Reading mode: Light Dark

14-bit vs 16-bit Raw Bit Depth

Go to last post
D

David Redfearn

Forum Enthusiast
Messages
365
Solutions
2
Reaction score
112
Location
Las Vegas, NV, US
My GFX100S II is arriving tomorrow. One question about settings: I know the RAW files are very large, and will be larger if I select RAW 16-bit depth. I assume there is a (theoretical) color rendering advantage to the16-bit mode. Do users just leave it at 16-bits or is this something selected for a specific use case with most shooting done with 14-bit?

David
 
This has been discussed every week for 6 years. Here is the answer. Shoot 14 bit raw lossless compressed.

We all do, and there is no loss of quality from 16 to 14 bit or with lossless compressed vs uncompressed, and the file size saving is really big.

It's the first thing Jim taught me when I started with GFX.
 
David Redfearn said:
My GFX100S II is arriving tomorrow. One question about settings: I know the RAW files are very large, and will be larger if I select RAW 16-bit depth. I assume there is a (theoretical) color rendering advantage to the16-bit mode. Do users just leave it at 16-bits or is this something selected for a specific use case with most shooting done with 14-bit?
Click to expand...
Our Intrepid Lead Scientist in Residence has made several tests and blogged about them. One small quote that sums up my sense of the situation:
David Redfearn said:
My earlier read noise tests indicated that overall read noise of the GFX100 was virtually unaffected by the choice of 14 versus 16 bit raw precision .... There are some small differences in the raw noise pattern, but they fade into utter insignificance when compared to the horizontal banding th[at] comes from the OSPDAF system. If you eliminate the banding in post-production [and I think since then, a firmware update has eliminated it], the differences might conceivably be worth worrying about, but they are tiny.
Click to expand...
(Emphasis added.) Source: https://blog.kasson.com/gfx-100/visual-comparisons-of-fuji-gfx-100-14-and-16-bit-raw-precision/
 
David Redfearn said:
My GFX100S II is arriving tomorrow. One question about settings: I know the RAW files are very large, and will be larger if I select RAW 16-bit depth. I assume there is a (theoretical) color rendering advantage to the16-bit mode. Do users just leave it at 16-bits or is this something selected for a specific use case with most shooting done with 14-bit?
Click to expand...
16-bit precision offers virtually no advantage over 14-bit precision with the GFX 100x cameras. The black point accuracy is a bit better for nosebleed ISOs. ES is slower. My advice is to forget 16-bit precision unless you know you want it for a good reason.
 
David Redfearn said:
My GFX100S II is arriving tomorrow. One question about settings: I know the RAW files are very large, and will be larger if I select RAW 16-bit depth. I assume there is a (theoretical) color rendering advantage to the16-bit mode.
Click to expand...
The theoretical advantage is not to in color rendering but in noise.
David Redfearn said:
Do users just leave it at 16-bits or is this something selected for a specific use case with most shooting done with 14-bit?

David
Click to expand...
 
JimKasson said:
David Redfearn said:
My GFX100S II is arriving tomorrow. One question about settings: I know the RAW files are very large, and will be larger if I select RAW 16-bit depth. I assume there is a (theoretical) color rendering advantage to the16-bit mode. Do users just leave it at 16-bits or is this something selected for a specific use case with most shooting done with 14-bit?
Click to expand...
16-bit precision offers virtually no advantage over 14-bit precision with the GFX 100x cameras. The black point accuracy is a bit better for nosebleed ISOs. ES is slower. My advice is to forget 16-bit precision unless you know you want it for a good reason.
Click to expand...
 
Note that with X2D, the raw file is the same regardless of bit size. The benefit of using 14 bits is only faster readout, which matters mostly for electronic shutter use.
 
fcracer said:
JimKasson said:
David Redfearn said:
My GFX100S II is arriving tomorrow. One question about settings: I know the RAW files are very large, and will be larger if I select RAW 16-bit depth. I assume there is a (theoretical) color rendering advantage to the16-bit mode. Do users just leave it at 16-bits or is this something selected for a specific use case with most shooting done with 14-bit?
Click to expand...
16-bit precision offers virtually no advantage over 14-bit precision with the GFX 100x cameras. The black point accuracy is a bit better for nosebleed ISOs. ES is slower. My advice is to forget 16-bit precision unless you know you want it for a good reason.
Click to expand...
Jim, I keep seeing YouTubers mention how amazing the 16-bit colour is on the GFX cameras. Giving them the benefit of the doubt, I think they’re just using 16-bit as a descriptor without any substance because they’re not sure where the extra visual improvement is coming from. I don’t see any real life benefit of 16 vs 14 but maybe I’m missing something. Am I missing anything with a reasonably exposed image?
Click to expand...
They are probably looking at their GFX raw files for the first time on a 4K, 5K or 6K 32-inch pro IPS Black or Mini-LED high color gamut HDR new-tech screen for the first time.

They do like everyone else and go.... Wow!

Then they brainlessly attribute it to 16 bit. LOL.
 
weihaowang said:
JimKasson said:
My advice is to forget 16-bit precision unless you know you want it for a good reason.
Click to expand...
Hi Jim,

Are there any possible reasons that you can imagine when 16 bit from GFX100x can really make a difference?
Click to expand...
In fairness, there are a few really good photographers on this Board who shoot 16 bit (Manzur especially) because they run big arrays and don't car aboiut200 MB files sizes, so they shoot uncompressed raw and 16 bit.

I think they do it for some kind of future proofing. They don't see the difference now but think something may breakout later on future raw editing software.

In other words, they think there is some hidden future advantage, but they aren't sure what it is. They don't care about file size, so they shoot 16 bit and uncompressed raw.
 
SrMi said:
Note that with X2D, the raw file is the same regardless of bit size. The benefit of using 14 bits is only faster readout, which matters mostly for electronic shutter use.
Click to expand...
Right. The OP asked about the GFX, so I didn’t talk about other cameras.
 
JimKasson said:
SrMi said:
Note that with X2D, the raw file is the same regardless of bit size. The benefit of using 14 bits is only faster readout, which matters mostly for electronic shutter use.
Click to expand...
Right. The OP asked about the GFX, so I didn’t talk about other cameras.
Click to expand...
The title was not camera specific, therefore I thought it may be helpful to share information about other MF cameras as well.

What do you use with X2D, 14 or 16 bits?
JimKasson said:
--
https://blog.kasson.com
Click to expand...
 
SrMi said:
JimKasson said:
SrMi said:
Note that with X2D, the raw file is the same regardless of bit size. The benefit of using 14 bits is only faster readout, which matters mostly for electronic shutter use.
Click to expand...
Right. The OP asked about the GFX, so I didn’t talk about other cameras.
Click to expand...
The title was not camera specific, therefore I thought it may be helpful to share information about other MF cameras as well.
What do you use with X2D, 14 or 16 bits?
Click to expand...
14, so I don't have to remember to go to 16 when I'm using ES.

My H2D-39 had 16 bit readout, too, but at least 5 bits of that was noise.
 
SrMi said:
JimKasson said:
SrMi said:
Note that with X2D, the raw file is the same regardless of bit size. The benefit of using 14 bits is only faster readout, which matters mostly for electronic shutter use.
Click to expand...
Right. The OP asked about the GFX, so I didn’t talk about other cameras.
Click to expand...
The title was not camera specific, therefore I thought it may be helpful to share information about other MF cameras as well.
Click to expand...
In general the decision rests on the relationship of the read noise to the smallest quantization level. If there is more than 1.5 or 2 least significant bits of read noise, finer quantization buys virtually nothing.
 
fcracer said:
JimKasson said:
David Redfearn said:
My GFX100S II is arriving tomorrow. One question about settings: I know the RAW files are very large, and will be larger if I select RAW 16-bit depth. I assume there is a (theoretical) color rendering advantage to the16-bit mode. Do users just leave it at 16-bits or is this something selected for a specific use case with most shooting done with 14-bit?
Click to expand...
16-bit precision offers virtually no advantage over 14-bit precision with the GFX 100x cameras. The black point accuracy is a bit better for nosebleed ISOs. ES is slower. My advice is to forget 16-bit precision unless you know you want it for a good reason.
Click to expand...
Jim, I keep seeing YouTubers mention how amazing the 16-bit colour is on the GFX cameras. Giving them the benefit of the doubt, I think they’re just using 16-bit as a descriptor without any substance because they’re not sure where the extra visual improvement is coming from. I don’t see any real life benefit of 16 vs 14 but maybe I’m missing something. Am I missing anything with a reasonably exposed image?
Click to expand...
I think not.
 
Last edited:
I understand why you might want to shoot 16-bit - in the hopes that future raw decoders will improve and pull more out of these images. But why Uncompressed when lossless compressed raw is available (and returns the original image perfectly, bit-for-bit).

There was a long controversy about Sony's "lossy" compressed raw (all that was available for many years). You could definitely see a difference, but only in specific situations and it was very hard to see. Now Sony has lossless compressed raw (which is what I use for my A7RV) so that issue is gone now.

Saving space with these huge raw files is a plus - saves me some money as I deal with data volumes by buying more SSD drives. I wonder how fast I will amass a huge volume of the raw MF files? :-)

David
 
David Redfearn said:
I understand why you might want to shoot 16-bit - in the hopes that future raw decoders will improve and pull more out of these images. But why Uncompressed when lossless compressed raw is available (and returns the original image perfectly, bit-for-bit).
Click to expand...
Two reasons, one real and one bogus.

The real one: uncompressed files are less affected by bit rot.

The bogus one: Lossless isn't really lossless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
X2Dii 14-bit vs 16-bit dynamic range
Replies
1
Views
103
SrMi
SrMi
JimKasson
The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn't Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
6 7 8
Replies
149
Views
1K
SeeingSomeThingsMissingMany
SeeingSomeThingsMissingMany
M
On quantisation errors due low bit depth and the helpfulness of image noise
Replies
7
Views
177
JimKasson
JimKasson
I
12-bit compressed vs 14-bit uncompressed RAW
Replies
14
Views
366
Kaj E
K
Erik Kaffehr
The origins of the 16 bit myth in medium format
2
Replies
25
Views
131
just Tony
just Tony

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