photo5 Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 I'm sticking with 12 bit lossless compressed for now even though I don't need the speed the D300 offers at that setting. Here's an interesting article showing the advantages of 14bit I thought many of you would be interested in reading. http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/nikon-d300-d3-14-bit-versus-12-bit.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellis_vener_photography Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 I don't shoot anything but 14 bit NEFS on my D3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
douglas lee Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 Well, I have many other things to overcome before worrying about 12 bit vs. 14 bit. However, I did notice, and have read, that 14 bit on the D300 really slows the camera down. Well, the max fps is 2.5 (I think) with 14 bit. Now, the D3 is different in that fps are not affected. I assume that is because the D3 has dual processors, but have not been able to confirm that. Bottom line for me is until my skills with the camera and pp improve, I doubt 14 bit will help me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rarmstrong Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 Dave, Very nice article and thank you for pointing me to it. I'm currently shooting in fine JPEG with very nice results with my D300. I'm just learning about post processing and only have iPhoto to work with now on a new iMac with Leopard. I've been reading a lot about Aperture which still doesn't support RAW conversion for the D300 and comparing it to Photoshop CS3. There is a lot to learn out there about shooting in RAW and I'd like to make a good choice when I finally get the software. Any suggestions? Thanks, Dick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photo5 Posted February 1, 2008 Author Share Posted February 1, 2008 Hi Dick, While I do not have any experience or knowledge of Aperture, I've heard very good things about Adobe Lightroom. I've only briefly used the trial version, I use Photoshop CS3 and Nikon Capture NX for RAW conversions. I too shoot Fine JPG (and Normal JPG) most of the time with my D300. The quality is so good, that with a slight unsharp mask they are identical to converted NEF files from Capture NX. Have you tried Capture NX? I got the free copy with my D300. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_ Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 I suspect in most situations the value of 14 bits is dubious. The overall imaging chain appears (from some data published recently) to be noise limited by the sensor, other than at ISO 100. So, unless you're shooting in very cold climates (reducing the sensor's thermal kTB noise), quantizing to more bits buys little. Indeed, one could digitize with a "perfect" (doesn't exist) 20 bit ADC and see no advantage. The sensor noise characteristics and ADC at 12 bits are well-matched. The benefit of 14 bits seems to kick in around ISO 100 - makes sense, sensor noise is less. In either case, when subsequently post-processed in a 16 bit space, there's extra room for bit growth precision enabling better rounding when going back to 8 bits for printing. www.citysnaps.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjt Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 D3, 14 bit only - period. the reasons are clear ... more information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walterh Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 Hm if I read this correctly the "12-bit shadows" and the "14-bit shadows" comparison shown in the above link suggest that there is less noise in the 14bit sampling process in the sensor, possibly a side effect of the slower sampling required for the higher bit resolution. Perhaps I am wrong but I get the impression that the better result of the 14bit example cannot be explained solely by the higher bit resolution. Did anybody do a thorough analysis? The link seems a bit vague here. Does anybody have mathcad handy? A quick gaussian noise generation at 16bit and conversion to either 12bit or 14bit might show the theoretical expectation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tri-x1 Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 From what I've heard you can't tell the difference between 12- and 14-bit on a computer monitor. For now I'm shooting everything 12-bit raw because I can get more pictures on a card. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonybeach Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 I found the follow-up article interesting, it can be read here: http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/14-bit-raw-12-bit-part-two.html It corresponds to what I have seen, which is that it takes a lot of enlargement (300% or more) to see a difference in 14 bit and 12 bit files on my computer monitor. Nonetheless, if I'm shooting for quality I use 14 bit and if I'm shooting for speed I have no reservations shooting 12 bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
t_n1 Posted February 2, 2008 Share Posted February 2, 2008 I have D300. I don't use 14 bit. The frame rate reduction doesn't bother me. However the noticeable shutter lag does interfere with my shooting. When I use a tripod (esp for landscapes), I usually use 14 bit. I don't shoot with D3, so I cannot comment on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rconey Posted February 2, 2008 Share Posted February 2, 2008 If more information, I would think that active D lighting would be better in 14 bit vs 12 bit. A comment in the articles on signal to noise ratio issues makes me wonder. Anyone know any facts on the matter? Shooting landscapes, slowing down the camera doesn't bother me. The theoretical increase in raw data is appealing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rconey Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 I am reminded that active D lighting is thought to be a post capture event. If so, it is the equivalent of other post processing software to bring out shadow detail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 Regular D lighting is a post thing, but I belive active D lighting involves recording additional data (I suppose this can be compared with HDR except that it's more automated in the capture stage). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellis_vener_photography Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 "I am reminded that active D lighting is thought to be a post capture event." This is incorrect. It';s applied while the signal from each individual photosite is being recorded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_ Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 >>> Regular D lighting is a post thing, but I belive active D lighting involves recording additional data I have a feeling, but have seen no evidence, that active D lighting can subtly adjust the gain of *each* pixel independently, at capture time. Not in a closed-loop fashion - not enough time to to collect/measure image data and write back millions of gain values. But each pixel's amplifier could slightly reduce it's gain for luminous energy approaching full-scale saturation. Stand-alone soft compression - like a log-amp's behavior for large signals. www.citysnaps.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom_luongo1 Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 Ellis, will active D lighting work if the camera is set to manual exposure? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rconey Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 If active D lighting is working at capture, would post processing of shadow areas using active D lighting be better (less noise) than the same post processing of shadow areas not using active D lighting. That should be measurable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daniel_brewster Posted March 16, 2008 Share Posted March 16, 2008 I'm still debating between 12 and 14 bit - the article mentioned above does a great job of explaining why you might want 14 bit. I guess we'll all have to figure out the trade off between speed, size, and 12/14. For those still shooting jpgs, though, consider shooting in raw format NOW. I kick myself for the thousands of images that I shoot in jpg when I could have done raw. There is so much more you can do with raw. Adobe Lightroom is the best piece of software I've come across in a long, long, long time. Lightroom helps me to become the photographer I've always pretended to be... :) 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