Looking at Sony A9ii and A1

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

AstroEd

Active member
Supporting Member
I was wondering the Sony a9ii can do 20 FPS and the Sony a1 30 FPS IF you use compressed raw settings, does anyone know how many FPS they do with uncompressed raw settings?
 

FB101

Well-known member
Supporting Member
The A1 does up to 30 fps with lossy compression and up to 20fps with lossless compression. I believe it does up to 20fps with uncompressed raw as well (but now that Sony has a lossless compression I am not sure what the benefit of uncompressed really is).
Notice the "up-to" qualifier because other factors come in play (lens, release priority are two critical ones).

After culling 600 shots from a short outing, I think that 20 fps will be more than enough unless I am after extremely timing-critical shots :)
 

AstroEd

Active member
Supporting Member
Thread starter
I always thought uncompressed files were superior to ANY Compression? Thought that compression introduced artifacts, has this changed?
 

Doug Herr

Well-known member
The A1 does up to 30 fps with lossy compression and up to 20fps with lossless compression. I believe it does up to 20fps with uncompressed raw as well (but now that Sony has a lossless compression I am not sure what the benefit of uncompressed really is).
Notice the "up-to" qualifier because other factors come in play (lens, release priority are two critical ones).

After culling 600 shots from a short outing, I think that 20 fps will be more than enough unless I am after extremely timing-critical shots :)
I'm using uncompressed raw because some raw converters can't read compressed (the most recent Capture 1 works well).
 

John_DE

New member
Supporting Member
I always thought uncompressed files were superior to ANY Compression? Thought that compression introduced artifacts, has this changed?
Lossless compression introduces no artifacts. “Lossless” is a mathematical term meaning the exact uncompressed file is fully recovered. Thus, if your software can read (uncompress) the lossless files, then there is no advantage to using uncompressed files other than perhaps the time needed to uncompress a lossless file.
 

FB101

Well-known member
Supporting Member
Lossless compression is like a zip file - it doesn’t lose any information, just stores the data more efficiently; Instead of writing 000000000 write 9-0, if you know what “-“ stands for, you have the same info over 3 characters instead of 9.
If your data has no pattern though, you won’t be able to compress it. That’s why those algorithms dont yield the same level of compression.

Lossy compression on the other hand assumes some data matters more than other and it will dump data based on the assumption that the program won’t miss it too much - which may or may not be true depending on how much you are transforming the initial data in post processing. Think about dropping 20% of the data in the deep shadows because the difference between black and almost black really doesn’t matter - that’s fine in most cases but what happens if you raise the shadows 3 stops? Suddenly that missing data becomes very relevant.

Those are overly simplified examples but hopefully they help explain the difference a bit better.
 

AstroEd

Active member
Supporting Member
Thread starter
Lossless compression introduces no artifacts. “Lossless” is a mathematical term meaning the exact uncompressed file is fully recovered. Thus, if your software can read (uncompress) the lossless files, then there is no advantage to using uncompressed files other than perhaps the time needed to uncompress a lossless file.
I use Lightroom and Topaz Labs denoise and Sharpen. Do they read lossless?
 
Top