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

[Leigh]

... 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?

Data compression and accurate reconstruction of the original data set is a computer software issue, totally unrelated to photography or any other end usage.

It's an issue that doesn't care what camera you use or what post-processing software you use.

If you want to reconstruct the original data (image or whatever), you must use lossless compression.
Otherwise you end up with an approximation.

Apparently this is an obvious problem with Sony.

- Leigh

 

[spence]

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?

Sure, Jim, but that's apropos of nothing, a meaningless counterfactual--we've seen what Nikon can do, and the bar has been raised. So it's only natural that users compare Sony image quality to Nikon image quality, and expect Sony to be equal if not better when using their very own cutting edge sensors.

How could it be otherwise? Why is this surprising, or unexpected, or lamentable, as you seem to be implying? If I'd never tasted Heady Topper, I might still be drinking Coors Light.

But that ship has sailed--I've had Heady Topper, and I've seen D810 files. The bar gets raised, and the rest are held to higher standards. That's technology, and that's life.

 

[Jim DE]

Data compression and accurate reconstruction of the original data set is a computer software issue, totally unrelated to photography or any other end usage.

It's an issue that doesn't care what camera you use or what post-processing software you use.

If you want to reconstruct the original data (image or whatever), you must use lossless compression.
Otherwise you end up with an approximation.

Apparently this is an obvious problem with Sony.

- Leigh

Can't be much of a problem because all Sony RAW files since the a900 were compressed RAW files on ALL their bodies since then right up to the newest. Not once have I seen much concern on the A mount forum over the years..... Now these A7x bodies and the huge influx of users from other brands and you would think the sky is falling due to not having lossless compression RAW's

 

[Leigh]

Can't be much of a problem because all Sony RAW files since the a900 were compressed RAW files...

Re-read the title of the thread.

If it the compression problem didn't exist, this thread wouldn't exist.

I'm just trying to give the unwashed masses some background information so they understand the problem being discussed.

- Leigh

 

[Jim DE]

Sure, Jim, but that's apropos of nothing, a meaningless counterfactual--we've seen what Nikon can do, and the bar has been raised. So it's only natural that users compare Sony image quality to Nikon image quality, and expect Sony to be equal if not better when using their very own cutting edge sensors.

How could it be otherwise? Why is this surprising, or unexpected, or lamentable, as you seem to be implying? If I'd never tasted Heady Topper, I might still be drinking Coors Light.

But that ship has sailed--I've had Heady Topper, and I've seen D810 files. The bar gets raised, and the rest are held to higher standards. That's technology, and that's life.

Spence if that is a deal breaker for you and your needs and it is not a offered option as of yet with Sony I see you only have one choice..buy a D810. It is pretty much that simple........... Me I hate OVF's anymore, don't want a moving mirror, and like I can use just about every lens ever made on this digital body. Lossless compression is way way down my list of needs and wants. I don't go to Nikon and complain they don't have a electronic viewfinder. I recognize at this point in time it is not a option so I don't buy a Nikon

 

[spence]

Spence if that is a deal breaker for you and your needs and it is not a offered option as of yet with Sony I see you only have one choice..buy a D810.

It's not a deal breaker for me, and in fact there's a third option--buy the A7RII, while still militating for RAW format improvements.

Why is that so hard to understand? You make post after post, subtly and deftly denigrating the experience, judgment, and priorities of those of us who want lossless RAW. Why does this matter so much to you? Let it go.

Please, just respect our right to care about an issue that you view as trivial, and respect our right to ask Sony for improvements. We certainly respect your right not to care.

 

[Jim DE]

Re-read the title of the thread.

If it the compression problem didn't exist, this thread wouldn't exist.

I'm just trying to give the unwashed masses some background information so they understand the problem being discussed.

- Leigh

We could go in circles with this but what I am saying is Sony has used compressed RAW files since the last a900 which means every NEX, every SLT and the a7x series have all had it....... Not once have I seen a discussion in a A mount only forum about lossless compression files...... I really can't remember once in the NEX specific forums either but that could be wrong but I really don't remember any. Now that is years and years of camera bodies made and sold and though other issues were discussed this wasn't.

The a7x line and forums like FM and LL who until the a7x had Sony cameras in a other brand category it is talked about so much and with so much intensity one would think the sky is falling.

I will assure anyone out there that a identical picture taken with compressed RAW in a Sony or lossless in another camera made into a 30x40 print the observer 99.99999% of the time would not see any difference or be able to identify one brand from another consistently.

I am not saying lossless would not be nice to have as I will take anything that give me more data to work with but it is in a real world setting a moot issue to those viewing a print or image as they should.

 

[Jim DE]

Spence... I have no issue with people asking for better and if you read my full posts I usually note I would like anything that gives me more to work with.... I just see many discussing it like it is a production flaw or defect like it was not a obvious condition going in before they bought. As if I bought a D810 and complained about it not having a EVF. Can Nikon put one in and make my experience with that body more satisfying? Sure they could but I would not see it as a problem if I knew they did not have a EVF before I bought so it is NOT A PROBLEM (as the title to this thread defines a7r2 compression) but something I would like to have if given the opportunity. This is the issue....... Sony RAW is not a problem but lossless compression is something others would like to have on this or future products.

Anyway I find myself going in circles with this.... I am going to take this POS a7rII with its lossy compressed RAW files and take some pics...... and just hope I don't have to bump my shadows up 5 stops and see artifacts......:banghead:

 

[dandrewk]

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.

...

I've yet to see ANY "moderately pushed" images showing this "problem." In fact, they are all massively pushed. Not just in the DPR article, but in all the forum posts - here, FM and DPR.

It doesn't matter to me, so I thank you for your congratulations. I honestly cannot remember the last time I've had to push/pull any shot more than two stops. Is it because I am careful about the exposure, or am I just "lucky"?

P.S. YES I KNOW that some photographers depend on massive post processing, by design. They aren't underexposing or overexposing. These folks should seriously avoid Sony until lossless RAW becomes a reality.

 

[spence]

Thankfully, you don't get to make that choice for any of us. We can purchase the camera, enjoy it, and ask Sony for improvements, all at the same time. You'd rather have us shut up and accept it, or buy Nikon. Nonsense, absolute nonsense.

Please, guys, let it go. It obviously bothers the hell out of you that we don't consider the files to be the end all be all. Accept that reasonable people can disagree, and move along.

As for posterization with a moderate push, here's an example: posterization clearly visible with a .5 EV bump, and ugly with a 1 EV bump. I won't tell you where, because it's basically all over the place. The arches, the tower, wherever, take your pick! http://movies.dpreview.com.s3.amazonaws.com/sony_a7s/DSC00172.ARW
Article with discussion: Opinion: Did Sony just do the impossible?: Digital Photography Review

So, you stand corrected. I don't suspect that'll make any difference, though, because it seems to be a matter of Sony-defending dogma at this point.

 

[Jack]

Did film compress? (Rhetorical question; not only did it compress, but it altered hue considerably :bugeyes: )

In the age of digital, it is not unwarranted to EXPECT a lossless raw option -- Sony has screwed the pooch on this one and best wake up and smell the coffee. If they can't figure out how to do a lossless raw, then they should ask Nikon politely before they sell them any more sensors...

 

[philip_pj]

'Sony cameras feel like camera imitations, not the real thing'

Leigh et al, it exists because some people wish the issue to become front and center of the collective reviewer response to a camera that really has to be contained in the marketplace. What is overlooked in all this 'look over there, a unicorn' business is that the a7rII has a wonderful new sensor with better everything in a body with amazing photo aids...so let's all go and shout about pushing 5-6 stops and claim everyone else does better and offers real quality, right? Despite say Nikon ring fencing their lenses, using a last gen sensor, no IBIS, no AF Zeiss, poorer high ISO, no silent shooting, no 4K, weighing a ton - but look at that 'pushed to paradise' file purity instead, lol. So let's equate that with 'quality', that might work.

As rightly pointed out above, every 'RAW challenged' Sony in the past 3-4 years sailed along in the market, we simply took fantastic images with them. Not a peep from anyone. You may say this is conspiratorial of me, and that with the emergence from the woodwork of the usual naysayers, we might agree that they have a really small technical point (very minor indeed in the bigger context).

So read this sentence slowly and see if you still feel that way:

'Sony cameras feel like camera imitations, not the real thing'

Lloyd Chambers.

Note: not just the 'pushed over the cliff' RAWs, nor anything else specific or identifiable...words from his own mouth tell you what he thinks, as Sony are imitating 'real' cameras. If it came from a petulant 20 year old novice you could understand it, and put it down to ignorance and misplaced boyish fanaticism. So some self-appointed high priests of photo punditry will try to convince readers that, above all else, they need real cameras from, you know, real camera companies. The same ones that grew hopelessly complacent over the decades, and have hoodwinked users by offering the same tired bodies year after year, but with minor refinements and a different number on the front panel.

 

[Jim DE]

Jack, Sony's 1st full frame (a900) had uncompressed RAW. They advanced to lossy compression..... and got essentially no A mount user complaints. It is only seen in recent a7X discussions....... makes one wonder? Maybe Nikon needs to ask Sony how to do a EVF in a Full Frame before we sell them more sensors because Nikon has really screwed the pooch on not offering EVF's. At least in my opinion ......

You know if something is stated long enough and loud enough by enough people many may call it a known fact or an essential whether it is or isn't in reality. Personally I have no idea if it is better or worse as I have never used a lossless compression RAW.... I would assume it would be better but to date I have never seen any artifacts in my Sony RAW conversions that has caused me to lose a image as a paid photographer. Not one .....of course I really try and shoot my images at a proper exposure too (which I feel is a requirement to be called a photographer) as that must be a novel idea to some who feel it is essential to push shadows 5 stops to create their images and then happen to see a issue. Then red flag the RAW format as the problem rather than their chosen shooting techniques that caused a artifact to be apparent.

I'll end with this Jack... you are a administrator here on this site..... look at the number of people on the various forums and see which forum is having the most traffic here..... it's "the screw the pooch forum" by far in the full frame and under forums so maybe the RAW format might not be as big deterrent to Sony products as the "sky is falling" "flag waving" "wish they had" conversations make it seem.

 

[JonPB]

I thought I'd point out Gordon's posts from Fred Miranda here. These were processed with "Lightroom default settings. Sharpening 25.1.0 No profiles or corrections." Representative full resolution Flickr here. I see posterization that is significant to me and that looks like it is caused by this compression thing, although it may also be Lightroom's interpretation of that compression, but this certainly isn't a test for this issue nor does it employ an unusual amount of processing. No hard edges. Just a blue sky. With posterization. That, to me, is absurd. (Of course, the level of detail this camera can render is also insane, in a good way.)

That said, I currently shoot a NEX-7, which probably has the same amount of posterization, which is likely obscured in the high levels of base-ISO noise. This lossy compression isn't a categorical make-or-break issue for me, but it could be an issue that sways photographers one way or the other. Personally, I think that a $3,200 camera should be designed for "discerning enthusiasts" as well as professionals, and discerning enthusiasts (like myself and probably some of you) aren't really bound by practicality when deciding which camera gear to shoot. I'm perplexed by Sony's handling of this, as the A7R II appears expressly designed for discerning enthusiasts. The make-or-break issue for me is that Sony appears to design solely for spec sheets, which is great for mid-fi stereos and mid-grade cameras, but not (IMHO) products that aspire to be top-grade. Come to think of it, I would love to see a Sony ES camera. But, that aside, issues like this make me lose interest quickly. (If it matters, the make-or-break issue is the viewfinder placement; I'm strongly left-eye dominant and that doesn't work too well with small, SLR-style cameras.) As others have said, though: for those who enjoy their Sony cameras, I'm happy that you've found something you like. Take pictures and be merry. And let us miserable louts who aren't satisfied have sympathy parties amongst ourselves while we save up for the next M that'll cost twice as much.

Cheers,
Jon

 

[Jim DE]

Jon, .... point well made I have a a77 and a NEX 7 and know exactly what you mean in base ISO noise which to me is a far bigger issue than a RAW format as it is seen in every image taken properly to some degree or the other. Don't have to push anything to see that


Sony IMO has some real issues here in the USA especially that can and could effect everyone who buy's and use's a Sony camera but posterization or RAW compression just isn't on that list for me as I see it. For me the issue that has near made me look outside of Sony has been their outsourcing of their repair facility to a questionable at best third party repair service. Now, this was near a deal breaker for me last year but decided to give them a opportunity to prove me wrong and entered their Pro Service Support program instead of leaving. To date I have yet to use this program for repair service........ so the jury is still out.

Another issue that I would like is the ability to rotate the LCD inboard on the a7rII like can be done on the SLT's. I worry with it alway being out and vulnerable to damage or smearing. Not a deal breaker but higher on my list than the RAW format because I have to deal with it everytime I am using the camera. Sony is far from a perfect camera in every aspect.

 

[Jack]

Keep it friendly folks -- I've had to delete one post that crossed the line. We do NOT have to all agree, but we do have to be polite to one-another whilst we disagree...

Carry on...

 

[stephengilbert]

Sayre's Law:

"In any dispute the intensity of feeling is inversely proportional to the value of the issues at stake."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayre's_law

 

[Jack]

Sayre's Law:

"In any dispute the intensity of feeling is inversely proportional to the value of the issues at stake."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayre's_law

Outstanding! :clap::clap::clap: He certainly had it right.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

I think everyone would like to see this fixed by Sony be it that effects you or not. That's really not the issue, some have more reason for it and some do not. It has not been a issue for me since I started shooting Sony but others in certain areas it does. Let's leave it at that but more important we need to respect everyone's thoughts and be ladies and gentleman. Folks coming from DPR welcome but this is NOT DPR please abide by our no hassle policy. It's very simple you come to our house as dinner guests and we all sit around a big round circle smoking peace pipes. LOL

Seriously just keep it friendly and we do welcome new members with open arms.

 

[akclimber]

I've yet to see ANY "moderately pushed" images showing this "problem." In fact, they are all massively pushed. Not just in the DPR article, but in all the forum posts - here, FM and DPR.

I've seen it once and I wasn't even looking for it. It was with an image from my A7II (I also own an A7RII). The artifacts were along the top of a gray rocky mountain ridge with blue sky background. The image wasn't extensively pushed or pulled - maybe a stop (if that) of digital ND filter and curves, etc. The base file was well exposed. The RAW was processed in ACR (I've since switched to Capture One). When I noticed it I was pretty surprised since I hadn't at all tortured the file and it's a situation in which I'll often find myself. Fortunately, that image was just destined for the web and it was an easy edit but if it had been destined for a large print it would have taken a bit more extensive editing. It's not a huge problem that frequently shows itself (yet, in my experience) but it leaves me with an unease... I find it frustrating that my 5D3, D800e and D810 are free from this problem while the Sony may exhibit it, especially given that the Nikon sensors are made by Sony and show what consistently terrific results are possible from those sensors (and not to mention at least the price of the A7RII). The compression just seems so, well, needless...and unfortunate.

Anyway, I'll continue to enjoy my Sony cams and the D810 (I don't much use the 5D3 anymore), being aware of their limitations and trade-offs while hoping Sony sees the lossless light.

Cheers!