What's incredible about uncompressed 14bit Raw is that you can do some pretty amazing noise reduction to it to the point where no detail is lost, even with spatial noise reduction
I never even thought to check image quality that way. Thank you! I do tend to push my shadows but I never thought about quality changes between continuous and single. I’m equally shocked 😳 that bulb exposures are also knocked down to 12 bit. That’s why we need you and Rusty, to read the manual and decipher it for us... and by us I mean me.
Thank you for this in-depth comparison of uncompressed and compressed RAW especially including sing and burst mode photos which actually do show some differences under extreme condition.
New year and a new video from David that we, interested in photography instead of technology, can understand and learn something practical in the real world. (..... yes and I missed rusty too....)
Very interesting! Thanks for this! Now I'm intriuged, as I mostly shoot astrophotography where it is especially important to be able to recover extreme shadow detail... Specifically, I usually stack at least 5 frames for noise reduction so I always have shooting mode set to 5 second timer with 5 continuous shots, so I guess this might be classed as continous shooting and may be dropping my files down to 12 bit, compared with 5 separate shots taken in timelapse mode or other shooting modes. Hmm, need to investigate my RAWs and carry out some tests!
Helpfull as always. For me it was one time only, to raise the shadows just above 5 stops on A7Rii RAW, but it worked for me. Now I understand why it worked :D
I just did my own uncompressed vs compressed test of my daughter's eye on the A74. I really could see the difference between the two! All my portraits will be uncompressed. If I'm taking family shots compressed will be just fine.
I wasn't sure about my A6400 either until this, but the bigger news for me is definitely the 14 bit or 12 bit depending on drive mode which seems to apply to all aps-c models as well
Thanks for testing. Thankfully it seems Sony made some changes with their RAW files, in that pics from my a7IV uncompressed are coming in at 34 to 36 meg in size. Okay my mistake, i've just realized i had it set to compressed raws..... did i mention this is my first sony 😁
Thats pretty annoying to find out for a year ive been using 12 bit raw files because I use continuous and compressed raw. Looks like im going to have to get to uncompressed and take the hit in FPS.
I have recently switched to compressed RAW when shooting sports. Has made an enormous difference and I love the smaller file size with no real loss of detail. Always stick to uncompressed RAW for wildlife photography.
I kind of do the same for wildlife except that for my "bird in a tree" setup I am in uncompressed and "bird in flight" I am in compressed. I haven't found that there is much if any difference with the compressed files for the primary subject so I prefer to go with more opportunities at the best movement position than worry about the background or maybe an slight shadow issues.
Just stinks that you lose so much function (fps) with uncompressed or lossless RAW. Hate that Sony went with CFExpress type A when the rest of the world is Type B. No hate on the Type A other than price. Coming from a D500, and 10Fps, feels a bit like a downgrade, especially when Canon is able to nearly double that. Idk what I’m upgrading to next just yet.
Very interesting. I am waiting for an A7iv and on my a6500 there is only one option for RAW. Since the file size is aroud 24 mb I guess it is compressed.
Yes according to the Sony website, A61, 63, 64, 65, 6600 & zv-10 all shoot only compressed raw Like the A7III though it's 14bit in single shot and 12bit in burst
Good topic, so to avoid 12bit and shoot burst you need to stay in uncompressed. I’ll admit I’ve used compressed most of the time but now I can see a need to switch it at times - of course this is driven by what your trying to photograph and your detail needs as I said good topic, thanks.
Yes uncompressed in burst seems to be the only way to stay in 14 bit, but then as you saw the 12 bit differences don't really show unless pushing the edits heavily so its ultimately a case of which settings best suite your situation
What physical camera and model are you shooting giving you 14bit COMPRESSED as well as 14bit decompressed?... At some point you shift the compressed to 12bit but others you have uncompressed(14bit) Don't you mean 12bit compressed? Just wondering thanks
In my experience with A6400 and lossy 12-bit raw, natural lighting renders somewhat odd and flat, like, well, there's not enough colour information. Especially with sunlight, spots of sunlight had like whitish pale look in it, and lacked some sort of a depth. At least I'm comparing it with my X-T3. It would be nice if this kind of tests with comparison of 12-bit and 14-bit raw where done on a field with some landscape scenery or something. Interestingly enough, I saw somewhat similar story in Lumix S5 and S5 II files. Totally forget about my A6400 experience but then googled if S5 has a lossy compression somehow. And there's some unconfirmed info, that it is. Idk whether it's just me noticing it or something, but I was really upset by this in Lumix cameras, I was thinking to switch to S5 IIx as a hybrid photo/video shooter.
The Sony A7IV (and I think some of the other newer sony cameras?) Include a 3rd option: Lossless Compressed RAW - "Lossless Comp: Records images using the lossless compression method, which causes no deterioration in image quality and has a high compression rate." Also, it looks like the Lossless Compression maintains 14 bit during burst mode (though does not give full 10fps, I think to get full 10fps with raw you still have to use Compressed, so you have to choose which is more important to you, the speed or the full 14 bit color...) - "RAW images recorded with this camera have a resolution of 14 bits per pixel. However, resolution is limited to 12 bits in the following shooting modes: [Cont. Shooting] when [RAW File Type] is set to [Compressed]" The Lossless Compressed files are not much bigger (if any) vs the Compressed, so it seems to be a good compromise. It's probably what I will be using most of the time vs Uncompressed at almost twice the file size... 🤷🏼♂️
I own the a74. I started shooting in Lossless when I first created my setup. I could not get windows 10 to recognize the files with 1) Sony windows driver 2) Raw Image Extension. Being able to see the file (in the folder), is pivotal! The Losless file type isn't an option for me. I tried everything. Portable hard drives are so easy to keep track of, I shoot uncompressed.
Interestingly enough, those resolution tests do make a difference in real photography, specifically in landscapes. The closest real life analog of resolution is distant twigs in trees, as well as blades of grass and fine detail in distant leaves. In this scenario, on an A7Rii, the difference between uncompressed and compressed is painfully evident, with the compressed raw images showing a ghosting effect around fine detail. Clearly, the only choice for this subject matter is uncompressed.
This was exactly my conclusion when I did a fairly quick and dirty test of the two, just after I had bought my a7iii. Compressed raw shows artifacts around fine details (at least high contrast details such as twigs that you mention) even when the image is perfectly exposed. This test convinced me to always shoot uncompressed raw. When I import to lightroom I convert to DNG, which reduces file size losslessly. (Lossless raw compression is something Canon has done perfectly since day one, without crippling their cameras' performance. Which makes you wonder why it's so hard still for Sony to get it right 15 years down the road.)
@@davidnaylor83 the only explanation I can think of is that Sony hired a bunch of very smart but non-photographer Microsoft developers to create their menu system and programming...
@@DaveMcKeegan Thank You, if you could find the same exact one but for the A1 would be awesome. I would really like to know more about the A1 and its different bit depths.
I have a Sony a7riii. Does shooting in compressed raw affect my ability to crop? The higher megapixels was one of the reasons I went with the riii, so I’d hate to negate one of the benefits of this particular camera by shooting in compressed. Thank you!
As Mike stated you'll be fine. Compressed doesn't impact the resolution at all - the only possible impact would be if you are cropping to the extreme then noise becomes more apparent which may show up between the 12 & 14 bit files
What about artist? Someone who want to be able to take his works some steps more than the basic, with using in Lightroom and Photoshop, and he need most flexibility for that? If it's relevant, I'm using at Sony a7R3.
May I ask did you use custom white balance while doing this shots and autofocus. Lastly I saw that long exposure ND reduces image quality. Would like to see those comparisons
Why all this fuss? If you make large files, buy a “bigger” SD card. You’ll be surprises how much and how fast you can get files on a 128. All this for getting a bit more burst and a few seconds faster transfer? You’ve got to be kidding. Isn’t photography about composing images anymore?
Its not just about bigger memory cards though, you've still got to store them on your computer which is then bigger hard drives, then larger files for your computer to process which takes more time that adds up significantly when trying to edits lots of photos or you need to invest money in a better spec'd computer ...
I now switched from A7III to A7IV, I'm curious if there is the same kind of change in burst mode or not. Could you give the source link of this Sony table plz ? Thx
anyone know if there is a comparison out there of this for astrophotography specifically? I am wondering what the impact would be for tracked/stacked shots. right now i shoot canon 6D but want to get an A7IV for video work but am not sure i should or if i should get an EOS R6
3:44 do you know where to find this info for the A7SIII? For some reason its not listed on that webpage. I know uncompressed would be 14bit, but what about compressed Raw specifically on the a7siii? Different cameras seem to have different settings that trigger the 12bit so im not sure what it is for the s3
Unfortunately not, I can't find any specifics for the SIII - the Sony page I referenced has been updated with the A7IV but no mention of the SIII Although the basic trend across all their cameras seems to be the same Uncompressed is always 14 bit, compressed is 14bit in single and 12bit in burst and bulb is 12bit I don't see the SIII being any worse than that so perhaps go with that assumption until something more concrete is confirmed Although if you have access to an SIII it's fairly easy to test
@@DaveMcKeegan Thank you so much for the reply. I actually do have an S3, I'll probably replicate your tests sometime soon. I wonder if there is a program that will show me if a photo is 14 or 12bit. But yes I agree the S3 is likely similar to the newer Sony cameras. I wonder if Silent Mode also triggers 12bit, but I guess I'll just run the tests & find out.
Overall to sum up as an A7 iii user: ✓ For day and good light use: *Compressed* ✓ For Night and Tricky light use: *unCompressed* Personally I prefer compressed because of file size 😊
also, i find it pretty stupid and unacceptable. These are CAMERAS; dedicated hardware to taking 14 bit raw images. Sony should shoot 14-bit all the way around allowing compressed/uncompressed versions, but always 14 bit
Good research. Also, the color cast issue when recovering shadows was fixed in later sensors (starting from the A9ii onwards).
Thank you, and thanks for the information regarding the colour cast
What's incredible about uncompressed 14bit Raw is that you can do some pretty amazing noise reduction to it to the point where no detail is lost, even with spatial noise reduction
I never even thought to check image quality that way. Thank you! I do tend to push my shadows but I never thought about quality changes between continuous and single. I’m equally shocked 😳 that bulb exposures are also knocked down to 12 bit. That’s why we need you and Rusty, to read the manual and decipher it for us... and by us I mean me.
Thank you for this in-depth comparison of uncompressed and compressed RAW especially including sing and burst mode photos which actually do show some differences under extreme condition.
New year and a new video from David that we, interested in photography instead of technology, can understand and learn something practical in the real world. (..... yes and I missed rusty too....)
Happy new year Eduardo :)
Very interesting! Thanks for this!
Now I'm intriuged, as I mostly shoot astrophotography where it is especially important to be able to recover extreme shadow detail... Specifically, I usually stack at least 5 frames for noise reduction so I always have shooting mode set to 5 second timer with 5 continuous shots, so I guess this might be classed as continous shooting and may be dropping my files down to 12 bit, compared with 5 separate shots taken in timelapse mode or other shooting modes. Hmm, need to investigate my RAWs and carry out some tests!
Helpfull as always. For me it was one time only, to raise the shadows just above 5 stops on A7Rii RAW, but it worked for me. Now I understand why it worked :D
Thanks, you too :)
I just did my own uncompressed vs compressed test of my daughter's eye on the A74. I really could see the difference between the two! All my portraits will be uncompressed. If I'm taking family shots compressed will be just fine.
Very interesting, thanks Dave! I didn´t knew that my A6300 only can shoot in compressed RAW!
I wasn't sure about my A6400 either until this, but the bigger news for me is definitely the 14 bit or 12 bit depending on drive mode which seems to apply to all aps-c models as well
Happy New Year Dave and Rusty.
Happy new year to you too Jim :)
Thanks for testing.
Thankfully it seems Sony made some changes with their RAW files, in that pics from my a7IV uncompressed are coming in at 34 to 36 meg in size.
Okay my mistake, i've just realized i had it set to compressed raws..... did i mention this is my first sony 😁
The first one is always the hardest ;-)
I've just started shooting raw and this is very useful content. Thank you!
Thats pretty annoying to find out for a year ive been using 12 bit raw files because I use continuous and compressed raw. Looks like im going to have to get to uncompressed and take the hit in FPS.
The fps only drop on the AIV or am I wrong
Happy New Year Dave, all the best to you and your family🙏
Thanks and to you too :)
Thank you Mr McKeegan. Hi Rusty. Good Boy......
You're welcome Mr Bailey :)
I wonder what the manufacturers use when they are putting out their burst rates? Probably compressed 5 bt jpegs. Very interesting. Thanks for posting.
Can't speak for all manufacturers but Sony seems to break down their buffer sizes based on various file types
I have recently switched to compressed RAW when shooting sports. Has made an enormous difference and I love the smaller file size with no real loss of detail. Always stick to uncompressed RAW for wildlife photography.
I kind of do the same for wildlife except that for my "bird in a tree" setup I am in uncompressed and "bird in flight" I am in compressed. I haven't found that there is much if any difference with the compressed files for the primary subject so I prefer to go with more opportunities at the best movement position than worry about the background or maybe an slight shadow issues.
Just stinks that you lose so much function (fps) with uncompressed or lossless RAW. Hate that Sony went with CFExpress type A when the rest of the world is Type B. No hate on the Type A other than price. Coming from a D500, and 10Fps, feels a bit like a downgrade, especially when Canon is able to nearly double that. Idk what I’m upgrading to next just yet.
Very interesting!
Keep up the good work!
Thank you Sina
Very nice explanation
Happy New Year Dave and Rusty, who appears unconcerned about the whole item ? 😊
That's pretty normal for him, if its not Leica he doesn't care ;-)
Does this apply to Nikon too? lossless compression vs uncompressed
Very interesting. I am waiting for an A7iv and on my a6500 there is only one option for RAW. Since the file size is aroud 24 mb I guess it is compressed.
Yes according to the Sony website, A61, 63, 64, 65, 6600 & zv-10 all shoot only compressed raw
Like the A7III though it's 14bit in single shot and 12bit in burst
3:50 God Bless you fro this
Awesome vid, concisely answered the Uncompressed RAW vs Compressed RAW question.
Much appreciated. I had no idea and now can’t wait to test this out
I've noticed that Leica SL's DNG is much faster to be processed in LR more than A7 III's (probably compressed) ARW
Excellent research, thanks for sharing this!
thank you !!
Good topic, so to avoid 12bit and shoot burst you need to stay in uncompressed. I’ll admit I’ve used compressed most of the time but now I can see a need to switch it at times - of course this is driven by what your trying to photograph and your detail needs as I said good topic, thanks.
Yes uncompressed in burst seems to be the only way to stay in 14 bit, but then as you saw the 12 bit differences don't really show unless pushing the edits heavily so its ultimately a case of which settings best suite your situation
What physical camera and model are you shooting giving you 14bit COMPRESSED as well as 14bit decompressed?... At some point you shift the compressed to 12bit but others you have uncompressed(14bit) Don't you mean 12bit compressed? Just wondering thanks
extremely helpful, thanks alot
In my experience with A6400 and lossy 12-bit raw, natural lighting renders somewhat odd and flat, like, well, there's not enough colour information. Especially with sunlight, spots of sunlight had like whitish pale look in it, and lacked some sort of a depth. At least I'm comparing it with my X-T3. It would be nice if this kind of tests with comparison of 12-bit and 14-bit raw where done on a field with some landscape scenery or something.
Interestingly enough, I saw somewhat similar story in Lumix S5 and S5 II files. Totally forget about my A6400 experience but then googled if S5 has a lossy compression somehow. And there's some unconfirmed info, that it is. Idk whether it's just me noticing it or something, but I was really upset by this in Lumix cameras, I was thinking to switch to S5 IIx as a hybrid photo/video shooter.
The Sony A7IV (and I think some of the other newer sony cameras?) Include a 3rd option: Lossless Compressed RAW - "Lossless Comp:
Records images using the lossless compression method, which causes no deterioration in image quality and has a high compression rate." Also, it looks like the Lossless Compression maintains 14 bit during burst mode (though does not give full 10fps, I think to get full 10fps with raw you still have to use Compressed, so you have to choose which is more important to you, the speed or the full 14 bit color...) - "RAW images recorded with this camera have a resolution of 14 bits per pixel. However, resolution is limited to 12 bits in the following shooting modes:
[Cont. Shooting] when [RAW File Type] is set to [Compressed]" The Lossless Compressed files are not much bigger (if any) vs the Compressed, so it seems to be a good compromise. It's probably what I will be using most of the time vs Uncompressed at almost twice the file size... 🤷🏼♂️
I own the a74. I started shooting in Lossless when I first created my setup. I could not get windows 10 to recognize the files with 1) Sony windows driver 2) Raw Image Extension. Being able to see the file (in the folder), is pivotal! The Losless file type isn't an option for me. I tried everything. Portable hard drives are so easy to keep track of, I shoot uncompressed.
Interestingly enough, those resolution tests do make a difference in real photography, specifically in landscapes.
The closest real life analog of resolution is distant twigs in trees, as well as blades of grass and fine detail in distant leaves.
In this scenario, on an A7Rii, the difference between uncompressed and compressed is painfully evident, with the compressed raw images showing a ghosting effect around fine detail.
Clearly, the only choice for this subject matter is uncompressed.
This was exactly my conclusion when I did a fairly quick and dirty test of the two, just after I had bought my a7iii. Compressed raw shows artifacts around fine details (at least high contrast details such as twigs that you mention) even when the image is perfectly exposed. This test convinced me to always shoot uncompressed raw. When I import to lightroom I convert to DNG, which reduces file size losslessly. (Lossless raw compression is something Canon has done perfectly since day one, without crippling their cameras' performance. Which makes you wonder why it's so hard still for Sony to get it right 15 years down the road.)
@@davidnaylor83 the only explanation I can think of is that Sony hired a bunch of very smart but non-photographer Microsoft developers to create their menu system and programming...
where did you exactly find the bit depth for all the sony cameras also do you have one for the sony A1?
I found them hiding on a page under Sony's website
www.sony.com/electronics/support/articles/00229990
@@DaveMcKeegan Thank You, if you could find the same exact one but for the A1 would be awesome. I would really like to know more about the A1 and its different bit depths.
I have a Sony a7riii. Does shooting in compressed raw affect my ability to crop? The higher megapixels was one of the reasons I went with the riii, so I’d hate to negate one of the benefits of this particular camera by shooting in compressed. Thank you!
I always shoot compressed raw on my A7Riii - it has no effect on cropping at all. Images still look great! :)
@@mikemulcahy Good to know! Thank you for the reply! 🙌
As Mike stated you'll be fine. Compressed doesn't impact the resolution at all - the only possible impact would be if you are cropping to the extreme then noise becomes more apparent which may show up between the 12 & 14 bit files
What about artist? Someone who want to be able to take his works some steps more than the basic, with using in Lightroom and Photoshop, and he need most flexibility for that?
If it's relevant, I'm using at Sony a7R3.
May I ask did you use custom white balance while doing this shots and autofocus. Lastly I saw that long exposure ND reduces image quality. Would like to see those comparisons
So, the lesson is to try to shoot in burst mode less in low-light situations when you're shooting compressed RAW. Thanks for sharing.
Why all this fuss? If you make large files, buy a “bigger” SD card. You’ll be surprises how much and how fast you can get files on a 128.
All this for getting a bit more burst and a few seconds faster transfer? You’ve got to be kidding. Isn’t photography about composing images anymore?
Its not just about bigger memory cards though, you've still got to store them on your computer which is then bigger hard drives, then larger files for your computer to process which takes more time that adds up significantly when trying to edits lots of photos or you need to invest money in a better spec'd computer ...
I now switched from A7III to A7IV, I'm curious if there is the same kind of change in burst mode or not.
Could you give the source link of this Sony table plz ?
Thx
What about lossless compressed??
anyone know if there is a comparison out there of this for astrophotography specifically? I am wondering what the impact would be for tracked/stacked shots. right now i shoot canon 6D but want to get an A7IV for video work but am not sure i should or if i should get an EOS R6
the first 5 seconds i though it was "charly" from lost
3:44 do you know where to find this info for the A7SIII? For some reason its not listed on that webpage.
I know uncompressed would be 14bit, but what about compressed Raw specifically on the a7siii? Different cameras seem to have different settings that trigger the 12bit so im not sure what it is for the s3
Unfortunately not, I can't find any specifics for the SIII - the Sony page I referenced has been updated with the A7IV but no mention of the SIII
Although the basic trend across all their cameras seems to be the same Uncompressed is always 14 bit, compressed is 14bit in single and 12bit in burst and bulb is 12bit
I don't see the SIII being any worse than that so perhaps go with that assumption until something more concrete is confirmed
Although if you have access to an SIII it's fairly easy to test
@@DaveMcKeegan Thank you so much for the reply. I actually do have an S3, I'll probably replicate your tests sometime soon. I wonder if there is a program that will show me if a photo is 14 or 12bit. But yes I agree the S3 is likely similar to the newer Sony cameras. I wonder if Silent Mode also triggers 12bit, but I guess I'll just run the tests & find out.
Good to know. Im sure its worse on my Sony A7R III.
Overall to sum up as an A7 iii user:
✓ For day and good light use: *Compressed*
✓ For Night and Tricky light use: *unCompressed*
Personally I prefer compressed because of file size 😊
Pretty much the same basic rule I follow
i recognise that waterfall 😁
Your memory isn't failing :)
@@DaveMcKeegan nope lol. hoping to get back up there sometime this year well thats when my car starts behaving itself
I'm might if the kids start behaving themselves ... So probably not 🤣
@@DaveMcKeegan haha
What a beautiful dog!
also, i find it pretty stupid and unacceptable. These are CAMERAS; dedicated hardware to taking 14 bit raw images. Sony should shoot 14-bit all the way around allowing compressed/uncompressed versions, but always 14 bit
8:02 😂