Nikon NEF files - compressed vs. uncompressed
Nikon NEF files - compressed vs. uncompressed
Author
Discussion

SGirl

Original Poster:

7,924 posts

291 months

Wednesday 22nd November 2006
quotequote all
I've been pondering the difference between these for ages now. Ken Rockwell reckons there's not much difference between the two.

Anyway, I just phoned Nikon for something else unrelated, so while I was there I thought I'd ask them. They should know, I thought. yes

And what they told me is this. That uncompressed NEF files contain absolutely all data, while compressed ones discard the "useless" data. When I asked what was meant by this, the bloke said that effectively, you can edit things like WB and exposure in Capture NX or Photoshop if you use the uncompressed format, but you can't if you use compressed.

Is that right?? I've been using RAWShooter for ages now to tweak WB and exposure and things, but I've never used it on shots out of the D200 - just on D70s shots, which are all compressed anyway.

So essentially, what I want to know is this. Should I be shooting compressed or uncompressed (I'm currently shooting compressed RAW + JPG)? Will I see any difference in image quality or editability if I switch to uncompressed?

Mr Whippy

32,453 posts

271 months

Wednesday 22nd November 2006
quotequote all
You'd think, by definition, that a compressed raw was lossless...

I shot a few NEF's on my D70s (only option is one type, or NEF and a normal compression JPG), and in Photoshop I had all the full adjustments on the WB and no noise creeping in due to low dynamic range.

So can your D200 compress the RAW's?

A friend at work has the D200 so I can ask/see... but from what he said the file size is pretty huge so it doesn't sound compressed!

Dave

SGirl

Original Poster:

7,924 posts

291 months

Wednesday 22nd November 2006
quotequote all
Yep, the D70 produces compressed RAW only. On the D200, you can choose between uncompressed (file size about 15MB eek) and compressed RAW (file size about 9MB).

And to think I thought I'd never fill a 2GB hard disk a few years ago. hehe

Mr Whippy

32,453 posts

271 months

Wednesday 22nd November 2006
quotequote all
Hmmm, I assume it's lossless compression, otherwise it's not really raw

Probably an extended info per channel (8bit+) "png" style compression then...

Dave

trackdemon

13,476 posts

291 months

Wednesday 22nd November 2006
quotequote all
Cant really comment on whats 'lost' in a compressed NEF, as I cant see any difference from my D100. Why would you use RAW+JPG? Rawshooter or similar is far better at generating JPG from RAW than your camera...

Advantage of using uncompressed on the D100 is it speeds up the data write time significantly, using compressed fills the buffer in 3 shots then your waiting circa 1min for completion. Uncompressed writes far quicker. Disadavantage of course is 9MB+ files instead of 4.5MB files....

stuthemong

2,534 posts

247 months

Thursday 23rd November 2006
quotequote all
SGirl that's rubbish, you can still perform all adjustments after shooting you want.

Compressed makes the files noticably smaller (30% odd) and really doesnt change image quality subjectively at all - though it is not lossless, it is lossy. I can't really see the difference, so shoot compressed for speed (/w/ D2X)

SGirl

Original Poster:

7,924 posts

291 months

Thursday 23rd November 2006
quotequote all
Great, thanks for the info everyone! I think I'm going to ditch the JPG shooting and shoot compressed RAW only from now on.