Am just thinking out loud here, but doesn't Nikon use Sony sensors, and don't they produce uncompressed RAW files? Seems that the technical roadblock isn't actually real if you ask me, but a conscious decision by Sony.
Upvote
0
dilbert said:Compression reduces the amount of image data that needs to be written to the card. The internal speed of the camera is much faster than the speed of the card, so massaging the data before being written out makes sense. That's why all on-card formats are compressed (CR2 is also compressed): faster write times to your memory stick/card.
distant.star said:You only think you talked with a "Sony rep."
That's a guy they keep in the back room for just such occasions. On another day, he's a "Canon rep."
neuroanatomist said:Does he have a rack of different logo T-shirts back there?
Maximilian said:I can remember using MiniDiscs with ATRAC in good HiFi (won't call it HighEnd).K-amps said:neuroanatomist said:Mt Spokane Photography said:Its interesting that they can build a high tech sensor, but don't know how to use a lossless compression, and have to investigate for what has been 3 years or so already.
Yeah, but their method of lossy compression is innovative.
Don't know how old you are John, but remember ATRAC ?
And it really sucked. A lot of room information loss, etc. compared to the original (CD) recording.
For mobile it was okay. But not for home HiFi. (At least for me)
dilbert said:YellowJersey said:...
So I was introduced to the Sony rep. I expressed my hesitation to buy the camera due to the lossy raw files, but made it clear that if/when true lossless raw files are available, I'd buy the camera in a heartbeat (again, stretching the truth a little). He confirmed what has been popping up a bit lately, that Sony is investigating lossless raw files and that they might be enabled via a firmware update. I thanked him for his time and he thanked me for my feedback.
...
1) What would you expect him to say?
2) If you think about what he said in terms of the rep being a salesman, does it make more sense?
I read your transcript and think "The Sony rep said exactly what anyone would expect him to say in order to increase the chance of a sale." i.e. He didn't promise anything but did try to answer your questions/queries in a way that would increase the likelihood of a sale.
neuroanatomist said:Mr1Dx said:Shot nearly two thousand photos from my recent Safari trip(1Dx(2) with 70-200 and 600mm & A7r + FE 16-35), I do not see "loss-less RAW files" impact in final results.
Well, when your sensor captures data that the camera throws away before saving the file, you don't really know what you're missing.
neuroanatomist said:So, Sony is looking into uncompressed RAW and might implement that at some unspecified future time. This is what people want? Likely results: huge files, slower frame rates, effectively shallower buffer.
Many of us here know the issue isn't compression, it's lossy compression. But from the interviews, it seems that Sony is getting a garbled version of the message, with frequent references to uncompressed RAW. Moral: be careful what you ask for...
How would "Sony lossy compression" impacts your image quality?neuroanatomist said:So, Sony is looking into uncompressed RAW and might implement that at some unspecified future time. This is what people want? Likely results: huge files, slower frame rates, effectively shallower buffer.
Many of us here know the issue isn't compression, it's lossy compression. But from the interviews, it seems that Sony is getting a garbled version of the message, with frequent references to uncompressed RAW. Moral: be careful what you ask for...
Mr1Dx said:neuroanatomist said:So, Sony is looking into uncompressed RAW and might implement that at some unspecified future time. This is what people want? Likely results: huge files, slower frame rates, effectively shallower buffer.
Many of us here know the issue isn't compression, it's lossy compression. But from the interviews, it seems that Sony is getting a garbled version of the message, with frequent references to uncompressed RAW. Moral: be careful what you ask for...
How would "Sony lossy compression" impacts your image quality?
emko said:Mr1Dx said:neuroanatomist said:So, Sony is looking into uncompressed RAW and might implement that at some unspecified future time. This is what people want? Likely results: huge files, slower frame rates, effectively shallower buffer.
Many of us here know the issue isn't compression, it's lossy compression. But from the interviews, it seems that Sony is getting a garbled version of the message, with frequent references to uncompressed RAW. Moral: be careful what you ask for...
How would "Sony lossy compression" impacts your image quality?
Because Lossy means its getting rid of information to make the compressed file smaller. It already results it some situations bad image quality like astrophotography. Please don't defend Sony its a extremely stupid decision to have lossy compression on what is supposed to be RAW files.
Mr1Dx said:Any photos to prove between the two?
emko said:neuroanatomist said:So, Sony is looking into uncompressed RAW and might implement that at some unspecified future time. This is what people want? Likely results: huge files, slower frame rates, effectively shallower buffer.
Many of us here know the issue isn't compression, it's lossy compression. But from the interviews, it seems that Sony is getting a garbled version of the message, with frequent references to uncompressed RAW. Moral: be careful what you ask for...
Yea i have no idea why anyone would be asking for uncompressed RAW when compression saves you transfer speed and space. What they really want is a loss less compression, i am sure Sony firmware guys understand what they are asking but it would be funny if a firmware came out with uncompressed RAW files with huge performance penalties.
yorgasor said:emko said:neuroanatomist said:So, Sony is looking into uncompressed RAW and might implement that at some unspecified future time. This is what people want? Likely results: huge files, slower frame rates, effectively shallower buffer.
Many of us here know the issue isn't compression, it's lossy compression. But from the interviews, it seems that Sony is getting a garbled version of the message, with frequent references to uncompressed RAW. Moral: be careful what you ask for...
Yea i have no idea why anyone would be asking for uncompressed RAW when compression saves you transfer speed and space. What they really want is a loss less compression, i am sure Sony firmware guys understand what they are asking but it would be funny if a firmware came out with uncompressed RAW files with huge performance penalties.
There's a very good chance these sales & exec types don't know the difference between uncompressed RAW, lossless compressed RAW & lossy compressed RAW. If English is a second language for them, it will be even harder to speak with precision. I'd give them the benefit of the doubt that if they implement the feature that they'd at least do it right, although the fact that they've implemented lossy RAW files to begin with does leave one room for skepticism.
Not mine, but this photo is pretty clear on compressed RAW issues for one scenario that I care about, astro:Mr1Dx said:Any photos to prove between the two?
dswtan said:Not mine, but this photo is pretty clear on compressed RAW issues for one scenario that I care about, astro:Mr1Dx said:Any photos to prove between the two?
http://diglloyd.com/blog/2014/20140214_1-SonyA7-artifacts-star-trails.html
I could believe this isn't an issue in general photography without such extreme contrast situations.