Reading mode: Light Dark

Compress RAW file after the fact

Go to last post
U

ulankford

Member
Messages
26
Reaction score
11
Location
Sydney, AU
I have recently bought a new Sony a7 II after using the the a7 for a while. However, I am after being stung by the uncompressed RAW files. It seems there is no difference, so am going to shot compressed going forward, however, I have about 200 shots with the uncompressed files and my Lightroom version 5 does not seem to support these files.

One option is to upgrade to Lightroom 6. However, is there anyway to compresses these files after the fact so that my current LR5 will recognise these files?

Does Sony or Adobe have some software for this?
 
Perhaps you can use Adobe DNG converter to convert them to DNG and then process DNG in the LR. Not sure if the DNG created by the recent version of DNG converter can be used in older version of LR, but worth a try.
 
D Cox said:
Windows has an option to compress all the files on a drive.
Click to expand...
I think the OP is asking about compressing uncompresed Sony raw files to cRAW files.

I don't know if this is possible. Personally, I would go for the dng-route, described above, or even better, upgrade Lightroom to a version that accepts newer Sony raw files.
 
Last edited:
OK, so what I did was this.

I tried to import the RAW files again with the DNG option in Lightroom but for whatever reason this did not work, probably because my version of Lightroom did not support these files in the first place.


So, I downloaded Adobe's free DNG RAW converter. Seemed to have worked a treat.

May look into upgrading to LR6 and see if its worth it.
 
That's exactly what I suggested. Nice that it worked out.

Btw, you might want to check out Capture One RAW processor. Many say that it works better than LR for Sony files, and it has a version for Sony cameras at a very attractive price.
 
Jekabs said:
That's exactly what I suggested. Nice that it worked out.

Btw, you might want to check out Capture One RAW processor. Many say that it works better than LR for Sony files, and it has a version for Sony cameras at a very attractive price.
Click to expand...
There are 2 versions for Sony: One is free (a very attractive price) and the other is the "Pro" version at US $50 (still not unattractive).
 
Last edited:
There is hardly any point of using compressed RAW. SD cards are so big and cheap.

You run out of battery before SD card.
 
ulankford said:
... I have about 200 shots with the uncompressed files and my Lightroom version 5 does not seem to support these files ... However, is there anyway to compresses these files after the fact so that my current LR5 will recognise these files?
Click to expand...
There is no way to compress them in order to make them compatible.
ulankford said:
Does Sony or Adobe have some software for this?
Click to expand...
As explained by others, they can be converted with Adobe's DNG Converter in order to make them compatible.
 
Last edited:
Sugasmune said:
There is hardly any point of using compressed RAW. SD cards are so big and cheap.

You run out of battery before SD card.
Click to expand...
Effectively doubling your buffer size is a good reason to use compressed raw. Also, doubling upload speeds, and close to doubling read speeds on spinning rust drives.

Jim
 
JimKasson said:
Sugasmune said:
There is hardly any point of using compressed RAW. SD cards are so big and cheap.

You run out of battery before SD card.
Click to expand...
Effectively doubling your buffer size is a good reason to use compressed raw. Also, doubling upload speeds, and close to doubling read speeds on spinning rust drives.
Click to expand...
Was this a typo? Regardless, having the option to use the one you want is much better than being forced into using the one you don't want.
JimKasson said:
Jim
Click to expand...
 
Lightshow said:
JimKasson said:
Sugasmune said:
There is hardly any point of using compressed RAW. SD cards are so big and cheap.

You run out of battery before SD card.
Click to expand...
Effectively doubling your buffer size is a good reason to use compressed raw. Also, doubling upload speeds, and close to doubling read speeds on spinning rust drives.
Click to expand...
Was this a typo?
Click to expand...
Don't think so. Using compressed raw makes each file half the size, doubling the number of pictures you can store in the buffer. When you upload the files to your computer, you can upload twice as many files per unit time with compressed raw. Once the files ar on your computer, FRV and Lr can read them almost twice as fast (the time spend decompressing is a lot faster than the time spent reading them with spinning rust.
Lightshow said:
Regardless, having the option to use the one you want is much better than being forced into using the one you don't want.
Click to expand...
No argument there. I have always said that the option we really want is losslessly compressed raw, which is pretty much the best of both worlds.

I do use uncompressed raw when I think it might make a difference. That is less than 1% of the time.

Jim
 
Last year when acquiring my A7Rii, I tested by overexposing a scene with white clouds in the sky using both Compressed and Uncompressed RAW.

I did not observe any more recoverable detail from the Uncompressed RAW file.

Yet, there are 40 mb of data being compressed, so is there another practical use for this larger file?

- Richard
 
JimKasson said:
I do use uncompressed raw when I think it might make a difference. That is less than 1% of the time.
Click to expand...
What is the difference?

thanks,

- Richard
 
richj20 said:
JimKasson said:
I do use uncompressed raw when I think it might make a difference. That is less than 1% of the time.
Click to expand...
What is the difference?
Click to expand...
Lossy compression loses data; the original file can never be perfectly reconstructed. Lossless compression loses no data; you can get the original file back bit for bit.

Jim
 
richj20 said:
Last year when acquiring my A7Rii, I tested by overexposing a scene with white clouds in the sky using both Compressed and Uncompressed RAW.

I did not observe any more recoverable detail from the Uncompressed RAW file.
Click to expand...
With the test, you won't see any difference; the photon noise from the clouds is enough to provide plenty of dither for even the compressed file, and you don't have sudden light/dark transitions that trigger delta modulation artifacts.

Loading…

blog.kasson.com
richj20 said:
Yet, there are 40 mb of data being compressed, so is there another practical use for this larger file?
Click to expand...
There are a few shooting scenarios where the compression can cause artifacts. They are unlikely, and, if you understand the ins and outs of the compression algorithm, you can turn compression off when you encounter those scenes.

Jim
 
JimKasson said:
richj20 said:
Last year when acquiring my A7Rii, I tested by overexposing a scene with white clouds in the sky using both Compressed and Uncompressed RAW.

I did not observe any more recoverable detail from the Uncompressed RAW file.
Click to expand...
With the test, you won't see any difference; the photon noise from the clouds is enough to provide plenty of dither for even the compressed file, and you don't have sudden light/dark transitions that trigger delta modulation artifacts.

http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/can-you-see-the-sony-raw-compression-artifacts/
JimKasson said:
Yet, there are 40 mb of data being compressed, so is there another practical use for this larger file?
Click to expand...
There are a few shooting scenarios where the compression can cause artifacts. They are unlikely, and, if you understand the ins and outs of the compression algorithm, you can turn compression off when you encounter those scenes.
Click to expand...
I wonder if one scenario might be birds against a bright sky. I've noticed this on occasion - a tiny halo around the bird. Very annoying...

Any other scenarios that you've recognized?

thanks,

- Richard
 
richj20 said:
JimKasson said:
richj20 said:
Last year when acquiring my A7Rii, I tested by overexposing a scene with white clouds in the sky using both Compressed and Uncompressed RAW.

I did not observe any more recoverable detail from the Uncompressed RAW file.
Click to expand...
With the test, you won't see any difference; the photon noise from the clouds is enough to provide plenty of dither for even the compressed file, and you don't have sudden light/dark transitions that trigger delta modulation artifacts.

http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/can-you-see-the-sony-raw-compression-artifacts/
richj20 said:
Yet, there are 40 mb of data being compressed, so is there another practical use for this larger file?
Click to expand...
There are a few shooting scenarios where the compression can cause artifacts. They are unlikely, and, if you understand the ins and outs of the compression algorithm, you can turn compression off when you encounter those scenes.
Click to expand...
I wonder if one scenario might be birds against a bright sky. I've noticed this on occasion - a tiny halo around the bird. Very annoying...
Click to expand...
I've never seen craw cause halos. I don't see how it could. I suspect that is the result of oversharpening in raw development. I don't think the Lr and C1 default settings are tuned for this shooting scenario.
richj20 said:
Any other scenarios that you've recognized?
Click to expand...
Interior shots with windows and extreme shadow boosting to bring up interior details.

Star trails.

Jim
 
Anything where there are sharp extremely high contrast edges.

Most likely scenes to be affected:
  • night time city-scapes with artificial lighting;
  • night time street photography with artificial lighting, especially neon and LED advertising signs;
  • night skies with stars, star-trails, moon;
  • really dark objects against bright sky - tree branches, birds in flight, sometimes buildings.
Even when it does occur, the effect will not be visible unless you view at high magnification on screen or print huge, so rarely for typical print/viewing sizes. Also, the effect will be relatively subtle, unless you do push exposure and/or shadows a lot.

Personally, I only use uncompressed for the scenes I know will get affected or just to be safe for landscapes/cityscapes/architecture for which I will need huge prints or files.

There is not much point shooting portraits, events, weddings or travel uncompressed as those do not contain contrast enough edges to cause the problem.
 
sybersitizen said:
ulankford said:
... I have about 200 shots with the uncompressed files and my Lightroom version 5 does not seem to support these files ... However, is there anyway to compresses these files after the fact so that my current LR5 will recognise these files?
Click to expand...
There is no way to compress them in order to make them compatible.
sybersitizen said:
Does Sony or Adobe have some software for this?
Click to expand...
As explained by others, they can be converted with Adobe's DNG Converter in order to make them compatible.
Click to expand...
-- Yes, you will see that I am now sorted, but thanks for that nugget of enlightened wisdom.


Loading…

www.instagram.com
 
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