What settings for raw

[Tinopener]

Hi all Just a quickie thinking of shooting in raw .. In the camera raw settings it has compressed files and uncompressed files which one of these should I be using .... Thank you ..Gary

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

All I know is that real men go uncompressed, it's all or nothing..!

 

[iamdlewis]

Some people can't tell the difference between compressed and uncompressed. You can just test to see how you feel.

 

[Brownie]

Which camera?

Sony has three types of RAW. Uncompressed, Compressed and Lossless Compressed. Whether you have Lossless Compressed depends on how new your camera is.

• Uncompressed gives you all of the data just as it implies.
• Compressed RAW reduces the size of the file to save download time and storage space, but at the cost of some data. For the most part you probably won't be able to tell the difference, but you may see artefacts in high-contrast areas, like a dark roof against a bright sky. Sony's compressed RAW is well known but not well liked. It's kind of an odd duck in the world of Compressed RAW. I have shot it before, but not often.
• Lossless Compressed has the same advantages as Compressed RAW, but with no loss of data. The gain in upload time and storage space is worth its use if you have one of the larger MP cameras. However, check a couple of test shots in your processing software to make sure it recognizes the data before shooting anything important.

Sony was a late comer to Lossless Compressed RAW. Everyone else has had it for years, Sony introduced it on either the A1 or A7 IV.

 

[Roland]

I use my A7Riv mostly for non moving targets and and compressed would not make much of a difference.

 

[Uncle Kevriano]

I use compressed for the simple reasons that on the RIV, uncompressed kills the FPS to 7 in burst mode, and the file sizes on uncompressed are huge, and you really can't see a difference unless you blow up to advertising board sized and pixel peep.

 

[Tinopener]

Thank you all for your advice

 

[AlphaWorld]

I use compressed for the simple reasons that on the RIV, uncompressed kills the FPS to 7 in burst mode, and the file sizes on uncompressed are huge, and you really can't see a difference unless you blow up to advertising board sized and pixel peep.

On camera models prior to (I think) the A1, the only options were lossy compressed and uncompressed. The uncompressed files were roughly double the size of the lossy compressed files. My choice was to use uncompressed files (just as I did on Nikon when the options were similar) - I choose not to lose any possible detail. Other people choose lossy compressed and report seeing no difference. I read the details of the compression method Sony uses, and the only place where it loses details is on high contrast edges.

Once Sony introduced lossless compressed format, I switched to it. I've used lossless compressed RAW files on Canon, Nikon, and now Sony. The lossless compressed files are not much larger than the lossy compressed files. However, as Kev says, this does reduce the maximum frame rate on the current bodies - on the A1 it reduces it from 30 fps to 20 fps, but that is still quite fast. Interestingly, the A9 III can run at full speed with lossless compressed files (but the buffer fills sooner).

For me it's just a case of being unwilling to accept a possible loss of detail. Everyone's entitled to their own choice, and that's mine. YMMV

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

I was pontificating, only today, to a friend, about lossless means lossless, data compression science is several generations old, and there would be no reason for it to be wrong.

But there is a caveat. Of course, one has to trust the developer and their employer.

Well, cynic that I am, I am willing to trust Sony's lossless compression. And if it is not 110% perfect, I doubt that I'd ever notice. That is the end of the story, in practice, for me. I use it and will do.

But I'm just curious... Did anyone (Independent) ever do rigorous objective testing? I don't even know if that is possible, as two photos, even in a controlled setup, are unlikely to be identical anyway. Internally, Sony could take the uncompressed data and compress/uncompress it.

 

[Brownie]

I would use lossless no problem, but for some reason Darktable still doesn't recognize it. Irritating as hell, it's been 2 years since the A7 IV was introduced. I can use it in Affinity, but when I'm batch-processing an event, I need Darktable.

My RIII doesn't have Lossless. I have shot Compressed Lossy and can't tell the difference.

 

[AlphaWorld]

I had to change my A6700 settings last night, and noticed that uncompressed RAW is not an option. Only lossless and(lossy) compressed.

Canon didn’t offer uncompressed RAW when I was shooting Canon DSLRs.

 

[AlphaWorld]

I would use lossless no problem, but for some reason Darktable still doesn't recognize it. Irritating as hell, it's been 2 years since the A7 IV was intorduced. I can use it in Affinity, but when I'm batch-processing an event, I need Darktable.

My RIII doesn't have Lossless. I have shot Compressed Lossy and can't tell the difference.

Yes, the A7R3 and A7R4 do not have lossless. The A7R5 does.

It’s basically: Old CPU = no lossless option, new CPU = lossless

 

[Brownie]

Yes, the A7R3 and A7R4 do not have lossless. The A7R5 does.

It’s basically: Old CPU = no lossless option, new CPU = lossless

Easier to remember: Anything FF from the A1/A7 IV and newer.

Very surprised the 6700 doesn't have it. Maybe that's one way they're keeping it apart from the R V.

 

[Uncle Kevriano]

I was pontificating, only today, to a friend, about lossless means lossless, data compression science is several generations old, and there would be no reason for it to be wrong.

But there is a caveat. Of course, one has to trust the developer and their employer.

Well, cynic that I am, I am willing to trust Sony's lossless compression. And if it is not 110% perfect, I doubt that I'd ever notice. That is the end of the story, in practice, for me. I use it and will do.

But I'm just curious... Did anyone (Independent) ever do rigorous objective testing? I don't even know if that is possible, as two photos, even in a controlled setup, are unlikely to be identical anyway. Internally, Sony could take the uncompressed data and compress/uncompress it.

I have, sort of anyway, as you say, it can never be 100%. I honestly can't see a difference. As mentioned earlier, I think if you blew it up to massive size and looked on a high res screen, then maybe, just maybe it would show, but also, given how good modern sharpening software is, it will be harder still. There is no loss of detail IMO, and once opened the file sizes are identical.

 

[pointreyes]

I have been one of the unlucky ones that has lost an image from using lossy compressed raw. I now only have one Sony camera that does not have lossless for an option - that camera is set for uncompressed.
From what I can tell, most of the time the compressed raw should be fine but I don't like taking that risk after losing a shot I was very happy to get.

Example #4 is exactly what happened to me.

Sony Raw Compression Artifacts: Real Examples

One of the curses of shooting with Sony cameras is their RAW file format. Currently they only offer two methods for saving RAW files: (1) a RAW file with lossy compression, and (2) an uncompressed RAW file. Did you notice what’s missing? Sony doesn’t offer a lossless compressed RAW file unlike...

stephenbayphotography.com

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

I would use lossless no problem, but for some reason Darktable still doesn't recognize it.

darktable 4.4.2: I'm using a7iv Lossless-Large.

This was my test results:

uncompressed: OK
compressed: OK
Lossless Large: OK
Lossless Medium: no
Lossless Small: no.

it can never be 100%

Lossy, by definition, indeed it can't. Something is lost.

I'm prepared to believe that, just as with higher-bit-rate audio, the developers are geniuses that have written and implemented algorithms that throw away stuff we really can't see/hear. I'm also prepared to believe that some people, sometimes, actually can.

@Tinopener, Sorry of this is a thread hijack. At least we are still talking about raw.

 

[pointreyes]

darktable 4.4.2: I'm using a7iv Lossless-Large.

This was my test results:

uncompressed: OK
compressed: OK
Lossless Large: OK
Lossless Medium: no
Lossless Small: no.

This also applies to DXo PhotoLab. sRAW and mRAW are not considered true raw files. Darktable is probably thinking the same way.

https://support.dxo.com/hc/en-us/articles/6940709955229-Are-additional-RAW-formats-such-as-sRAW-mRAW-RAW-S-HE-and-HE-etc-always-supported-if-a-camera-s-standard-RAW-images-are-compatible-

 

[AlphaWorld]

Easier to remember: Anything FF from the A1/A7 IV and newer.

Very surprised the 6700 doesn't have it. Maybe that's one way they're keeping it apart from the R V.

Sorry - I may have confused you - the A6700 dies not have UNCOMPRESSED - they removed that option, leaving lossless compressed in its place.

 

[AlphaWorld]

darktable 4.4.2: I'm using a7iv Lossless-Large.

This was my test results:

uncompressed: OK
compressed: OK
Lossless Large: OK
Lossless Medium: no
Lossless Small: no.


Lossy, by definition, indeed it can't. Something is lost.

I'm prepared to believe that, just as with higher-bit-rate audio, the developers are geniuses that have written and implemented algorithms that throw away stuff we really can't see/hear. I'm also prepared to believe that some people, sometimes, actually can.

@Tinopener, Sorry of this is a thread hijack. At least we are still talking about raw.

Lossless M (fullframe) and Lossless S (ff and aps-c) are not true RAW files - they have been demosaiced and scaled.

 

[twamers68]

I use uncompressed here in the UK most of the time as I feel the compressed/lossless are very slightly worse for lifting the shadows...... On a trip to Florida I used compressed all the time as the light was just so much better with the shadows being less of a issue.....