RAW, HEIF, and JPEG: TN Strikes Again

Thomas A Anderson said:

Thomas A Anderson said:

Thomas A Anderson said:

Thomas A Anderson said:

Cheers.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Post processing uses exactly 14 bits per color channel. That’s all the data you have to work with. The Analog-to-Digital-Conversion is 14 bits, so 2^14 levels per channel is it. 16,384 is your max and 0 is your min no matter what the file package used happens to be capable of. You can save it in a 16 bit TIFF file but there is no physical way to invent the additional data; it would have to be encoded at 16 bit upon capture.

Click to expand...

Understood thanks. Lets put aside the technical capabilities of cameras for the time being.

Was TN not advocating for the use of compressed formats over RAW? (More or less, independent of camera capability).

My point was, compressed formats like jpeg (and probably HEIF) are 8bit, severely limiting your post processing ability where you can choose 16bit file output in the RAW conversion.

There is even 32 bit processing but I have never found the need for it, but I have absolutely found advantages in processing 16 bit files over 8bit.

What this probably means is, if you like you photos as they are, straight ooc, all good. But if you need to knock them into shape, 8bit is not good enough.

I make the assumption that long term, 8bit photos will take on a 'sameness' decided by manufacturers' software. RAW processing will allow for creative aspects of individual photographers to separate themselves from the masses.

NoTicket said:

NoTicket said:

NoTicket said:

NoTicket said:

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Well, unless you buy a Fuji GFX 100.

Click to expand...

Ha!

I wasn't really talking about capture bit depth, but you do point out something about the GFX100 that is often overlooked compared to FF.

Sometimes, just telling a client that such a photo is better because of things like bit depth can make a photo look (or sound) better.

Peak freak said:

Thomas A Anderson said:

Peak freak said:

Peak freak said:

Peak freak said:

Cheers.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Post processing uses exactly 14 bits per color channel. That’s all the data you have to work with. The Analog-to-Digital-Conversion is 14 bits, so 2^14 levels per channel is it. 16,384 is your max and 0 is your min no matter what the file package used happens to be capable of. You can save it in a 16 bit TIFF file but there is no physical way to invent the additional data; it would have to be encoded at 16 bit upon capture.

Click to expand...

Understood thanks. Lets put aside the technical capabilities of cameras for the time being.

Was TN not advocating for the use of compressed formats over RAW? (More or less, independent of camera capability).

Click to expand...

He advocates for all sorts of strange practices, but yes he is a fan of JPEG and other lossy compression formats.

Peak freak said:

My point was, compressed formats like jpeg (and probably HEIF) are 8bit, severely limiting your post processing ability where you can choose 16bit file output in the RAW conversion.

Click to expand...

HEIF is 10 bits per channel. So in order the 8, 10, and 14 bit files yield 16.8 million, 1.1 trillion, 4.4 trillion tonal levels.

You also need to distinguish the file format’s abilities from its contents: you can open an 8 bit JPEG and save it as a 16 bit TIFF, you still only have 8 bits of information per channel. You’re not editing in 16 bits, you’re storing a 14 bit file in a package that can handle 16. If you keep talking about 16 bit RAW people will think you’re unaware of how digital editing and files work.

Peak freak said:

There is even 32 bit processing but I have never found the need for it, but I have absolutely found advantages in processing 16 bit files over 8bit.

Click to expand...

Like I said, do yourself a favor and stop with the 16 bits. There are cameras that shoot 16 bit RAW, but I doubt either of us can afford them.

Peak freak said:

What this probably means is, if you like you photos as they are, straight ooc, all good. But if you need to knock them into shape, 8bit is not good enough.

I make the assumption that long term, 8bit photos will take on a 'sameness' decided by manufacturers' software. RAW processing will allow for creative aspects of individual photographers to separate themselves from the masses.

Click to expand...

8 bit files are still subject the options available in camera. Settings can be very extensive for JPEG processing. Editing RAW allows for much greater latitude, and it simply makes editing easier and more effective without artifacts.

Peak freak said:

NoTicket said:

Well, unless you buy a Fuji GFX 100.

Click to expand...

Ha!

I wasn't really talking about capture bit depth, but you do point out something about the GFX100 that is often overlooked compared to FF.

Sometimes, just telling a client that such a photo is better because of things like bit depth can make a photo look (or sound) better.

Click to expand...

Capture bit depth and editing bit depth are the same. There is no distinction. When you imply a distinction you are factually incorrect.

Thomas A Anderson said:

Peak freak said:

Thomas A Anderson said:

Thomas A Anderson said:

Thomas A Anderson said:

Thomas A Anderson said:

Cheers.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Post processing uses exactly 14 bits per color channel. That’s all the data you have to work with. The Analog-to-Digital-Conversion is 14 bits, so 2^14 levels per channel is it. 16,384 is your max and 0 is your min no matter what the file package used happens to be capable of. You can save it in a 16 bit TIFF file but there is no physical way to invent the additional data; it would have to be encoded at 16 bit upon capture.

Click to expand...

Understood thanks. Lets put aside the technical capabilities of cameras for the time being.

Was TN not advocating for the use of compressed formats over RAW? (More or less, independent of camera capability).

Click to expand...

He advocates for all sorts of strange practices, but yes he is a fan of JPEG and other lossy compression formats.

Thomas A Anderson said:

My point was, compressed formats like jpeg (and probably HEIF) are 8bit, severely limiting your post processing ability where you can choose 16bit file output in the RAW conversion.

Click to expand...

HEIF is 10 bits per channel. So in order the 8, 10, and 14 bit files yield 16.8 million, 1.1 trillion, 4.4 trillion tonal levels.

You also need to distinguish the file format’s abilities from its contents: you can open an 8 bit JPEG and save it as a 16 bit TIFF, you still only have 8 bits of information per channel. You’re not editing in 16 bits, you’re storing a 14 bit file in a package that can handle 16. If you keep talking about 16 bit RAW people will think you’re unaware of how digital editing and files work.

Thomas A Anderson said:

There is even 32 bit processing but I have never found the need for it, but I have absolutely found advantages in processing 16 bit files over 8bit.

Click to expand...

Like I said, do yourself a favor and stop with the 16 bits. There are cameras that shoot 16 bit RAW, but I doubt either of us can afford them.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure you understand where I am coming from. Forget about capture bit depth. This is about what options you have when you post process RAW vs compressed formats.

RAW gives you the ability to post process in 16bit mode. You choose this when you do your propriety RAW conversion. Compressed formats like jpeg (and probably HEIF) do not allow for this.

I used to do my conversions as 8bit to save file space and speed up processing. After a while I realized that the results often weren't good enough and I now do all my post processing in 16 bit mode.

RAW capture and the ability to post process in 16 bit mode is absolutely necessary for myself, and that is based on practical experience.

[You might be able to convert an 8bit jpeg into 16bit, but that is a pointless exercise IMO.]

Thomas A Anderson said:

Thomas A Anderson said:

What this probably means is, if you like you photos as they are, straight ooc, all good. But if you need to knock them into shape, 8bit is not good enough.

I make the assumption that long term, 8bit photos will take on a 'sameness' decided by manufacturers' software. RAW processing will allow for creative aspects of individual photographers to separate themselves from the masses.

Click to expand...

8 bit files are still subject the options available in camera. Settings can be very extensive for JPEG processing. Editing RAW allows for much greater latitude, and it simply makes editing easier and more effective without artifacts.

Click to expand...

Peak freak said:

Thomas A Anderson said:

Peak freak said:

Thomas A Anderson said:

Peak freak said:

Peak freak said:

Peak freak said:

Cheers.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Post processing uses exactly 14 bits per color channel. That’s all the data you have to work with. The Analog-to-Digital-Conversion is 14 bits, so 2^14 levels per channel is it. 16,384 is your max and 0 is your min no matter what the file package used happens to be capable of. You can save it in a 16 bit TIFF file but there is no physical way to invent the additional data; it would have to be encoded at 16 bit upon capture.

Click to expand...

Understood thanks. Lets put aside the technical capabilities of cameras for the time being.

Was TN not advocating for the use of compressed formats over RAW? (More or less, independent of camera capability).

Click to expand...

He advocates for all sorts of strange practices, but yes he is a fan of JPEG and other lossy compression formats.

Peak freak said:

My point was, compressed formats like jpeg (and probably HEIF) are 8bit, severely limiting your post processing ability where you can choose 16bit file output in the RAW conversion.

Click to expand...

HEIF is 10 bits per channel. So in order the 8, 10, and 14 bit files yield 16.8 million, 1.1 trillion, 4.4 trillion tonal levels.

You also need to distinguish the file format’s abilities from its contents: you can open an 8 bit JPEG and save it as a 16 bit TIFF, you still only have 8 bits of information per channel. You’re not editing in 16 bits, you’re storing a 14 bit file in a package that can handle 16. If you keep talking about 16 bit RAW people will think you’re unaware of how digital editing and files work.

Peak freak said:

There is even 32 bit processing but I have never found the need for it, but I have absolutely found advantages in processing 16 bit files over 8bit.

Click to expand...

Like I said, do yourself a favor and stop with the 16 bits. There are cameras that shoot 16 bit RAW, but I doubt either of us can afford them.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure you understand where I am coming from. Forget about capture bit depth.

Click to expand...

I do. You’re wrong. I’m not stating an opinion here.

Again, you are creating a distinction without a difference. When you edit a RAW file you are editing the captured data. Period. If you choose to store it in an 8 bit package then that’s your call, but that’s destroying data. There is no reason to save your edits as a TIFF or JPEG because the edits exist as either a sidecar file or internally separate from the original capture data. But that conversion to TIFF doesn’t change your 14 bit data to 16 bit data. It puts 14 bits in 16 bit deep bucket....there’s two bits of empty space.

Peak freak said:

This is about what options you have when you post process RAW vs compressed formats.

Click to expand...

Compressed formats are decompressed when editing and then compressed to save. Again, you can save a 2 or 4 or 8 bit file in a 16 bit TIFF and you’ve gained nothing except compression artifacts that accumulate every time you edit and compress.

Peak freak said:

RAW gives you the ability to post process in 16bit mode.

Click to expand...

No, it does not. Whatever the editor is capable of you are restricted to the bit depth of capture. Period.

Peak freak said:

You choose this when you do your propriety RAW conversion. Compressed formats like jpeg (and probably HEIF) do not allow for this.

Click to expand...

You are in no way required to convert to another file type, but using an uncompressed file type capable of 16 bit data files still only stores your 14 bits of data.

Peak freak said:

I used to do my conversions as 8bit to save file space and speed up processing. After a while I realized that the results often weren't good enough and I now do all my post processing in 16 bit mode.

Click to expand...

There is no mode. You edit RAW in its native bit depth. RAW is a glorified TIFF file, which can handle 16 bits but only stores the native depth.

Peak freak said:

RAW capture and the ability to post process in 16 bit mode is absolutely necessary for myself, and that is based on practical experience.

[You might be able to convert an 8bit jpeg into 16bit, but that is a pointless exercise IMO.]

Click to expand...

So is saying that you’ve converted a 14 bit file into 16. You haven’t.

I’ve done my best to save you from your misapprehension. From now on if you say you’ve got a 16 bit file from a Canon you’ll know why people are giving you funny looks. You are misunderstanding how file formats work.

Peak freak said:

Peak freak said:

Peak freak said:

What this probably means is, if you like you photos as they are, straight ooc, all good. But if you need to knock them into shape, 8bit is not good enough.

I make the assumption that long term, 8bit photos will take on a 'sameness' decided by manufacturers' software. RAW processing will allow for creative aspects of individual photographers to separate themselves from the masses.

Click to expand...

8 bit files are still subject the options available in camera. Settings can be very extensive for JPEG processing. Editing RAW allows for much greater latitude, and it simply makes editing easier and more effective without artifacts.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Thomas A Anderson said:

Peak freak said:

NoTicket said:

Well, unless you buy a Fuji GFX 100.

Click to expand...

Ha!

I wasn't really talking about capture bit depth, but you do point out something about the GFX100 that is often overlooked compared to FF.

Sometimes, just telling a client that such a photo is better because of things like bit depth can make a photo look (or sound) better.

Click to expand...

Capture bit depth and editing bit depth are the same. There is no distinction. When you imply a distinction you are factually incorrect.

Click to expand...

OK, just to be clear, I am not denying what you are saying.

What I was doing was referring to your options post capture, depending on your chosen file format - RAW, jpeg or otherwise.

I thought that is what the thread was about, how you choose to save your files, not how your camera actually captures them.

Peak freak said:

Thomas A Anderson said:

Peak freak said:

NoTicket said:

Well, unless you buy a Fuji GFX 100.

Click to expand...

Ha!

I wasn't really talking about capture bit depth, but you do point out something about the GFX100 that is often overlooked compared to FF.

Sometimes, just telling a client that such a photo is better because of things like bit depth can make a photo look (or sound) better.

Click to expand...

Capture bit depth and editing bit depth are the same. There is no distinction. When you imply a distinction you are factually incorrect.

Click to expand...

OK, just to be clear, I am not denying what you are saying.

What I was doing was referring to your options post capture, depending on your chosen file format - RAW, jpeg or otherwise.

I thought that is what the thread was about, how you choose to save your files, not how your camera actually captures them.

Click to expand...

Your camera captures 14 bits per channel. The CR3 file from the R is 14 bpc. If you save a RAW edit as a 16 bit TIFF it still only contains 14 bits per channel. When you say you have 16 bits of data you are saying you’ve created 2 bits that didn’t previously exist. You only edit a CR3 in 14 bits. You never have to create a new TIFF to save those edits. The edits are saved with the RAW file either internally or as a sidecar XMP.

Saying POST is different than CAPTURE is a nonsense statement. The file is the file. The capture is the file. 14 bits is it. Editing only involves 14 bits.

Thomas A Anderson said:

Peak freak said:

Thomas A Anderson said:

Peak freak said:

NoTicket said:

Well, unless you buy a Fuji GFX 100.

Click to expand...

Ha!

I wasn't really talking about capture bit depth, but you do point out something about the GFX100 that is often overlooked compared to FF.

Sometimes, just telling a client that such a photo is better because of things like bit depth can make a photo look (or sound) better.

Click to expand...

Capture bit depth and editing bit depth are the same. There is no distinction. When you imply a distinction you are factually incorrect.

Click to expand...

OK, just to be clear, I am not denying what you are saying.

What I was doing was referring to your options post capture, depending on your chosen file format - RAW, jpeg or otherwise.

I thought that is what the thread was about, how you choose to save your files, not how your camera actually captures them.

Click to expand...

Your camera captures 14 bits per channel. The CR3 file from the R is 14 bpc. If you save a RAW edit as a 16 bit TIFF it still only contains 14 bits per channel. When you say you have 16 bits of data you are saying you’ve created 2 bits that didn’t previously exist. You only edit a CR3 in 14 bits. You never have to create a new TIFF to save those edits. The edits are saved with the RAW file either internally or as a sidecar XMP.

Saying POST is different than CAPTURE is a nonsense statement. The file is the file. The capture is the file. 14 bits is it. Editing only involves 14 bits.

Click to expand...

Jeepers. You're not telling me anything I don't already know.

I am sorry for the confusion.

Peak freak said:

Thomas A Anderson said:

Peak freak said:

Thomas A Anderson said:

Peak freak said:

NoTicket said:

Well, unless you buy a Fuji GFX 100.

Click to expand...

Ha!

I wasn't really talking about capture bit depth, but you do point out something about the GFX100 that is often overlooked compared to FF.

Sometimes, just telling a client that such a photo is better because of things like bit depth can make a photo look (or sound) better.

Click to expand...

Capture bit depth and editing bit depth are the same. There is no distinction. When you imply a distinction you are factually incorrect.

Click to expand...

OK, just to be clear, I am not denying what you are saying.

What I was doing was referring to your options post capture, depending on your chosen file format - RAW, jpeg or otherwise.

I thought that is what the thread was about, how you choose to save your files, not how your camera actually captures them.

Click to expand...

Your camera captures 14 bits per channel. The CR3 file from the R is 14 bpc. If you save a RAW edit as a 16 bit TIFF it still only contains 14 bits per channel. When you say you have 16 bits of data you are saying you’ve created 2 bits that didn’t previously exist. You only edit a CR3 in 14 bits. You never have to create a new TIFF to save those edits. The edits are saved with the RAW file either internally or as a sidecar XMP.

Saying POST is different than CAPTURE is a nonsense statement. The file is the file. The capture is the file. 14 bits is it. Editing only involves 14 bits.

Click to expand...

Jeepers. You're not telling me anything I don't already know.

I am sorry for the confusion.

Click to expand...

Golly gee, your differentiation was just not right. It is about saving the file, but the original post was actually about formats available in camera. Even so, if you edit a RAW file you aren’t editing in 16 bit “mode”....that’s not a thing. You are editing the RAW data in its original form. How you save it after post processing is different. And no matter the “mode” of the TIFF, you still only save 14 bits. To avoid confusion never refer to 16 bit “mode” or files when you start with a 14 bit file.

To quote you: ” Shooting in RAW format allows you to process your image in 8 or 16 bit format, that is, with 256 tones (2*8) or 65,536 tones (2*16) for much smoother gradations. Jpeg is limited to 8bit, end of story.” When you say “process your image in 8 or 16 bit format” you’re wrong. You only have 2^14 levels per channel (16,384). You DO NOT have 65,536 levels per channel. I guess you mean to say you can “SAVE your image in 8 or 16 bit format” but you’re processing 14 bits of RAW data no matter how you choose to then save it, and you’re processing 8 bits of JPEG data no matter how you save it. You can edit a JPEG and save it as a 16 bit file, just as you can edit a RAW and save it as a 16 bit file. You still only have 8 bits of data per channel from the original JPEG and 14 bits of data per channel in the original RAW. JPEG is limited to 8 bits, period. RAW is limited to 14 bits, period.

Peak freak said:

Thomas A Anderson said:

Peak freak said:

NoTicket said:

Well, unless you buy a Fuji GFX 100.

Click to expand...

Ha!

I wasn't really talking about capture bit depth, but you do point out something about the GFX100 that is often overlooked compared to FF.

Sometimes, just telling a client that such a photo is better because of things like bit depth can make a photo look (or sound) better.

Click to expand...

Capture bit depth and editing bit depth are the same. There is no distinction. When you imply a distinction you are factually incorrect.

Click to expand...

OK, just to be clear, I am not denying what you are saying.

What I was doing was referring to your options post capture, depending on your chosen file format - RAW, jpeg or otherwise.

I thought that is what the thread was about, how you choose to save your files, not how your camera actually captures them.

Click to expand...

Just to be clear, never talk about saving a 14 bit file as a 16 bit file. If you save a 14 bit file as a TIFF, it’s a 14 bit TIFF.

Thomas A Anderson said:

Peak freak said:

Thomas A Anderson said:

Peak freak said:

NoTicket said:

Well, unless you buy a Fuji GFX 100.

Click to expand...

Ha!

I wasn't really talking about capture bit depth, but you do point out something about the GFX100 that is often overlooked compared to FF.

Sometimes, just telling a client that such a photo is better because of things like bit depth can make a photo look (or sound) better.

Click to expand...

Capture bit depth and editing bit depth are the same. There is no distinction. When you imply a distinction you are factually incorrect.

Click to expand...

OK, just to be clear, I am not denying what you are saying.

What I was doing was referring to your options post capture, depending on your chosen file format - RAW, jpeg or otherwise.

I thought that is what the thread was about, how you choose to save your files, not how your camera actually captures them.

Click to expand...

Just to be clear, never talk about saving a 14 bit file as a 16 bit file. If you save a 14 bit file as a TIFF, it’s a 14 bit TIFF.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the advice, but I'll keep referring to my files as 16bit, just like Adobe do. It's easier.

Peak freak said:

Thomas A Anderson said:

Peak freak said:

Thomas A Anderson said:

Peak freak said:

NoTicket said:

Well, unless you buy a Fuji GFX 100.

Click to expand...

Ha!

I wasn't really talking about capture bit depth, but you do point out something about the GFX100 that is often overlooked compared to FF.

Sometimes, just telling a client that such a photo is better because of things like bit depth can make a photo look (or sound) better.

Click to expand...

Capture bit depth and editing bit depth are the same. There is no distinction. When you imply a distinction you are factually incorrect.

Click to expand...

OK, just to be clear, I am not denying what you are saying.

What I was doing was referring to your options post capture, depending on your chosen file format - RAW, jpeg or otherwise.

I thought that is what the thread was about, how you choose to save your files, not how your camera actually captures them.

Click to expand...

Just to be clear, never talk about saving a 14 bit file as a 16 bit file. If you save a 14 bit file as a TIFF, it’s a 14 bit TIFF.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the advice, but I'll keep referring to my files as 16bit, just like Adobe do. It's easier.

Click to expand...

And you obviously don’t understand how editing images work, so keep making that abundantly clear to those you talk to. You misinterpret standard bit depth used by an editor with the data actually contained in the file. You are not editing 2^16 levels because that simply doesn’t exist in a 14 bit file. You’ve taken a setting no one would ever change from its default and turned it into something it isn’t.

Peak freak said:

Click to expand...

Thomas A Anderson said:

Peak freak said:

Thomas A Anderson said:

Peak freak said:

Thomas A Anderson said:

Peak freak said:

NoTicket said:

Well, unless you buy a Fuji GFX 100.

Click to expand...

Ha!

I wasn't really talking about capture bit depth, but you do point out something about the GFX100 that is often overlooked compared to FF.

Sometimes, just telling a client that such a photo is better because of things like bit depth can make a photo look (or sound) better.

Click to expand...

Capture bit depth and editing bit depth are the same. There is no distinction. When you imply a distinction you are factually incorrect.

Click to expand...

OK, just to be clear, I am not denying what you are saying.

What I was doing was referring to your options post capture, depending on your chosen file format - RAW, jpeg or otherwise.

I thought that is what the thread was about, how you choose to save your files, not how your camera actually captures them.

Click to expand...

Just to be clear, never talk about saving a 14 bit file as a 16 bit file. If you save a 14 bit file as a TIFF, it’s a 14 bit TIFF.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the advice, but I'll keep referring to my files as 16bit, just like Adobe do. It's easier.

Click to expand...

And you obviously don’t understand how editing images work, so keep making that abundantly clear to those you talk to. You misinterpret standard bit depth used by an editor with the data actually contained in the file. You are not editing 2^16 levels because that simply doesn’t exist in a 14 bit file. You’ve taken a setting no one would ever change from its default and turned it into something it isn’t.

Click to expand...

I realize the difference between capture (in camera) RAW bit depth and editing bit depth. However, since I have only been referring to editing, or post processing bit depth options, are you suggesting people don't, or shouldn't open their RAW files as 16 bit? I can assure you it makes a significant difference when editing.

[I don't get it, you must know this. Everyone recommends editing 16bit files for max. flexibility. Likewise, no-one (except maybe you) calls their saved files 12 or 14 bit files based on the camera RAW bit depth].

Thomas A Anderson said:

Thomas A Anderson said:

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

When you edit a RAW file the program automatically uses the bit depth required to accommodate the file. You would have to change it manually and that would be stupid. In fact, in ACR I don’t recall there being an option to reduce the bit depth....and why are you editing in PS instead of ACR??? You stated that you had 2^16 levels per channel to work with and you just don’t. It’s like trying to explain computers to my dad. “But it says....!!!!” Yeah, I know dad, but here is what that actually means.

Thomas A Anderson said:

When you edit a RAW file the program automatically uses the bit depth required to accommodate the file. You would have to change it manually and that would be stupid. In fact, in ACR I don’t recall there being an option to reduce the bit depth....and why are you editing in PS instead of ACR??? You stated that you had 2^16 levels per channel to work with and you just don’t. It’s like trying to explain computers to my dad. “But it says....!!!!” Yeah, I know dad, but here is what that actually means.

Click to expand...

You are both right and wrong. The raw processing pipeline is only able to get 14 bits of information but in the ACR or Lightroom pipeline the editing is done with 16 bits of precision. This doesn’t mean that the source data magically becomes 16 bit but the adjustments are made in 16 bit data space.

This same increase in bit depth can be used for an 8 bit file to make the tonal differences for each adjustment more fine grained.

But you are right that you are still starting with 14 bit data.

Thomas A Anderson said:

Peak freak said:

I shoot RAW for all the 'usual' reasons, but one of the most useful and indispensable, is the ability to adjust colour temperature. Do these new compression formats support post WB adjustment? If not, let the likes of TN miss out on such a powerful and creative option.

[Edit: Another thing I have noticed (but more specialized) is that 8bit files don't stitch that well in PS with posterization artifacts - enough to see when printed.]

Click to expand...

The only way you’ll ever be able to adjust white balance without further narrowing your post processing options will be in RAW. 10-bits per channel may be better than 8-bit jpeg but it’s still not 14.

Click to expand...

14? EOS RP has a PDR of 9.1 and EOS R is 10.6. So, 10 bits per channel will capture whatever they have in their raw data.

Anyway, doesn't HEIF allow up to 16 bits per channel? And lossless support too?

Thomas A Anderson said:

And lossy compression will always be lossy.

Click to expand...

But not always to the same degree or with the same visibility. So don't overgeneralize. If lossy advances to become visually indistinguishable from lossless in every realistic situation, then job done.

Thomas A Anderson said:

It would be great if HEIF improves on jpeg, but RAW will always be your digital negative.

Click to expand...

If you can shoot HEIF at double the max burst speed and with endless buffer and no buffer clearance time, then HEIF will actually beat raw in those situations by not missing the best shots.

TN Args said:

Thomas A Anderson said:

Peak freak said:

I shoot RAW for all the 'usual' reasons, but one of the most useful and indispensable, is the ability to adjust colour temperature. Do these new compression formats support post WB adjustment? If not, let the likes of TN miss out on such a powerful and creative option.

[Edit: Another thing I have noticed (but more specialized) is that 8bit files don't stitch that well in PS with posterization artifacts - enough to see when printed.]

Click to expand...

The only way you’ll ever be able to adjust white balance without further narrowing your post processing options will be in RAW. 10-bits per channel may be better than 8-bit jpeg but it’s still not 14.

Click to expand...

14? EOS RP has a PDR of 9.1 and EOS R is 10.6. So, 10 bits per channel will capture whatever they have in their raw data.

Click to expand...

Not really, the threshold for the PDR is 4:1 ratio, not 1:1.

TN Args said:

Thomas A Anderson said:

Peak freak said:

I shoot RAW for all the 'usual' reasons, but one of the most useful and indispensable, is the ability to adjust colour temperature. Do these new compression formats support post WB adjustment? If not, let the likes of TN miss out on such a powerful and creative option.

[Edit: Another thing I have noticed (but more specialized) is that 8bit files don't stitch that well in PS with posterization artifacts - enough to see when printed.]

Click to expand...

The only way you’ll ever be able to adjust white balance without further narrowing your post processing options will be in RAW. 10-bits per channel may be better than 8-bit jpeg but it’s still not 14.

Click to expand...

14? EOS RP has a PDR of 9.1 and EOS R is 10.6. So, 10 bits per channel will capture whatever they have in their raw data.

Anyway, doesn't HEIF allow up to 16 bits per channel? And lossless support too?

TN Args said:

And lossy compression will always be lossy.

Click to expand...

But not always to the same degree or with the same visibility. So don't overgeneralize. If lossy advances to become visually indistinguishable from lossless in every realistic situation, then job done.

TN Args said:

It would be great if HEIF improves on jpeg, but RAW will always be your digital negative.

Click to expand...

If you can shoot HEIF at double the max burst speed and with endless buffer and no buffer clearance time, then HEIF will actually beat raw in those situations by not missing the best shots.

Click to expand...

Photographic Dynamic Range is not equivalent to a measurement of useful information coming off of the sensor. It is a measure of how many stops of dynamic range are available without perceptible noise.

Recording 14 bits of data and then having some noise in the shadow areas is still better than truncating all the midtone and highlight gradations and sticking them in to fewer bits.

NoTicket said:

Thomas A Anderson said:

When you edit a RAW file the program automatically uses the bit depth required to accommodate the file. You would have to change it manually and that would be stupid. In fact, in ACR I don’t recall there being an option to reduce the bit depth....and why are you editing in PS instead of ACR??? You stated that you had 2^16 levels per channel to work with and you just don’t. It’s like trying to explain computers to my dad. “But it says....!!!!” Yeah, I know dad, but here is what that actually means.

Click to expand...

You are both right and wrong. The raw processing pipeline is only able to get 14 bits of information but in the ACR or Lightroom pipeline the editing is done with 16 bits of precision. This doesn’t mean that the source data magically becomes 16 bit but the adjustments are made in 16 bit data space.

This same increase in bit depth can be used for an 8 bit file to make the tonal differences for each adjustment more fine grained.

But you are right that you are still starting with 14 bit data.

Click to expand...

Right, except I wasn't referring to the actual RAW bit depth, but editing bit depth (options) for your chosen output file format.

Why, you might ask? Because, I can't change the RAW capture bit depth of my camera. While I realize newer cameras have 12-14 bit options depending on speed and compression, I have a 5D2, 12 bit.

What I can change, are output file formats (eg jpeg / RAW) and how this translates to editing flexibility because of the 8/16 (or even 32bit) options.

Trying to edit a jpeg in 16 bit mode would be pretty optimistic since it is saved as an 8 bit file, but I guess it could be done. HEIF may be different, I'm not sure.