Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: cRAW

  1. #1
    Senior Member edwardkaraa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Bangkok
    Posts
    1,470
    Post Thanks / Like

    cRAW

    Anyone using this format? Seems to be slightly lossy but not more than Canon and Nikon standard raw. At 36mb per file, I'm starting to think standard raw is a waste of storage space.
    M262 ZM 25/2.8 35/1.4 50/2 85/2

  2. #2
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Bill Caulfeild-Browne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Bruce Peninsula, Canada
    Posts
    2,535
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    184

    Re: cRAW

    I've used it a lot for non-critical work and I simply can't tell the difference! Gary Friedman, in his book on the a900, says he can't tell either.

    I guess one should try a few direct comparisons in difficult conditions - high ISO and/or high contrast situations. I had read somewhere that there might be a noise penalty.

    Bill

  3. #3
    Senior Member edwardkaraa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Bangkok
    Posts
    1,470
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: cRAW

    So does this mean that only Bill uses cRAW over here? What about every one else? Standard RAW?
    M262 ZM 25/2.8 35/1.4 50/2 85/2

  4. #4
    Senior Member deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    310
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: cRAW

    Me..!!
    I always use CRAW on my A900
    Leica M9 | SE 18 | Lux 24 | Lux 50 | ZM 35 | Nikon D700 | 35/1.8 | 45 PC-E | 50/1.4 | 70-200 VR II | SB 800+600 |SF 58|

  5. #5
    Senior Member dhsimmonds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Hampshire, UK
    Posts
    904
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    20

    Re: cRAW

    I must admit to only ever using the full RAW image. Anything that smacks of compression I try and stay away from, only using conversion to jpeg's for images destined for web, email and digital projection.

    My workflow is: C1 for processing the Raw image and conversion to 16bit Tiffs using Adobe RGB colour space. Crop and Re-size using Photoshop and print from Photoshop using the full 16 bit tiff image. I also do the conversions from 16 bit to 8 bit and any change of colour space required in PS for saving to jpeg for web work.

    Since changing to the Sony A900 from a Leica DMR, I never need to do any more PP in Photoshop as C1 produces the perfect file. However I do prefer to use PS for cropping and of course printing.
    Cheers, Dave
    www.simmondsphotography.com

  6. #6
    rogprov
    Guest

    Re: cRAW

    I've never seen a comparison between raw and craw convincingly demonstrating a difference in the image. Until then I shall continue only using craw as the saving in disk space is significant.

    Incidentally, being pedantic, raw is just the English word and not an acronym so should not be capitalised.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Gatos, CA
    Posts
    340
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: cRAW

    Quote Originally Posted by rogprov View Post
    I've never seen a comparison between raw and craw convincingly demonstrating a difference in the image. Until then I shall continue only using craw as the saving in disk space is significant.

    Incidentally, being pedantic, raw is just the English word and not an acronym so should not be capitalised.
    But, "craw" isn't a word...at least not in this context...so where does that leave us? Which is more incorrect? Shouldn't that then be c-raw?

    Yes, the term "raw" was begat as an English word, but now it refers to a file type, just like cRAW does.

    Frankly, when I see a definition of a file type, I prefer to see it capitilized, just like it is with every other extension. A raw file to me is one that's literally uncooked.

    But maybe that's just stuck in my craw.

    Greg

  8. #8
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    carstenw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    2,530
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: cRAW

    Quote Originally Posted by gsking View Post
    Frankly, when I see a definition of a file type, I prefer to see it capitilized, just like it is with every other extension.
    Huh? Are you still using FAT?
    Carsten - Website

  9. #9
    Panopeeper
    Guest

    Re: cRAW

    Some related info:

    1. Sony's craw is much less lossy than Nikon's 12bit lossy format of the D300/D3/D3X; it maintains about 1770 levels (out of about 3960 original raw pixel levels), in contrast to the D3's 690 levels (in 12bit mode) and over 2700 levels (in 14bit mode).

    It is a smart method, probably never causing posterisation.

    2. "Compressed" and "lossy" are not synonymous. The "standard" raw file of the A900 is compressed as well, though that is a rather simple and not very effective compression, but it is not lossy.

    3. The obvious confusion of some is probably caused by Nikon's and Sony's euphemism: the lossy format has been named "compressed". Originally, the non-lossy format of Nikon cameras was not compressed, but this anyway incorrect terminology became ridiculous: the D3xxx cameras offer three different formats: uncompressed (lossless), compressed lossless and compressed lossy.

    Nikon calls the compressed lossy "compressed" and the compressed lossless "lossless".

    Sony calls the compress lossless "standard" and the compressed lossy "compressed".

    4. Regarding "uncooked" raw data: the A900's data is the most cooked one I have ever seen, but it has nothing to do with compression or lossiness, i.e. it is cooked, no matter if standard or craw. See Noise reduction in the A900 raw data

    Not directly on-topic:

    5. Canon DSLRs always compress the raw data, but always losslessly.

    6. FAT is not a file format.

  10. #10
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    carstenw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    2,530
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: cRAW

    Quote Originally Posted by Panopeeper View Post
    6. FAT is not a file format.
    Right, it is the file system which DOS gave us. However, it is the only filesystem I am aware of which forces capitalization of filenames, including extensions. gsking was talking about capitalized extensions. My Mac uses lowercase for all extensions, as do all modern versions of Windows, and probably all unices.
    Carsten - Website

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •