LesR
member
Reged: 25/10/2006
Posts: 105
|
|
Hi all,
My camera has the option of uncompressed NEF or lossless compressed NEF files (as well as compressed). My question is, is the uncompressed file better quality than the lossless file, if not why would you use the uncompressed file? If it is better then I would rather use uncompresed files and get more cards.
Any ideas? 
Les
--------------------
http://www.flickr.com/photos/les_r/
|
Fen
BAD WOLF
Reged: 12/03/2002
Posts: 21374
Loc: London'ish
|
|
The Nikon website says:
==============================================================
There are 3 different types of method of recording RAW files. These are selectable from the shooting menu in the camera.
Lossless Compressed
This method uses a compression algorithm that is reversible. This means that the images are compressed to save space on the card but the type of compression used can be reversed so that the image is restored to it's full quality when opened.
Lossless compression allows the best image quality to be recorded whilst saving space on the memory card. This method of saving RAW files is ideal for users of Capture NX or View NX
Compressed
This method also compresses the data to reduce it's size on the card but this method uses a non reversible algorithm. Therefore data that has been removed from the image can not be restored later.
Compressed is most useful where available space is an issue on cards but the NEF format is still required.
Uncompressed
This file format does not apply any compression to the images when recorded on the card. This means that files will be larger and take longer to write to the card than when using compression.
Uncompressed offers the best image quality without applying any compression to the file. This method is useful for customers who wish to use 3rd party software to open their images.
The file size that is recorded in the camera is dependent on the type of RAW compression used. The chart below shows the percentage of reduction in file size depending on which method of storing the file is used.
==============================================================
After reading that I think the important bit is This method is useful for customers who wish to use 3rd party software to open their images.
I haven't tried the compressed files in Lightroom as I've been shooting uncompressed.
--------------------
Fen .......... My Galleries - My Blog - My Flickr
|
LesR
member
Reged: 25/10/2006
Posts: 105
|
|
Thanks Fen for the speedy reply.
In that case I think I will stick to the uncompressed files, as space is so cheap nowdays.
Les
--------------------
http://www.flickr.com/photos/les_r/
|
lightspeed
member
Reged: 17/09/2006
Posts: 117
|
|
I use lossless compresssed on my D300. Uncompressed files are huge (~16MB per picture) whereas lossless compressed are around 10-12MB. These smaller files not only take up less room on the memory card, but down-load and process quicker.
I use Capture, but I used to use Rawshooter for RAW conversion, and this never had any problems with the compressed NEFS.
Best option is to try the lossless files and see whether they work with your RAW converter.
|
GeoffR
Reged: 31/05/2003
Posts: 3936
Loc: Bucks
|
|
I use only uncompressed, which gives a file size of 20MB and equates to just under 200 images on a 4GB card. I haven't tried the lossless compression but that is because I am not keen to release control of any aspect back to the camera.
I know Capture NX can cope with Compressed NEFs but I just want to keep all the data. If you need the files to be smaller go ahead but memory space is pretty cheap these days and I don't really see the point.
|
Malinois
Reged: 28/04/2001
Posts: 94
Loc: Yorkshire
|
|
Hi,
I am trying to sort out an issue here and not sure if it is my camera or my computer monitor.
When you download the first pic of the apples, if you zoom in on the charger unit is the text on it blurred?
Please note, this is not anything to do with the shot, I am just trying to work out if my monitor is making me think my camera is faulty.
Ian
|
Fen
BAD WOLF
Reged: 12/03/2002
Posts: 21374
Loc: London'ish
|
|
Ian,
Have you posted this in the right place?
--------------------
Fen .......... My Galleries - My Blog - My Flickr
|
lightspeed
member
Reged: 17/09/2006
Posts: 117
|
|
Quote:
I use only uncompressed, which gives a file size of 20MB and equates to just under 200 images on a 4GB card. I haven't tried the lossless compression but that is because I am not keen to release control of any aspect back to the camera.
I know Capture NX can cope with Compressed NEFs but I just want to keep all the data. If you need the files to be smaller go ahead but memory space is pretty cheap these days and I don't really see the point.
Well, the point is if you're not losing anything (hence lossless compression) why would you want to waste your card space, hard-drive space, and slow your computer down for no good reason? I'm about as fanatical about quality as the next guy, which is why I use the lossless compression, as opposed to just compression to quote from Nikon:
Lossless Compressed This method uses a compression algorithm that is reversible. This means that the images are compressed to save space on the card but the type of compression used can be reversed so that the image is restored to it's full quality when opened. Lossless compression allows the best image quality to be recorded whilst saving space on the memory card. This method of saving RAW files is ideal for users of Capture NX or View NX
Note "the image is restored to it's full quality when opened."
I imagine this is similar to "zipping" a computer file. Once the file is un-zipped, the original document is restored completely.
|
Malinois
Reged: 28/04/2001
Posts: 94
Loc: Yorkshire
|
|
Hi,
yes, sorry I was sort of hijacking the thread by using your pics to see if it is my monitor that is showing things which should be in focus to appear out of focus.
Ian
|
Fen
BAD WOLF
Reged: 12/03/2002
Posts: 21374
Loc: London'ish
|
|
Quote:
Hi,
yes, sorry I was sort of hijacking the thread by using your pics to see if it is my monitor that is showing things which should be in focus to appear out of focus.
That's what confused me, as there are no images linked in this thread?
--------------------
Fen .......... My Galleries - My Blog - My Flickr
|
GeoffR
Reged: 31/05/2003
Posts: 3936
Loc: Bucks
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
I use only uncompressed, which gives a file size of 20MB and equates to just under 200 images on a 4GB card. I haven't tried the lossless compression but that is because I am not keen to release control of any aspect back to the camera.
I know Capture NX can cope with Compressed NEFs but I just want to keep all the data. If you need the files to be smaller go ahead but memory space is pretty cheap these days and I don't really see the point.
Well, the point is if you're not losing anything (hence lossless compression) why would you want to waste your card space, hard-drive space, and slow your computer down for no good reason? I'm about as fanatical about quality as the next guy, which is why I use the lossless compression, as opposed to just compression to quote from Nikon:
Lossless Compressed This method uses a compression algorithm that is reversible. This means that the images are compressed to save space on the card but the type of compression used can be reversed so that the image is restored to it's full quality when opened. Lossless compression allows the best image quality to be recorded whilst saving space on the memory card. This method of saving RAW files is ideal for users of Capture NX or View NX
Note "the image is restored to it's full quality when opened."
I imagine this is similar to "zipping" a computer file. Once the file is un-zipped, the original document is restored completely.
A valid point but a 20MB file transfers from Card to Hard disk in 2 seconds and I carry 250GB of external hard disk storage. Which means neither speed or space is an issue. On the current trip I have 32GB of memory cards and two bodies so the issue for me is battery life if I use the computer away from hotels and the car (I have a power converter for use in the car, or on the plane).
Compressing files takes additional time and battery power so I think I will stick with uncompressed for now.
|
LesR
member
Reged: 25/10/2006
Posts: 105
|
|
Thanks for all your comments, very useful.
My thought was, if lossless compressed and uncompressed gave you exactly the same quality and control why would Nikon give you the option of uncompressed files - just to fill up your cards quicker ? .
Do they have shares in SanDisk 
Thanks again
Les
--------------------
http://www.flickr.com/photos/les_r/
|
LesR
member
Reged: 25/10/2006
Posts: 105
|
|
Just had a thought while walking the dog ( its good for the mind).
If as Nikon say
"Lossless compression allows the best image quality to be recorded whilst saving space on the memory card. This method of saving RAW files is ideal for users of Capture NX or View NX"
Could not the last sentance be the answer, does NX know something about the compressed files that other Raw converters can not access?
A thought anyway 
Les
--------------------
http://www.flickr.com/photos/les_r/
|
Learning
Ethelred the Ill-Named
Reged: 26/09/2006
Posts: 2463
Loc: Nottingham
|
|
Quote:
Could not the last sentance be the answer, does NX know something about the compressed files that other Raw converters can not access?
Les
It does if Nikon know anything about designing a file format that forces you to pay an extra £100+ for their software that should have come included in the first place.
|
hil26
member
Reged: 07/11/2007
Posts: 108
Loc: North Wales
|
|
Quote:
I use only uncompressed, which gives a file size of 20MB and equates to just under 200 images on a 4GB card. I haven't tried the lossless compression but that is because I am not keen to release control of any aspect back to the camera.
Hmmm - lossless compressed on my D300 gives 197 images on a 4 GB Sandisk Extreme III card - strange
--------------------
always in search of that magic moment
Please read the forum guidelines RE reciprocal links before adding URLs here. Thank you. Admin.
|
GeoffR
Reged: 31/05/2003
Posts: 3936
Loc: Bucks
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
I use only uncompressed, which gives a file size of 20MB and equates to just under 200 images on a 4GB card. I haven't tried the lossless compression but that is because I am not keen to release control of any aspect back to the camera.
Hmmm - lossless compressed on my D300 gives 197 images on a 4 GB Sandisk Extreme III card - strange
My D2X and D2Xs both show 198 with an empty card but will give around 201 images on 4GB, uncompressed.
|
lightspeed
member
Reged: 17/09/2006
Posts: 117
|
|
I think you will find that the counter shows the same number of frames remaining for un-compressed and lossless compressed options.
This is because the camera does not know how much each image can be compressed (as it depends on the amount of detail in the image) so the camera assumes that each image could take up the same size as an uncompressed image.
In practice, though, with lossless compressed images you will get more shots than the counter indicates, since files will be smaller than the uncompressed files.
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
