Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
X-T30
#11
(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.
#12
(12-03-2019, 06:20 PM)JJ_SO Wrote: Interestingly the size of uncompressed RAW doesn't vary that much like the lossless compressed, that tells me a lot about useless filesizes.

Second, these days processors are faster with uncompressing than hard drives with writing.
Uncompressed RAW files should have identical sizes for a given resolution and pixel depth.

Regarding decompression speed versus write speed, it all depends on the decompression algorithm. Some algorithms are designed to compress slowly and decompress pretty fast while some algorithms may have the opposite property.
Usually, the better the compression ratio, the longer it takes to compress (typical example: lzo vs xz).
Also, modern SSD drives have extremely high throughput, mostly limited by bus connects.

(12-03-2019, 06:07 PM)mst Wrote:
(12-03-2019, 05:08 PM)Klaus Wrote: Markus has ordered the 16-80mm - whatever this may mean.

The lens is sitting on my desk... but my X-T30 still hasn't arrived  Undecided

Great news, Markus.

Once you get your X-T30 and a bit of time for informal testing of the lens, will you mind sharing your impressions?
I see it as the perfect travel lens, but I'm worried it might perform pretty poorly at short focal lengths (< 20mm). Thus, I don't feel like paying almost $900 on a fairly crappy lens :-(

Thanks Markus!
--Florent

Flickr gallery
#13
I'm quite worried about the performance of XF 16-80. I have been waiting years for this lens - universal travel zoom with IOS and WR, one to rule them all, at least after XF 16-55 and XF 18-135 failed miserably in this job as well.

On the positive side, 440g is fairy OK-ish for a travel zoom. Combined with the heaviest body in the line, the X-H1 at 673g, you get 1.1 kg setup. On the other side, X-T30 is 383g.

Now, XF 16-80/4 currently only sells with X-T3, which weights 540g, making the entire setup just two dozen grams south of a kilogram. On the other hand, the price is staggering EUR 1900 for the kit, in fact too close to Z6 with Nikkor Z 24-70/4 S (which weights 1.175 kg) or DC-S1 with S 24-105/4 Macro (which weights a ton!).

The question is - is it worth it? It's great to have a compact system and Fujifilm bodies are a dream to shoot with, but I have some doubts regarding lens design and pricing...
#14
(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.

It may require some CPU time to compress the files but then it requires more IO time to store the uncompressed file. I haven't tested this but there's surely a break-even somewhere.
Chief Editor - opticallimits.com

Doing all things Canon, MFT, Sony and Fuji
#15
Not exactly. Image is always read into memory (buffer) uncompressed, then you can serialize to the card, compressing on the fly, which should use some memory as well (equal to the block size). Bottom line is that lack of compression does not impose extra I/O operations, but it will take longer to clear the buffer, depending on compression speed (which should be hardware accelerated anyway) and Camera/Card Write performance.
#16
Now I became curious.

Took my X-T2, put it on manual focus, 1/250, continuous shooting and pushed the button until the cadence slowed down.

Uncompressed RAW: 23 frames, lossless compressed: 29. The buffer cleared faster on uncompressed.

Uncompressed: 50 MB/frame, lossless compressed 20 MB/frame. So I gain 60% of diskspace if I take lossless compressed.

Importing 42 files of each type into C1 into a 10 year old iMac (USB 2.0 onboard card reader):

Uncompressed: 2:17 for import, after 2:48 the previews were ready
Compressed: 0:56 for import, after 2:40 the previews were ready

Exporting after adding a bit of exposure and clarity: Uncompressed 6:28 for 42 files, compressed 7:19 for 42 files.

I was expecting longer time to export. 

Now before one tells me "but the uncompressed RAWs are better", be ready to become asked to prove it.

Also, if I'm willing to accept 50 MB per file, I rather take a 45 MP FF Nikon lossless compressed RAW and have a real benefit and not only "maybe 1% MTF" Big Grin
#17
The compression in the camera is, most likely, hardware-based - with slower IO.
On the laptop/C1, it's handled by the generic CPU - in software - with faster IO.

Apples vs oranges here I think.

IMHO the compression should have less impact than the slow CF card IO. A 30MB difference is very substantial in terms of write speed. Depends on the card, of course.
Chief Editor - opticallimits.com

Doing all things Canon, MFT, Sony and Fuji
#18
(12-04-2019, 09:44 AM)Klaus Wrote: The compression in the camera is, most likely, hardware-based - with slower IO.
On the laptop/C1, it's handled by the generic CPU - in software - with faster IO.

Apples vs oranges here I think.

IMHO the compression should have less impact than the slow CF card IO. A 30MB difference is very substantial in terms of write speed. Depends on the card, of course.

Well, there ARE apples and oranges in this game. But looking at the whole fruit basket, the end-result remains the same: Uncompressed RAW has more disadvantages which linit me in shooting and importing. Whe  I'm exporting, I don't care that much, usually I'm not processing hundreds of files. So, waiting 1 minute longer for 42 pictures is a reason to get a coffee, but nothing what slows me down.

While the whole process before can be critical in terms of speed, the output usually won't be. Else I shoot JPG and am faster again - and since JPGS of Fujifilm cameras are thaaaat suuuperb (according to Fuji fans) that would be my way to faster output.
#19
I'd always prefer compressed RAWs for sure. IMHO RAWs are primarily about superior color depth. The minor bit of extra info (if anything) in uncompressed file ... well ...
Chief Editor - opticallimits.com

Doing all things Canon, MFT, Sony and Fuji
#20
(12-04-2019, 10:08 AM)Klaus Wrote: I'd always prefer compressed RAWs for sure. IMHO RAWs are primarily about superior color depth. The minor bit of extra info (if anything) in uncompressed file ... well ...

Same here. Also, it's often a question how the RAW converter can handle the files. I can imagine there are converters around which prefer uncompressed RAW or give better results - but since Fuji is recommending C1 and working together with Phase One (there are specail Fuji versions available) I have not the slightest doubt to get the results I want. The X-E2 files edited and exported out of C1 were better than the Silky Pix stuff.
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)