First visual example of RAW compression that illustrates the problem, A7R2

[bradhusick]

Sony Alpha 7R II: Real-world ISO invariance study: Digital Photography Review

I am normally not a big fan of DPR but here is a real world example of RAW compression artifacts on the A7R2.

 

[dandrewk]

Photographer friend: "Hey, do you recommend the Sony A7rII?"
Me: "Do you set your camera to +5-6 EV and then recover in post?"
PF: "Yes."
Me: "Then wait until Sony offers a firmware update for lossless RAW."

P.S. I'd welcome lossless RAW with open arms. I've never, ever deliberately pushed my shots to the extreme, and have never seen a single posterization effect due to lossy RAW compression. However, it will be awesome to put this "issue" to rest.

P.S.S. I agree that we can rightfully expect lossless RAW in a high-end camera.

 

[Vivek]

Damning example! I often push my files by a good 6 stops because the metering is so unreliable. What to do? :bugeyes:

 

[Amin]

Nice one, DPReview!

I agree with dandrewk - would be great to see Sony do the 14-bit lossless. Won't matter at all to me, but better is better.

Then we can start asking for 16-bit raw .

 

[Jim DE]

Why think small... how about 20bit uncompressed?......... Dang Sony won't give us anything ...

 

[Vivek]

I have to ask- what is the point of the built HDR function? All these guys are showing static examples, some even on a tripod for a good measure...

..may be it is just me. i would rather take a series of bracketed exposures and combine them in the post than waste time with raw digger or something like that.

 

[CSP]

the great sony raw exorcism show

the fearless priests of the church of uncompressed raw had successes with an massive underexposure to reveal the devilish daemons living in an innocent night shot! hallelujah !

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Folks I'm not going to waste my time reading it. As soon as I hear pushing 5 stops than I'm out. I never do that stuff.

 

[Vivek]

Out of curiosity, did anyone rawdig the RX1, pushed it 7 stops used filters to induce metameric failure, etc? What is the verdict?:watch:

Oops! Did I inadvertently blurt out the source of posterized RAWs....

 

[tashley]

I have to ask- what is the point of the built HDR function? All these guys are showing static examples, some even on a tripod for a good measure...

..may be it is just me. i would rather take a series of bracketed exposures and combine them in the post than waste time with raw digger or something like that.

Built in HDR works on JPEG only AFAIK

 

[MikeEvangelist]

...induce metameric failure...

Had to look that one up. Thanks for teaching me a new word today!

 

[Guy Mancuso]

That's 3 words for me. Lol


:facesmack::banghead::talk028::watch::watch::watch:

 

[Jim DE]

Folks I'm not going to waste my time reading it. As soon as I hear pushing 5 stops than I'm out. I never do that stuff.

I am with you Guy.... if I had to do such actions to save a shot I would never allow anyone to call me a photographer...... heck a trail camera can do better than exposing 5 stops under.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

I would have no freaking clients if I was that bad at this. Lol

I can see shooting HDR but even that is 2 stop swing. Sensors can handle that
.

You know you can even do HDR with one frame. Now I can see for example shooting a interior taking a shot for the windows than blend it back into the scene. I just can't think of a real world scenerio when I'm going to push something that many stops. It just unrealistic, you pushed me 6 stops I guarantee you I will fall apart. Lol

 

[Amin]

It just unrealistic, you pushed me 6 stops I guarantee you I will fall apart. Lol

Lol

 

[Leigh]

A 5- or 6-stop push is not photography...

It's pure imagination (or perhaps not so pure). :wtf:


Also, "compressed" is not a meaningful adjective with "RAW", unless it's lossless compression like RLL.


- Leigh

 

[davidstock]

First people said it didn't exist. Now people say it does exist, but only if you push six stops. What's next: people saying they actually like how it looks?

DpReviews didn't write this article because they think the compression doesn't matter. Their examples aren't all processed with a six stop push, either. As they note, the compression will change some peoples' exposure routine by more or less ruling out "ISO invariant" metering. Which will in turn affect the available dynamic range.

For some subjects, the artifacts are pretty strong, requiring cloning or other invasive post-processing.

By the way, this is not the first visual example of the compression, by any means. The issue has been demonstrated several times. I found artifacts in a downloaded A7RII RAW file that I processed using a moderate shadow boost, similar to processing I often do. 100% crop:



Other people have provided other examples.

This compression wouldn't prevent me from buying an A7RII. It's a secondary issue. But I'm glad to know about it, and would definitely take steps to manage it in situations I often encounter.

--d

 

[spence]

It is a secondary issue, no doubt. But some people's attempts to sort of jokily dismiss those who care about it as cranks or complainers sort of stinks.

Look, if it doesn't matter to you--congratulations, you're lucky. But even with moderate pushes, it can manifest it self along high contrast borders.

The big thing is, it doesn't happen on Nikon cameras using Sony sensors, because they've opted for lossless RAW. Sony could do the same.

Fortunately, it seems that the hue and cry for change is reaching critical mass. This is going to hurt Sony, rightly or wrongly, if they don't address it soon.

 

[Jim DE]

The What I really wonder is if Sony shooters stayed with Sony and Nikon shooters stayed with Nikons would we in a Sony forum even know or hear anything about Lossless compression files at all? My best guess is absolutely not.... We would discuss issue we see with physical prints or item we see with images we are contracted to shoot or license but I seriously doubt we would discuss anything we don't have.

Now I am not saying that I would not like having a better RAW file that has greater data saved but I seriously don't think we would see anything discussed about RAW formats at all with this or any Sony camera if no one jumped manufacturers. Honestly I have no idea what other brands offer nor do I have any issues with the images I create with Sony cameras. I guess if I went to other brands I would have to complain about no EVF's or no focus magnifying image in viewfinder or why won't this body take my old rangefinder glass or most other legacy glass?

Case in point go to DPR on the A mount forum and try to find one thread about lossless compression RAW's ... In fact last time I spent any time in the nex forum I never saw a thing about it there either. Now go in the e full frame where we have the greatest amount of people coming from other brands and that is all we see is thread after thread about this. The reason you can't find anything about it in the a mount forum is because they get very few crossover buyers so what they don't know isn't hurting them.

 

[akclimber]

It is a secondary issue, no doubt. But some people's attempts to sort of jokily dismiss those who care about it as cranks or complainers sort of stinks.

Look, if it doesn't matter to you--congratulations, you're lucky. But even with moderate pushes, it can manifest it self along high contrast borders.

The big thing is, it doesn't happen on Nikon cameras using Sony sensors, because they've opted for lossless RAW. Sony could do the same.

Fortunately, it seems that the hue and cry for change is reaching critical mass. This is going to hurt Sony, rightly or wrongly, if they don't address it soon.

This. I've done what I can by sending Sony an email expressing my strong desire for lossless RAW ala Nikon and explaining why. I was surprised to receive a reply in very short order that correctly summarized my points (I'm sure they've rec'd similar emails...) and promised to forward my concerns up the chain. I certainly hope Sony wakes up and offers we lossy RAW malcontents some lossless RAW options.

Cheers!