Nikon Z8/Z9 raw file compression tests.

sk66

sk66

Suspended / Banned
Messages
9,557
Name
Steven
Edit My Images
Yes
I tested all levels of raw file compression for signal to noise ratio; and for recoverability from extreme underexposure, extreme overexposure; and for editability/banding with hard exposure and color changes. The results will probably surprise you.

View: https://youtu.be/RLLn3nG6uM8?si=CRZo1slgILrMhqA9
 
Interesting, enjoyed your print size video as well which I watched shortly afterwards.

This reminds me of the FLAC, 320 MP3 debate, youve argubly objectively shown you dont need to use RAW and you have transparent results with a much smaller file size and the people will cry "SHOOT LOSSLESS RAW STORAGE IS CHEAP", and although thats true we forget all the quality of life improvements with dealing with smaller files

Seems there is some under the radarr great innovation going on away from megapickles and high iso
 
Thanks for that, Steven

You may remember that we had a short dialogue on this a little while ago

Although I did not carry out any quantitative experiments (shame on me as a professional engineer!) I elected, after subjective review of recovering underexposed files, to shoot HE*

A couple of friends had read many on-line findings from people who had tested a range of CF Express cards and concluded that they MUST have the exotic varieties at, what seemed to me to be, enormous expense.

I opted to buy one inexpensive card (Integral Ultima128GB) costing < 100GBP and see how it performed in my real world - I often shoot sport at up to 15fps. If it didn't meet my requirements I could always go for the exotica at several hundred GBP and keep the Integral for landscapes etc.

I found that using HE* at 15fps I could shoot for >30s before the buffer caused hiccups - good enough for my purposes. 20fps, BTW, gives me about a 10s burst.
Lossless NEF gives me >30s at 15fps and 3s at 20fps

I've now purchased a couple more Integrals and do not regret my decision one bit.

At 15 fps, which is my go to frame rate, I often return from an event (Soccer, Rugby Union, motorsport etc) with over 2000images to review and I don't think I've ever missed the decisive moment. Goodness knows how I would deal with more files if shooting at 20 fps, or more. I do sense that I'm being looked down upon because I haven't got the very fastest card available, but I'm comfortable in the knowledge that I'm taking photos in the real world rather than specification chasing.
 
Last edited:
acrobatic_Citron said:
"SHOOT LOSSLESS RAW STORAGE IS CHEAP", and although thats true we forget all the quality of life improvements with dealing with smaller files
Click to expand...
Yup. Another benefit of recording smaller files that I forgot to mention is that it increases battery and card life. And I don't find storage to be that cheap or convenient... I wonder how many that say that actually have a good 3 tier backup system with drives stored in fireproof safes and in the cloud (or remotely).
 
yzfmike said:
I found that using HE* at 15fps I could shoot for >30s before the buffer caused hiccups - good enough for my purposes. 20fps, BTW, gives me about a 10s burst.
Lossless NEF gives me >30s at 15fps and 3s at 20fps
Click to expand...
I can't imagine ever holding the shutter release for 10 seconds... but if you ever did need more you could use HE without concern.
I use a few 128GB Delkin Power cards.

Although I did not carry out any quantitative experiments (shame on me as a professional engineer!) I elected, after subjective review of recovering underexposed files, to shoot HE*[\quote]
Click to expand...
That's why I did the tests... all I was able to find was subjective/anecdotal opinions of questionable validity.
 
Last edited:
Out of interest did you do find anything similar back in the day with D3/4 lossy compressed vs lossless uncompressed raws
 
acrobatic_Citron said:
Out of interest did you do find anything similar back in the day with D3/4 lossy compressed vs lossless uncompressed raws
Click to expand...
I didn't do the same tests or degree of testing, and the files are/were much smaller. But since most of my use with those cameras was at ISO's ≥400 I used lossless compressed 12bit. And in most situations I doubt I would have found any issue using the compressed raw files either.

One of the main ways lossy compression works is by discarding/compressing visually useless/redundant data... (even the uncompressed raw typically discards some useless data)
 
I keep getting mixed up with the different formats, is High Efficiency * the larger size compressed format and High Efficiency (no star) the smaller size but in your testing you've found no difference so you're sticking with the High Efficiency (no star)?
 
JohnMcL7 said:
I keep getting mixed up with the different formats, is High Efficiency * the larger size compressed format and High Efficiency (no star) the smaller size but in your testing you've found no difference so you're sticking with the High Efficiency (no star)?
Click to expand...
Yes...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top