# Had a chat with a Sony rep



## YellowJersey (Jun 25, 2015)

I popped into my local camera shop and saw two of the store employees giddily fawning over something. I casually strolled by to see what they were so excited about and saw that they were, in fact, playing with a pre-production A7r II. After approaching them to ask them what all the fuss was about, despite already knowing full well, they happily showed me the camera and let me have a little play with it myself. (the autofocus was pretty snappy, btw, and the ergonomics felt good). We got to talking and I mentioned that I was interested in buying the camera once it was released (not entirely true, as I probably won't be able to afford it when it comes out, but it's certainly on my list of potential replacements for my 5DmkIII when the time comes), but I said that it came with a caveat. They asked what the caveat was and my reply was simple: compressed raw files. 

This is where things got interesting. They said the Sony rep was in the store and asked if I'd like to speak to him. This struck me as odd because I am a nobody photographer that no one has ever heard off nor did these guys even recognise me as I haven't been living in this city very long (alas, my beloved The Camera Store is so far away these days!) as I don't pop into this particular store very often. 

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. 

Just an interesting little story I thought I'd share.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 25, 2015)

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.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 25, 2015)

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_.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Jun 25, 2015)

Now if Sony update the firmware to allow loss-less RAW files and update the body so that it has an optical TTL viewfinder and decent AF then I will joint the queue for one - OOPS! They would have to fit a mirror for that! 
Ah well back to my crappy old Canon brick!


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 25, 2015)

I'm not badly worried about the EVF, being able to operate it with my large fingers, having a good grip, and the operating ergonomics are something I'd want to look at.

I was thinking I'd rent one to use for a upcoming event in the middle of August where a smaller camera would be good. Lens Rentals appears to let me reserve one. However, Adorama says shipping begins the end of August, so a opportunity for me is missed. B&H merely says expected in August.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 26, 2015)

johnf3f said:


> Now if Sony update the firmware to allow loss-less RAW files and update the body so that it has an optical TTL viewfinder and decent AF then I will joint the queue for one - OOPS! They would have to fit a mirror for that!
> Ah well back to my crappy old Canon brick!



When I use my A7R, I am generally shooting static scenes, and the lack of OVF doesn't impair me. I'll likely use the II similarly, but hey maybe the EVF will surprise me.


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 26, 2015)

Can Sony create lossless RAW files? The answer is YES! The already do.... they just don't save them....

Step 1 - Read the sensor
Step 2 - Save the sensor data in memory
Step 3 (the way they do it now) - Run lossy compression algorithm on memory file
Step 4 - Save memory file on memory card...

All they have to do is forget to do step 3.... or to use any of the thousands of lossless compression algorithms instead of their lossy algorithm.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 26, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> Can Sony create lossless RAW files? The answer is YES! The already do.... they just don't save them....
> 
> Step 1 - Read the sensor
> Step 2 - Save the sensor data in memory
> ...



Having data in memory isn't the same as creating a file. I suspect they have some sort of ring buffer which dumps the constituent data to the processor to render and save (filed). That being said, of course they can do it unless there is some silly hardware based serial lossy compression in the signal chain, which is highly unlikely.


----------



## dolina (Jun 26, 2015)

I think it may have to do with SD card's bandwidth. Just a theory though. :


----------



## weixing (Jun 26, 2015)

Hi,
IMHO, lossless RAW file should not be difficult to implement unless it's a hardware limitation... may be the camera hardware they use was unable to process large data fast enough or may be due to the battery capacity limitation or heat issue as the camera is too small to effectively dissipate heat, they had to use a lower power processor which simply unable to process large data fast enough.

Have a nice day.


----------



## Mr1Dx (Jun 26, 2015)

johnf3f said:


> Now if Sony update the firmware to allow loss-less RAW files and update the body so that it has an optical TTL viewfinder and decent AF then I will joint the queue for one - OOPS! They would have to fit a mirror for that!
> Ah well back to my crappy old Canon brick!



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.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=26774.msg493729;boardseen#new


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 26, 2015)

dolina said:


> I think it may have to do with SD card's bandwidth. Just a theory though. :



If that were the case, why does it work with the Canon 5DS and its much larger files. The Card bandwidth only affects the time to download a file from the camera. Card speed has been a limiting factor for DSLR's since the first one. That's why the light remains on for a time when shooting at a high FPS. Files are still downloading from the buffer memory in the camera. If you fill the buffer, than the camera slows down its shooting to match the bandwidth of the card.


----------



## weixing (Jun 26, 2015)

Mr1Dx said:


> johnf3f said:
> 
> 
> > Now if Sony update the firmware to allow loss-less RAW files and update the body so that it has an optical TTL viewfinder and decent AF then I will joint the queue for one - OOPS! They would have to fit a mirror for that!
> ...


Hi,
Personally, l don't think lossless RAW is that importance, but some might think it's importance to them as they want to get the most out of everything... eg. those who intend to use it for serious Astrophotography which required true RAW. Same with DR, I personally think Canon DR is good enough for my use, but there are other who want as much DR as possible.

Have a nice day.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 26, 2015)

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.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 26, 2015)

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.
> ...



In before: when your signal chain injects a bunch of noise before digitizing the data, you don't really know what you're missing


----------



## Tugela (Jun 26, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> Can Sony create lossless RAW files? The answer is YES! The already do.... they just don't save them....
> 
> Step 1 - Read the sensor
> Step 2 - Save the sensor data in memory
> ...



I doubt it is that simple. After step 2 there would be a step 2b, which would be processing the sensor data to create a raw mage. Compression is probably built into that for efficiency purposes, so enabling lossless raw might not be all that simple and require a complete rewrite of the code (or more, if it is done in hardware).


----------



## Tugela (Jun 26, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> dolina said:
> 
> 
> > I think it may have to do with SD card's bandwidth. Just a theory though. :
> ...



Not necessarily. The sensor data in the buffer has to be processed prior to being saved, and that is likely the rate limiting step, not bandwidth, since it requires far more work than simple sending data through an interface. Once the buffer is filled, processing will be a bottleneck, with files being written to the card as each is processed. That would result in your write light flashing long after you have finished shooting. 

People assume that the card bandwidth is the bottleneck because they see the light flashing, but the processor is more likely the real bottleneck.


----------



## K-amps (Jun 26, 2015)

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.
> ...



Don't know how old you are John, but remember ATRAC ?


----------



## Maximilian (Jun 26, 2015)

K-amps said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Mt Spokane Photography said:
> ...


I can remember using MiniDiscs with ATRAC in good HiFi (won't call it HighEnd).
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)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 26, 2015)

K-amps said:


> Don't know how old you are John, but remember ATRAC ?



ATRAC? Ahhh...the MiniDisc, another lost format battle for Sony. 

Don't know how old _you_ are, but my original portable music format was not ATRAC, but 8-track.


----------



## sublime LightWorks (Jun 26, 2015)

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.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 26, 2015)

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.



Compressing the data absolutely makes sense. Enforcing a lossy method of compression for 'RAW' data does not.


----------



## distant.star (Jun 26, 2015)

.
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 (Jun 26, 2015)

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."



Does he have a rack of different logo T-shirts back there?


----------



## distant.star (Jun 26, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Does he have a rack of different logo T-shirts back there?



Well stocked camera stores have entire costume departments. Marketing, you know!


----------



## Act444 (Jun 26, 2015)

Maximilian said:


> K-amps said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Minidiscs were awesome...far better than the cassette tapes I was using before. Yes, compared to CD there were a few shortcomings sound-wise, but it was never meant to replace the CD. 

Having said that, I will never understand why Sony didn't utilize MD to its full potential. They unnecessarily crippled its music transfer functions to protect their music business. Ended up shooting themselves in the foot (as well as those of us who bought into their format). At least they gave us a way out in the end, however...

This is to say...I'm hesitant to make any kind of serious commitment to any Sony ILC because, among other issues, who knows if it'll still be around in 2 years? I am glad that they are putting some pressure on Canon though. In the end, we all win.


----------



## YellowJersey (Jun 26, 2015)

dilbert said:


> YellowJersey said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



He did say exactly what I expected him to say. I didn't speak to him for the sake of getting assurances, I spoke to him to give him feedback. I emphasised that it was the lossy raw compression that held me back from buying the camera, giving him feedback to let him and by extension Sony know what they had to do in order to get me to buy the camera. Now, one person giving this feedback is pretty insignificant, but when lots of people cry out, it carries more weight. Whether Sony is listening and whether they can/will make lossless raws available remains to be seen, but, at the very least, it can't hurt to say, "you want my money? Then do this." Given how aggressive Sony is in the camera market, I think enough people crying out for this MAY be enough of a kick in the pants for them actually do it. What will happen? We shall see.


----------



## yorgasor (Jun 26, 2015)

This jives with other statements made by Sony regarding this issue. There was a recent interview that went like this:

http://www.mirrorlessons.com/2015/06/18/sony-interview-a7rii-rx100-iv-rx10-ii/
ML: Many users wish to have an uncompressed Raw option on the A7 series. Why hasn’t it been implemented yet?

YH: I’ve heard of this request. If there is a high demand, we can consider developing it in the future.


And this interview here:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2015/06/16/sony-qa-the-must-have-sensor-tech-of-the-future
This next question is more of a request maybe, but we've had a lot of questions asking about raw format. And...

KM: Ah, raw. <laughs> 14-bit.

DE: Yeah, well 14-bit is OK, but many people are asking "could we please have uncompressed RAWs?"

KM: Sony RAW is compressed, not uncompressed. But if we're getting a lot of requests for it, we should make such a kind of no-compression raw. Of course we recognize that. But I cannot give you a guarantee when we're going to fix or not fix.

DE: Right. When you're going to address that, yeah.

KM: Sure, sure. And so we recognize the customer's requirement, and actually we are working on it.

DE: So it's something that you're aware of. I'm sure that the image processing pipeline is optimized for the way that it is now, but it seems to me that, while it might involve some trading off some performance, that it could just be a firmware change. Could it? Would you be able to provide uncompressed raw as a firmware update, or would it require new hardware?

KM: Right, yes. So... not hardware.

DE: It is firmware. OK, good! I think people would be willing to accept a slower transfer time or lower frame rate in an uncompressed mode. Some people really, really want that.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 26, 2015)

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 (Jun 27, 2015)

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.
> ...



Unless Canon raw shows better in final result, this discussion will have no end.


----------



## emko (Jun 27, 2015)

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.


----------



## Mr1Dx (Jun 27, 2015)

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 (Jun 27, 2015)

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.
> ...



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 (Jun 27, 2015)

emko said:


> Mr1Dx said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Any photos to prove between the two? I have few hundreds to share if you interested.

Learn to use proper software might not be a bad for certain individuals. 

I have a plane to catch.... 8)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 27, 2015)

Mr1Dx said:


> Any photos to prove between the two?



Just shoot jpg, that's a lossy compressed format, too.


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 27, 2015)

If you want the ultimate in image quality, you want lossless RAW files. Compressing them with a lossless algorithm takes time.... but it also takes time to write the larger uncompressed files to your card... Odds are that compressing and writing the smaller files is faster than writing the larger uncompressed files....

Lossless compression is easy to do..... it's easier than a customized lossy raw compression....

If you are ok with files that have loss of information, save them as jpgs.....


----------



## yorgasor (Jun 27, 2015)

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.
> ...



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.


----------



## emko (Jun 27, 2015)

yorgasor said:


> emko said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



yea its a very dumb move since people want to use RAW for specific reason in the first place not a lossy compression like JPEG, i would of thought it a good idea if they had lossy and lossless RAW for the people who want to save the few megabytes and think its not that big of a deal or dont notice the loss.


----------



## dswtan (Jun 27, 2015)

Mr1Dx said:


> Any photos to prove between the two?


Not mine, but this photo is pretty clear on compressed RAW issues for one scenario that I care about, astro: 
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.


----------



## Aglet (Jun 27, 2015)

dswtan said:


> Mr1Dx said:
> 
> 
> > Any photos to prove between the two?
> ...



I'll try remember to test this next time I've got a Nikon out at night; FWIW I've never had any issues with lossless or lossy compressed Nikon raw but haven't done star trails to see how that pixel-level high contrast stuff's handled.


----------



## pwp (Jun 27, 2015)

I'm not au fait with the science, but if Sony uses a genuinely innovative and clever compression, then why not? 
It's a useful payday with storage & buffer depth. 

(slightly OT) The Panasonic GH4 applies some sort of innovative & clever compression to the 4K output. I'm not too concerned about the science, but the results speak for themselves. By way of comparison, one minute of GH4 4K video demands almost exactly the same amount of storage as one minute of 5D MkIII video at full res. I'll take the cleverly compressed GH4 4K output any day. Plus I love that it records 4K internally, unlike Sony. 

Vive le _innovative_ compression! (but only if it's sufficiently clever...)

-pw


----------



## emko (Jun 27, 2015)

pwp said:


> I'm not au fait with the science, but if Sony uses a genuinely innovative and clever compression, then why not?
> It's a useful payday with storage & buffer depth.
> 
> (slightly OT) The Panasonic GH4 applies some sort of innovative & clever compression to the 4K output. I'm not too concerned about the science, but the results speak for themselves. By way of comparison, one minute of GH4 4K video demands almost exactly the same amount of storage as one minute of 5D MkIII video at full res. I'll take the cleverly compressed GH4 4K output any day. Plus I love that it records 4K internally, unlike Sony.
> ...



you are kidding right? 4K footage the same bitrate as 5D3 1080p footage? how on earth can you say you don't notice anything? that must be very horrible looking footage.

Then i googled it 5D3 IBP 30Mbps vs G4H 4K IBP 100Mbps
5d3 ALL-I 90Mbps vs G4H 200Mbps modes: All-I 

Nope not even close YUP very clever/

I don't care how clever the compression is when i choose RAW it should be RAW sensor data without any information being lost because of some idiot at SONY saying the lossy compression is the only option. This is why we don't use JPEG as its lossy compression.


----------



## RGF (Jun 27, 2015)

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.
> ...



Can you explain? How much loss is there with their method?


----------



## RGF (Jun 27, 2015)

Maximilian said:


> K-amps said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Didn't sony create betamax and lost the battle to VHS. Better mousetrap but not accepted by the market place.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 27, 2015)

RGF said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Mt Spokane Photography said:
> ...



I was being facetious, but details are here:

http://www.rawdigger.com/howtouse/sony-craw-arw2-posterization-detection


----------



## deleteme (Jun 28, 2015)

It seems Sony has offered uncompressed RAW in the past with the A700/900 cameras. 
I am sure it is entirely within their ability to offer a compressed lossless RAW but its omission was possibly a marketing department oversight.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 28, 2015)

Normalnorm said:


> It seems Sony has offered uncompressed RAW in the past with the A700/900 cameras.
> I am sure it is entirely within their ability to offer a compressed lossless RAW but its omission was possibly a marketing department oversight.



It's an engineering decision.


----------



## RGF (Jun 28, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



I would say they add a creative touch to your photography :


----------

