Uncompressed 14bit RAW

[Annna T]

Hi Anna T,

Sony seems to be delivering on this count as well.

After having used the A7r2 a lot, indeed, the A7r feels small in my hands.
Amazing, what a difference of a few mm makes.

IMHO the A7r2 has a more refined user interface though. I like it.

I hope that Sony will issue other bodies with the shape of the first A7r, adding some refinements of the A7rII, like the silent shutter or first electronic shutter curtain and a BSI sensor. IBIS may be too much to keep the size down. So for the moment I have decided against the A7rII : too expensive, too big (for me), too many pixels (36 is already plenty for what I do).

 

[dmward]

The info I read says that it will be user selectable, which is the best solution.
Higher bit rate for those needing it. Smaller files with quicker write times for those needing it.
Or more importantly, for situations needing it.

Thinking back to film when one would select the emulsion and developer based on the desired outcome, we will soon have a camera with the same capabilities for raw files. The option has been there for JPG for a long time.

Ironically, once implemented it will be another benefit with which Canon and Nikon will have to contend.

 

[Annna T]

I expect the A6000 successor to have it in already.

(It would be superb if they would offer FW updates for the older models.)

Yes, you may be right on the count of the A6000 successor. As for the older models, I'm not even sure they will offer it for the first A7 mk1.

 

[k-hawinkler]

I hope that Sony will issue other bodies with the shape of the first A7r, adding some refinements of the A7rII, like the silent shutter or first electronic shutter curtain and a BSI sensor. IBIS may be too much to keep the size down. So for the moment I have decided against the A7rII : too expensive, too big (for me), too many pixels (36 is already plenty for what I do).

In Amadeus, the movie, there is the line:"Too many notes!"

 

[Vivek]

And 8 new FE lenses in Spring 2016:

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/hot-...t-raw-on-a7sii-a7rii-and-other-alpha-cameras/

I hope Zeiss announces a few more Batis lenses, too. I'm insatiable. :clap:

Joe

http://www.getdpi.com/forum/sony/56160-tamron-patents-another-fe-lens.html

 

[MikeEvangelist]

I hope Zeiss announces a few more Batis lenses, too.

Yes; 135mm 1.8 (or thereabouts)!

 

[tashley]

Damn. Now all those crappy pictures I take won't be the camera's fault...

 

[gurtch]

The info I read says that it will be user selectable, which is the best solution.
Higher bit rate for those needing it. Smaller files with quicker write times for those needing it.
Or more importantly, for situations needing it.

Thinking back to film when one would select the emulsion and developer based on the desired outcome, we will soon have a camera with the same capabilities for raw files. The option has been there for JPG for a long time.

Ironically, once implemented it will be another benefit with which Canon and Nikon will have to contend.

When it says user selectable, is there any advantage to "uncompressed 14 bit RAW", as opposed to compressed 14 bit RAW? I assume it would be lossless compression? In which case file size, write speed, etc would be less compromised.
Thanks
Dave

 

[spence]

Terrific news. Kudos for Sony to listening to their users on this issue, even if it was a quite vocal minority and took, uhh, a while.

These sensors deserve uncompromised RAW output, and now we'll finally get it.

 

[Frits]

Would be great for my magnificent RX1r, but somehow I don't hold my breath.

 

[mjm6]

Well, it sounds like good news, but there really is no mention of the 'lossy' compression in there that I saw...

I don't care about the file being compressed (I prefer that it is), but the compression should be lossless, not lossy. Clearly, an uncompressed RAW file should be lossless, but it will also be much, much larger. 50%, if I recall from the a900.

So, why don't they just do a lossless compression and be done with it? It seems like this fix is a half-measure that will work, but isn't really the best solution.

Either way, if I can get it on my a7r, I'll be happier. I was working on some files last night that seemed to start to fall apart under the strain of dodging and burning (B&W images). I'll have to print them to see how they look, but they certainly look like they could use a little more information in the files.


---Michael

 

[dmward]

There are comments on other fora suggesting that lossless compression math is more complicated than lossy, suggesting that Sony opting for no compress full bit files is the fast road to a solution. It also raises the question about how much additional processor power would be used for lossless compress to the determent of other performance demands on the processor.

I will be happy for the option, letting me decide when I want all the data and when I want extra performance.

 

[k-hawinkler]

Of course, eventually 14 bit lossless compressed raw data is the way to go.

As 14 bit raw will be implemented on current hardware already in our hands the question becomes to which degree is it necessary to balance processing power - bandwidth - storage capacity demands to make this work, I think.

 

[dandrewk]

The heavens have parted, along with it the end of hunger, disease and war. Oops, I meant Sony is going with 14 bit RAW! Same thing though.

But is it the "right" 14 bit uncompressed RAW? Already, some in "another" forum are assuming a toy manufacturer like Sony will make the wrong choice.

Cynicism aside, the best news here is the end of the (non) controversy. Now it's time for more photos, hopefully using the new Batis lenses!

 

[SteveJ]

14bit uncompressed Raw? Huge files that slow everything way down. We were hoping for 14bit compressed lossless files as with the Nikons. Would be the best of both worlds. Maybe down the road...

 

[4season]

I'm skeptical about this making any meaningful improvement in image quality but I'll be happy to be proven wrong. In the case of both Leica and Sony cameras, I think the initial decision to go with lossy compression was made by engineering, while the move to lossless was purely a marketing thing.

 

[dandrewk]

That's it exactly. Thank heavens it will be a user option.

Now we have to see how many options? Will we have a choice between compressed/lossy, compressed/unlossy and uncompressed/unlossy?

 

[dmward]

Probably all will agree that its likely to impact only a small percentage of files.
What I like is having the option, via menu and shooting parameter to choose between lossy, lossless and 32 bit floating point files.

I can't think of a situation those three options can't handle.

 

[wallpaperviking]

One of the "possible" benefits I have seen mentioned is an increase in dynamic range..

For this to happen, would Sony have to introduce a "64 ISO" as part of their firmware? From what I understand, this is how Nikon is able to gain a dynamic range over the Sony (Nikon 810 compared to Sony A7R)


Not really related to compression but I would love to see some additional crop modes added as part of a firmware upgrade by Sony! 1:1 and 4:5 please!!

 

[Vivek]

Probably all will agree that its likely to impact only a small percentage of files.
What I like is having the option, via menu and shooting parameter to choose between lossy, lossless and 32 bit floating point files.

I can't think of a situation those three options can't handle.

The contention was that being a "pro" (the original A7r was also sold as a "pro") grade camera to offer lossless files and not many disputed that (whether it was needed or not was a different matter). Good to have this option.

IIRC, the Nikon D200 offered a choice between lossless uncompressed RAW and lossless compressed RAW (smaller files). That was useful.