Fixed RAW?

[mdcromer]

Did Sony fix the compressed RAW problem with the Alpha seven Mark two?

How about the Alpha 77 Mark two?

 

[Stflbn]

Pro's that are using these cameras are not complaining about any Raw problems.

Usually when someone comes here complaining they're using some odd personal choice for processing their photo's or are pushing their dynamic range absolutely to the extreme.

IMHO

 

[quezra]

I have yet to see one image ruined by "compressed" RAW. On the other hand, literally every shot I have ever taken has benefited by having a larger buffer as a result of "compressed" RAW. I really don't understand why people complain about this... almost inevitably it is by someone who has never shot with the A7 system and thinks all manufactured Internet drama is real.

 

[mdcromer]

Did they fix the lossy compression that does cause real image quality artifacts in some situations (such as photographing star trails).

I agree it doesn't cause image quality artifacts in most situations. But that's neither here nor there. The fact is - lots of people complain that the Nikon D810 has "better" image quality than the A7R and this is the reason for the complaint.

This is about PR and marketing - I'd probably go ahead and use compressed RAW in most situations. I just want to know if Sony has taken care of the PR black eye here, or not.

 

[buellom]

In most cases the compression certainly is no issue. But:

RawDigger: detecting posterization in SONY cRAW/ARW2 files

Lossy compression of raw data is currently the only option available in Sony cameras of series NEX, SLT, RX, ILCE, ILCA, and the recent DSLR-A. The first part of this article is showing how to detect artifacts caused by this compression. We will be discussing the technical details of this...

www.rawdigger.com

However, would it be such a problem to give the user a choice? If you want the compression to have more buffer, less storage palce - take it. If not, leave it.

For me, it's more the question if Sony knows what photographers want. What will they mess next? But to be fair, the iteration of the RX100 did improve the camera very well.

Give me a A7r with a non compression option, solve the shutter vibration issue and I'm in (also I'm still missing some lenses).

 

[Habs Fan27]

Did they fix the lossy compression that does cause real image quality artifacts in some situations (such as photographing star trails).

I agree it doesn't cause image quality artifacts in most situations. But that's neither here nor there. The fact is - lots of people complain that the Nikon D810 has "better" image quality than the A7R and this is the reason for the complaint.

This is about PR and marketing - I'd probably go ahead and use compressed RAW in most situations. I just want to know if Sony has taken care of the PR black eye here, or not.

So the compression is an issue for the 0.01% of people that want to shoot star trails and not have artifacts at 1:1 view. I think for most, this is a non issue. It's also quite possible they have done something in the A7 ii to fix this but they probably won't come out and say it as it would be an admission that there was an issue in the past.

 

[buellom]

The Sony approach was / is ? wrong. At least with the A7r: You take a superb sensor whcih is capable of the best image quality available in the 35mmm realm. Now you have to ensure that the environment is up to the task to make the sensor shine as bright as possible. Sony messed it with a wrong decision (lossy raw) and a construction mistake (shutter vibration).


********************
www.freude-am-licht.de
********************

 

[CameraTest]

Does anybody know whether the A7 M2 RAW files can be read by the same software as A7 RAW files?

 

[Nordstjernen]

In most cases the compression certainly is no issue. But:

http://www.rawdigger.com/howtouse/sony-craw-arw2-posterization-detection

Note that exposure is pushed two full stops at the post processing stage here! And this is for an ultra-exreme-high-contrast scene, where the star trails are heavily overexposed and the sky background is underexposed. What about other raw peocessors and more normal exposure/post processing?

Sure, by pushing files or dynamic range to extremes, you can construct a lot of "problems" never affecting ordinary photographs.

I have succeded finding posterization at the corners on the sky for some scenes with the Zeiss 35 mm f:2.8 lens when underexposing more than seven full stops at ISO 200 and then pushing the sky a bit at post processing ... bad raw files, or insane "user error" for my test files??? Something to worry about? Not at all! My really shows how robust the raw files are!

 

[Nordstjernen]

So the compression is an issue for the 0.01% of people that want to shoot star trails and not have artifacts at 1:1 view.

This is files that are pushed way beyond the dynamic range of the sensor. Read my post above.

It might be something with the compressed raw files, but there might well be other reasons for the star trail result.

 

[Nordstjernen]

Sony messed it with a wrong decision (lossy raw) and a construction mistake (shutter vibration).

And CaNikon struggle with slamming mirrors (old tech) and shutter shake (no electronic first curtain except for Live View for some Canon models, old tech) ... they messed everything up too ... lol!

 

[buellom]

Note that exposure is pushed two full stops at the post processing stage here! And this is for an ultra-exreme-high-contrast scene, where the star trails are heavily overexposed and the sky background is underexposed. What about other raw peocessors and more normal exposure/post processing?

Sure, by pushing files or dynamic range to extremes, you can construct a lot of "problems" never affecting ordinary photographs.

Well, yes. Nevertheless Sony limited the capabilities of its sensor. Give me the option to have it lossless and I'm fine. Might be possible with an firmware update.

And btw., your argumentation reminds me a lot of what Canon fanboys said about the difference between Canon and Sony sensors ...


********************
www.freude-am-licht.de
********************

 

[buellom]

It was a bit of an issue with the D800, but seems to be solved with the D810. And this is with a mirror! Don't think there is an issue with the 5DIII either (but of course the resolution is not that high).

 

[Nordstjernen]

And btw., your argumentation reminds me a lot of what Canon fanboys said about the difference between Canon and Sony sensors ...

When I had Sony aps-c and full frame cameras with lossless and lossy raw file formats, I wasn't able to find any differences between the files, even when pushing demanding astrophoto files.

On the other hand, I found some limitations of the A900 sensor for low light work that might have lead to endless discussions and a lot of worries if I had published my findings (tested 4 different A900 cameras, all showed the same pretty serious flaw, easily seen and very limiting for serious astrophotography - I even sent one back to Sony for analysis). To my surprise, nobody else ever reported this finding.


A very deep DSLR astro exposure - yes, I know what extreme low light photography is about.


A deep Orion nebula DSLR exposure.

 

[mdcromer]

There aren't any star trails there.

In any event, this is about perception not reality. The perception is, Sony cameras are not capable of the ultimate an image quality because of the RAW compression. Just give an option for uncompressed raw and we won't have to hear about this anymore.

 

[Nordstjernen]

There aren't any star trails there.

In any event, this is about perception not reality. The perception is, Sony cameras are not capable of the ultimate an image quality because of the RAW compression. Just give an option for uncompressed raw and we won't have to hear about this anymore.

There are other image quality issues that are much more important than the star trail flaws/ultra-extreme contrast edges, but since these aren't "forum talk" nobody are asking for a fix. A bit strange, or what?

Are you sure the star trail artefacts are caused by the raw file compression? By the way, I do have star trail images too.

 

[exapixel]

I read the announcements carefully, and I didn't see anything in there about better-than-11-bit ARW tonal depth or a non-lossy block compression algorithm being available as options, unfortunately.

Let's see what the final product has, though. It's conceivable that Sony would make an improved ARW format available deep in the menus of a new camera and not want to publicize it too much.

I do wish that people would stop insisting that 11-bit lossy block-compressed ARWs aren't a problem for me.

 

[Tuloom]

I read the announcements carefully, and I didn't see anything in there about better-than-11-bit ARW tonal depth or a non-lossy block compression algorithm being available as options, unfortunately.

Let's see what the final product has, though. It's conceivable that Sony would make an improved ARW format available deep in the menus of a new camera and not want to publicize it too much.

I do wish that people would stop insisting that 11-bit lossy block-compressed ARWs aren't a problem for me.

Post an example.

 

[exapixel]

I just don't get this argument that so many people make against a desire for a true 14-bit non-lossy ARW format option.

Would they be okay with Sony reducing the tonal range of ARW to 10 bits? 9 bits? How about a lossy block compression algorithm that saved more space by posterizing the intermediate pixels to 6 bits, or 5 bits, from 7 today.

At some point, it starts to matter, right?

 

[Tuloom]

I just don't get this argument that so many people make against a desire for a true 14-bit non-lossy ARW format option.

Would they be okay with Sony reducing the tonal range of ARW to 10 bits? 9 bits? How about a lossy block compression algorithm that saved more space by posterizing the intermediate pixels to 6 bits, or 5 bits, from 7 today.

At some point, it starts to matter, right?

I do want it.

But please post your example where it has affected your photo. I've only seen three photos up to now with issues. All were made to show it and perfectly clear about the post processing.