Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="lorenbrothers" data-source="post: 590678" data-attributes="member: 41042">Technically, with our D810's, there should be absolutely no difference between &quot;uncompressed&quot; and &quot;lossless compressed&quot; 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.&nbsp; I was just reading an article today about the relationship between the two.&nbsp; 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*&nbsp; or1566397751388889 --------------- (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'.&nbsp; (6)8 represents a string of six 8's.&nbsp; This is later expanded back during processing.COMPRESSED --------------------- deletes actual data bits never to be recovered.&nbsp; * represents discarded data.So, all-in-all, there should be absolutely NO difference in conversion from RAW using the first 2 options.&nbsp; None.&nbsp; &nbsp; The article that was quoted earlier is basically a mishmash of half facts.&nbsp; It is also basically referring to 12bit vs 14bit RAW files in relation to COMPRESSED VS UNCOMPRESSED.&nbsp; Then to muddle up the discussion he tosses in the occasional phrase &quot;lossless&quot; as a general synonym for 'uncompressed' while discussing RAW files... which it is not.&nbsp; ('Lossless/lossy' are compression phrases used in .tiff descriptions)&nbsp; Personally I think he has been staring at his pixels way too long.&nbsp; :beguiled:I think this covers the original question.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="lorenbrothers, post: 590678, member: 41042"] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification