-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
The biggest issue with the A7r4 that can be fixed very easily...
Baba Ganoush
Leading Member
The image you see in your camera's EVF or LCD is a jpeg preview file. That in particular goes for any RAW image files you shoot, which have a jpeg preview file embedded in them.
joger
Veteran Member
correct- also the histogram is based on the embedded jpeg file
lattesweden
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 6,093
- Solutions
- 7
- Reaction score
- 3,904
Synology has compression.
https://www.synology.com/en-us/knowledgebase/DSM/help/DSM/AdminCenter/file_share_create (see point 8).
--
Best regards
/Anders
----------------------------------------------------
42 Megapixels is the answer to life, the universe and everything.
Gone in 20 fps.
You don't have to like my pictures, but it would help: http://www.lattermann.com/gallery
underxposed59
Leading Member
Nice but still doesn't let Sony off the hook.
Dennis from Florida
Forum Enthusiast
RAW compression is a processor-intensive task and although it frees up buffer space it adds computational activity. I'm guessing this is a tradeoff for SonyI am a happy owner of an A7r3 and I loved the specs of the A7r4, but, I will not get it. Why? Because of the uncompressed RAW files SIZE...
Seriously, I have no idea why Sony cannot add a single LZW compression on their firmware. I am not talking about fancy proprietary compression, I am talking about open-source industry standard ones.
Just do a simple test: get ANY RAW file from a Sony camera and run on a ZIP software in your computer. Completely lossless and makes the file actually smaller then the "lossy" compressed RAW that Sony offers.
I just don't get it. A7r3 RAW files are already a nightmare for my backup drive. I just cannot handle 61mp of that...
If Sony just comes out tomorrow with a firmware across the board (A7iii, A7r3, A9 and A7r4) offering lossless compressed RAW (like everyone else, and like their customers are asking for ages), then I will be tempted to get the A7r4. Until then, I am not planning to spend the cameras worse in more external drives, thank you
You can, of course, convert on your computer....to DNG, for example
By the way...I just bought an 8TB external drive for $129....that can hold your life's collection of video and stills and your DVD collection and your neighbors.
Last edited:
AlephNull
Veteran Member
I think you misunderstand. A lot of modern compression algorithms are quite quick to decompress, despite taking more effort to compress.
Nikon bodies have offered both lossless compressed and uncompressed RAW files for a while now - have you seen any reports that the lossless compressed RAW files are slower to view?
Moreover, I think you'll find that we don't view RAW files in camera. We view an embedded JPEG, instead. We don't see the real RAW files until we take them into the computer.
toughluck
Senior Member
I disagree. A generic LZW compression ASIC costs cents and would be easy to integrate -- if it was a problem in the first place.RAW compression is a processor-intensive task and although it frees up buffer space it adds computational activity. I'm guessing this is a tradeoff for SonyI am a happy owner of an A7r3 and I loved the specs of the A7r4, but, I will not get it. Why? Because of the uncompressed RAW files SIZE...
Seriously, I have no idea why Sony cannot add a single LZW compression on their firmware. I am not talking about fancy proprietary compression, I am talking about open-source industry standard ones.
Just do a simple test: get ANY RAW file from a Sony camera and run on a ZIP software in your computer. Completely lossless and makes the file actually smaller then the "lossy" compressed RAW that Sony offers.
I just don't get it. A7r3 RAW files are already a nightmare for my backup drive. I just cannot handle 61mp of that
If Sony just comes out tomorrow with a firmware across the board (A7iii, A7r3, A9 and A7r4) offering lossless compressed RAW (like everyone else, and like their customers are asking for ages), then I will be tempted to get the A7r4. Until then, I am not planning to spend the cameras worse in more external drives, thank you
You can, of course, convert on your computer....to DNG, for example
By the way...I just bought an 8TB external drive for $129....that can hold your life's collection of video and stills and your DVD collection and your neighbors.
Current processors have so much throughput that storage write speed is slower than compression speed of a largely idle CPU.
In fact, memory throughput is frequently slower than compression throughput. AMD introduced graphics cards which use memory compression for textures throughout because it's faster to compress and transfer this data to memory and faster to access compressed data and decompress it than it was with uncompressed.
Also, as it was pointed out, LZW compressed data is not necessarily smaller than compressed RAW data. It is very dependent on the specific picture data. This is why every compression algorithm is necessarily a compromise.
Last edited:
R
Reto B
Guest
What seems to be the biggest issue for you is a total non-issue for me
Not true. I did your test with A7RIII files and the ZIP-files turn out to be 60 MB:
Storage space is cheap today. Thus I live happily with my 81 MB files ;-)
Unum sed Leonem
Member
Really??? Is it not an absolute no-brainer, 2+2=4 -level, that a 61MP camera ought to at the very minimum have Lossless Compression as an option in all raw process modes (including smaller resolution raws, which the A7R IV hasn't, either), M-Raw, S-Raw & XS-Raw (in the case of the 61MP A7R IV)?
By the way, comparing LOSSY compression to LOSSLESS compression is disingenuous argument to justify the status quo. As a more prudent forum member mentioned, no-one asked Sony for LOSSY compression. It's fine as an option, but LOSSLESS compression is a must, more so for a 61MP camera.
There will be thousands, possibly tens of thousands - of would-be buyers who'd choose the imminent Canon EOS 5R on the count of smaller raw omission in the Sonies (especially, the A7R IV) alone. Rest assured, the Canon certainly will have that at the very least, as any FF Canon body since before 5D II has sported. I would guess, the likelihood of the EOS 5R also boasting lossless compression is fairly high, as well, although not guaranteed. But then again - the 5R will be ca. 40-45MP (plenty enough for most applications by today's standards), not 61MP.
8 out of 10 reviewers online lament the said omissions of the Sony A7R IV - and Sony just ignores Us all. As Canon did up until 2020 - and now are desperate to cater to potential buyers with the EOS 5R.
By the way, comparing LOSSY compression to LOSSLESS compression is disingenuous argument to justify the status quo. As a more prudent forum member mentioned, no-one asked Sony for LOSSY compression. It's fine as an option, but LOSSLESS compression is a must, more so for a 61MP camera.
There will be thousands, possibly tens of thousands - of would-be buyers who'd choose the imminent Canon EOS 5R on the count of smaller raw omission in the Sonies (especially, the A7R IV) alone. Rest assured, the Canon certainly will have that at the very least, as any FF Canon body since before 5D II has sported. I would guess, the likelihood of the EOS 5R also boasting lossless compression is fairly high, as well, although not guaranteed. But then again - the 5R will be ca. 40-45MP (plenty enough for most applications by today's standards), not 61MP.
8 out of 10 reviewers online lament the said omissions of the Sony A7R IV - and Sony just ignores Us all. As Canon did up until 2020 - and now are desperate to cater to potential buyers with the EOS 5R.
Unum sed Leonem
Member
I wonder if losslessly compressed raws would fare well when pushing shadows up 2-3 full stops (and highlights - down by as much). I tend to think, the output woud be noticeably noisier and choppier than losslessly uncompressed raws'.
SrMi
Veteran Member
Losslessly compressed raws have the same characteristics as uncompressed raws. Even Sony's lossy compressed raws behave quite similarly to uncompressed raws when pushing shadows/highlights.
Unum sed Leonem
Member
How's that possible? If that were the case, why would there be a nominal disparity between the two compression types? Surely, one must render greater compromise in quality than the other.
Can you substantiate your claim empirically?
Can you substantiate your claim empirically?
SrMi
Veteran Member
By definition, lossless compression does not lose any data. It is theoretically possible to transform an uncompressed RAW to lossless compressed RAW and back to uncompressed RAW without any difference from the original.
Last edited:
Unum sed Leonem
Member
I meant: "How's that possible that lossy compressed raws behave quite similarly to uncompressed raws when pushing shadows/highlights?"
There surely must be a difference in the output between uncompressed raws and lossy-compressed raw files post- highlight/shadow push-pull?
There surely must be a difference in the output between uncompressed raws and lossy-compressed raw files post- highlight/shadow push-pull?
SrMi
Veteran Member
I see
.In theory, there should be a difference between lossy and lossless formats (compressed or uncompressed) when pushing shadows/highlights. In practice, I have not noticed a difference. I would not be surprised if there are cases where a difference can be seen.
I don't see a problem. Use the compressed Raw files for almost everything and uncompressed for supercritical stuff.I am a happy owner of an A7r3 and I loved the specs of the A7r4, but, I will not get it. Why? Because of the uncompressed RAW files SIZE...
Seriously, I have no idea why Sony cannot add a single LZW compression on their firmware. I am not talking about fancy proprietary compression, I am talking about open-source industry standard ones.
Just do a simple test: get ANY RAW file from a Sony camera and run on a ZIP software in your computer. Completely lossless and makes the file actually smaller then the "lossy" compressed RAW that Sony offers.
I just don't get it. A7r3 RAW files are already a nightmare for my backup drive. I just cannot handle 61mp of that
If Sony just comes out tomorrow with a firmware across the board (A7iii, A7r3, A9 and A7r4) offering lossless compressed RAW (like everyone else, and like their customers are asking for ages), then I will be tempted to get the A7r4. Until then, I am not planning to spend the cameras worse in more external drives, thank you
We shoot Sony for a very long time now and have 300k images a year easily, mostly weddings. For the huge majority of cases you will be hard pressed to see a difference in compressed vs. uncompressed raws. Sony's algorithm isn't that bad.
---------------------------------
https://www.instagram.com/brigittefoysi/
AlephNull
Veteran Member
I am curious - what makes you think that you ever "re-process raw files in camera"? Once a raw file is written to the memory card the camera never processes it again.
You can view the embedded JPEG, but the camera doesn't look at the RAW data (unless asked to copy the image, but the data can be copied without decompressing it).
AlephNull
Veteran Member
Do you understand the term "lossless compression"? The data is identical - that's why it's called "lossless" - if there were any difference, it's not lossless. So image is exactly the same no matter what processing you wish to perform.
Hell I'd be satisfied with a pc/mac software program to compress after the fact (like the DNG converter).
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum