Lossless Compressed or Uncompressed

A

aroy

Senior Member
hotflyer said:
Raw set to 14 bit depth. What are the advantages of uncompressed over lossless compressed?
Click to expand...

None.
. Lossless compressed takes more time to generate, but with today's fast processors it is negligible.
. Uncompressed is larger so takes more space both on the card and on the computer.
. Just check if the burst rate is same, in some cameras it may be marginally more for compressed files as less buffer space is used per image and in some older bodies with slower processor the other way round.
 
G

GracieAllen

Senior Member
I've never noticed the frame rate being higher shooting compressed, but it does increase the buffer size (at least in the display). I've done ridiculous levels of viewing of images shot both ways (this is the kind of stuff you waste time on if you have no life), and I've never been able to see any reduction in quality using the lossless compression. I've read other people who have indicated a "slight" reduction.
 
R

Ruidoso Bill

Senior Member
I have reduced mine to 12 bit lossless compressed for real estate and interiors photography, much smaller file size and I can't notice a loss of quality.
 
G

GracieAllen

Senior Member
I believe in the real world, you're not likely to see a difference. But, in the real world, if your post processing is non-existent or very minimal, you could probably shoot 8-bit and not see a difference. If, however, you do significant optimization in Lightroom, then some moderate to heavy processing in Photoshop, keeping everything in 16-bit, and staying in Prophoto RGB, YOU MAY find situations where the extra bit depth provides better shadow detail. 12-bit RAW provides 4096 colors per channel. 14-bit provides 16,384. If you're exposing to the right, or at least getting the exposure "right" so the shadows aren't blocked up, you MAY in some situations get a little better shadow detail. But you'll probably never notice it........

Of course, it also depends on what medium you'll be using for the output. If it's going to the web, NO, you'll likely not see anything 'cause anything displayed on the web is 8-bit and sRGB, which is a small color gamut and generally shows artifacts and all the banding and other flaws we're used to seeing on projectors and facebook and such.

On the other hand, a lossless compressed 12-bit file is about 40% smaller than a lossless compressed 14-bit file if I recall correctly. Which means there's a bunch of additional data in the 14-bit file. But is it "fer-real", visible, oh WOW data? Probably not. And you can save some disk space, push images to the memory card faster, and get 'em up in Lightroom or Photoshop faster if you stay at 12-bit.

My philosophy is to start with the best original I can get 'cause it can only degrade from there... But I'll admit it may just be the OCD kicking in, or some other malady...

I'd say if you're not sure, try it both ways, do some pixel peeping, play with under and over exposures, and see if you can see anything that would cause you to say "Hmmm"... If not, stay with the 12-bit and don't worry 'bout it.
 
R

Ruidoso Bill

Senior Member
One needs to look at the use, is it for large format print or is it for the web, how much is needed for the web and everything else may be overkill, I shoot the bodies I use more for the life expectancy and reliability, super resolution is sometimes a waste, how many thousand images do you guys take in a week and does that really need the highest resolution possible? Why do the manufacturers have built in capabilities to use lower settings when the highest is not needed or not required. I shoot thousands of images a week, have already worn out one D810, my D800 is a trusty backup and probably have have over 100K on my latest D810. I was always happy with the image quality of my D700's, so 12 bit lossless compressed is fine for my work. Pixel peepers and folks not shooting in the real world need to examine what is really required. Folks that think their images are better at the highest resolution are foolish to think that higher is always superior, it's more to do with what is required for the job and achieving the desired (customer) results, poor technique will never be aided by higher performance cameras, quite the opposite, poor technique is often amplified.
 
I

Ironwood

Senior Member
For sure Bill, if you are shooting thousands of photos every week, and you know beforehand that you don't need high resolution pics, then it makes sense to do as you are doing.

But for a hobbiest like myself, only shooting a hundred or two pics every week, purely for my own pleasure, I can't see any point in not shooting the highest resolution that the camera is capable of.
 
R

Ruidoso Bill

Senior Member
Horoscope Fish said:
I've just never found myself saying, "Dammit! If only I'd been shooting 12-bit compressed!!"
....
Click to expand...

I just think the belief that higher resolution bodies equals better pics is untrue, yep if your pixel peeping in shadow areas one can see more or less detail but when I look at bodies like the D300 or D700 they remain very capable of producing wonderful images, it is just not always the highest is the best, I still think we have adjustments for the situation and more is sometimes a waste. I have shot side by side comparisons, same lens, same settings other than resolution and it is very difficult (for me) to see much difference. Composition, good exposure, good glass contributes more to good image quality.
 
Horoscope Fish

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
Ruidoso Bill said:
I just think the belief that higher resolution bodies equals better pics is untrue, yep if your pixel peeping in shadow areas one can see more or less detail but when I look at bodies like the D300 or D700 they remain very capable of producing wonderful images, it is just not always the highest is the best, I still think we have adjustments for the situation and more is sometimes a waste. I have shot side by side comparisons, same lens, same settings other than resolution and it is very difficult (for me) to see much difference. Composition, good exposure, good glass means a lot more to good image quality.
Click to expand...
First and foremost I don't disagree with what you're saying.

And speaking for myself I'm much more of a "content is king" sort of shooter that lacks the patience, not too mention the inclination, to pixel-peep. Oh sure I'll make some tweaks or adjust a setting if I think it will improve IQ to some worthwhile degree but it's not the sort of thing I obsess over. I'm a photographer that uses technology, not a technologist that does photography. As such I set my D750 to shoot 14-bit uncompressed raw when I unboxed it and then I quit thinking about it... At least until a thread like this pops up. I don't have any argument, per se, to support that decision; it's simply what I did.

For those that have reason to shoot at 12-bit compressed, more power to ya.
.....
 
B

Bikerbrent_RIP

Senior Member
Ruidoso Bill said:
I just think the belief that higher resolution bodies equals better pics is untrue, yep if your pixel peeping in shadow areas one can see more or less detail but when I look at bodies like the D300 or D700 they remain very capable of producing wonderful images, it is just not always the highest is the best, I still think we have adjustments for the situation and more is sometimes a waste. I have shot side by side comparisons, same lens, same settings other than resolution and it is very difficult (for me) to see much difference. Composition, good exposure, good glass contributes more to good image quality.
Click to expand...

Well said. I am still amazed at the IQ of the pictures I got from my D200 for over 10 years. And yes, I love my D7200 but I am still blown away by my D200 pictures with 2.5 times less resolution! Where the D7200 blows away the D200 is high ISO capability and more cropping room when needed. But I do miss the built in panorama capability of the D200.
 
R

Ruidoso Bill

Senior Member
Can't agree more Brent,

I sometimes miss some of the older bodies I have had. The D200 was my first Nikon Digital and now I have a granddaughter putting it to some sense of use (or not). D300 another of my all time favorites only outpaced when I went full frame with the D700. Bit for bit the D700 was able to produce what I always felt was some of most Natural and true images. Many still use the D700 as a very capable body and 12 MP does the job unless you are doing billboards. Like I said earlier I went to the D800 followed by the D810's not for the MP but for the reliability and the controls.

Next year I will hit my 50th anniversary in Photography (still working daily at 68), no more fumes, film loading or darkrooms, but I still love and live for taking pics, nothing better or more satisfying in my life.
 
Last edited:
L

lorenbrothers

Senior Member
hotflyer said:
Raw set to 14 bit depth. What are the advantages of uncompressed over lossless compressed?
Click to expand...

Technically, with our D810's, there should be absolutely no difference between "uncompressed" and "lossless compressed" except in file size. And the larger files take more time to run through the software and 'clog up' the buffer faster as we all know. I was just reading an article today about the relationship between the two. This was described using numbers to represent data-strings captured by the sensor and written to file:

156666397771512388888892 ---- (DATA STORED UNCOMPRESSED)

15(4)639(3)715123(6)892 ------- (DATA STORED LOSSLESS COMPRESSED)

15*66*39*77*51*38*88*89* or
1566397751388889 --------------- (DATA STORED COMPRESSED)


UNCOMPRESSED ------------------ contains all data from the sensor.
LOSSLESS COMPRESSED --------- still contains all the data from the sensor but is written to the file in 'shorthand'. (6)8 represents a string of six 8's. This is later expanded back during processing.
COMPRESSED --------------------- deletes actual data bits never to be recovered. * represents discarded data.

So, all-in-all, there should be absolutely NO difference in conversion from RAW using the first 2 options. None.

The article that was quoted earlier is basically a mishmash of half facts. It is also basically referring to 12bit vs 14bit RAW files in relation to COMPRESSED VS UNCOMPRESSED. Then to muddle up the discussion he tosses in the occasional phrase "lossless" as a general synonym for 'uncompressed' while discussing RAW files... which it is not. ('Lossless/lossy' are compression phrases used in .tiff descriptions)
Personally I think he has been staring at his pixels way too long. :beguiled:

I think this covers the original question.
 
Last edited:
Top