# Sony Announces Addition of Uncompressed 14-Bit RAW Still Image Capture for New A Cameras



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 15, 2015)

```
Sony Electronics, a worldwide leader in digital imaging and the world’s largest image sensor manufacturer, has today announced user selectable Compressed and Uncompressed 14-Bit RAW image capture will be featured in the new α7S II once it arrives in stores this October.</p>
<p>Additionally, they have announced plans to add user selectable compressed or uncompressed 14-Bit RAW still image capture via firmware update to additional cameras beginning with the recently introduced α7R II full-frame mirrorless model.</p>
<p>“The voice of our α community remains the most important guiding force of our product development plans,” said Neal Manowitz, Deputy Vice President for Digital Imaging at Sony Electronics. “The addition of Uncompressed 14-Bit RAW processing is a direct result of customer feedback. Widely requested by photo and video enthusiasts, we believe the choice of RAW processing types will further elevate the performance of these extraordinary cameras.”</p>
<p>The α7S II and α7R II are compatible with Sony’s growing lineup of α -mount lenses, which now totals 63 different models including 12 native ‘FE’ full frame lenses. By early 2016, Sony will add an additional 8 new lenses to its FE full frame lineup, bringing the FE total to 20 lenses and the overall α -mount assortment to over 70 different models.</p>
<p><strong>Preorder the Sony A7S II: <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1186034-REG/sony_ilce7sm2_b_alpha_a7sii_mirrorless_digital.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">B&H Photo</a> | <a href="http://www.adorama.com/ISOA7SM2.html?kbid=64393" target="_blank">Adorama</a> | Amazon</strong></p>
```


----------



## 3kramd5 (Sep 15, 2015)

Uncompressed? Why?


----------



## Orangutan (Sep 15, 2015)

3kramd5 said:


> Uncompressed? Why?





> “The addition of Uncompressed 14-Bit RAW processing is a direct result of customer feedback..."



Because their customers confused "lossless" and "uncompressed," so Sony took them literally rather than for what they meant. The customers wanted lossless compressed raw so no degradation would occur between A/D and the image file.

I hope this is a typo: someone at Sony must have known what was really meant. If not, it speaks poorly of their market intelligence.


----------



## Sunnystate (Sep 15, 2015)

I like that, even the naive presumption is right, that Sony did not understand what people want, it may be a trend setting act, and soon others will have to follow. 
It would be good to see and compare REAL RAW files.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Sep 15, 2015)

Good for Sony. This should make some of their customers happy. I think giving customers a choice is a good thing.


----------



## Orangutan (Sep 15, 2015)

AcutancePhotography said:


> I think giving customers a choice is a good thing.



Choice is great, but this was probably the wrong choice. For example, on my 20MP crop-sensor, raw files average around 25MB. An uncompressed raw file would be just under 33MB. They contain the same information, but one takes more space, takes longer to transfer between storage locations, etc. Sony should have used lossless compression unless they were unable to find a suitable compression algorithm.


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 15, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> AcutancePhotography said:
> 
> 
> > I think giving customers a choice is a good thing.
> ...



It's never that easy of a question to answer.... for instance, does the camera have the computing power to be able to compress the file in the extra time required to write it to the card? It might actually be quicker for the camera to dump larger files to the card than to compress them and write them... plus, the editing software will run faster without having to worry about uncompressing files....

The downside is bigger files... Some users will want smaller files so they can go with the lossy compressed RAW files, some want all the detail and they can pick the uncompressed RAW files.... to each their own.....

It's really not that different than Canon with RAW files and mRaw files...


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 15, 2015)

If its actually uncompressed raw, that would be a bigger mistake than the lossy compression they now use.

What was needed was lossless compression. Uncompressed files would be a huge size. Lots of clueless users asked for uncompressed raw, so they may get it. That would certainly be something they will turn off soon enough.


Uncompressed files from my D800 are 103.4 MB, a 42 mp camera will likely have 130+ MB files.


----------



## Stu_bert (Sep 15, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> If its actually uncompressed raw, that would be a bigger mistake than the lossy compression they now use.
> 
> What was needed was lossless compression. Uncompressed files would be a huge size. Lots of clueless users asked for uncompressed raw, so they may get it. That would certainly be something they will turn off soon enough.
> 
> ...



If people are worried, just compress them on the file system, folder at a time....

or convert to DNG


----------



## ecqns (Sep 15, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> If its actually uncompressed raw, that would be a bigger mistake than the lossy compression they now use.



I don't think it can be categorized as a "mistake" - giving the customer a choice on how they prefer to record images. Storage is dirt cheap and getting cheaper. And maybe it is lossless - we don't know yet.
I've read others speculating there might be some patent issues that could prevent Sony from doing similar compression like Canon & Nikon, which could explain things.
I doubt my a7r will get the update (and I can't say I've ever seen any image quality problems with it) but good news for Sony shooters going forward. I've switched to Sony bodies after using Canons for over 15 years - and I won't be going back - just buying more storage if necessary.


----------



## drjlo (Sep 15, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> they have announced plans to add user selectable compressed or uncompressed 14-Bit RAW still image capture via firmware update to additional cameras beginning with the recently introduced α7R II full-frame mirrorless model.</p>



I sure hope Sony does right by A7R, A7, and A7S owners


----------



## TeT (Sep 15, 2015)

as long as it is a menu choice it will be fine... Hopefully they will default compressed... just to keep it simple.


----------



## 9VIII (Sep 15, 2015)

As an amateur I wouldn't particularly care if my files were 200MB (which they probably are on the A7RII). I'm happy to hear they're giving people the high quality option.
Maybe this is just a quick fix while they work on something more suitable. It's better than nothing, and it shows they're listening.


----------



## msm (Sep 15, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > For example, on my 20MP crop-sensor, raw files average around 25MB. An uncompressed raw file would be just under 33MB.
> ...



But the sensor only measures one colour per pixel (red, green or blue), so 1/3rd of that would be correct. Debayering is done later when processing the raw in your raw processor.


----------



## Bdube (Sep 15, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > For example, on my 20MP crop-sensor, raw files average around 25MB. An uncompressed raw file would be just under 33MB.
> ...



Each pixel is monochrome, there is a matrix operation done on the RAW to turn it into a color photo =) 

14b/px * 20Mpx / 8bit/byte = 35MB. Maybe 36MB after adding metadata.


----------



## msm (Sep 15, 2015)

The current lossy raw stores 1 byte per pixel, and file sizes range around 42-43MB. The expected size of a uncompressed raw would therefore be around 74MB from the A7R II.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 15, 2015)

TeT said:


> as long as it is a menu choice it will be fine... Hopefully they will default compressed... just to keep it simple.



Default compressed, or default to lossy compressed? 

Compression can be lossy or lossless. Lossy files will be smaller, but not significantly smaller compared to lossy compression. But uncompressed files will be huge. 3X the time to save files to a card, 3X the card space needed, 3X the time to upload files to a computer.

This may mean nothing to someone who takes a occasional photo, but take 1500 in a session, and its very significant.

Compression algorithms are available in the public domain, so its not a patent issue.


----------



## LOALTD (Sep 15, 2015)

Even if it means literal, actual, "uncompressed" RAW, I don't much care.


It's irrelevant for my workflow, I convert all RAW formats into DNG anway.


128GB cards are cheap.


I'm more interested to see how shooting rates will be affected.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 15, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> Sony Electronics, a worldwide leader in digital imaging and the world’s largest image sensor manufacturer, has today announced user selectable Compressed and Uncompressed 14-Bit RAW image capture will be featured in the new α7S II once it arrives in stores this October.</p>
> <p>Additionally, they have announced plans to add user selectable compressed or uncompressed 14-Bit RAW still image capture via firmware update to additional cameras beginning with the recently introduced α7R II full-frame mirrorless model.</p>
> <p>“The voice of our α community remains the most important guiding force of our product development plans,” said Neal Manowitz, Deputy Vice President for Digital Imaging at Sony Electronics. “The addition of Uncompressed 14-Bit RAW processing is a direct result of customer feedback. Widely requested by photo and video enthusiasts, we believe the choice of RAW processing types will further elevate the performance of these extraordinary cameras.”</p>
> <p>The α7S II and α7R II are compatible with Sony’s growing lineup of α -mount lenses, which now totals 63 different models including 12 native ‘FE’ full frame lenses. By early 2016, Sony will add an additional 8 new lenses to its FE full frame lineup, bringing the FE total to 20 lenses and the overall α -mount assortment to over 70 different models.</p>
> <p><strong>Preorder the Sony A7S II: <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1186034-REG/sony_ilce7sm2_b_alpha_a7sii_mirrorless_digital.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">B&H Photo</a> | <a href="http://www.adorama.com/ISOA7SM2.html?kbid=64393" target="_blank">Adorama</a> | Amazon</strong></p>



nice, nice

gotta get my money together to get my Canon lenses attached to this A7R II beast for everything (where it will run rings around my Canon body) but for my AF macro work and sports/action/need something with solid AF and top UI for quick can't mess around work (where a Canon will run rings around it).


----------



## AvTvM (Sep 16, 2015)

*Re: Sony Announces Addition of Uncompressed 14-Bit RAW Still Image Capture for New α*



xps said:


> Well, Sony reacts fast on consumer wishes.



hahahaha! Good one. Sony has been heavily critiziced for more than 3 years now for their cooked and crippled RAWs. It took them forever to halfway fix such a simple issue. And even now it is rather unclear, whether they have really fixed the issue by offering both uncompressed 14 bit RAWs as well as LOSSLESSLY compressed 14-bit RAWs. And to what degree these RAWs will remain pre-cooked ... 

Furthermore, it looks as if the fix will only be available on A7s and A7R II. Leaving A7 II owners high and dry. not to mention A7, A7s, A7R, R1, R1X and A6000 users. :



xps said:


> Maybe Canon managers hear from that too and begins listening to its users a little bit more....


Well ... here we are looking at an issue, that does not affect Canon users. For once.


----------



## xps (Sep 16, 2015)

*Re: Sony Announces Addition of Uncompressed 14-Bit RAW Still Image Capture for New α*



AvTvM said:


> xps said:
> 
> 
> > Well, Sony reacts fast on consumer wishes.
> ...



Sorry, I thought about more DR for Canon users. If the rumors become 100% true, the 7RII (maybe) will have an signigicant increase of DR. IF Sony really creates RAWs like we Canon users are used to use


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 17, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Bdube said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...


I stand corrected.


----------



## jrista (Sep 23, 2015)

*So this is big news: Uncompressed 14-bit RAW for new Sony A7 series cameras*

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/breaking-news-sony-announces-addition-of-uncompressed-14-bit-raw-still-image-capture-for-new-%CE%B1-cameras/

That was what I was waiting for. They did it a lot faster than I expected. I've been on and off about an A7r II for astro...this was by far my single largest concern.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 23, 2015)

*Re: So this is big news: Uncompressed 14-bit RAW for new Sony A7 series cameras*

Big news...or big files? 

They seem to have given people exactly what they asked for, not necessarily what they wanted – uncompressed RAW. Bloated files and correspondingly reduced buffer capacity, instead of just switching from lossy to lossless compression. 

A choice between lost data and huge files is better than only the former, but not as good as lossy compression (like everyone else seems to offer).


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 23, 2015)

*Re: So this is big news: Uncompressed 14-bit RAW for new Sony A7 series cameras*

I still find it difficult to believe they are that stupid, and I wonder those who think its wonderful having 120MB files, reduced buffer, slow saving and uploading from cards and a lot of other potentially nasty performance issues.

Just changing to lossless compression was what was needed. 


But then, there has been a thread on this for 2 weeks now.


----------



## jrista (Sep 23, 2015)

*Re: So this is big news: Uncompressed 14-bit RAW for new Sony A7 series cameras*

It's entirely subjective. Whether you need a large buffer entirely depends on what your photographing. For landscapes, it doesn't matter a wit to me. I have countless gigs of memory cards, and I only take a frame every 10-15 seconds tops, probably more like every minute or two. 

The file sizes aren't that huge. It's about 75 megs an image at 42.4mp, and certainly significantly less for the A7s II. That is roughly the same as 5Ds RAW images. Nikon D800 and D810 lossless compressed RAW images are around 60mb in size. That isn't a huge difference. They aren't unreasonably large. LossLESS compression saves you some space, but not a ton. I have hundreds of gigs of intermediate astro data of files 250 megs or more in size for 32-bit float FITS files. I have archival FITS files with high precision 64-bit float data that are even larger. You can pick up a 3TB drive for pittance these days, and 4-6TB drives are falling fast. I saw a new high performance 1TB SSD for $320 the other day...I spent almost that much on a 256GB EVO barely a year ago. Storage space costs are dropping like stones.

When it comes to astrophotography, my images are 5, 10, 15 minutes long each, so as long as the buffer can handle the uncompressed data for one frame, that's all I care about. If you need a sports camera with a high frame rate, then there are certainly better options. Plus, the lossy compression can be enabled if you DO care about buffer depth. I've used a number of Sony cameras now. While in extreme circumstances the compression can exhibit, in practice you cannot tell the difference. My primary concern was for astrophotography, where the compression can be a problem due to the very low signal levels. With extensive stacking, posterization starts to occur in the background areas, which tends to be rather unsightly. That should no longer be a problem with uncompressed 41-bit RAW.

The thing I like about Sony is they respond to customer needs, and do so rather quickly (relatively speaking, compared to the several-year turnaround between Canon DSLR models, which is usually about the fastest you get any major changes if you need them.) If the next outcry for Sony is to add lossLESS compression, I have little doubt they will respond.


----------



## Orangutan (Sep 23, 2015)

*Re: So this is big news: Uncompressed 14-bit RAW for new Sony A7 series cameras*



jrista said:


> http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/breaking-news-sony-announces-addition-of-uncompressed-14-bit-raw-still-image-capture-for-new-%CE%B1-cameras/
> 
> That was what I was waiting for. They did it a lot faster than I expected. I've been on and off about an A7r II for astro...this was by far my single largest concern.



While y'all were away on vacation or whatnot, we already had a thread or two on the subject.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=27694.msg547089


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 23, 2015)

*Re: So this is big news: Uncompressed 14-bit RAW for new Sony A7 series cameras*

High ISO images from my D800 open to 105MP when uncompressed, the Sony will certainly be higher.

Maybe if you only use ISO 100 in bright sunlight would you get 75MB uncompressed images.

So the camera suddenly becomes a slow camera, and you must have tons of large cards?

That is not going to be a sales point, so they won't tell buyers about that part.


----------



## jrista (Sep 23, 2015)

I am not sure what you mean by "open to"...what, as 16-bit full RGB data in Photoshop? That is not indicative of actual data size for a RAW image. For one, the 16-bit image is RGB, three values per pixel, so significantly more data. (Actually, so much more, I am now thinking you mean 8-bit RGB, 24-bits total?) A RAW image contains a _*single *_14-bit value per pixel. It's simple math. In the case of the A7r II:

7952*5304*14/8 = 73,810,464

Throw in some extra for metadata overhead and whatnot... It wouldn't matter how noisy the image is, because there is no compression whatsoever. Every single image would be the same size, maybe with a few bytes difference for changes in metadata length (assuming they don't pad their metadata). 

As far as writing images to a memory card, uncompressed SONY raw images aren't going to consume any more space than a 5Ds or D810 losslessly compressed RAW.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 23, 2015)

*Re: So this is big news: Uncompressed 14-bit RAW for new Sony A7 series cameras*



jrista said:


> The thing I like about Sony is they respond to customer needs



I think this shows that Sony is failing to understand and respond to customers' _needs_. Kind of like finding someone lost in the desert who is severely parched and asking for a drink, so you hand them a bottle of whiskey from your pack which will only dehydrate them further, instead of the full water bottle hanging from your belt. Good job, Sony.


----------



## jrista (Sep 23, 2015)

Oh what a load of crap. But, not surprising from you.

Lossless compression MIGHT save you about 10 megs under the best of conditions for a high resolution sensor. In the case of the A7s II, the savings are going to be significantly less. At higher ISO, you won't save nearly as much, and worst case scenario, it won't save you much of anything. The differences in average image size are usually a few megs from the actual native uncompressed size when you account for the impact of noise. 

Lossless compressed, uncompressed. The difference is FAR LESS important than having a non-lossy RAW option in the first place. Sony DID respond to customer needs, and more so than that, to customer demand. This was a BIG demand from Sony customers, and Sony responded. The demand WAS for "uncompressed" RAW. Whether people knew what they were asking for or not, we can only conjecture. But it was what they asked for. Same thing Canon did with the 1D X, fewer megapixels. The actual customer demand from Canon was BETTER megapixels, fewer megapixels, and Canon only really delivered on the fewer part.

There is no perfect manufacturer. At least Sony is pushing the envelope on as many fronts as they can, as often as they can, with a quick response to customer requests. I have for more trust that Sony will listen and act on customer demands than Canon. I could string off a rather long list of customer requests that Canon has ignored for years, in some cases a decade or more? I stopped bothering to wait for Canon to respond to the biggest customer demands for a reason. It's always the same thing with Canon...the predictability got rather boring.


----------



## Orangutan (Sep 23, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> I think this shows that Sony is failing to understand and respond to customers' _needs_. Kind of like finding someone lost in the desert...





jrista said:


> Oh what a load of crap. .



Yes, that desert analogy was a bit hyperbolic, but I think the general idea is valid: the fact that Sony actually needed customer feedback to tell them to use lossless storage for their top-IQ body is disappointing. It's great that they're "listening" to customer feedback, but it would be nice if they would do so in a more intelligent, and dare I say, "business-savvy" way. I really do want Sony to be a viable competitor, but I'm concerned that they keep doing a half-brained job of all of their improvements (except the sensor). Eventually they'll get there, but will they run out of R&D money first?

Sometimes I wonder if Sony bodies are more intended as advertizing for their sensors than as viable products. I hope I'm wrong.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Sep 23, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > Uncompressed? Why?
> ...



Jesus, it appears to actually be uncompressed.

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/6144418951/what-difference-does-it-make-sony-uncompressed-raw


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 23, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> ...I think the general idea is valid: the fact that Sony actually needed customer feedback to tell them to use lossless storage for their top-IQ body is disappointing.



Exactly. The took something that was a fundamental problem which should never have occurred, and after 'listening' to customers they deliver a flawed solution. 




jrista said:


> But, not surprising from you.



Unsurprising as your obsequious response to Sony's flawed 'solution', perhaps? :


----------



## 3kramd5 (Sep 23, 2015)

jrista said:


> Oh what a load of crap. But, not surprising from you.
> 
> Lossless compression MIGHT save you about 10 megs under the best of conditions for a high resolution sensor.



It MIGHT save you substantially more depending on algorithm and content. 

The 5DS at ISO100 puts out about 64.7MB raws in high-detail scenes (per Bryan Carnathan).

DPReview is saying 81MB for the A7R2.

That's a 16MB advantage for the Canon despite the Canon having 20% more pixels.

Personally, I'll likely enable uncompressed in some extreme situations, but I haven't had one instance of the lossy scheme biting me yet (about 5,000 exposures into my R2). Hoping it maintains 14-bit in modes like bulb and silent.


----------



## Orangutan (Sep 23, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Unsurprising as your



Is this really necessary?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 23, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Unsurprising as your
> ...



Perhaps like Sony, you're not addressing the actual problem...



jrista said:


> Oh what a load of crap. .


----------



## AvTvM (Sep 23, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Exactly. The took something that was a fundamental problem which should never have occurred, and after 'listening' to customers they deliver a flawed solution.



for once I am 100% with you on this one. 

It really is not like Sony would have to INVENT lossless compressed RAW output. It's been around for many years. If I understand it right, Sony even had (12-bit) lossless compressed RAWs in their Alpha A700, A900 DSLRs, but dropped it in later (SLT, mirrorless) models. 

And Sony definitely has NOT responded quickly - their customers have asked for it ever since the launch of the Alpha 7 ... 2 years ago. (Oct 2013)


----------



## jrista (Sep 23, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > ...I think the general idea is valid: the fact that Sony actually needed customer feedback to tell them to use lossless storage for their top-IQ body is disappointing.
> ...



The thing that annoys me here is the use of the word "flawed". The solution is not flawed. A flawed solution would be a non-working solution. A non-functional solution. A solution that could not actually work. This is the kind of bullS___ you spout, and the reason I cannot stand you. You carefully choose words to twist facts. 

Sony SOLVED a problem. The solution may not be what you, a Canon user, who is familiar with losslessly compressed RAW files, would PREFER, but that does NOT make the solution "flawed". That is the load of crap. 

As for Sony's response time. How long have people asked for better DR from Canon, and been stuck with marginal, fraction of a stop improvements (at BEST)? I can remember people asking since the K5 first hit the streets. That was, what, this month 2010? Not everyone NEEDS lossless compression, just like not everyone needs more DR. At least Sony was working the problem. The A7s II has it out of the box, so the option to use uncompressed was completed some time ago, in order to make it into the release for that camera. And they are going to push it out to the rest of the A7 line as well. Canon has refused to deliver AF-point linked metering to their cameras for...god, much longer than they have needed to improve their DR. I think that is the longest standing customer demand for Canon DSLRs that I can remember.

The thing that is a load of crap is to call the addition of uncompressed RAW a "flaw". It may not be the most ideal solution, which probably would have been lossless compression, but it is certainly not flawed. 

For the record:

[quote author="DPReview"]This is not the end of the story

In our discussions with Sony, the company was keen to stress that it is still listening. We suspect the reason Sony is offering uncompressed Raw, rather than losslessly-compressed Raw that some users would like, stems from the limitations of working with the cameras' existing processors, rather than any misunderstanding about consumer demands. The company says it will continue to listen and will investigate the development of a lossless compression system if there's sufficient user demand.[/quote]

If any of you die-hard Canon fanboys would actually pay attention to Sony, the interviews with their execs, etc. you would probably find they aren't just some half-assed, ad-hoc floundering fledgling camera company tossing out as many products as possible to see if they stick. I don't think they just see their cameras as advertisements for their sensors. I think they see their cameras as one of the potentially most profitable sectors of their entire company, given the poor state of most of their other sectors, particularly the rest of their electronics. They know exactly what position they are in in the market, have no illusions of the nearly cliff-like uphill battle they have against Canon and Nikon, and are fighting the battle anyway. 

THAT is what I admire about Sony. They are honest in a way that I'd LOVE to see Canon be. Instead, we get blatant obfuscation, face saving, and lies (or perhaps just plain old simple naivete? I kind of don't think that is the case...) from Maeda on a fairly regular basis now.

Anyway. Good to see this place hasn't changed.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Sep 23, 2015)

jrista said:


> The thing that annoys me here is the use of the word "flawed". The solution is not flawed. A flawed solution would be a non-working solution. A non-functional solution. A solution that could not actually work. This is the kind of bullS___ you spout, and the reason I cannot stand you. You carefully choose words to twist facts.
> 
> *Sony SOLVED a problem.*



I'm not even sure that's true. Lossy compression wasn't a problem; it functioned exactly as Sony intended it to. They merely added a new option. 

I think they took the shortest path - not compressing at all - in order to get that option out there quickly. Hopefully with more time they can develop a lossless compression algorithm.


----------



## jrista (Sep 23, 2015)

3kramd5 said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > The thing that annoys me here is the use of the word "flawed". The solution is not flawed. A flawed solution would be a non-working solution. A non-functional solution. A solution that could not actually work. This is the kind of bullS___ you spout, and the reason I cannot stand you. You carefully choose words to twist facts.
> ...



Aye. I agree. 

If there is a limitation in the current hardware that limits them from using a lossless option, then I would expect future models to have better options. It won't take terribly long, the turnaround cycle on the A7 series, the alpha series in general, is pretty short. I used to think that was a problem, but I actually like it, a lot. You don't have to wait three years to get an upgrade if you want/need it.


----------



## quod (Sep 23, 2015)

*Re: So this is big news: Uncompressed 14-bit RAW for new Sony A7 series cameras*



neuroanatomist said:


> I think this shows that Sony is failing to understand and respond to customers' _needs_...


You mean like how Canon fails to under and respond to its customers' _needs_ for more dynamic range and clean shadow recovery? Are those the kinds of _needs_ we are talking about? Kind of like finding someone lost in the desert who is severely parched and asking for a drink, so you hand them a bottle of whiskey from your pack which will only dehydrate them further, instead of the full water bottle hanging from your belt. Good job, Canon.  

Oh, and thank you for the quote, Neuro. You are very kind in providing the words that encapsulates Canon's response to its customers' needs with your own brand of sarcasm and arrogance. :


----------



## msm (Sep 23, 2015)

3kramd5 said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > The thing that annoys me here is the use of the word "flawed". The solution is not flawed. A flawed solution would be a non-working solution. A non-functional solution. A solution that could not actually work. This is the kind of bullS___ you spout, and the reason I cannot stand you. You carefully choose words to twist facts.
> ...



If you had no problem with the lossy compression stick with it. Whether it is losslessy compressed or uncompressed will make no difference to you, both options will only waste your hard drive space.

This fix is for those who push their files hard who would in some rare occasions see posterisation along extremely high contrast borders along the vertical axis when they push their files hard. Now they can switch to a lossless format in those situations.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Sep 23, 2015)

msm said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



Harddrive space is cheap cheap cheap. I will likely continue shooting lossy raw for most everything, but if I happen to be somewhere with conditions which may contribute to artifacting, I'll happily double my file size. 

Or I might just shoot uncompressed all the time so I don't have a 'whoops' moment.


----------



## AvTvM (Sep 23, 2015)

3kramd5 said:


> Or I might just shoot uncompressed all the time so I don't have a 'whoops' moment.



Feelin' whoopy?

Fact is, it took Sony two full years to address the problem and the solution they offer is flawed .. or half-assed. Either way, not good enough. 

And Canon is even worse in not truly listening to its customers. Full-assed, so to speak.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Sep 23, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > Or I might just shoot uncompressed all the time so I don't have a 'whoops' moment.
> ...



Thinking about it this way: 

Whatever camera I use, I'm always shooting raw. For family gatherings and chasing my kid around the house, could I get away with L jpeg? Probably. M jpeg? Probably. S jpeg? Maybe, if I don't print.

But I don't, primarily so that I don't have a brainfart and go to a critical shoot with the thing set to something other than RAW.

Flash memory is a concern, but it's light and not terribly expensive - I can double the capacity I have for the A7R2 for 100 bucks, and I can take cards away from my 5D3 stash.

Hard drive space is not a concern - I can get a 6TB drive at $37/TB.

Cloud space is not a concern - I pay 60 bucks per year for unlimited storage.

Would I prefer lossless? Yep. And hopefully there isn't a hardware limitation, or major performance hit, and will added in a future update.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 23, 2015)

jrista said:


> The thing that annoys me here is the use of the word "flawed". The solution is not flawed. A flawed solution would be a non-working solution. A non-functional solution. A solution that could not actually work. This is the kind of bullS___ you spout, and the reason I cannot stand you. You carefully choose words to twist facts.



So a diamond with a flaw has no value? A flaw evident in a person's personality doesn't mean I can't respect that person. I respect you, for example. 




jrista said:


> The thing that is a load of crap is to call the addition of uncompressed RAW a "flaw". It may not be the most ideal solution, which probably would have been lossless compression, but it is certainly not flawed.



Sony's uncompressed RAW functions well for you because a one shot buffer meets your needs, and therefore it's not a flawed solution. But if some other feature of a different product meets the needs of some but does not meet _your_ needs, say......Canon's low ISO DR – well, that means Canon delivers "poor, sub-par, unacceptable IQ." Nope, that's not a load of crap at all. :




jrista said:


> For the record:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So you consider DPR's _speculation_ to be part of 'the record'. Nope, that's not a load of crap either. 


[quote author=jrista"]
Anyway. Good to see this place hasn't changed.
[/quote]

Thanks for your notable contributions in that area.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Sep 23, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > The thing that is a load of crap is to call the addition of uncompressed RAW a "flaw". It may not be the most ideal solution, which probably would have been lossless compression, but it is certainly not flawed.
> ...



Where are you reading that an uncompressed RAW fills the buffer? Seems... beyond unlikely, as the files are only ~twice as large.


Edit: never mind, I thought it through and suspect you're saying that 1-shot is good enough for what jrista shoots, so no matter what the capacity ends up, he's good.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 24, 2015)

jrista said:


> Oh what a load of crap. But, not surprising from you.
> 
> Lossless compression MIGHT save you about 10 megs under the best of conditions for a high resolution sensor.



That's a pipe dream. Canon and Nikon Lossless compression vary from about 2:1 to 3:1.

Its easy to check, so no need to make a totally incorrect statement.

Open a NEF or CR2 with lossless compression in Photoshop and it tells you the uncompressed file size.

For example, a ISO 100 CR2 Raw from my 5D MK III has a compressed file size of 21.0 MP (Varies by detail). Uncompressed, it is 60.2MP, for a 3:1 compression rate. Or, open the file in DPP, and save it as a 16 bit tiff (14 bit is not a option). The resulting uncompressed 16 Tiff file is 120.4MB.

OK, now save it as a 8 bit (Not 14 bit uncompressed tiff) a lot smaller, only 60.3 MB!

Where in the world did you come up with a 10MB difference?

Try saving the file as a 8 bit uncompressed tiff from photoshop, now its 60.1 MB, slightly better than DPP.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 24, 2015)

3kramd5 said:


> Where are you reading that an uncompressed RAW fills the buffer? Seems... beyond unlikely, as the files are only ~twice as large.
> 
> Edit: never mind, I thought it through and suspect you're saying that 1-shot is good enough for what jrista shoots, so no matter what the capacity ends up, he's good.



The latter - he stated essentially just that:



jrista said:


> It's entirely subjective. Whether you need a large buffer entirely depends on what your photographing. For landscapes, it doesn't matter a wit to me. I have countless gigs of memory cards, and I only take a frame every 10-15 seconds tops, probably more like every minute or two.



Apparently, the need for buffer depth is subjective and 'depends on what your you're photographing,' but that doesn't apply to low ISO DR.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 24, 2015)

DPR now has reported on the Sony A7R II cameras they have tested with no compression. The images they have seen are about double the size, or a 40+ MP hit. Apparently Sony says that the buffer will fill faster, but there has been no performance testing as of yet. Presumably, it will take longer to empty the buffer and upload to a computer for editing. Beyond that point in the process, it should not make much if any difference.

The files definitely look better.

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/6144418951/what-difference-does-it-make-sony-uncompressed-raw

It sounds like testing will be done once actual production firmware is released.


----------



## Orangutan (Sep 24, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


Which is....?


----------



## Orangutan (Sep 24, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



A look at his posting history also shows him to be very knowledgeable and generous with his time and expertise. He's quite capable of supporting his positions very well without being abrasive; it's a mystery to me why he doesn't play to his strengths.


----------



## jrista (Sep 24, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Oh what a load of crap. But, not surprising from you.
> ...



This is totally incorrect. Photoshop tells you the uncompressed size for RGB DATA!!!!

RAW images store a SINGLE color value per PIXEL. Pixel being directly correlated to the physical element on the sensor. When Photoshop opens an image, it generates an in-memory RGB-per-pixel bitmap. If you loaded the image as 8-bpp, then that is a total of 24-bits per pixel, rather than 14-bits. When you account for the compression, THAT is where you get the 2:1 to 3:1 "ratio". 

Same thing goes for saving an image as TIFF. The TIFF image is again RGB, so three color values per pixel. Throw in the increase to 16-bit, and you are radically inflating the actual necessary data sizes here.

I came up with an ~10mb difference by calculating the actual necessary data storage to contain ONE 14-bit data value per sensor pixel, and compared that to actual file sizes. I just looked them up online. As I said, it's very simple math.


----------



## jrista (Sep 24, 2015)

3kramd5 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



I am not quite sure what the issue here is either. The Sony A7r II has a 24-frame buffer. With continuous shooting, it fills up in 5 seconds, and it will keep taking one shot at a time forever (or until your memory card fills up). The 5Ds has a 12-frame buffer. So, even IF the uncompressed raw actually does halve the buffer...it will still be as good as the 5Ds.

Neuro, how exactly is this "flawed"? It's no worse than the 5Ds "at worst", and if you don't care about the compression (for anything other than astro, it doesn't matter to me, I was perfectly happy with the lossy compressed images I got from the A7s), the buffer is twice as big! Despite the huge resolution.

Spokane, while I understand what he is trying to do, is actually very flawed in his approach to testing compression ratio, because he is not accounting for the fact that photoshop's in-memory bitmaps store THREE values per pixel, rather than one. So, even with the lowest precision data, 8-bpp, his comparisons are assuming 24-bits per pixel, which is what Photoshop is basing those memory load readings off of. 

The image sizes are not going to be anywhere close to 100mb per image. I calculated 73mb myself, however I did not account for the border of masked pixels. Throwing those in, we might have 78-80mb per uncompressed image. This isn't something egregious here. Yeah, it's double the size of a LOSSY compressed image, because lossy compression is how Sony is achieving the 2:1 ratio in the first place. LossLESS compression isn't going to get anywhere near as close to that ratio...not unless your image is packed full of nearly identical pixels that give the algorithm a ton of repeatable data to work with. The noisier the image, the more difficult it is to compress with lossless compression, hence the reason that most cameras that already use it end up approaching the uncompressed image size as you increase ISO (or otherwise encounter increased noise) anyway. And those uncompressed raw image sizes are not two to three times larger than the compressed images. They may be 20-30% larger AT MOST, if that. There isn't a lot of processing power in a DSLR, not compared to personal computers, tablets and phones anyway. The algorithms have to work within the limitations of the hardware, so we are not talking cutting edge compression algorithms here. 

I don't know why this is being blown so out of proportion and so twisted like this. You guys act like Sony flubbed. They delivered on a customer demand. They improved something that was lacking in their cameras. The uncompressed images may not be as small as lossless compressed images, but lossless compression is not going to be anywhere close to the ~40mb file size that their current lossY compressed images are. Nowhere even remotely close.

The only conclusion here is that this is just the same old unrelenting die-hard Canon fanboyism. Canon has been holding out on you guys on plenty of things for years. I just read an article on the front page of this very site where one of the top requests from Canon customers is STILL to have af-point linked metering. A feature that has been relegated to the 1D line for decades, and a feature that Canon customers clearly have a broad need and use for, have for decades, and are STILL WAITING. Oh, but it's egregious that Sony took "two years" to fix the lossy compression? It took over a year for complaints about it to mount to a big enough level that Sony prioritized it. You guys are all smart enough to understand how this works. In the grand scheme of things, compared to how long Canon has dragged their feet on BIG customer demands (oh, dare I mention it...dynamic range?), two years is lightning speed in comparison. 

Bah. This community...one hell of a WEIRD community...


----------



## meywd (Sep 24, 2015)

In the name of the CR community I welcome your return, jrista and neruo, we missed your posts.

Back on the topic, why talk theory when it can be tested, let's wait for the tests to see the actual size difference, as for the frame rate hit, the Sony A series aren't meant for action shots, neither the AF nor the lenses help in that regard.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 24, 2015)

jrista said:


> I am not quite sure what the issue here is either. The Sony A7r II has a 24-frame buffer. With continuous shooting, it fills up in 5 seconds, and it will keep taking one shot at a time forever (or until your memory card fills up). The 5Ds has a 12-frame buffer. So, even IF the uncompressed raw actually does halve the buffer...it will still be as good as the 5Ds.
> 
> Neuro, how exactly is this "flawed"? It's no worse than the 5Ds "at worst", and if you don't care about the compression (for anything other than astro, it doesn't matter to me, I was perfectly happy with the lossy compressed images I got from the A7s), the buffer is twice as big! Despite the huge resolution.



It's flawed because it _needlessly_ increases file size and that has a negative consequence on buffer depth. People have been asking for a multiple destination feature for the Google Maps mobile app. What if Google delivered a 'solution' that provided directions which needlessly added several miles and several minutes of travel time to every route when the multiple destinations feature was used? Apparently you'd call that a perfectly acceptable 'solution', because you'd still get to your destinations, you're never in a hurry and you can afford the gas...and after all the iOS native Maps app doesn't even offer multiple destinations. I'd call it a flawed solution. 




jrista said:


> Bah. This community...one hell of a WEIRD community...



Well, you're right about that. Statements like 'Canon sensors deliver poor IQ' definitely add to that WEIRDNESS.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Sep 24, 2015)

jrista said:


> The image sizes are not going to be anywhere close to 100mb per image. I calculated 73mb myself, however I did not account for the border of masked pixels. Throwing those in, we might have 78-80mb per uncompressed image.



I figure 42,000,000pix * 14-bit/pix *1byte/8bit *1MB/(2^20)byte. 70.1MB of luminance data. Plus whatever additional information a file contains (exif, JPEG preview, etc). I could easily see the 81MB dpreview referred to.

With lossless compression, I imagine the files would end up ~60MB. When the firmware comes out I'll compress some to find out. I do expect more than a 10MB advantage, however. The D800 saves about *33*MB between uncompressed 14-bit and losslessly compressed 14-bit .nef. 



neuroanatomist said:


> It's flawed because it _needlessly_ increases file size and that has a negative consequence on buffer depth.



Engineering = tradeoffs.

Uncompressed depletes available buffer, but perhaps lossless compression would overly (one might says "needlessly") tax the processor and cause heat-related noise issues or impact battery life. Who knows? 

From the above link, when selecting uncompressed, the D800 has a 16-frame buffer for 74.4MB files. When selecting lossless compressed, the D800 has a 17-frame buffer for 41.3MB files. So a *44% reduction* in file size only gains you an *additional 5%* worth of buffer headroom. I won't claim to know exactly why that is, but clearly file size isn't the only variable.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 24, 2015)

jrista said:


> This is totally incorrect. Photoshop tells you the uncompressed size for RGB DATA!!!!
> 
> RAW images store a SINGLE color value per PIXEL. Pixel being directly correlated to the physical element on the sensor. When Photoshop opens an image, it generates an in-memory RGB-per-pixel bitmap. If you loaded the image as 8-bpp, then that is a total of 24-bits per pixel, rather than 14-bits. When you account for the compression, THAT is where you get the 2:1 to 3:1 "ratio".
> 
> ...



Your simple math does not line up with reality. The early test files have doubled in size.

Figures are available already for Nikon models that offer lossy compression, lossless compression, and uncompressed. They also run slightly greater than 2:1.

Scroll down to the section listing typical card capacities where it gives expected file sizes.

http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d4/spec.htm


----------



## jrista (Sep 25, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > This is totally incorrect. Photoshop tells you the uncompressed size for RGB DATA!!!!
> ...



Those file sizes are illogical. This is really basic math. Excluding the masked border pixels, which would increase file size, this is a matter of bits and bytes. The sensor in the D4 is a bayer sensor. That means there is a header in the NEF that defines the bayer pattern, among other bits of metadata, and that is probably only a matter of bytes in size, so a minuscule fraction of the data. The rest of the data is pixel information. Every pixel is stored in a sequence with a specified run length, as a single value of the specified camera precision (in the case of the D4, apparently either 12 bits or 14 bits), until the last pixel is written.

So, ignoring the masked border pixels, the sensor size is 4,928x3,280. Multiplying those together give us the total pixel count of 16,163,840. That is the exact number of light sensitive pixels. To store all of them with UNCOMPRESSED 14-bit precision, mathematically, you need 16,163,840 * 14 BITS, or a total of 226,293,760. Since there are 8 bits per byte, we divide that by 8 to get the number of BYTES, which comes out to 28,286,720. An uncompressed 14-bit RAW image form a sensor with 4,928x3,280 pixels will consume 28.3MB worth of space if it is stored at full precision, uncompressed. 

Now, the page you linked says an uncompressed 14-bit NEF for the D4 is 15.3 MB. I'm sorry, but that plain and simply cannot be the case. Something has to give in order for that to be true. Either those files are actually still compressed in some way, or Nikon is actually gimping you on the bit depth...or, the number they are reporting for uncompressed 14-bit RAW is simply wrong. I am not inclined to think Nikon is gimping their photographers in terms of precision, so they are either still compressing those images, or the numbers are wrong. The numbers don't add up in any way that I can account for...so I'm inclined to say the numbers, all of them, for the D4, are just wrong. 

I trust the math, more than some spec page on the internet, even if it is official.

I've read around the net that the average image file sizes for the 5Ds range from low 60's to low/mid 70's. With an image size of 8688x5792, it's uncompressed file size would be 88MB. At 62mb, the image would be 70.5% of the full uncompressed size, and at 74mb the image would be 84.1% the full uncompressed size. That is a top savings of less than 30%. Maximum savings would be around 26mb, minimum savings would be around 14mb. 

In the case of my 5D III, which is the key source where I actually pulled the ~10mb difference from, my uncompressed size is ~39MB, and my actual sizes in practice range from 27MB to 32MB. At 27MB, I'm saving ~30%, at 32MB I am saving ~18%.

Simple math. Assuming, of course, that were really talking about totally uncompressed, full precision RAW data. God only knows what Nikon is reporting on the D4 page, but it isn't uncompressed full precision RAW file sizes. As for the in-memory load when opening an image in PS, that is the RGB (three full precision values per pixel) load. In the case of a 5Ds, with it's 8688x5792 pixel images, at 8-bpp, the in-memory load should be somewhere around 150,962,688 bytes (~150MB). If we are talking 16-bpp, then that jumps to 301,925,376 bytes (~300MB). If you look around the net, people are seeing 145-150mb loads for 8-bpp and right around 300mb loads for 16-bpp with 5Ds images loaded into Photoshop. 

Simple math here.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Sep 25, 2015)

jrista said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...




Are we looking at the same page?

My D4 spec page says 34.3MB for 14-bit uncompressed D4 files, which is pretty well in line with the bit arithmetic + a JPEG preview and overhead data.

I don't know where you're seeing 15.3MB. Perhaps you misread the 12-bit compressed figure?


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 25, 2015)

jrista said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...


Today's shooting 465 images. Size is 11,352,034,319 bytes.
Largest image is 31,101,952 bytes
smallest image is 19,260,416 bytes
Average file size of 24,412,977 bytes

The image size is 5472 x 3648, or 19,961,856 pixels
at 14 bit depth that would be 34,933,248 bytes

My minimum compression is 10.97 percent
my maximum compression is 44.86 percent
my average compression is 30.11 percent

My 7D2 aligns quite well with your ~30 percent number from a 5DIII

There are a lot of compression algorithms out there.... most seem to be public domain, which means that anyone can use them. If the best that Canon seems to able to do for lossless compression is 30 percent, then it is a fair bit that the best Nikon or Sony will be able to do is also to AVBERAGE 30 percent.

A claim of lossless compression where there is a 50 percent reduction in file size could be a mistake, a lie, or it could be the marketing people using a best case scenario and not an average or a typical value. Remember, on my 7D2 today I managed to take one image that got compressed 44.86 percent....

I believe that the claim of 50 percent reduction really is for lossless compression, but is a best case scenario


----------



## 3kramd5 (Sep 25, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> A claim of lossless compression where there is a 50 percent reduction in file size could be a mistake, a lie, or it could be the marketing people using a best case scenario and not an average or a typical value.




I wondered myself whether it was based on dramatically under- or over-exposed images, wherein an abundance of repetitive 1s or 0s would lend itself to high compression.


----------



## jrista (Sep 25, 2015)

3kramd5 said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > A claim of lossless compression where there is a 50 percent reduction in file size could be a mistake, a lie, or it could be the marketing people using a best case scenario and not an average or a typical value.
> ...



Yeah, that is a possibility. Not indicative of real-world cases, in which case, it's very misleading. The more complex the data is, the more detailed the scene (or, the more noisy the image), the less your compression ratio is likely going to be. I've never seen more than about 30% with any of my Canon cameras, and it is usually more around 20%. Maybe Sony could do better with lossless compression...I am honestly not sure how powerful their Bionz chips are. 

It also sounds more and more like there are embedded ARM processors going into cameras. With more general purpose high speed compute power, better algorithms would be applicable as well.


----------



## jrista (Sep 25, 2015)

3kramd5 said:


> Are we looking at the same page?
> 
> My D4 spec page says 34.3MB for 14-bit uncompressed D4 files, which is pretty well in line with the bit arithmetic + a JPEG preview and overhead data.
> 
> I don't know where you're seeing 15.3MB. Perhaps you misread the 12-bit compressed figure?



Hmm...strange. I just clicked the link Spokane provided and scrolled down.


----------



## jrista (Sep 25, 2015)

jrista said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > Are we looking at the same page?
> ...



Aha. Apparently, I scrolled too far. Scrolling back up a bit, there is another table. I guess I was looking at DX crop sizes.


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 25, 2015)

jrista said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...


I shot off 465 today and averaged 30 percent..... Some were as low as 10 percent, but several shots of the moon compressed 40+ percent..... Lots and lots of black in the images.....

Try compressing a Cr2 file on your home computer..... Will it compress further?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 25, 2015)

jrista said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > Are we looking at the same page?
> ...



You read the value for the DX (1.5x crop) image.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Oct 20, 2015)

There you have it: (less than) half the buffer.

https://youtu.be/ykXCQnzXm-8


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 20, 2015)

3kramd5 said:


> There you have it: (less than) half the buffer.
> 
> https://youtu.be/ykXCQnzXm-8



As expected. Miracles are rare in physics, hehe!
In practice it does not matter much. Situations were full speed / continuous fire is needed, are usually different from those were maximum image quality is needed. Users now have choice, speed vs. Quality (and corresponding file size) - which is fine with me. Maybe Sony "re-invents" lossless compression in A7 series Mark III. Those who need it, will happily shell out 3500 Euro in order to get it. All others will just shrug and laugh. No big deal. 

I'd happily buy the Sony A7/R II specs in a Canon mirrorless system. But ... there is none.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Oct 20, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > There you have it: (less than) half the buffer.
> ...



I personally always want maximum image quality. 

Of course, with the Sony, when you enable continuous, it drops precision*, so maximum image quality isn't available.

*I haven't confirmed it still does this with uncompressed raws.


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 20, 2015)

3kramd5 said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > 3kramd5 said:
> ...



Haven't update my a7r II yet. Let's us know how you like it


----------



## 3kramd5 (Oct 21, 2015)

Dylan777 said:


> Haven't update my a7r II yet. Let's us know how you like it



I don't really see a difference (note: I have not shot star tracks or anything like that in an attempt to illicit artifacting).

The theory (propaganda) behind sony's compression was that the primary loss was to noise. Maybe that was somewhat true.


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 21, 2015)

3kramd5 said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Haven't update my a7r II yet. Let's us know how you like it
> ...



Thanks for feedbacks. I'm a bit concern loading 80MP files to my PC.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Oct 22, 2015)

There too I don't particularly notice a difference, perhaps because I do other stuff while I import. Working with the files feels the same, probably because regardless of how the data is stored, it is uncompressed in memory during processing (so a compressed file is just as "heavy" as an uncompressed one once loaded by camera raw or whatever you fancy).


----------



## jeffa4444 (Oct 22, 2015)

Dylan777 said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...


Im not loading them to my PC from the 5DS but to an external drive specifically to manage the larger file sizes. Orginals and edited shots are on the same drive.


----------

