eritho Posted August 4, 2010 Share #1 Posted August 4, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) Now, when importing to LR3 it looks like you can't choose between compressing the DNG file or not. Or am I wrong here? Of course you can still choose compressed or uncompressed in your M9. What do you use, and why? I have tested all possibilities and ending up with files of approx. 35,17 or 9 MB. By printing up to A3 I see no difference. If you have experience from printed larger do you see any difference? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 4, 2010 Posted August 4, 2010 Hi eritho, Take a look here Compressed or uncompressed?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
tdtaylor Posted August 4, 2010 Share #2 Posted August 4, 2010 I shoot uncompressed, and have it compress using lossless during import, like LR2. I use the "Copy as DNG." In LR2 this compressed uncompressed camera DNGs as lossless (unlike the cameras compression) in the computer, and I believe the same thing is happening in LR3. I have to agree, it is not very clear that this is happening, but my 36mb files get reduced down to 17mb and claim lossless compression same as LR2. There are hopefully some gurus out there that can flesh out my reasoning. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted August 4, 2010 Share #3 Posted August 4, 2010 There is no real reason to shoot compressed imo. Even if the difference is marginal now, it may well make a difference with future postprocessing. Edit- I see now that it is about the LR import - If you shoot uncompressed -and imo one should- it rather defeats the purpose to compress on importing I think. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bybrett Posted August 4, 2010 Share #4 Posted August 4, 2010 Compressed - what am I missing? (that's compressed once only - in camera) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted August 4, 2010 Share #5 Posted August 4, 2010 Now, when importing to LR3 it looks like you can't choose between compressing the DNG file or not. Or am I wrong here? You're wrong. When ingesting your raw files, you can push them through the DNG Converter which is integrated in Camera Raw and Lightroom (and also is available as a stand-alone program). Simply save your file in DNG format—that also works for raw files that already are in DNG format. Or use the stand-alone Adobe DNG Converter. DNG files out of the Leica DMR or the Leica M8/M8.2/M9 cameras are in DNG 1.0 format (don't know about the X1 but I guess it's the same). The DNG Converter will convert them to the current DNG 1.3 format and, by default, also losslessly compress them. Of course you can switch off the compression so you do have the choice but the switch is somewhat hidden, and it's not recommended anyway. On DNG conversion with compression, an uncompressed Leica M9 DNG file will shrink from 34.8 MB to approx. 20 MB (the exact size after compression will depend on the image content and can vary quite a bit). An in-camera-compressed M9 DNG file will shrink from 17.4 MB to approx. 10 MB. While the in-camera DNG compression is lossy, the compression applied by DNG Converter is not. Also the Maker Notes in the EXIF data are fully retained. So it's a good idea to always convert the Leica raw files from DNG to DNG using the Adobe DNG Converter (via the stand-alone program or the Lightroom import function). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted August 4, 2010 Share #6 Posted August 4, 2010 Jaap, the compression on import to LR is lossless, the in camera compression is not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdtaylor Posted August 4, 2010 Share #7 Posted August 4, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) At one point I spoke to Leica NJ about compression. From the conversation, the in-camera compression is not lossless (although in my tests it is hard to see any difference). Lightroom, when it imports and coverts to DNG, coverts the DNG to lossless compression, which from my limited understanding, is superior to lossy compression. Hopefully someone more knowledgeable can enlighten us to the technical aspects of this. I shoot quite a number of shots for work, where the ultimate quality is not required, and working times are often reduced with smaller files, so compressed suits me just fine. Often I just shoot .jpeg. Just ran twenty 360 degree panos this weekend (12-15 pictures each, compressed DNG), output .jpgs, then converted to interactive 360, and the computer time was about 10 hours (4 processor mac, 8 gig ram, RAID). It typically runs about 50% longer with the larger files, so in my world, there is a place for compression. I agree with JAAP that for my personal, artistic work, I just keep everything uncompressed. If my camera was my livelihood, I would keep my pictures uncompressed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted August 4, 2010 Share #8 Posted August 4, 2010 Jaap, the compression on import to LR is lossless, the in camera compression is not.I would amend that to "is said to be lossless" Old cynic, me Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
diogenis Posted August 4, 2010 Share #9 Posted August 4, 2010 Compressed - what am I missing? (that's compressed once only - in camera) Marginal quality increase vs card space. But with SD memory so cheap nowadays... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
eritho Posted August 4, 2010 Author Share #10 Posted August 4, 2010 Of course you can switch off the compression so you do have the choice but the switch is somewhat hidden, and it's not recommended anyway. How can I switch off the compression in LR3? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bybrett Posted August 4, 2010 Share #11 Posted August 4, 2010 Marginal quality increase vs card space. But with SD memory so cheap nowadays... Agree on card space... computer space is valuable. Show me the marginal quality increase...? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted August 4, 2010 Share #12 Posted August 4, 2010 Hmm.. I just got a brochure by Misco. 1Tb harddisk: 89,90 Euro... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bybrett Posted August 4, 2010 Share #13 Posted August 4, 2010 Hmm.. I just got a brochure by Misco. 1Tb harddisk: 89,90 Euro... Hmm... yes a cheap hard drive - I said space is valuable not expensive. So, what's the difference between compressed and uncompressed? What am I missing? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted August 4, 2010 Share #14 Posted August 4, 2010 How can I switch off the compression in LR3? When saving a DNG file, choose 'Digital Negative' as the format to write. From the Compatibility options, choose 'Custom' (the last item in the list). In the dialog box that will pop up then, tick the 'non-compressed' option. But then again, that's not recommended. Since the compression is lossless, there's nothing to be gained from switching it off. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ted W Posted August 4, 2010 Share #15 Posted August 4, 2010 I've noticed that DNG Converter renders the files smaller than the originals (be it cr2 or nef), but I see no "switch" in its Prefs to turn that compression on or off. We are certain this is lossless compression? If it is, fine, I just want to be sure. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted August 4, 2010 Share #16 Posted August 4, 2010 As I posted before - it is said to be lossless. But why bother? There is no realistic gain in compressing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted August 4, 2010 Share #17 Posted August 4, 2010 There is no realistic gain in compressing. It depends on how much you shoot, which then determines how much you have to back up. Backing up takes time away from other work. Backups take up space, either in the form of hard drives and/or DVDs/BDRs. A busy photographer can have dozens of full hard drives and a room full of storage bins for disks. Savings in time and storage space can really add up over the course of several years. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted August 4, 2010 Share #18 Posted August 4, 2010 Not really. A simple program like Second Copy backup runs continuously in the background. I back up to a special disk when ingesting. ImageIngester Pro does that automatically. Then every image is backed up automatically to that disk. When I shut off my computer that diak is backed-up online to an external server. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bybrett Posted August 4, 2010 Share #19 Posted August 4, 2010 I rest my case. Why shoot uncompressed! What am I missing? Nobody knows or can show. Shoot compressed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted August 4, 2010 Share #20 Posted August 4, 2010 Not really. Your point was that there is "no realistic gain" in compressing. Half as many hard drives to buy, catalog and store, and half as many hours backing up to an off-site server is a realistic gain. And if your work requires the extra redundancy of optical backups, it means half as many disks to burn, catalog, and store. It adds up. Therefore, the question is of real interest. If there is no benefit to shooting uncompressed and keeping the files uncompressed for storage, then those tangible benefits of compressed weigh in its favor. Similarly, some shooting conditions (bad weather) weigh in favor of less frequent card changes, and thus shooting compressed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.