michael_levy3 Posted October 7, 2018 Share Posted October 7, 2018 Why does the Z 7 offer "Uncompressed" and "Lossless Compressed" modes for saving RAW files? Any advantage to uncompressed? Processing time, perhaps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heimbrandt Posted October 7, 2018 Share Posted October 7, 2018 This is not unique to the Z7. There are no specific advantages to using uncompressed RAW. Compressing without compromising on image quality (lossless compressed) reduces file size, which increases buffer size, frames per second and reduces the time it takes to clear the buffer (writing to the memory card). This is a good and informative article on the subject: Compressed vs Uncompressed vs Lossless Compressed RAW Options - Photography Life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_levy3 Posted October 8, 2018 Author Share Posted October 8, 2018 This is not unique to the Z7. There are no specific advantages to using uncompressed RAW. Compressing without compromising on image quality (lossless compressed) reduces file size, which increases buffer size, frames per second and reduces the time it takes to clear the buffer (writing to the memory card). This is a good and informative article on the subject: Compressed vs Uncompressed vs Lossless Compressed RAW Options - Photography Life Thanks for the link. I wonder why Nikon bothers offering uncompressed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted October 8, 2018 Share Posted October 8, 2018 I have read that in some legal cases, the law requires that images for evidence must be unaltered, hence it must be completely raw, not compressed. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Garrard Posted October 8, 2018 Share Posted October 8, 2018 I have read that in some legal cases, the law requires that images for evidence must be unaltered, hence it must be completely raw, not compressed. Wow. That's a pedantic interpretation of "unaltered", although I could believe some weird precedent got set for it. Lossily compressed I'd understand, but since Nikon has historically cooked the raw files slightly anyway... The argument I've heard for fully uncompressed (other than dating back to the days when compressed got written slower) is that if there's corruption with the file, you've got a better chance of recovering the rest of the image if it's uncompressed - effectively corrupted card elements correspond to corrupted image elements (unless they hit the header) but everything else should be okay, whereas if it's compressed, there's a decent chance that a lot of the file depends on other bits of the file. On the down side, a larger file is more likely to hit card failures in the first place. I generally shoot 14-bit lossless compressed (+JPEG fine), although I'm thinking of training myself to use 12-bit for higher ISO shooting. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted October 8, 2018 Share Posted October 8, 2018 If the disk is very fast and the processor slow, uncompressed NEF can be faster to convert than lossless compressed NEF, but this was quite some years ago when I compared them (I think with 12MP). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now