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 D7100, D7000 (Public) topic #4115
View in linear mode

Subject: "Compressed or uncompressed RAW?" Previous topic | Next topic
snapsh0t Registered since 30th Aug 2009Sat 01-Jan-11 04:30 PM
157 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
"Compressed or uncompressed RAW?"


GB
          

I admit I haven't looked through every page in this forum but I did use 'search' and I can't find a discussion on how much difference there is between compressed and uncompressed RAW. Obviously compressed is smaller (~15MB against ~18MB in my test shots) but is there any noticeable difference in quality?

Jonathan

  

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

Replies to this topic
Subject Author Message Date ID
Reply message RE: Compressed or uncompressed RAW?
rasworth
01st Jan 2011
1
Reply message RE: Compressed or uncompressed RAW?
csgaraglino Silver Member
01st Jan 2011
2
Reply message RE: Compressed or uncompressed RAW?
snapsh0t
02nd Jan 2011
3
Reply message RE: Compressed or uncompressed RAW?
PAStime Silver Member
03rd Jan 2011
4
     Reply message RE: Compressed or uncompressed RAW?
luckyphoto Silver Member
04th Jan 2011
5
          Reply message RE: Compressed or uncompressed RAW?
PAStime Silver Member
05th Jan 2011
6
               Reply message RE: Compressed or uncompressed RAW?
DeanAZ Moderator
06th Jan 2011
7
                    Reply message RE: Compressed or uncompressed RAW?
PAStime Silver Member
06th Jan 2011
8
                         Reply message RE: Compressed or uncompressed RAW?
rasworth
06th Jan 2011
9
                              Reply message RE: Compressed or uncompressed RAW?
PAStime Silver Member
06th Jan 2011
10

rasworth Basic MemberSat 01-Jan-11 04:54 PM
1191 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: Compressed or uncompressed RAW?"
In response to Reply # 0


Austin, US
          

I believe the answer is "it depends". In compressed (not lossless) raw several nearby highlight pixel values are swept into single values, the theory being the eye can't distinguish these highlight differences. However, if one then decreases exposure substantially in pp, so that some of these grouped highlights (the compression actually starts in the mid-tones) are brought "down" then it is possible to observe posterization.

So for properly exposed images not requiring significant post processing one could probably never see the difference. IMO the storage savings isn't an important factor, so I go with lossless compressed, usually 14 bit (D7000). Cards and storage are relatively cheap, why throw away any detail?

Richard Southworth

  

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

    
csgaraglino Silver Member Charter MemberSat 01-Jan-11 05:20 PM
647 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: Compressed or uncompressed RAW?"
In response to Reply # 1


Colorado Springs, US
          

I as well run lossless compressed 14 bit on both my D7000 and D700

---
Regards,
Chris Sgaraglino
Outdoor Studios Photography || on Flickr || on Google+

  

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

        
snapsh0t Registered since 30th Aug 2009Sun 02-Jan-11 01:19 PM
157 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: Compressed or uncompressed RAW?"
In response to Reply # 2


GB
          

Thanks, both. I'll stick with lossless too.

Jonathan

  

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

    
PAStime Silver Member Nikonian since 10th Feb 2009Mon 03-Jan-11 12:21 PM
2669 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: Compressed or uncompressed RAW?"
In response to Reply # 1


Kingston, CA
          

>compressed (not lossless) raw several nearby highlight pixel
>values are swept into single values, the theory being the eye
>can't distinguish these highlight differences.

Yes, I too understand this is the technique used.

>Cards and
>storage are relatively cheap, why throw away any detail?

Just speculation but I wonder if frames per second are affected by lossless or lossy configuration of NEFs? If time to write to memory cards is the limiting factor, perhaps larger files slow down FPS, perhaps only a small amount?

Peter

  

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

        
luckyphoto Silver Member Nikonian since 27th Dec 2010Tue 04-Jan-11 03:59 PM
680 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: Compressed or uncompressed RAW?"
In response to Reply # 4


Port Charlotte, US
          


>Just speculation but I wonder if frames per second are
>affected by lossless or lossy configuration of NEFs? If time
>to write to memory cards is the limiting factor, perhaps
>larger files slow down FPS, perhaps only a small amount?
>


It depends on how many photos you're shooting continuously. Frames are first written to an internal buffer and from there to the memory card. The manual says that up to 100 photographs can be taken in succession (page 79), however, it doesn't give a file size for each photo.

Once the buffer is full the frame rate will be slowed down. The faster the card, the faster it drains the internal buffer and allows more continuous frames at full fps. And conversely, the larger the photo file size the fewer photos can be continuously shot before the frame rate is affected by slower card drainage.

There is a buffer capacity display (example - r28, means that the buffer can hold a maximum of 28 photos at current settings). You should be able to shoot close to that many photos in a burst before the fps slows down.

Set your camera for full raw and see what the "r" number is. That should be the approximate number of photos you can burst at full FPS. Then figure out how much data the buffer holds and calculate how fast the card can drain that much data. That should tell you how long you should wait between bursts based on the number of photos per burst.

Hope that helps.

  

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

            
PAStime Silver Member Nikonian since 10th Feb 2009Wed 05-Jan-11 02:20 AM
2669 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: Compressed or uncompressed RAW?"
In response to Reply # 5


Kingston, CA
          

>Hope that helps.

Well, not really I was asking about how lossy versus non-lossy NEF compression settings might affect FPS.

At play are in-camera processing time and file size (time to empty the buffer). I don't have a camera body where I can choose in between the two settings to see if there is a difference.

Cheers,
Peter

  

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

                
DeanAZ Moderator Expert nature photographer Nikonian since 28th Apr 2007Thu 06-Jan-11 04:40 AM
3707 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: Compressed or uncompressed RAW?"
In response to Reply # 6
Thu 06-Jan-11 04:41 AM by DeanAZ

Phoenix, US
          

It seems from my testing that there are really two things that will affect the number of frames you can take in rapid succession.
1) Camera settings that affect the buffer number (rXX)
2) Card write throughput

Each of these is actually driven by multiple factors.
1) Camera settings

-RAW settings - The best RAW r number I could get was r11
It mattered very little whether or not 12 or 14 bit was selected
or whether lossless was selected. Even RAW + JPEG made an
insignificant impact on the buffer.

-Auto Distortion ON/OFF ON results in a r08 no mater what
other settings are selected! (even for small/basic JPEGs)

-JPEG size/compression
Large/Fine-Normal-Basic = r15, r22, r33
Medium/Fine-Normal-Basic = r20, r33, r41
Small/Fine-Normal-Basic = r33, r58, r99

2) Card write tests not done yet....

I would expect that this would be a function of the file size and whether there was a RAW + JPEG shot. The card speed also comes into play here but if your camera settings are such that you never get a large r number the card speed is almost a trivial discussion as the buffer will fill and slow way down.

With an r08 in the display, I could usually get about 10 shots before the fps dropped as some data is cleared while shooting making room for a couple more frames.

Hope this helps.

Dean
Phoenix, Arizona USA
Nikonians Team Member
Website: The Splendid Silence of Light

Recent Trips: Grand Canyon 2012 Glen Canyon 2012 West Clear Creek

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

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

                    
PAStime Silver Member Nikonian since 10th Feb 2009Thu 06-Jan-11 11:43 AM
2669 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
#8. "RE: Compressed or uncompressed RAW?"
In response to Reply # 7
Thu 06-Jan-11 11:44 AM by PAStime

Kingston, CA
          

>It mattered very little whether or not 12 or 14 bit was
>selected
>or whether lossless was selected.

Hi Dean,

Thanks for sharing that interesting information. I agree with your reasoning: an r08 reading as compared to much higher numbers obtainable with other settings will likely be the limiting factor. And since you don't see differences in this value in between 12/14 bit and lossless or not, my question has been answered!

The effects of auto distortion is interesting. It must always operate on the raw data and require some signficant processing.

Cheers,
Peter

  

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

                        
rasworth Basic MemberThu 06-Jan-11 01:33 PM
1191 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: Compressed or uncompressed RAW?"
In response to Reply # 8
Thu 06-Jan-11 01:34 PM by rasworth

Austin, US
          

Auto distortion does not affect the raw data. However, in every Nikon raw data file is an embedded jpeg (full size, basic quality, about 1 mb or so size), and its generation will require auto distortion processing if turned on. I'm not sure as to significant processing, have not measured.

Richard Southworth

  

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

                            
PAStime Silver Member Nikonian since 10th Feb 2009Thu 06-Jan-11 11:57 PM
2669 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: Compressed or uncompressed RAW?"
In response to Reply # 9


Kingston, CA
          

Makes sense Richard, thanks, Peter

  

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

Forums Lobby GET TO KNOW YOUR CAMERA & MASTER IT Nikon D7100, D7000 (Public) topic #4115 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.