Reading mode: Light Dark

X-E2 14 bit?

Go to last post
W

weldonb

Active member
Messages
96
Reaction score
2
Location
Los Angeles, US
I have a X-Pro1 but I was reading thru the new X-E2 specs and something jumped out at me. It says the X-E2 has 14 bit raw files. What is the bit depth of the other X-Trans sensors? Wouldn't this lead to higher quality files from the X-E2 over the others in the X series?
 
weldonb said:
I have a X-Pro1 but I was reading thru the new X-E2 specs and something jumped out at me. It says the X-E2 has 14 bit raw files. What is the bit depth of the other X-Trans sensors? Wouldn't this lead to higher quality files from the X-E2 over the others in the X series?

--
http://www.weldonbrewster.com
Click to expand...
no major difference unless u blow up ur pics and even then only with low iso values...

so basically if u dont know what it does u wont have a noticeable difference in output...
 
That doesn't answer my question, are the other cameras in the X-series 12 bit? There is a difference in image quality. My main work camera is a Phase One digital back and I try to squeeze every bit of quality out of my X-Pro1.
 
Apparently the data flow is 14 bit, but the file is saved as 12. I see no tonality difference between 12 and 14 in out put of any print size. One could in theory stretch the curves so much as to see posterization, but I haven't seen it. I have noticed that raw files from Nikon have better tonality than Canon for example, despite both being 14 bit files.

in practice, I dont think you'll see a difference...but it's a nice to have when you find you need it.
 
The X-Pro1 and X-E1 produce 12-bit raw files. The X100S and X-E2 produce 14-bit raw files. This has no impact on JPEG files which are only 8-bit.
 
Credit to member "Grig" who posted this earlier in the year:

4f04e8e26bf24415969612d8955be39d.jpg

So for those who say there's no difference between 14 & 12 bit RAW...
 
Last edited:
RhysM said:
Credit to member "Grig" who posted this earlier in the year:

4f04e8e26bf24415969612d8955be39d.jpg

So for those who say there's no difference between 14 & 12 bit RAW...
Click to expand...
Gave you a thumbs up for your post. This has been discussed to death on the Nikon form a few years ago ... more steps in 14-bit, 2x2 more steps in theory and can be seen in critical pictures where shades matter e.g. shin and your lamp transition (or whatever that is on the picture...)

Cheers

Deed
 
Dave Luttmann said:
What cameras were used?
Click to expand...
It's a D600, but i don't think it's really all that relevant, the differences i.e. the improvement between 12 bit & 14 bit RAW files should be independent of the camera, in the same way as half a tonne is heavier than a tonne regardless of what the material is.
 
Last edited:
RhysM said:
Dave Luttmann said:
What cameras were used?
Click to expand...
It's a D600, but it's not really relevant, the differences between 12 bit & 14 bit RAW files is independent of the camera, in the same way as a tonne is a tonne whether it's a tonne of cement or a tonne of steel.
Click to expand...
It is relevant. I wanted to make sure that it was one camera used and not two. I have never seen any results so drastic from my D700 when comparing tonality at different bit depths....so it is camera dependant....like an Imperial tonne vs a metric tonne. No matter how much I stretched using curves, it never appeared to any great level. So, I'd say it is as much the bit depth as it is the camera makers implementation and processing of the raw files.
 
Dave Luttmann said:
RhysM said:
Dave Luttmann said:
What cameras were used?
Click to expand...
It's a D600, but it's not really relevant, the differences between 12 bit & 14 bit RAW files is independent of the camera, in the same way as a tonne is a tonne whether it's a tonne of cement or a tonne of steel.
Click to expand...
It is relevant. I wanted to make sure that it was one camera used and not two. I have never seen any results so drastic from my D700 when comparing tonality at different bit depths....so it is camera dependant....like an Imperial tonne vs a metric tonne. No matter how much I stretched using curves, it never appeared to any great level. So, I'd say it is as much the bit depth as it is the camera makers implementation and processing of the raw files.
Click to expand...
I think it's more to do with how extreme the subject is and at what ISO level the photo above is at high ISO, low light and with extreme contrast and light variations. I agree in normal shooting the results would not be as obvious.
 
RhysM said:
Credit to member "Grig" who posted this earlier in the year:

4f04e8e26bf24415969612d8955be39d.jpg

So for those who say there's no difference between 14 & 12 bit RAW...
Click to expand...
I gave you a thumbs up as well. It's a great example. For most normal images, I agree, I don't think you really notice. But when you need it, it's really nice to have.

It would be interesting to see a comparison of 12 bit X-E1 to 14 bit X-E2. Also, Lens Modulation Optimizer on X-E2 to without on other X-series. The X-E2 maybe a step higher in quality.

--

Loading…

www.weldonbrewster.com
 
weldonb said:
I have a X-Pro1 but I was reading thru the new X-E2 specs and something jumped out at me. It says the X-E2 has 14 bit raw files. What is the bit depth of the other X-Trans sensors? Wouldn't this lead to higher quality files from the X-E2 over the others in the X series?

--
http://www.weldonbrewster.com
Click to expand...
I've looked at X100s 14-bit RAW and X-E1 12-bit RAW, shot at the same time with identical scene.

The X100s file has a tiny wee bit more tonality in the bright and dark areas. It is not obvious unless you pixel peep and have them side by side.

In practice, there is nothing to gain, not only JPEG is limited to 8-bit per channel, your LCD monitor is most likely to be limited to 8-bit per channel as well. Maybe it'll show up on print, that I don't know.
 
There is a potential for wider DR at low ISO with 14-bit RAW files. DxOMark has discussed this issue in reference to the Pentax K5 and K30. The K5 which produces 14-bit uncompressed RAWs (PEF) and the K30, which shares the same 16 mp Sony Exmor sensor, produces 12-bit DNG.

In the DxOMark sensor ratings,

the K5 Dynamic Range (DR) score is a whopping 14.1 EV, while the K-30's DR score is 13 EV.

I remember DxOMark speculating that the difference in bit depth could be part of the reason for 1 EV less DR from the K-30's 12-bit DNG files.

It's a difference that may not necessarily be visible in but clearly the K5 with its 14-bit RAWs is going to have a bit more RAW headroom producing slightly more flexible files in post vs the lower model K30.

On my Nikon DSLR I always shoot 14-bit uncompressed or compressed RAW depending on the project.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top