Quote:Is the raw still compressed?
"Photographers meanwhile will appreciate user reports that Sony have moved to 14bit raw for the A7R II’s massive 42MP stills, vs the compressed 11bit raw of previous cameras."
From http://www.eoshd.com/2015/06/first-sony-...e-iso-800/
If I use "uncompressed" RAW, 14 bit with the only 36 MP D810, it's 75 MB. Same picture lossless compressed: 38.9 MB. Hard to believe, 42 MP … blast! I read "42 MB", sorry. 
@stoppingdown: it's "only" software, so a change of firmware can do a lot more things.
06-17-2015, 07:22 AM
(This post was last modified: 06-17-2015, 07:22 AM by stoppingdown.)
Quote:
@stoppingdown: it's "only" software, so a change of firmware can do a lot more things.
I understand that, but my point is that a previous comment seem to imply that the feature is already in the A7r II, while the interview only lets us guess that sooner or later the feature will be delivered in a firmware update. Or I didn't understand the previous comment.
stoppingdown.net
Sony a6300, Sony a6000, Sony NEX-6, Sony E 10-18mm F4 OSS, Sony Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* E 16-70mm F4 ZA OSS, Sony FE 70-200mm F4 G OSS, Sigma 150-600mm Æ’/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary, Samyang 12mm Æ’/2, Sigma 30mm F2.8 DN | A, Meyer Gorlitz Trioplan 100mm Æ’/2.8, Samyang 8mm Æ’/3.5 fish-eye II | Zenit Helios 44-2 58mm Æ’/2
Plus some legacy Nikkor lenses.
I tried to find out some tech data, but all I got are the 14 bit colour depth. None of the sites told me something about compression of RAW or even the size of the files.
At least, thanks to this thread the camera did get my attention. Together with those two obviously quite yummy Batis lenses this site shows some nice bokehlicious pictures
06-17-2015, 08:14 PM
(This post was last modified: 06-17-2015, 08:35 PM by popo.)
Pure speculation: maybe you get lossy compressed 14 bit output now, instead of the lossy 11 bit? Personally I prefer lossless compression over totally uncompressed to save on a bit of storage space.
Edit: reading the interview at image-resource does imply it is now 14 bit lossy compressed. So more bit depth, but still lossy.
<a class="bbc_url" href="http://snowporing.deviantart.com/">dA</a> Canon 7D2, 7D, 5D2, 600D, 450D, 300D IR modified, 1D, EF-S 10-18, 15-85, EF 35/2, 85/1.8, 135/2, 70-300L, 100-400L, MP-E65, Zeiss 2/50, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300/2.8, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Olympus E-P1, Panasonic 20/1.7, Sony HX9V, Fuji X100.
From https://thibaultroland.wordpress.com/201...engineers/
Quote: ➡ We were confirmed that AF of Canon lenses was “much faster than before. With adapters (and in particular with a firmware updated Metabones mark IV) Canon lenses are almost as fast as on a Canon body“.
Of course it remains to be seen what this may mean in actual performance, but near (Canon) native single shot AF would be "good enough" for a lot of uses, allowing the use of my existing Canon mount non-IS fast primes with body stabilisation. Could be quite a fearsome combo.
<a class="bbc_url" href="http://snowporing.deviantart.com/">dA</a> Canon 7D2, 7D, 5D2, 600D, 450D, 300D IR modified, 1D, EF-S 10-18, 15-85, EF 35/2, 85/1.8, 135/2, 70-300L, 100-400L, MP-E65, Zeiss 2/50, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300/2.8, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Olympus E-P1, Panasonic 20/1.7, Sony HX9V, Fuji X100.
Klaus where did you get the 3800 in OZ figure from? I keep hearing 4400 ...
Quote:Pure speculation: maybe you get lossy compressed 14 bit output now, instead of the lossy 11 bit? Personally I prefer lossless compression over totally uncompressed to save on a bit of storage space.
Edit: reading the interview at image-resource does imply it is now 14 bit lossy compressed. So more bit depth, but still lossy.
I don't think this is different. It was always lossy compression of 14 bit. I think you have got the 11 bit from the description of the compression scheme as "11+7" (except in some modes like fast continuous where it reduced to lossy compressed 12 bit)
Having said that, while in exceptional circs there are sometimes artefacts, their compression scheme is damn good, and effects in IQ are extremely rare, even with radical shadow boosting...
Interesting. I read, their compression scheme saves no diskspace but kills this 3 bit color depth. I admit, I never made some comparisons between Nikon's uncompressed and lossless compressed files (and the lossy ones were of no interest). To me that was the same like AIFF or AAC sound files and I usually keep AIFF only after ripping a record or make own remixes. But I would not use old MP3 because lost information remains lost.
Quote:Pure speculation: maybe you get lossy compressed 14 bit output now, instead of the lossy 11 bit? Personally I prefer lossless compression over totally uncompressed to save on a bit of storage space.
Edit: reading the interview at image-resource does imply it is now 14 bit lossy compressed. So more bit depth, but still lossy.
Sony always has claimed its RAW is 14 bits, when it is 11bits something compressed with problematic artefacts. So, it seems that it still has the problematic same compressed format, but that they will consider uncompressed 14 bits RAW when "enough customers ask for it", with no date in sight for firmware update.
Not sure why Sony does not offer lossless compressed RAW like Canon/Nikon.
06-18-2015, 11:26 AM
(This post was last modified: 06-18-2015, 11:32 AM by Brightcolours.)
Quote:Interesting. I read, their compression scheme saves no diskspace but kills this 3 bit color depth. I admit, I never made some comparisons between Nikon's uncompressed and lossless compressed files (and the lossy ones were of no interest). To me that was the same like AIFF or AAC sound files and I usually keep AIFF only after ripping a record or make own remixes. But I would not use old MP3 because lost information remains lost.
The problem is not a loss of colour depth, but a fault in the compression algorithm which results in artefacts.
https://photographylife.com/reviews/sony-a7-ii/3
|
