Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
I think sometimes if a company listens too closely to the advice of internet pundits, they may put themselves in the position of taking technical advice from people who don't actually understand the technology (high-end audio, I'm looking at you). I guess the real question is whether I'd be able to spot even the most subtle differences with any degree of reliability. And if not, why waste disk space.
What hardware did you use, and what did you observe?
It's not totally clear from the interview, but I'd guess they meant lossless compression, rather than actually uncompressed.
You mean which camera? I have the A7s. All the recent Sony bodies have this lossy scheme that would show up in very high contrast situation or when you are at the border of such and push the highlight and shadow in post to the extreme. For my style, it has not been a problem. So I wouldn't care if they come out with one or not, though it's a nice to know I get all the potentials of my sensor
.
But what if you already are seeing the limitations of the sensor itself?You mean which camera? I have the A7s. All the recent Sony bodies have this lossy scheme that would show up in very high contrast situation or when you are at the border of such and push the highlight and shadow in post to the extreme. For my style, it has not been a problem. So I wouldn't care if they come out with one or not, though it's a nice to know I get all the potentials of my sensor
The M9 used 8-bit lossless compression (~18MB per picture) whereas the Uncompressed 12-bit file was ~37MB.I never noticed a significant difference but there was one present looking side by side in tests. It wasn't anythin that would "ruin" a picture or make a bad one good though.
The most apparent one is when you look at the raw file under RawDigger, but otherwise, it's quite hard to produce the artifact under normal shooting. Most people would bring up the star trail example. Very few actually saw them with heavy post processing with extreme push and pull highlight and shadow. It's actually harder to spot than lens' field curvature cause I have seen plenty of those.
Me either but if Sony keeps being responsive scratching assessed shortcomings off of people's list then they'll have little excuse beside the fact that they don't want to own a Sony to complain about. So in that aspect I'm glad that they're working on all of the concerns people have.
i guess it’s customary to add to your first post with a hello?
