Compressed RAW? (I know it's been discussed before)

zirtico

Leading Member
Messages
743
Reaction score
21
Location
CA
On the D5000, I just can't help but think it's a lossless compression. According to dpreview, the sizes on the 12 MP models (D300, D300s, D3) a 12-bit lossless compressed RAW file is about 11.5 MB. On my D5000, I'm hitting nearly that figure all the time. I've gotten up to 12.6 MB and down to 10 MB. I think it could well be a lossless compression in this camera, even if Nikon didn't spread the word on it. What say you?
 
Lossless Compression is a bit of a misnomer but Raw is a 'lossless' format. As I understand it you won't notice any loss but mathamaticaly their might be some.

The size of the Raw file depends on the amount of information contained in the image you recorded. Loss will only occur when you save to Jpeg and will continue to do so every time you resave. Many people save to either Tiff, Dng or Psd untill they need to output the image and thereby avoid lossey formats.
Claude
 
You're right. I know that there's a bunch of values skipped in the compressed RAWs, but I was just wondering since the file sizes of lossless compressed 12-bit is exactly the same as the ones for D700, D300, D300s and D3. And it is actually quite important to me as I do do a fair bit of processing to recover as much detail as possible. I'm borrowing a D5000 because of money constraints at this point. So I was just wondering about that stuff if anybody else had noticed it.
 
The D5K uses a lossy compression. Whether or not you can notice the differences is up to debate.
 
On the D5000, I just can't help but think it's a lossless compression. According to dpreview, the sizes on the 12 MP models (D300, D300s, D3) a 12-bit lossless compressed RAW file is about 11.5 MB.
No, it is lossy compression. It would be impossible with current lossless compression algorithms to get anywhere near the size of 11.5MB per image - the sizes would be at least 2 or 3 times larger at that resolution.
On my D5000, I'm hitting nearly that figure all the time. I've gotten up to 12.6 MB and down to 10 MB. I think it could well be a lossless compression in this camera, even if Nikon didn't spread the word on it. What say you?
Only higher-end Nikons have lossless RAW option - d300 and above. But in practice RAW can be treated as lossless because the compression is so efficient that it makes no difference unless you take extreme measures to look for the difference, it's way better than the best possible JPEG.

--
Michal.
 
Regarding 2 to 3 times the file size for a losslessly compressed 12-bit RAW, take a look at this: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond700/page13.asp . Scroll down to see 11.5 MB being the average size for a 12 MP 12-bit lossless compressed RAW. If you look in the "Timings & Sizes" and "Performance" sections of the reviews of D300, D700 and D3, you'll see that they're all the same size for that resolution.
 
Only higher-end Nikons have lossless RAW option - d300 and above.
The NRW files from my P6000 are nearly 22MB.

I haven't really looked into it, but I would have to think they are 12 bit uncompressed lossless raw files, as well.

--
Patco
A photograph is more than a bunch of pixels
 
Nikon compresses raw data in a lossy fashion by taking advantage of fine gradations of levels in highlights that are (arguably) imperceptible to the human eye. Humans are creatures that notice subtle changes in shadows, not highlights. We may have evolved this way to react to danger lurking in the shadows. My educated guess is that the compression is indeed imperceptible. Cheers, Peter
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top