RAW - Compressed or uncompressed?

[jronet]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

How are you shooting RAW - compressed or uncompressed? I am wondering if the extra space is worth it. ( On the B&H waiting list since April 30) Thanks. How many RAW files are you getting on an 8 gb card?

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[jaapv]

About 200. At the moment there is not very much difference, but I think uncompressed is more future-proof.

[bybrett]

Compressed works for me.

[rennsport]

Compressed for me too. 18Mb a piece.

[adan]

I'm shooting compressed - I have not seen a significant difference shooting uncompressed when I've tried it, but that doesn't mean there isn't one.

 

For some jobs, I could actually use an sRAW format - .dngs, but down-sampled in-camera to 12 Mpixel/Mbyte file size (No, not pixel-binning! That's something different).

[zlatkob]

Compressed is fine for me.

 

A smaller raw file would work for me for some jobs too.

[tategoi]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

And when importing to Lightroom, do you just copy the file or copy as DNG (Adobe's format).

[zlatkob]

Just import the file as it is. Set the preview size to Standard. Don't copy the file or change it to Adobe's format.

[ho_co]

Do I remember this correctly?

 

I think Sandy McGuffog found that the uncompressed DNGs may have a smaller dynamic range because of the way the M9 adjusts blackpoint.

 

Initial experiments on the forum indicated that the only place where uncompressed DNGs might offer an advantage was at ISO 160.

 

So after all the complaints that the M8 lacked an uncompressed option, it looks as if Leica was right from the get-go.

[hoppyman]

Howard I need to find that original discussion which I think had more than one host thread?

I found this so far (quoting Sandy directly).

 

"I think our understanding is still pretty much what it was at the time of that thread, which I would summarize as follows:

1. The black point in all M9 DNGs changes (increases) with ISO

2. That has effectively no impact on uncompressed files.

3. For compressed files however it does have a negative effect in that you effectively "lose" some of the 256 codes that the M9 compression scheme allows, because those codes are then used to encode below-black point data, not real image data. The number of codes "lost" increases with ISO, because of the increase in black point with ISO.

I think that in practical use very few people have found this to be an issue.

I one thing I would add is that I haven't looked at a compressed M9 image taken with the new firmware to see whether this is still the case - If someone wants to post one I'll take a look.

 

Regards,

Sandy"

[hoppyman]

And when importing to Lightroom, do you just copy the file or copy as DNG (Adobe's format).

 

I recommend "import as DNG" even though you already have a DNG. You will get lossless compression of the DNG in the converter and save file size with no data loss.

[andalus]

I shoot uncompressed dng. Take out the Sandisk memory card and plug in to Mac Book Pro. Images wind up of course as dng files on computer which I then place in the pictures folder which opens up in CS5 Bridge. Do not use or have LR (so far). So I can keep the original dng file PLUS I can adjust image in PS and save as either JPEG or TIF of both. That leave me with three files: original dng, a smallish JPEG and a TIF. Does this make sense or am I missing something here? Any better advice requested. Newbie to digital capture. Just been doing this a couple months now.

[ho_co]

I need to find that original discussion which I think had more than one host thread? ...

Lawsy me, yes, Geoff!

 

And your summary from Sandy is from the latest batch, I think.

 

Thanks for the correction! My recollection was the opposite of what had been said.

[hoppyman]

I've been back there reading it all again now. Sandy should get a knighthood for services to the Forum

 

Back on the original topic, I think that it is worth taking into consideration the lossless compression on import as far as storage space requirements. 16GB is the new 4GB card as far as in the camera, but on import the files end up around 18MB each depending on content. I can live with that to preserve all possible information in the images.

Heck I got to try out the S2 over a lunch with our Leica guy and that was saving a DNG and JPG. I think that my 4 GB card was full after 46 photos!

[tdtaylor]

In emails with Leica, I discovered that the uncompressed raw in camera is not lossless. Leica NJ recommended shooting uncompressed, then when importing to LR use "convert to .DNG," which converts it to lossless, and about half the size of uncompressed. Of course, there are those that keep everything uncompressed to future proof their work.

[hoppyman]

Terry there are two different types of compression there and they are not related.

We are only talking about DNG files of course, not the JPG options.

 

I'm not sure what you mean when you say that Leica Camera has told you that there is some loss in camera with the (uncompressed DNG) full size file. I think that there may be some misunderstanding there. The lowest two BITs are crossed out since they are too noise contaminated to be useful but you get all of the other 14 BITs.

If you select Compressed DNG then the camera uses 8 BITs to represent the full 14 BITs. It is non- linear compression though and is NOT the same as saving just as 8 BIT JPG.

 

On importing the Uncompressed or Compressed DNGs your Adobe Raw converter (ACR or LR) will apply truly lossless compression independent of what option you chose in camera. BUT you will still have an 8 BIT or 14 BIT file. This compression used to be optional but it is now always applied since there is no reason not to make the files smaller as long as you are not losing information.

 

Broadly the uncompressed DNGs are the same size or smaller than the compressed DNGs (~18MB) after you apply the additional lossless compression in your Raw Converter. Of course if you have captured Compressed DNGs those will be made smaller again in your converter as well with no further loss of information.

 

This compression when you import with Convert to DNG is just a more efficient engine if you like. If it were done in camera you would need more processing power there and file processing would be much slower. Remember that the M9 is already processing about 80% more information than the M8 was. Even with two of the processers that the M8 had it is slower.

[stunsworth]

I'm not sure what you mean when you say that Leica Camera has told you that there is some loss in camera with the (uncompressed DNG) full size file.

 

 

Geoff I assumed it was a typo from the original poster, and what he really meant was that there was a loss in quality of the _compressed_ DNG, otherwise I agree that it doesn't make sense.

[Shade]

I've been doing compressed, and I shoot weddings and I see no difference. Or probably not yet?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[adli]

I've been doing compressed, and I shoot weddings and I see no difference. Or probably not yet?

 

If you see no difference and your customers are happy, there should be no need to change?

[Shade]

If you see no difference and your customers are happy, there should be no need to change?

 

Adly, well that's the point, I'm not changing it. I'm usually shooting DNG Compressed + Jpeg basic (black & white or vintage black & white)... My customers are very happy even with just the Jpeg basic b&w... haha...

 

So no, the additional amount of storage taken compared to the benefits I'm gaining (which again, I *personally* don't see), is not an advantage. Plus changing sd cards with an M9 is a hassle - I tried ordering one from Luigi but he hasn't replied my mail...