Comparing A7R2 compressed and uncompressed raw files

[Wayne Fox]

When I'm not photographing something I am riding my motorcycle, busting clay birds, fly fishing the surf, or sitting in a tavern with friends eating wings and drinking beer during a Flyer's game. If I wanted to spend 5.5 hours in a state of aggravation I would just sit at home and talk with the wife (Or call Adobe Customer Service and talk to these non-english speaking bozo's) and save the green and cart fees.....

lol. I have absolutely no interesting in a motorcycle, and find fishing about as boring and aggravating as you feel about golf. Isn’t it great that everyone isn’t the same?

But to offer some perspective (not that anyone cares but I must defend the game ), where I play the average 18 hole round takes about 3.5 hours, all with really good friends so it’s as much a social thing (like your trip to the taverns). Some days I just stop on the way home and grab a quick 9 and it takes about an hour. Any endeavor which requires skill and a lot of work to get good at can be aggravating (fly fishing comes to mind), but as with anything else there is also deep satisfaction when the work is rewarded with success. Golf and photography happens to be the two things that “float my boat”, I’m pretty good at both, and even own a golf facility (impactgolfcenter.com) with my son (who is a professional golfer). So as retired professional photographer who now only has to do it because I enjoy it, finding time to do that as well as golf isn’t difficult.

(sorry to get off topic).

 

[davidstock]

Thanks for doing the side-by-side comparisons.

I had been thinking about uncompressed RAW mainly in terms of avoiding artifacts. But I'm surprised by how much difference the lack of compression seems to make in terms of retaining highlight tones and reduced shadow noise.

The files are big. But I've decided that it's worth the slight penalty in processing time and the increased storage space required.

My early New Years resolution is to compensate by deleting more files, instead of leaving all those "maybe" images hanging around!

--d

 

[dmward]

Thanks for doing the side-by-side comparisons.

I had been thinking about uncompressed RAW mainly in terms of avoiding artifacts. But I'm surprised by how much difference the lack of compression seems to make in terms of retaining highlight tones and reduced shadow noise.

The files are big. But I've decided that it's worth the slight penalty in processing time and the increased storage space required.

My early New Years resolution is to compensate by deleting more files, instead of leaving all those "maybe" images hanging around!

--d

David,
You're welcome.

The improved highlight and shadow detail is, for me a significant benefit.
I probably should have stated in the post with the screen captures that the tone curve was set to linear in C1. I presume that flattens the shoulder and toe of the tone curve which helps with getting more detail into those areas. That adds to the benefit of the uncompressed data in those same areas.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

+1 nice benefit

 

[dandrewk]

I still have to ask and wonder: How often is a 3+ stop push/pull necessary for an otherwise properly exposed image? The additional detail via uncompressed RAW adds only a small amount of actual detail, which most often resides in a very small portion of the image. IOW, who would ever notice?

 

[tn1krr]

I still have to ask and wonder: How often is a 3+ stop push/pull necessary for an otherwise properly exposed image? The additional detail via uncompressed RAW adds only a small amount of actual detail, which most often resides in a very small portion of the image. IOW, who would ever notice?

Someone recently presented a good example on the "stacking need" to push. If lens vignets heavily the lens correction alone can be 2 stops before any actual PP is done.

 

[davidstock]

I still have to ask and wonder: How often is a 3+ stop push/pull necessary for an otherwise properly exposed image? The additional detail via uncompressed RAW adds only a small amount of actual detail, which most often resides in a very small portion of the image. IOW, who would ever notice?

With digital, "properly exposed" can mean more than one thing.

Since the A7 series is almost "ISO-less," I rarely go past ISO 800, even in low light. Instead, I let the camera "underexpose," then push in ACR. I get about the same amount of shadow noise as I would get by raising the ISO. But I maintain much more highlight headroom.

This is a mediocre snapshot made on a hazy evening at Coney Island. I attach it only to show the possibilities for pushing in post-processing to maintain wide tonal range.

ISO 800, 1/80th, f3.5. I gave it a 2.8 stop push, plus 86 shadow boost. If I had shot this at ISO 6400, I never would have held the highlights.

This image would have been a good candidate for uncompressed RAW, since there are some artifacts, and it calls for maximum quality in the highlights and shadows.





--d

 

[hiepphotog]

With digital, "properly exposed" can mean more than one thing.

Since the A7 series is almost "ISO-less," I rarely go past ISO 800, even in low light. Instead, I let the camera "underexpose," then push in ACR. I get about the same amount of shadow noise as I would get by raising the ISO. But I maintain much more highlight headroom.

This is a mediocre snapshot made on a hazy evening at Coney Island. I attach it only to show the possibilities for pushing in post-processing to maintain wide tonal range.

ISO 800, 1/80th, f3.5. I gave it a 2.8 stop push, plus 86 shadow boost. If I had shot this at ISO 6400, I never would have held the highlights.

This image would have been a good candidate for uncompressed RAW, since there are some artifacts, and it calls for maximum quality in the highlights and shadows.


View attachment 113482


--d

Both the A7S (and A7SII I assume) and the A7RII are not ISO-less. They have two different signal converters built-in to optimize for DR at base ISO and at high ISO.

 

[dandrewk]

There are no doubt valid reasons to want lossless RAW. I am glad that we now have that option. I don't think I will ever use it, but I'm glad it's there.

 

[davidstock]

Both the A7S (and A7SII I assume) and the A7RII are not ISO-less. They have two different signal converters built-in to optimize for DR at base ISO and at high ISO.

They are almost ISO-less. There are two distinct conversion gain bumps, the first one at around ISO 640. That's one reason I let auto-ISO go to 800.

Jim Klasson discusses his exposure strategy for the A7RII here: http://blog.kasson.com/?p=11768 I do something a little different, but based on the same principles.

Rishi Sanyal of dpRreview analyzes 7RII ISO invariance here: http://www.dpreview.com/articles/7450523388/sony-alpha-7r-ii-real-world-iso-invariance-study

Both of these testers show that there is little penalty to be paid for pushing low light subjects in post. In Rishi's testing, there is virtually no difference in shadow noise when pushing two or three stops. Even pushing six stops (!), the penalty is only half a stop in the shadows. The advantage in the highlights, on the other hand, is dramatic.

--d

 

[hiepphotog]

They are almost ISO-less. There are two distinct conversion gain bumps, the first one at around ISO 640. That's one reason I let auto-ISO go to 800.

Jim Klasson discusses his exposure strategy for the A7RII here: Cruising with the Sony a7RII – Exposure strategy | The Last Word I do something a little different, but based on the same principles.

Rishi Sanyal of dpRreview analyzes 7RII ISO invariance here: Sony Alpha 7R II: Real-world ISO invariance study: Digital Photography Review

Both of these testers show that there is little penalty to be paid for pushing low light subjects in post. In Rishi's testing, there is virtually no difference in shadow noise when pushing two or three stops. Even pushing six stops (!), the penalty is only half a stop in the shadows. The advantage in the highlights, on the other hand, is dramatic.

--d

I understand the concept, but have seen only Jim's tests, not DPReview's tests. The gain in highlights's headroom is astonishing. From his assessment, I guess the conversion switch at ISO 640 managed to lower the shadows noise by only half a stop.

Thank you for sharing. Do you mind sharing your exposure strategy as well? For me, I imagine I would shoot it in M mode, set the aperture and shutter I want then shoot at ISO 100. If the proper ISO is too high (say more than 6 stops) I switch to ISO 640.

 

[davidstock]

I understand the concept, but have seen only Jim's tests, not DPReview's tests. The gain in highlights's headroom is astonishing. From his assessment, I guess the conversion switch at ISO 640 managed to lower the shadows noise by only half a stop.

Thank you for sharing. Do you mind sharing your exposure strategy as well? For me, I imagine I would shoot it in M mode, set the aperture and shutter I want then shoot at ISO 100. If the proper ISO is too high (say more than 6 stops) I switch to ISO 640.

I don't normally push more than three stops (plus maybe some shadow boost) unless I'm dealing with extreme circumstances. Maybe I'm just chicken!

My own method with the A7RII (until somebody talks me out of it) is a bit "lazier" and less radical than Jim Kasson's. I usually use aperture priority plus auto ISO. I set ISO 800 as the maximum for auto ISO, and choose "normal" or "faster" for minimum shutter speed to guard against camera shake. I also set my viewfinder for low contrast so I can still see through the viewfinder when I'm "underexposing" a few stops.

This is a lazy method, and not completely optimal in terms of highlight headroom. But it allows me to move in and out from daylight to deep shadow without resetting ISO. And wimpy as it may be, this method does allow me to take advantage of the camera's ISO semi-invariance in low light, where it typically counts the most.

There are very few subjects where I get what I consider to be insufficient dynamic range or excessive noise at ISO 200, 400 or 600 with the A7RII. Noise in the shadows is low. And the lack of highlight headroom is hardly ever a practical problem for me at these ISO's. Once auto-ISO goes past ISO 640, I automatically get that camera gain bump, so the files still look good at (auto) ISO 800.

When the situation gets really dark, auto-ISO stays pinned at ISO 800. I then push the file as needed in post processing, just like Jim and Rishi.

I'm aware that I'm losing some highlight headroom between ISO 100 and ISO 640. If I had a really demanding high contrast situation, I would consider staying at ISO 100 more and pushing even more than three stops. But I haven't found that necessary in my normal shooting so far.


--d

 

[Chris Barrett]

Just installed C1P 8.3.3. Still no uncompressed RAW support.

 

[k-hawinkler]

Just installed C1P 8.3.3. Still no uncompressed RAW support.

That version had been available for awhile. We need the next one! :grin:

 

[Ario Arioldi]

Capture One 8.3.4 is out with support for El Capitan, Sony uncompressed files and more.
OS support
• Mac OS X 10.11
Camera support
• File support: Sony ILCE-7RM2 (a7R II) uncompressed support
• File and tethering support: Sony ILCE-7SM2 (a7S II) including uncompressed
• File support: Sony DSC-RX1RM2 (prelim) including uncompressed support
• Panasonic GX8 (revised)
• EOS M3 (revised)
• Leica Q (revised)
• Pentax K3 II (revised)*
*Pixel shift mode not supported
Bug fixes
• (Win) Fixed: Sync issue with Capture Pilot Geo tags and XMP
• (Win) Fixed: Issue moving images with local adjustments
• (Mac) OpenCL crash with Nvidia cards on OSX 10.11

 

[Knorp]

Yep, C1 8.3.4 seems to work: though you have to regenerate the previews, but the uncompressed RAW files are displayed now.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Awesome. Thanks for the report

 

[Jim DE]

Well I uploaded the update to C1 and took a single image with compressed then uncompressed............. uploaded and pixel peeped them both....... I know I have down played this option ever since hearing all the relentless garbage related to it across the web and now that I have personally shot and viewed the results I can honestly say what a bunch of BS for nearly nothing. Fact is the image I took the compressed may of even had a slightly better look initially than the uncompressed to my eye's. Yeah taking pixel peeping to the absurd there is marginally more detail but I really do not think it would make even the slightest bit of difference in the final printed output to a 30x40 print. Now if I was a crap snapshot shooter (notice I did not call this a photographer) and missed my exposure by 5 stops it might come in handy but then again if I missed my shots by that much I probably would have to sell all my equipment just to put food on my table and a roof over my head because no one would pay for my services long with this sort of image making.

I have shot, observed with my own eye's, and come to the conclusion with a high contrast image it is just one more feature I will most likely never have a use for on this excellent feature filled camera just like video, creative style, or send to smartphone.

 

[Ario Arioldi]

Well I uploaded the update to C1 and took a single image with compressed then uncompressed............. uploaded and pixel peeped them both....... I know I have down played this option ever since hearing all the relentless garbage related to it across the web and now that I have personally shot and viewed the results I can honestly say what a bunch of BS for nearly nothing. Fact is the image I took the compressed may of even had a slightly better look initially than the uncompressed to my eye's. Yeah taking pixel peeping to the absurd there is marginally more detail but I really do not think it would make even the slightest bit of difference in the final printed output to a 30x40 print. Now if I was a crap snapshot shooter (notice I did not call this a photographer) and missed my exposure by 5 stops it might come in handy but then again if I missed my shots by that much I probably would have to sell all my equipment just to put food on my table and a roof over my head because no one would pay for my services long with this sort of image making.

I have shot, observed with my own eye's, and come to the conclusion with a high contrast image it is just one more feature I will most likely never have a use for on this excellent feature filled camera just like video, creative style, or send to smartphone.

Problems arising from the lossy compression used by Sony do not show up in every shot, this is well known, so the fact that you have not seen any substantial advantage using the uncompressed option, proves nearly nothing. For my shots I prefer to stay on the safe side, I have plenty of SD's and storage space. BTW the issue was not just BS.

 

[Vivek]

May be Jim is vying for a Sony Superfan title?

Even Sony have said they listen to their customers and would improve wherever they can. Dprevs had a long interview with one of their product managers. (He also claimed that they like to introduce a successor camera that is 10X better. Total BS. i have all their NEX' to prove that. )