Iliah Borg
Forum Pro
I do not see any need in uncompressed apart from possible compatibility issues. I always use lossless compressed for high dynamic range scenes with important highlights and lossy compressed for others.
--
http://www.libraw.org/
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
NEF Compression
- Thread starter Philip119299
- Start date
--
http://www.libraw.org/
Lightbox
Well-known member
But do you still believe that shooting 14 bit as against 12 bit has any practical benefit?
Lightbox Photography : http://www.the-lightbox.com
Aerial Photography : http://www.aerial-photographer.co.uk
Iliah Borg
Forum Pro
Lightbox
Well-known member
I know for a fact that I shot 12 bit lossless compressed all last year on the D3, and I'm still in business.
--
Lightbox Photography : http://www.the-lightbox.com
Aerial Photography : http://www.aerial-photographer.co.uk
Wanchese
Senior Member
I regularly shoot subects in a shaded background using fill flash to try and balance the shaded subject with the sunny background. I guess my flash at 600ws doesn't have the juice to adequately illuminate the subject if I stop down enough to keep the background from blowing out. So I have had to compromise, and reckon that it is costing me 1.5 to 2 stops. When I attempt to pull back the blown background, it invariably becomes a milky, muddled mess. So I am going to ty 14bit this weekend and see if that will give me more latitude with the highlights.
I have noticed that is much easier for me to recover blown highlights with the D300 than with the D700. Odd that.
--
You Will Never Walk Alone
I have noticed that is much easier for me to recover blown highlights with the D300 than with the D700. Odd that.
--
You Will Never Walk Alone
and it may not matter in print since you can't easily see it.
I'm sure for subjects with tons of details that maxed on the file size, you'lll see the difference for sure.
I will now shoot uncompressed on all important shots especially landscapes.
By the way, the loss-less compressed file seemed buttery smooth on transitions. The uncompressed had more resolution, only at pixel peeping though.
I'm sure for subjects with tons of details that maxed on the file size, you'lll see the difference for sure.
I will now shoot uncompressed on all important shots especially landscapes.
By the way, the loss-less compressed file seemed buttery smooth on transitions. The uncompressed had more resolution, only at pixel peeping though.
Loren Soth
Well-known member
Just wanted to add to the discussion.
If you have plenty of storage space (CF cards and Hard Disks) and want to speed up your post-processing time, uncompressed NEFs can be loaded up much faster than compressed NEFs using software such as Adobe Lightroom/Photoshop etc.
--
Loren 'Lord Soth'
Well, you are surely wrong. Perhaps you have not noticed yet, that the compression options include lossy and lossless compressions, while earlier models, like the D200 offered only either uncompressed or lossy compression.
--
Gabor
http://www.panopeeper.com/panorama/pano.htm
jfriend00
Forum Pro
Are you sure this is true? Since the slowest link in most any RAW processor is getting images from disk and CPUs have gained speed so much more than disks have, it may be possible that smaller files load faster even though they have to be decompressed because of the lesser amount of bytes to be read from disk.
--
John
Popular: http://jfriend.smugmug.com/popular
Portfolio: http://jfriend.smugmug.com/portfolio
Back in the D100 days when in-camera processors were slower and cards were both smaller and slower the photographer was given a choice. Compressing took extra time, slowing down burst rates, but required much less storage space. The compression option gave the photographer a real choice between space and time.
However, today with in-camera processors much faster and with cards much bigger and much faster it would seem to be a much more subtle choice. To discern a difference one might fire away using NEFs to see how many shots can be taken in uncompressed mode before locking, and then redo in compressed mode. I suspect there will be a difference, but depending on whether you are using burst mode or not would dictate your choice.
Also, if you are on a long photo safari (e.g., 1 month oversears with no access to a computer for uploading and archiving, or reliable image tanks) one would probably be more concerned with space.
Serious stuff should probably be shot in 14 bit mode, but again what is the final product and what are your real time and storage constraints.
However, today with in-camera processors much faster and with cards much bigger and much faster it would seem to be a much more subtle choice. To discern a difference one might fire away using NEFs to see how many shots can be taken in uncompressed mode before locking, and then redo in compressed mode. I suspect there will be a difference, but depending on whether you are using burst mode or not would dictate your choice.
Also, if you are on a long photo safari (e.g., 1 month oversears with no access to a computer for uploading and archiving, or reliable image tanks) one would probably be more concerned with space.
Serious stuff should probably be shot in 14 bit mode, but again what is the final product and what are your real time and storage constraints.
photonut2008
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 6,577
- Solutions
- 3
- Reaction score
- 1,856
That is irrelevant to me. Just because it's good enough for your clients doesn't mean it's good enough for me.
photonut2008
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 6,577
- Solutions
- 3
- Reaction score
- 1,856
I only have the D300, but I get about 2/3 of a stop more headroom from its default metering than I need and adjust my exposure values accordingly. I recall reading Thom Hogan write that he meters differently for the D700 than he does for the D300. I also saw one of those darned DXO charts yesterday that indicated that the "true" ISO on the D700 and D3 is much closer to its stated ISO than it is on most other DSLRs (which consistently overstate the ISO). These factoids and your experience lead me to believe you have less headroom with your D700 than with your D300.
photonut2008
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 6,577
- Solutions
- 3
- Reaction score
- 1,856
Upon closer inspection I see that they are exposed differently. Downloading the image and checking it for myself I also see that there is more noise in the 12 bit image than in the 14 bit image; more than I think the difference in exposure would indicate.I see the difference on the sky just clearly, without any histograms.
But what do we want, those are shots under the light controlled only
by The Nature
Philip119299
Senior Member
My orginal question was compressed vs lossless compression; but it became a battle between 12 bit vs 14 bit files, which was not the question.
I thank all those who tried to answer the question, however I still am not clear why we are given the choice.
I am going to put the question to Nikon and I will post the answer if and when I receive it.
Thank you all.
--
Philip
I thank all those who tried to answer the question, however I still am not clear why we are given the choice.
I am going to put the question to Nikon and I will post the answer if and when I receive it.
Thank you all.
--
Philip
That's what's advertised but not necessarily what the end result is. One need to know what it really means by "lossless" in Nikon's specification. I already saw a difference in the shadows, perhaps Nikon's algorithm do very slightly cut out non perceivable data on the far ends at print level, not pixel peeping. I will do tests involving high detail shot comparisons to see.
Lightbox
Well-known member
Upon even closer inspection, I can assure you that they are exposed identically, 30 seconds apart - here's the 14 bit uncompressed:
And here's the 12 bit lossless compressed:
And here they are together at 300%, 14 bit on left, 12 bit on right:
I've no axe to grind here - I am willing to accept that 14 bit must capture more information about something, but I have yet to see a real-world scenario - i.e. an image of something other than a test chart - where it makes any significant visible difference to the image. I'm not rigging anything to skew this - I will typically be using the D3x to shoot architecture and aerials in good light, at low ISO - if some difference between 14 bit and 12 bit can only be detected at 3200 it is not relevant for me.
And by the way, the opinion of my clients is of far more importance to me than any histogram, mathematical formula or forum post.
Simon Kirwan
--
Lightbox Photography : http://www.the-lightbox.com
Aerial Photography : http://www.aerial-photographer.co.uk
What I believe:
1. Lossless compressed allows more NEF images to be stored on the CF card. If the user is using CNX to render the NEF, the lossless compressed will increase almost double in file size as soon as it is edited and saved. In other words, the saving of space is intended for in-camera storage, and no longer available after the image is edited.
2. Uncompressed NEF is approximately the same size on the CF card as on the hard drive. Editing only increased the file size by 1-4MB which is the new full size JPEG in the NEF file.
I have not checked to see what happens to lossless compressed NEFs when rendered in third party converters, but I suspect that Nikon software will do a better job of uncompressing a lossless compressed NEF.
If I was to use lossless compressed (I use uncompressed 14-bit), I would do the render using Nikon software, preferably CNX2 or latest version.
Anyone can argue this, but I am stating what I believe after talking with Nikon.
--
Sharon
..'a Goal is a Vision with a timeframe'.. Disa T.
1. Lossless compressed allows more NEF images to be stored on the CF card. If the user is using CNX to render the NEF, the lossless compressed will increase almost double in file size as soon as it is edited and saved. In other words, the saving of space is intended for in-camera storage, and no longer available after the image is edited.
2. Uncompressed NEF is approximately the same size on the CF card as on the hard drive. Editing only increased the file size by 1-4MB which is the new full size JPEG in the NEF file.
I have not checked to see what happens to lossless compressed NEFs when rendered in third party converters, but I suspect that Nikon software will do a better job of uncompressing a lossless compressed NEF.
If I was to use lossless compressed (I use uncompressed 14-bit), I would do the render using Nikon software, preferably CNX2 or latest version.
Anyone can argue this, but I am stating what I believe after talking with Nikon.
--
Sharon
..'a Goal is a Vision with a timeframe'.. Disa T.
Iliah Borg
Forum Pro
Based on comparisons of raw data from shots taken in controlled environment there is no loss of data when using current Nikon's lossless compressed over uncompressed.
--
http://www.libraw.org/
ejmartin
Veteran Member
A gapped histogram has little meaning when the noise is sufficient to wash out the jumps in tonality:
http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/tests/noise/noise-p3.html
For a potential reasoning behind lossy NEF compression:
http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/tests/noise/noise-p3.html#NEFcompression
The D3 has close to 12 stops dynamic range, which means that 12 bits is certainly needed to encode all the image data that is captured. Due to sample variation, some examples may have a tad more than 12 stops DR, which would justify at least the 13th bit of data encoding. The 14th bit is always lost in the noise.
According to DxOMark, the DR of the D3x is closer to 13 stops at base ISO; if true, then 13 bits are required to encode the image data.
One thing that additional noisy bits may do is help RAW converters whose programming introduces posterization where it isn't present initially in the RAW data. Demosaicing is a nonlinear filtering operation, and some nonlinear filters, such as the median filter, generate posterization; dithering tonal transitions with noise, which is what the two extra noisy bits do in 14-bit encoding, helps to suppress this posterizing effect.
--
emil
--
http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/
photonut2008
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 6,577
- Solutions
- 3
- Reaction score
- 1,856
I'm sure it's not intentional, but there is about a 1/10 of a stop difference -- probably attributable to the camera's aperture lever.
It appears in the shadows under the roof eve by the corner; but since in this image it is so small and the EV there is so small, it is inconsequential. I can understand the limitations imposed by 14 bit mode on the D3x do not make it worth the advantages to you -- that's certainly a fair point. I also appreciate that you say it offers you no advantages at all, it's that "YMMV" thing that applies to all of our observations.
Still irrelevant to the discussion. Would your clients object if you were getting the shots they wanted in 14 bit mode?
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum