+- Opticallimits (https://forum.opticallimits.com)
+-- Forum: Forums (https://forum.opticallimits.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Sony (https://forum.opticallimits.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=14)
+--- Thread: Interesting article about shortcomings of Sony RAW files (/showthread.php?tid=1547)
Interesting article about shortcomings of Sony RAW files - Brightcolours - 03-15-2014
http://www.rawdigger.com/howtouse/sony-craw-arw2-posterization-detection
Interesting article about shortcomings of Sony RAW files - popo - 03-15-2014
Interesting... I do recall when I had my first DSLR, the a350, its raw files were also slightly cooked in the sense it had some slight pixel averaging going on.
How do other systems compare? At least on the Canon bodies I have, raws are compressed also, but I don't know if they use a lossy or lossless method. I'm guessing they're not too bad considering they are possibly the most popular DSLR for astrophotography. I believe Nikon has options in their raw format, but again I don't know what methods (lossy or not) may be employed there.
Interesting article about shortcomings of Sony RAW files - Brightcolours - 03-15-2014
Quote:Interesting... I do recall when I had my first DSLR, the a350, its raw files were also slightly cooked in the sense it had some slight pixel averaging going on.Canon has lossless compression. With Nikon you can choose between lossless and benign lossy compression, with none of the problems discussed in above article.
How do other systems compare? At least on the Canon bodies I have, raws are compressed also, but I don't know if they use a lossy or lossless method. I'm guessing they're not too bad considering they are possibly the most popular DSLR for astrophotography. I believe Nikon has options in their raw format, but again I don't know what methods (lossy or not) may be employed there.