Compressed Vs Uncompressed RAW

[Dylan777]

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

 

[Valvebounce]

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.

 

[AcutancePhotography]

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.

 

[privatebydesign]

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.

 

[Dylan777]

Interesting feedbacks

thanks gent's

 

[privatebydesign]

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.

 

[tolusina]

...... 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....

 

[drjlo]

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]

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..............

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

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]

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.