10-26-2010, 07:47 AM
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1288013181' post='3774']
Then it must not be lossless, and if that is true Nikon's naming is pretty wrong. We do know that RAW is not really "RAW" with Nikon, but I did not know that the compressed RAW is not lossless.
[/quote]
Nikon claims that the IQ is not effected. But I doubt that (not that I pixel peeped and saw differences on screen, yet). But on the D700, the uncomressed option produces ~22-24MB files, while the "lossless compressed" produces ~10-12MB. And one more remark: the "uncompressed" option is only available in pro / prosumer bodies.
Are you sure?... Maybe "Canon original RAW" stands for "Canon original RAW compression"...
Kind regards,
Serkan
Then it must not be lossless, and if that is true Nikon's naming is pretty wrong. We do know that RAW is not really "RAW" with Nikon, but I did not know that the compressed RAW is not lossless.
[/quote]
Nikon claims that the IQ is not effected. But I doubt that (not that I pixel peeped and saw differences on screen, yet). But on the D700, the uncomressed option produces ~22-24MB files, while the "lossless compressed" produces ~10-12MB. And one more remark: the "uncompressed" option is only available in pro / prosumer bodies.
Quote:Canon does not offer a compressed RAW format. Hence the RAW files are pretty big (also always 14 bit). Canon also does not alter RAW data... RAW really is RAW.
Are you sure?... Maybe "Canon original RAW" stands for "Canon original RAW compression"...
Kind regards,
Serkan