Have any of you Nikon shooters ever try compressed raw?

What, if any, difference did you see between compressed and uncompressed?

I have noticed little difference and the big gain is half the file size.

I had an email exchange with Nikon guru Thom Hogan about compressed NEF and he said it has a tendency to clip highlights on overexposed images with no chance of recovery. Then again he's a landscape and nature photographer primarily, so I doubt he's knocking out 1200+ images in a few hours of wedding photography every week.

That being said we shoot compressed NEF with D2X bodies and like it fine. The difference in file size and quality compared to JPEG Fine is big enough to justify it, though not enough to go uncompressed (IMO).

I tried shooting compressed RAW with a D100. It took about 30 seconds to write each file. Uncompressed was about three seconds, if not faster.

Not that that helps you at all. I shoot compressed on cameras that can do it quickly.

Thanks guys. Adam - I haven't noticed any speed difference on the D200.

I shoot compressed as well. Generally banging out 2300-2500 shots per wedding, and with compressed RAW on a D200 that's still around 20GB. Memory may be cheap, but it ain't free yet.

Thanks Ryan - after the last wedding topped 50G, I knew it wouldn't last.

50GB? That's just excessive...

Yeah, it's like 12 DVDs just to back up. As it is I get frustrated it takes me 5.

Hey, don't yell at me - it's Amanda with the itchy trigger finger

I also shoot compressed RAW with the D200. Plenty fast and like Ryan I love the size of the files. Much more manageable. I don't do DVD backup, as I do a double drive backup system, but at the same time, it still saves me plenty of drive space. I usually fill 3-8gb cards at a wedding (sometimes more if its a longer day), so the compressed size can really make an impact!

Thanks Judy!

Have you noticed any quality difference b/w compressed and un?

Here's the deal on compression. You'll always have a quality difference. It's just whether you'll notice it. When I worked in a prepress house, our scanner operator wouldn't let us back up using software or hardware compression on the Exabyte tapes, because he could see a difference. But nobody else could. Really -- nobody! This was compression built into the tape drive just for archiving. Or, in the case of software compression, built into Retrospect.

The point is that I doubt you'll notice any difference unless you look for it -- and then only if you have an uncompressed file to compare it to. And you'll save lots of drive space. If you don't care about drive/card space, then don't compress. That's the only reason to do it.

Adam,

Sorry but that guy was seeing things that literally weren't there. Tape backup compression does not alter your files. period. at all.

Jpeg is a lossy compression, you do lose quality.

Nate,

Nikon compressed RAW has less highlight detail as the previous poster pointed out. If you see a situation where you know you're going to need the max dynamic range the camera can give, then switch back to uncompressed, otherwise the compressed NEFs are great!

~Bill

As Bill mentions, its pretty much a no brainer that you don't see any quality difference in the uncompressed files, but stands to reason that it would clip the hightlights.

Having said that, I have a tendency to overexpose my images (call it my way around the "grain" issue with Nikon LOL). And even under those circumstances, almost in all cases will Bibble return the detail in the bride's dress for me.

I rarely worry at all!!

Hey nate. I found this great article. And well it seems to be that the compressed raws are techincally lossless. This is because it's captuing all of the data just in a different way. The Analog to digital converter only goes through at most 683 (digital) levels before matching the input (analog signal from the sensor) which mean that the format itself technically doesn't lose any information from the Sensor+ADC combo, but the resulting image has clipped highlights compared an un-compressed nef. Confusing eh?

I'd say try out the compressed. And if it works for you then go for it, otherwise don't.

It all depends on the file size.

The D70 shoots compressed RAW and it comes down to a 4-6MB file (6.2mp).

I understand that the D200 RAW file gets up to 20mb so getting to 50 GB it does not sound that crazy. If you shoot just 1,000 images at 20mb each it comes up to 20gb. And if you have two shooter you may see something around the 50gb mark. Of course, that is if the D200 file is 20mb (I will find that out soon when I receive my two new D200).

50 gigs is a lot. It might be easier to give Amanda a video camera. At least she won't get Carpal tunnel syndrome.

-bill

50gig
/
16mb per file
/
2 shooters
/
12 hours
=
about two clicks a minute per shooter

I may have to try this out. I'm going through backup hard drives like crazy with full RAW files. I never noticed a significant difference in the quality of files that I was getting from my D70 vs my D200 besides the obvious extra megapixels. Is the exposure latitude the same between the compressed and uncompressed?