percepts
Established
Just wondering if using DNG uncompressed affects performance at all? Infact I'm wodering whether there is any perceivable difference between uncompressed and compressed as all that the specs seem to be saying is that colour depth is reduced and most output devices only use sRGB anyway.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Tried it. Saw no difference. Went back to compressed.
Of course this holds good only for (a) my pictures and (b) my quality standards.
Cheers,
R.
Of course this holds good only for (a) my pictures and (b) my quality standards.
Cheers,
R.
jamato8
Corroding tank M9 35 ASPH
It may but so far I use compressed as uncompressed uses too much room and my computer is way too slow. With a new computer and an assignment that would require max, I would try it out.
scottwallick
ambition ≥ skill
I shoot uncompressed. Disk space is cheap. I have plenty.
I started out shooting compressed but then thought, why not shoot for maximum quality? I don't have a reason not to, so I do.
I started out shooting compressed but then thought, why not shoot for maximum quality? I don't have a reason not to, so I do.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
What kind of file size difference are we talking here?
jamato8
Corroding tank M9 35 ASPH
Twice as big a file.
250swb
Well-known
On the basis that you never know what the future will bring I use uncompressed.
Steve
Steve
swoop
Well-known
At the rate I shoot space isn't cheap. I use compressed. Sometimes I'll even go JPEG for events and sports.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
I find that if you have a shot that needs extensive postprocessing, uncompressed files will be more robust - other than that, there is no visible difference in quality. However, give that memory space is cheap, two terabyte disks are offered at amazingly low prices, and that a reasonably up to date computer can handle the files with ease, there is no reason to shoot compressed. The argument that future postprocessing might make a difference is valid.
proenca
Proenca
I shoot uncompressed : small gains indeed over the compressed , specially at a higher cost ( twice the file size ) but.... space is cheap, memory cards are cheap and big hard disk is cheap... so like someone said, you never know tomorrow how big you want to print that picture and sometimes that small gain was just what was needed.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Wow. Anyway, the compression algorithm is lossless. That spells: no quality degradation.
scottwallick
ambition ≥ skill
Does that mean there is no difference in compressed vs. uncompressed files? If so, a bit silly of Leica to have included this 'feature'.
user237428934
User deletion pending
No. It's not silly because AFAIK Adobe made the specification of DNG and they specified a compressed and an uncompressed version. So Leica only implemented the specification.
yanidel
Well-known
I use compressed. Space is cheap but larger files slow down my computer. Also since I back up all my pictures to Flickr, upload time is faster too.
As for quality, you have to pixel peep to see it. On a normal size print, it won't make a difference.
As for quality, you have to pixel peep to see it. On a normal size print, it won't make a difference.
user237428934
User deletion pending
Has someone ever lost a letter when compressing a textfile with ZIP? No? Can't be, because ZIP compresses lossless. Exactly as DNG compression is lossless.
Like said before it could only be a handling difference for the programs.
Like said before it could only be a handling difference for the programs.
lorenzo.ferrarini
Member
Is the camera slower at writing bigger files? Or faster, as it doesn't have to compress them? Or no difference?
bottley1
only to feel
Tried both. Uncompressed was markedly slower, twice the file size, with results identical. Decided i could not see the point.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Yes, there is a difference. It is a lossy compression. Leica uses a logarithmic algorithm that compresses more in the highlights than in the shadows. That means the losses are minimal in the blacks and quite high in the light tones. As this matches the sensitivity curve of the human eye, it is usually not noticable. However, if you start pulling high tones down by burning in postprocessing, or want to do HDR from one file, the difference can be quite visible quality loss in the lighter tonal range. Those that have been using the (uncompressed) DMR besides the (compressed) M8 have been aware of this for years. Another effect is that uncompressed files stand up better to sharpening.
nksyoon
Well-known
I thought that the uncompressed format was 12 bit while the compressed was 8 bit (like the M8)?
From the M9 technical data on the website:
"DNG™ (raw data), choice of uncompressed or slightly compressed (by non-linear reduction of color depth)"
From the manual:
"The Compressed format includes a slight compression,
which
– causes only a negligible deterioration in quality
– provides full scope for subsequent processing of
the picture data
– allows faster saving
– takes up less memory space."
From the M9 technical data on the website:
"DNG™ (raw data), choice of uncompressed or slightly compressed (by non-linear reduction of color depth)"
From the manual:
"The Compressed format includes a slight compression,
which
– causes only a negligible deterioration in quality
– provides full scope for subsequent processing of
the picture data
– allows faster saving
– takes up less memory space."
user237428934
User deletion pending
Now I am surprised that it's really a lossy compression. That's not what I expect when I hear DNG or Digital Negative.