(12-03-2019, 06:02 PM)Spinifex Wrote:(12-03-2019, 05:08 PM)Klaus Wrote: Ah, Ok. Didn't know that it is lossless. Makes me wonder why they are offering uncompressed mode at all then.
Markus has ordered the 16-80mm - whatever this may mean.
Well, compressed files would take more time to process, since you need to uncompress them before working on them. Also, with the price and available space of modern HD and SD cards, you simply don't need to save as much space as you needed to.
Finally, many simply don't trust compression, even companies assure them they are lossless.
Fuji's relation from uncompressed to compressed RAW is between 30 and 50% less space - per picture. Interestingly the size of uncompressed RAW doesn't vary that much like the lossless compressed, that tells me a lot about useless filesizes.
And it's not about diskspace alone (and the two backups one needs to have) it's also rather time consuming to download these massive files and the backup process of a couple of thousand files takes double time. Not everybody has USB 3, 3.1 or thunderbolt - and even if, then SD cards are not the fastest in download.
To uncompress them is negligible - first, not each RAW needs to be developed, actually most remain undeveloped here. Second, these days processors are faster with uncompressing than hard drives with writing. Third, why waste diskspace and money for double space with no benefit? And fourth - people who are doubtful about lossless compression needs to prove me the better quality of uncompressed RAW. I like to see - not trusting doesn't interest me much.