- Status
C
chriswatters
Guest
Lossless compression is a reasonably mature technology. There are not going to be any miracles that will compress data so that a 30 MP file takes the same space as an 18 MP file. Any future advances that provide huge increases in data compression are likely to be for lossy compression.
On the upside, they are still making significant advances in chip and storage manufacturing. You can expect that the cost of larger data storage devices will continue to fall. In a year or two, the a 32 GB card will likely cost less than a 16 GB card does today.
On the upside, they are still making significant advances in chip and storage manufacturing. You can expect that the cost of larger data storage devices will continue to fall. In a year or two, the a 32 GB card will likely cost less than a 16 GB card does today.
Upvote
0
Yup. Lossless compression algorithms have pretty much leveled out in the past 10-15 years and I don't think that this is a high priority at Canon. Improving or discovering new compression methods requires very dedicated fundamental research and the current technological climate is rather oriented towards increasing storage capacity and lowering storage costs.
Upvote
0
Also, in general, it is "difficult" to significantly further compress a file that is already compressed.
Imagine the file/data is like a sponge or whatever. Compress it a bit and it squashes up quite readily (e.g. JPEG compression). Once that's done it rapidly becomes VERY difficult to achieve much more volume reduction.
You're just not gonna see miracles in this direction.
Storage is cheap. Cough up! If you can afford an FF camera, you can save a bit longer and buy more storage, I should imagine.
Imagine the file/data is like a sponge or whatever. Compress it a bit and it squashes up quite readily (e.g. JPEG compression). Once that's done it rapidly becomes VERY difficult to achieve much more volume reduction.
You're just not gonna see miracles in this direction.
Storage is cheap. Cough up! If you can afford an FF camera, you can save a bit longer and buy more storage, I should imagine.
Upvote
0
Adobe has introduced lossy compression for dng files. It is said to produce better quality images than other lossy methods like jpeg, and still have much smaller files than regular DNG. It would be nice if Canon and others adopted something like this, but jpeg is so standard, that it would have to be something mucho better, and even then most people would not want to change to a new image standard.
Upvote
0
I've got tons of these
http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/TRANSCEND-COMPACT-FLASH-400X-UDMA-CF-32GB-32G-32-G-GB-/330394641784?pt=PCC_Drives_Storage_Internal&hash=item4ced0e2578
very cheap never had a problem with them
http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/TRANSCEND-COMPACT-FLASH-400X-UDMA-CF-32GB-32G-32-G-GB-/330394641784?pt=PCC_Drives_Storage_Internal&hash=item4ced0e2578
very cheap never had a problem with them
Upvote
0
If it uses lossy compression, the result can not be better than the original file. Better quality than JPG - yes, but not better than the original RAW/DNG file.Mt Spokane Photography said:
Anyway, shoot RAW and buy more storage. Lossy compression just isn't worth it for archiving originals.
Upvote
0
Drizzt321 said:
Adobe has added a new flavor with lossy compression. You can try it in the Lightroom 4 Beta. It has a higher quality than jpeg, and smaller files. You have three dng options now.
1. DNG plus raw
2. DNG (not lossy)
3. Lossy DNG http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-57371809-264/adobe-offering-new-reasons-to-get-dng-religion/
Here is some info taken from the link
"
Lossy DNG
The lossy DNGs are another matter altogether, though. Some people like raw photos because they record the original image exactly how the camera captured it, with no artifacts resulting from JPEG compression throwing away some data. Lossy DNGs, though, throw away data to produce a file size something like a quarter the size of a regular lossless DNG.
To do that, Adobe demosaics the raw data so that strictly speaking it's not raw anymore. More alarming to some, the original 12-,14-, or 16-bit raw data has been boiled down with the JPEG algorithm to 8 bits, meaning that there aren't as many gradations of color values.
But Adobe didn't just make an ordinary JPEG. First of all, the eight bits of data are carefully distributed according to each image with a "stretched" tone curve, Chan said in a forum post. Second, Adobe "dithers," which means it carefully adds a little noise when moving to 8-bit values, which can actually improve the appearance.
And unlike JPEGs, the lossy DNGs preserve much of the flexibility of raw, such as the ability to change white balance, keep a wide color gamut, and recover overexposed highlights, Chan said.
But while Adobe likes the lossy DNG option and believes some will enjoy its more economical storage demand, it doesn't suffer the illusion that it's for everybody.
"It's not a default nor an option for everyone," Hogarty said. "However, I know that a number of photographers shooting time lapses in a raw format or looking to archive outtakes in a more compact format will appreciate the flexibility." And some could use it as an archival format for second-tier photos.
And Adobe does care about lossy DNG image quality, and it encourages people to test it to see what they think. Here's Adobe's process, he said:
The way we've been testing this is by taking original raw files, making lossy compressed DNG versions of them, and developing the two pictures in Lightroom and then opening the results into Photoshop. We toggle between the two, and try to determine visually which is which. We do this at multiple visual scales (Fit View, 1:1, 2x, 4x, and even higher). Then we do a diff between the two images to scrutinize the visual structure of the differences"
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
