tonal compression/expansion is available. If the camera has a 14 bit RAW format there are roughly 5 or 6 stops that can be moved up or down the tonal range. The end result in any case though is that with a monitor or a printer we get to see only 7 or 8 stops of range. (The JPEG format was purposely designed to be able to record a maximum of just over 9 fstops of dynamic range, which is just more than a printer or a monitor.)

>The debate between 12, 14, and 16 bit raw files seems to go on
>all the time. In my mind even with 12 bits you have two orders
>of magnitude to lose before you could see it then a third one
>that you can't print or otherwise reproduce.

Right idea, but it's not times 10, it's binary... times 2. Each extra bit allows twice as much range (1 fstop!).

> A factor of 1000
>for rounding should be enough but if you shoot 14 bits it
>bumps to 100,000. 16 would boost it to one million. At 16 bite
>you could lose more than you had and never see it. We face a
>mathematical challenge in that we can process more bits than
>we can see. We eventually will capture more but we will never
>see any more. I shoot 14 bits because I can. I used to shoot
>12 and can't tell the difference now.

If you process a 12 bit data set and a 14 bit data set in exactly the same way, and do nothing to alter the tone mapping... There will be exactly zero difference when viewed as a print or on a monitor. That is because both display mechanisms will provide only about 8 stops of range from the maximum white down to black. Everything blacker will just be black.

But if the process of each image involves using a contrast or brightness control, or any other means of tone mapping, the amount that can be done with the 12 bit data set will be significantly less than what can be done with the 14 bit data set.

Another way to look at that is shooting at low ISO values where the dynamic range of the camera is (potentially) higher will allow greater editing leeway than is available when shooting at higher ISO values where the dyanmic range is restricted. It makes no difference if the RAW file is 10 bit or 16 bits if the ISO is cranked up to the point where the dynamic range that can be capture is only 6 fstops!

>None of this will make a crappy shot better.

But some shots that will always be crappy with a 10 bit camera will be very suitable when shot with a 16 bit camera.

------------------


Homepage: http://apaflo.com Images of Barrow Alaska

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
pjonesCET Gold Member Nikonian since 11th Jul 2011Fri 18-Apr-14 08:52 PM
613 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to send message via AOL IM
#13. "RE: D3300 COMPRESSED RAW?"
In response to Reply # 9


Martinsville, US
          

The comment about NEF was just picked out the air by Nikon was from someone at Adobe.

Phillip M Jones, CET
pjonescet@comcast.net
http://www.phillipmjones.net/

Visit my Nikonians gallery.


https://www.flickr.com/photos/pjonescet/
http://www.phillipjones-cet.net

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                    
PBlais Silver Member Nikonian since 19th Jan 2014Fri 18-Apr-14 11:10 PM
764 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#15. "RE: D3300 COMPRESSED RAW?"
In response to Reply # 13


Hayes, US
          

No it wasn't!

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
Floyd Davidson Gold Member Nikonian since 24th Jan 2014Fri 18-Apr-14 07:31 PM
169 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#11. "RE: D3300 COMPRESSED RAW?"
In response to Reply # 8
Fri 18-Apr-14 08:30 PM by Floyd Davidson

Barrow, Alaska, US
          

>Fortunately the person in the article linked here says That
>you have a choice of uncompressed NEF, Compressed NEF (Lossy)
>or jpeg.
>
>I believe I'll stick with uncompressed were I to go to the
>3300.

The Nikon user manual, available online, says that the D3300 can save raw mode using NEF Compressed only.

------------------


Homepage: http://apaflo.com Images of Barrow Alaska

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
pjonesCET Gold Member Nikonian since 11th Jul 2011Fri 18-Apr-14 08:54 PM
613 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to send message via AOL IM
#14. "RE: D3300 COMPRESSED RAW?"
In response to Reply # 11


Martinsville, US
          

Hmmm. Believe I will stick with my 3200 or go with 7xxx version. Should I wish to update.

Phillip M Jones, CET
pjonescet@comcast.net
http://www.phillipmjones.net/

Visit my Nikonians gallery.


https://www.flickr.com/photos/pjonescet/
http://www.phillipjones-cet.net

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

Forums Lobby GET TO KNOW YOUR CAMERA & MASTER IT Nikon D5300/D5200/D5100/D5000/D3300/D3200/D3100/D3000 (Public) topic #9563 Previous topic | Next topic


Take the Nikonians Tour and learn more about being a Nikonian Wiki /FAQ /Help Listen to our MP3 photography radio channels Find anything on Nikon and imaging technology - fast!

Copyright © Nikonians 2000, 2014
All Rights Reserved

Nikonians®, NikoScope® and NikoniansAcademy™ are trademarks owned by Nikonians.org.
Nikon®, Nikonos® and Nikkor® are registered trademarks of Nikon Corporation.