Join Now
Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!
On Nikon cameras (and possibly other makes), one of the Raw file format options is "Lossless Compressed" which, according to the manual, has no affect on image quality.
On my D800 the size difference between Uncompressed and Lossless Compressed is considerable (Uncompressed = 72Mb; Lossless Compressed = 45Mb approx).
That being so, is there any conceivable reason for using Uncompressed?
It's simple. The lossless compressed files are compressed losslessly and the others are simply uncompressed. If you've ever created lossless archives using say zip or rar you'll know that you can cut down some file sizes quite dramatically. The downside is the extra processing power and time needed to compress and decompress, this can be offset though because less data has to be written to disc.
Generally if you were in a fast shooting situation with bags of space you'd go for uncompressed, slower shooting or tight on card space you'd perhaps choose compressed.
I believe the main issue is one of speed - using compressed files may slow up the image retrieval while the program unpacks the image. Similarly it may reduce you write time and reduce maximum burst speed.
Also, I suspect that you will be limited to using Nikon's software to uncompress it whereas the uncompressed files can be opened by an program.
Further to the timing issues noted above, a main drawback with using compressed NEF files is the 30-40 seconds each one takes to write to even a fast card. It's hardly usable and presumably dates from a period when card capacities were low and it was sometimes necessary to save space.
At least that's the case with my old D100, it may be that later models are O.K.
Quote: the 30-40 seconds each one takes to write to even a fast card
Surely if it's compressed, it's quicker to write? The time must be in the compression algorithm. If it really takes that long, then I would agree it is unusable. However, you shouldn't make assumptions based on old models.
I took my old Canon 10D out a few days ago, shot about 8 or 9 shots and waited about 2 minutes for the first preview to appear.
Quote: the 30-40 seconds each one takes to write to even a fast card
Surely if it's compressed, it's quicker to write? The time must be in the compression algorithm. If it really takes that long, then I would agree it is unusable. However, you shouldn't make assumptions based on old models.
I took my old Canon 10D out a few days ago, shot about 8 or 9 shots and waited about 2 minutes for the first preview to appear.
As you note it's the compression that takes the time.
If you look back at my original comment I did make the point that mine is an old model and that newer models could well be O.K!
Roger I think your instincts are right, your older camera will have a slower processor and take longer to do the compression. 30 to 40 seconds would suit some shooting situations but wouldn't suit most. Nice to have the option still as you can't have too much card space.
Quote: That being so, is there any conceivable reason for using Uncompressed?
Not really, better to use JPG anyway, its a much better format to use on cameras that create such large files which only fill up card space.
Quote: Compressed lossless files can still be open with Photoshop
..and Lightroom
Quote: That being so, is there any conceivable reason for using Uncompressed?
Not really, better to use JPG anyway, its a much better format to use on cameras that create such large files which only fill up card space.
Card space is not really an issue.
I returned from my recent trip to America with 128Gb of images on 32Gb cards. That was about 2800 images taken in the "Lossless Compressed" Raw format that Nikon show as their recommended default setting.
I had not noticed the exposures being slow to write to the cards but have just checked it and the average time is about 3.5 seconds. (That's on a bog standard 32Gb SDHC card)
Where I think it might have been slower was in importing the files to Lightroom when I got home. I tended to stick a 32Gb card in the reader and go away and make a coffee while Lightroom did its stuff. Actual processing in Lightroom 4.1 is still lightning fast.
If there genuinely is no loss of image quality (as Nikon say), then I think that this 14-bit Lossless Compressed Raw format is probably the optimum one for me although I can see that "action" photographers might want to use the uncompressed format if it speeded up their capture.
Thanks for all the input - it was just that my brain had a problem getting round the concept of compressing data but not losing anything.
I use lossless compressed all the time on my D7000 (also on the D300) and have never experienced performance problems either in camera or loading onto the PC.
John I can't believe you think jpeg is the way to go! With compressed raw I can fit almost 500 images onto an 8gb SD card in the D7000 and know that I am still getting the maximum quality. On top of that, cards are hardly dear these days.
Quote: John I can't believe you think jpeg is the way to go!
Quote: I use lossless compressed all the time on my D7000 (also on the D300)
So do I, was just fishing for reactions Ian, LF wasn't biting though.
Add a Comment
ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.
Related Content
Join Our Free Newsletter
Awards
Current Competitions
Olympus 'Portraiture' Competition - Win £1000 Worth Of Gear!
30th April 2013 - 31st May 2013
This month, to celebrate the launch of Olympus' new micro site Olympus Image Space, Olympus are giving you the chance to win £1000 worth of Olympus gear!...
Featured e2 Photo
May's Photo Month
Check out ePHOTOzine's inspirational photo month calendar! Each day click on a window to unveil new photography tips, treats and techniques.
