Fixed RAW?

[Iliah Borg]

@Iliah Borg - I know you have an interest in defending your software,

Why do I need to defend it? Are there any claims it is inaccurate that I need to address?

I think the problem is that it just is a pretty crap software, and the more you push this compression nonsense, the more you're actually just convincing us that your software is crap since we get a thousand times better results with a free software converter.

You seem to resort to insults and nervous way of posting. Facts are undeniable - compression is there, it is lossy, and it affects the perception of Sony cameras. You may use that royal "we" as much as you like - still, you are speaking only for yourself.

I mean your software has an issue converting Sony files

BS. Have you even downloaded the free trial? And here are a couple from Sony IDC, directly:

Loading…

cl.ly

Loading…

cl.ly

Same. And the example from the article, with Adobe ACR

Loading…

www.rawdigger.com

Same.

 

[GaryW]

...

No need to fixate on star trails. There is a cityscape example in the article, a very regular shot, where you can see posterization if you know where to look.

'However, on the final image the posterization is visible only on the edge of the tower where the background is a featureless blue sky.'

....

Going on about posterization makes people think gradient banding happens with A7 files (and it does not):

I'm a bit confused about the posterization -- if we're talking about the compressed RAW, I thought that the lossy part was only where there are strong dynamic range differences? Something like banding in the sky (just for example) must be due to something else....

 

[Iliah Borg]

What was the resolution in Nikon cameras when this was an issue?

They reluctantly recognized the difference between visually lossless and true lossless and implemented true lossless compression in pro cameras.

Again, what was the resolution of Nikon cameras when this was an issue?

Same as Sony A7s.

anal-retentive

Fixation? LOL

--

About LibRaw | LibRaw

www.libraw.org

 

[GaryW]

I opened your image in Capture One Express (now free to Sony users) and this is the default image at screenshotted at 300% with no tweaking whatsoever:

Seriously, the problem is your RAW converter.

My problem with this example is that it seems like C1 is using a lot of NR here. So, yeah, artifacts are cleaned up along with noise and detail. Doh! I'd like to see it with NR toned-down more.

--
Gary W.

 

[quezra]

@Iliah Borg - I know you have an interest in defending your software,

Why do I need to defend it? Are there any claims it is inaccurate that I need to address?

I think the problem is that it just is a pretty crap software, and the more you push this compression nonsense, the more you're actually just convincing us that your software is crap since we get a thousand times better results with a free software converter.

You seem to resort to insults and nervous way of posting. Facts are undeniable - compression is there, it is lossy, and it affects the perception of Sony cameras. You may use that royal "we" as much as you like - still, you are speaking only for yourself.

Sorry, you may identify closely with your software but I can assure you I am only insulting your software and not you I get to use "we" because several people have agreed with me in this thread, all of whom you ignored. Several using A7R, ACR, and so on, pushing RAW files in post, none of whom have any issues with their files.

I mean your software has an issue converting Sony files

BS. Have you even downloaded the free trial?

Come on, post your RAW. I won't bother with a free trial of software if it has problem with a tiny bit of compression.

And here are a couple from Sony IDC, directly:

http://cl.ly/image/1s161v0q3v3t/Screen shot 2014-11-23 at 12.42.39 PM.png

http://cl.ly/image/183M372m3f3z/Screen shot 2014-11-23 at 12.51.09 PM.png

Nobody cares about IDC, which is poor. I'm talking about Capture One Express, which is free to all Sony users, and which I only recently started using about a month ago because they offered it free (the cheap Sony-only upgrade package sounds very nice, except that certain kinds of importing seems to crash my computer so I don't trust it for everything yet).

Same. And the example from the article, with Adobe ACR

http://www.rawdigger.com/sites/www.rawdigger.com/files/Posterization/image01.png

Same.

None of those are actual RAW files. You can see this because they end with .png. Also I noticed some computer operating system artifacts All have been pushed by several EV. Why are you so scared to post an actual RAW file? Because you'll show once again how poor RawDigger is at dealing with Sony .ARWs?

 

[quezra]

I opened your image in Capture One Express (now free to Sony users) and this is the default image at screenshotted at 300% with no tweaking whatsoever:

Seriously, the problem is your RAW converter.

My problem with this example is that it seems like C1 is using a lot of NR here. So, yeah, artifacts are cleaned up along with noise and detail. Doh! I'd like to see it with NR toned-down more.

Here you go, NR off (see the sliders for yourself):

Bear in mind this is a 300% view image.

 

[quezra]

What was the resolution in Nikon cameras when this was an issue?

They reluctantly recognized the difference between visually lossless and true lossless and implemented true lossless compression in pro cameras.

Again, what was the resolution of Nikon cameras when this was an issue?

Same as Sony A7s.

Right, so at 12 MP the image detail, if you had an issue at 300% view of files, we could argue that the A7R completely removes the problem, yes? I mean, unless you were seeing 9 x 9 blocks in a A7R, you would be still getting more detail than the 12 MP Nikon files from 2006. This is a good example of technology outpacing an issue.

Now if A7s has some RAW file problems, please show them. I very much doubt it with such large pixel sites, but let's see them if this is what you contend.

 

[exapixel]

What was the resolution in Nikon cameras when this was an issue?

They reluctantly recognized the difference between visually lossless and true lossless and implemented true lossless compression in pro cameras.

Again, what was the resolution of Nikon cameras when this was an issue?

Many still having questions, asking if the lossless Nikon compression is really lossless. A recent example can be found on Nikon D forum here.

Thank you for proving the point that this won't stop the anal-retentive OCD Asperger's crowd from going into apoplexies whatever the camera manufacturer does.

I object strenuously to this characterization.

 

[Iliah Borg]

BS. Have you even downloaded the free trial?

I won't bother with a free trial of software

So, your "your software is crap" - is an empty insult.

Nobody cares about IDC

Are you saying Sony does not know their own format - as they are showing the same artifacts as RawDigger? ROTFLMAO.

None of those are actual RAW files

It is obvious that you do not know what you are talking about, at all.

 

[exapixel]

There are two complaints raised about data loss in Sony ARW files: one is that the data are reduced from 14-bit to 11-bit precision (16K colors reduced to 2K), and the other is that small regions of high contrast are reduced to 7-bit precision (128 colors). People who like to make insults rather than discuss things rationally are contending that the second problem is not relevant to them. But the larger problem is tacitly conceded by not being discussed at all -- Sony ARW files from NEX/A7 aren't the 14-bit RAWs that they should be (or are claimed to be, which is a third problem of a marketing nature, not technical).