July 01, 2015, 01:22:26 PM

Author Topic: Compressed Vs Uncompressed RAW  (Read 995 times)

Dylan777

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4992
Compressed Vs Uncompressed RAW
« on: June 17, 2015, 09:26:34 AM »
Hi guys,
What are the pros and cons between compressed and uncompressed RAW? At what point these two become good and bad for photography?

As an owner of Sony mirrorless and Canon DSLR, I can’t see the difference(s) between the two in PP through LR. What I do see is Raw file from Sony is slightly cooler and Canon.  This is NOT another DR war thread. I simply would like to learn the real factors.

Thanks in advance.

Best,
Dylan
« Last Edit: June 17, 2015, 10:03:16 AM by Dylan777 »
ML: A7s + FE21 f2.8 -- FE28 f2 -- FE55 f1.8
DSLR: 1Dx + 85L II -- 200L f2 IS -- 400L f2.8 IS II

canon rumors FORUM

Compressed Vs Uncompressed RAW
« on: June 17, 2015, 09:26:34 AM »

Valvebounce

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1497
  • Still can't use most of it to it's full potential!
Re: Compressed Vs Uncompressed RAW
« Reply #1 on: June 17, 2015, 09:45:00 AM »
Hi Dylan.
I think I read on one of the posts that the Sony was a lossy compressed RAW, meaning they threw away some of the info, if I remember/ find where I read it I will link it in. No idea how you can tell it is lossy or not?
Basically, lossy compression bad, lossless compression good!  ;D

Cheers, Graham.
7D + Grip, 40D + Grip, 20D, EF-S 17-85 Kit lens, EF 70-200 f2.8 L IS II USM, EF 2x III, Sigma 150-500, Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 C, 50mm f1.8, 550EX, Nissin Di622, Triopo TR-985, Godox FC-16, some Filters Remotes Macro tubes Tripod heads etc!

20D, BG-E2N, 17-85mm, 50mm are pre loved. :)

AcutancePhotography

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1605
Re: Compressed Vs Uncompressed RAW
« Reply #2 on: June 17, 2015, 09:54:12 AM »

Basically, lossy compression bad, lossless compression good!  ;D

Cheers, Graham.

This is very true.. as a concept, but....  If the lossy compression data file results in a final photograph that is good enough for its intended purpose, it may be a matter of lossy compression good enough, lossless compression better

One also has to look at the advantages of lossy compression.

The bottom line is that it is up to the individual photographer whether the advantages of lossy compression justify any disadvantage.

If the photographer has a hard time telling the difference and the final picture meets all the individual photographer's requirements, good enough may be good enough.
I shoot with a Camera Obscura with an optical device attached that refracts and transmits light

privatebydesign

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3939
  • Ermintrude says "moo"
Re: Compressed Vs Uncompressed RAW
« Reply #3 on: June 17, 2015, 10:05:23 AM »

Basically, lossy compression bad, lossless compression good!  ;D

Cheers, Graham.

This is very true.. as a concept, but....  If the lossy compression data file results in a final photograph that is good enough for its intended purpose, it may be a matter of lossy compression good enough, lossless compression better

One also has to look at the advantages of lossy compression.

The bottom line is that it is up to the individual photographer whether the advantages of lossy compression justify any disadvantage.

If the photographer has a hard time telling the difference and the final picture meets all the individual photographer's requirements, good enough may be good enough.

That makes the assumption, which in time has been proven to be wrong, that good enough now will be good enough ever.

I got my first serious DSLR in 2004, a Canon 1D, I shot RAW (+jpeg at that time) from day one even though using RAW was a PITA. I have reworked some of those files several times with much better results as software has improved, lossless RAW has played a large part in my being able to do that.

I agree it is up to each individual to decide if it works for them, I like that Canon seems to be a standup in the RAW arena and doesn't cook them without your consent, to me that is a very  strong positive in favour of Canon.
Too often we lose sight of the fact that photography is about capturing light, if we have the ability to take control of that light then we grow exponentially as photographers. More often than not the image is not about lens speed, sensor size, MP's or AF, it is about the light.

Dylan777

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4992
Re: Compressed Vs Uncompressed RAW
« Reply #4 on: June 17, 2015, 10:31:46 AM »
Interesting feedbacks

thanks gent's
ML: A7s + FE21 f2.8 -- FE28 f2 -- FE55 f1.8
DSLR: 1Dx + 85L II -- 200L f2 IS -- 400L f2.8 IS II

privatebydesign

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3939
  • Ermintrude says "moo"
Re: Compressed Vs Uncompressed RAW
« Reply #5 on: June 17, 2015, 10:49:36 AM »

Basically, lossy compression bad, lossless compression good!  ;D

Cheers, Graham.

This is very true.. as a concept, but....  If the lossy compression data file results in a final photograph that is good enough for its intended purpose, it may be a matter of lossy compression good enough, lossless compression better

One also has to look at the advantages of lossy compression.

The bottom line is that it is up to the individual photographer whether the advantages of lossy compression justify any disadvantage.

If the photographer has a hard time telling the difference and the final picture meets all the individual photographer's requirements, good enough may be good enough.

As a side note, it is interesting that when "good enough may be good enough" is used as a 'defense' of Canon DR it is pretty much pilloried by the Exmor advocates.

Some photographers will find real benefits in either route, Exmor sensor or lossless RAW files, it is just up to each of us to make an informed choice for our own use. I could live with either, I'd prefer both, but like Canon's approach to many things more, RAW files included.
Too often we lose sight of the fact that photography is about capturing light, if we have the ability to take control of that light then we grow exponentially as photographers. More often than not the image is not about lens speed, sensor size, MP's or AF, it is about the light.

tolusina

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 626
Re: Compressed Vs Uncompressed RAW
« Reply #6 on: June 17, 2015, 01:00:44 PM »
...... I shot RAW (+jpeg at that time) from day one even though using RAW was a PITA. I have reworked some of those files several times with much better results as software has improved, lossless RAW has played a large part in my being able to do that.......
That sums it up well.
And, from another thread......
I tried the new dehaze slider in Camera Raw 9.1 (Photoshop CC 2015).

It is really stunning!!! Unbelievable.

I have to rework all of my Grand Canyon RAWs....
6D, 40, 50 1.8 II, 50 1.8 STM, 24-105L, 90EX, 2X 600EX-RT, 2X Lightsphere, ST-E3-RT, Kenko DG set, GT2531LVL, Ultimate GP, PRO-100, SPYDERPrint, MG3122, PA242W-BK-SV, Intuos Pro, WIN 7 on hardware with intent, AE-1, D-70, D-80, P30T

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Compressed Vs Uncompressed RAW
« Reply #6 on: June 17, 2015, 01:00:44 PM »

drjlo

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 742
Re: Compressed Vs Uncompressed RAW
« Reply #7 on: June 17, 2015, 03:07:09 PM »
I have reworked some of those files several times with much better results as software has improved, lossless RAW has played a large part in my being able to do that.

It's a matter of degrees, not yes or no, isn't it?.  Sony lossy RAW's can also be reworked when new feature like Adobe dehaze slider comes out.  How much perceivable IQ is "lost"?  It would be very difficult to see in real life IMO.

privatebydesign

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3939
  • Ermintrude says "moo"
Re: Compressed Vs Uncompressed RAW
« Reply #8 on: June 17, 2015, 04:15:35 PM »
I have reworked some of those files several times with much better results as software has improved, lossless RAW has played a large part in my being able to do that.

It's a matter of degrees, not yes or no, isn't it?.  Sony lossy RAW's can also be reworked when new feature like Adobe dehaze slider comes out.  How much perceivable IQ is "lost"?  It would be very difficult to see in real life IMO.

I agree it is a matter of degrees, I disagree on if the loss is difficult to see in real life, not having the information loses any chance of making that choice and is a bad thing in my opinion and experience. But what do I know? Many people shoot jpeg only..............
« Last Edit: June 17, 2015, 04:26:56 PM by privatebydesign »
Too often we lose sight of the fact that photography is about capturing light, if we have the ability to take control of that light then we grow exponentially as photographers. More often than not the image is not about lens speed, sensor size, MP's or AF, it is about the light.

Mt Spokane Photography

  • EF 50mm F 0.7 IS
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10505
Re: Compressed Vs Uncompressed RAW
« Reply #9 on: June 17, 2015, 05:23:47 PM »
All Raw formats are compressed.  The Sony format throws away data while Canon and Nikon have all the data present when the raw file is uncompressed to edit it.

Software features will not recover missing data in a image file.  If they could, we could all just use jpeg and recover the data thrown away.

On the one hand, we have people wanting high resolution and high DR from the new Sony sensors.  Nikon is able to achieve both, but the Sony files fall short of Nikons.

If a person wants the advantages of a High MP sensor, do they want part of the sensor data discarded to produce a almost as good image taken by a more expensive but almost as good lens?  Some of the experts have already weighed in on the Sony compression, and they do not like it.

Valvebounce

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1497
  • Still can't use most of it to it's full potential!
Re: Compressed Vs Uncompressed RAW
« Reply #10 on: June 17, 2015, 08:35:24 PM »
Hi AcutancePhotography.
As you may have guessed from the smiley, this was written as a bit of a throwaway, tongue in cheek kind of line. Whilst I was writing it I was thinking of all those music officionados complaining about lossy mp3's missing the crackle from records yet many are too deaf from listening at high volume to tell the difference!   ;D
Sometimes lossy is good enough, sometimes not.

Cheers, Graham.


Basically, lossy compression bad, lossless compression good!  ;D

Cheers, Graham.

This is very true.. as a concept, but....  If the lossy compression data file results in a final photograph that is good enough for its intended purpose, it may be a matter of lossy compression good enough, lossless compression better

One also has to look at the advantages of lossy compression.

The bottom line is that it is up to the individual photographer whether the advantages of lossy compression justify any disadvantage.

If the photographer has a hard time telling the difference and the final picture meets all the individual photographer's requirements, good enough may be good enough.
7D + Grip, 40D + Grip, 20D, EF-S 17-85 Kit lens, EF 70-200 f2.8 L IS II USM, EF 2x III, Sigma 150-500, Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 C, 50mm f1.8, 550EX, Nissin Di622, Triopo TR-985, Godox FC-16, some Filters Remotes Macro tubes Tripod heads etc!

20D, BG-E2N, 17-85mm, 50mm are pre loved. :)

dilbert

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4003

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Compressed Vs Uncompressed RAW
« Reply #11 on: June 23, 2015, 08:43:53 AM »