only lossless is lossless. Both HE and HE* are loosy, though to differing degrees.i’ll use the mode that is mathematically lossless and provides the best speed
(i'm _hoping_ that means HE*)
Official Nikon Z9 Launch, Info, and Discussion Thread
- Thread starter Steve
- Start date
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).
FB101
Well-known member
Allow me one prediction, once y’all start shooting with a z9, you won’t worry one bit about what compression does what, you’ll just marvel at what that camera enables, simple as that.
‘’And yes, when shooting a landscape with high DR you’ll probably revert to whatever mode measures best to squeeze the last bit of performance from the sensor but the rest of the time you’ll just set it to the mode that enables the full speed and buffer capability of the camera, because there is something highly addictive to effortlessly tracking a moving subject at 20fps, never losing focus, for extended periods of time to pull out the one unique shot that stands out.
The first time you’ll shoot a 200 frame burst, without a sound, without a glimpse of blackout, without lag, without a hesitation from the AF you’ll realize that those new flagship mirrorless cameras, regardless of brand, are a paradigm shift at least equal to the fist AF module of the first digital sensor, and that whatever little image quality nitpicking there may be is well worth the trade off.
In other words, there is no way Nikon screwed up image quality so bad that the capabilities of the z9 won’t vastly outweigh whatever step back there could be (and I don’t even believe there will be one at all).
‘’And yes, when shooting a landscape with high DR you’ll probably revert to whatever mode measures best to squeeze the last bit of performance from the sensor but the rest of the time you’ll just set it to the mode that enables the full speed and buffer capability of the camera, because there is something highly addictive to effortlessly tracking a moving subject at 20fps, never losing focus, for extended periods of time to pull out the one unique shot that stands out.
The first time you’ll shoot a 200 frame burst, without a sound, without a glimpse of blackout, without lag, without a hesitation from the AF you’ll realize that those new flagship mirrorless cameras, regardless of brand, are a paradigm shift at least equal to the fist AF module of the first digital sensor, and that whatever little image quality nitpicking there may be is well worth the trade off.
In other words, there is no way Nikon screwed up image quality so bad that the capabilities of the z9 won’t vastly outweigh whatever step back there could be (and I don’t even believe there will be one at all).
John Navitsky
Well-known member
Rich, that may be. But as far as I can tell there are conflicting indications and nobody has any credible references that would definitively indicate either way.
If you have references that seem definitive, I'd be very interested to see them.
VVVV from Nikon's literature. note the intoPIX reference:
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
TicoRAW definitely *offers* a mathematically lossless mode, the question is, did Nikon implement it? vvvvvv
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Last edited:
Retains same level of high image quality means that - image quality - and not retains the same bytes, just compressed. I also think that both HE variants are two levels of lossy compression, but a better one than what Nikon had before.
O
Well-known member
Is this drama only in High Efficiency setting ?
Or dose it effect the full raw file.............
John Navitsky
Well-known member
from NIkon USA website. There is lossless and then compressed files. as above nearly-lossless. But what happens at high ISO. That is my point. At lower ISO lossless, HE, and HE* may all be great. At higher ISO there may be a difference. A 1 bit difference is a difference. So by your own admission, John HE and HE* may be (slightly) different.
O
Well-known member
Thank you
John Navitsky
Well-known member
Remember “compressed” != “lossy”. We know all the modes are compressed. We know at least one is lossless and at least one is lossy. IMO nobody has pointed out anything that is definitive about HE*. Your guess is that it is lossy and my hope is that it is lossless.
I will say there are reasons it would make sense that HE* is lossless. The TicoRAW provide higher compress at faster rates. This could enable higher lossless frame rates. There are rumors of coming improvements. If they could deliver 30fps lossless RAW, wouldn’t that be worth while? In fact, if the Tico RAW lossless is better in all ways, why would you not add it?
Another little thing. Note all the folks doing demos of the buffer used HE*. If it is lossless it would totally make sense the engineers would have told them to use it instead of lossless compressed because it is the same.
Anyhoo, hopefully someday we’ll know for sure one way or another.
O
Well-known member
Its all like the bride and grooms wedding night its all coming to a climax, we will wake up in the morning for brunch we will either have Champaign or water............Z9 to be or not to be LOL
Let me ask you a few simple question. If either HE or HE* was lossless, won't Nikon claim it is lossless? Not that HE* is not visual as good as lossless but it is NOT lossless.
Just like 2.00000 is not 1.9999999 . Both are 2 but there is a mathematical difference and they are not the same. To most people they may be appear the same, but they are not the same. And my question pertains to higher ISO images, will we be able to see the difference. Of if any image is highly processed, ...
HE* is not lossless but it is very close. Never said it was not.
see below
John Navitsky
Well-known member
You keep making that assertion, but again, can you point to something that supports that assertion in a definitive way?
Matt couldn’t tell the difference between lossless and HE*, but that doesn’t mean there is a difference and it doesn’t mean there isn’t a difference. And quite frankly shooting non static subjects makes it pretty useless for the purposes of comparing them in any detail.
And to answer your question about Nikon saying so, I’ll point you back to the word “same” which you chose to interpret in a way that differs from my understanding of the definition of that word.
I totally understand what mathematically lossless means (it means “same” ;-) and that’s why I want to know if HE* is or is not mathematically lossless.
Last edited:
O
Well-known member
Gee fellers I failed 6th grade primary school.
I need to employ a Boston lawyer to translate the goings on as i cant slow down enough to take it in LOL
Hey you guys are having fun noring away on this bone.
I cant wait to see who walks away with the goods.
I need to employ a Boston lawyer to translate the goings on as i cant slow down enough to take it in LOL
Hey you guys are having fun noring away on this bone.
I cant wait to see who walks away with the goods.
loved the interview. here's a link to the book: The Real Deal
You're kind of arguing against something that you've been perfectly happy with until now. Raw files have always had some noise reduction applied to RAW files whether you know it or not. Raw files already have a color science and white balance applied to them both by the camera and any software you use to process it. No offense intended but it seems like you're getting upset over a very trivial potential change. As far as the different noise amount in the shadows in your example, if the shadows are raised to a point that is pleasing to you regardless of the noise, its likely an adjustment you would have made anyway. If its not pleasing then you would likely lower the shadows, or add contrast to lower them, thus negating the in camera "boost" anyway.
fcotterill
Well-known member
Maybe? But note what bothers is not a general noise reduction/white balance - that if of course a given. What bothers me is the news of the camera applying different changes to different parts of the image, like Active D-lighting is doing to the JPEG output. As far as I know, this was not the case until now. If you tell me this was already the case, I'd be surprised but willing to learn more.
And lowering the shadows after the camera has raised them will, AFAIK, not result in the exact original values.
It's already being done with noise/ISO on a global basis by Nikon, Sony, and Canon. This shows the D5, A7riv, and R6.
https://photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon EOS R6,Nikon D5,Sony ILCE-7RM4
Every time you see a stair step change in the graph, NR is being applied on a global basis at a RAW level.
Nikon is changing their approach with the Z9 to differentiate between a subject or area with detail and a detail-less background. The same AI that identifies the subject can also be used as part of processing.
And as I said a few times already, that I know and that I'm fine with. What bothers me is:
Because this steps into the "image post-processing" area (for me). And all the "AI-based image processing" that I see in phones (e.g. fake bokeh) is laughable today.
lwan
Well-known member
It's laughable for now because depth mapping is still in its infancy, but in VFX industry some formats like deepEXR are used to fake about every optical phenomenon and layering (what's in front of what) with great success, and I've seen some phones capable of generating pretty convincing depth maps recently. So sooner or later, fake DoF will be indistinguishable from its optical counterpart for normal image viewing.
But for sure so far if AI can detect a subject, we're still far from it being able to accurately take it apart from its surrounding pixels.
fcotterill
Well-known member
This will be interesting!
"Let me be frank up front. Testing comes first. Documenting to the world comes second. Thus, I'll tease this first impression and go silent for until Christmas.
First up, thanks to NikonUSA for providing a Z9 pre-production body to run through its paces. As usual, all the pre-production disclaimers apply. I don't know if the firmware is really 1.0 or not, and Nikon has asked me not to share raw files or to reveal any lab testing to determine specific numbers on image quality aspects. With that in mind, it's time to begin......"
First up, thanks to NikonUSA for providing a Z9 pre-production body to run through its paces. As usual, all the pre-production disclaimers apply. I don't know if the firmware is really 1.0 or not, and Nikon has asked me not to share raw files or to reveal any lab testing to determine specific numbers on image quality aspects. With that in mind, it's time to begin......"
I agree. This has been a controversial point since Nikon first introduced it and then equivocated on what it really is.
We probably won't really know until enough Z9's are out here, in the wild, with production firmware and finalized raw converters, so some credible expert(s) can properly evaluate.
If it is truly lossless, then no problema. If lossy, then it is possibly scene/exposure dependent, and will be important to understand the limitations.
Can't wait to see the outcome.
O
Well-known member
I agree with fake bokeh in phone cameras being poor, but even in its infancy on the development track the industry sells phone cameras to what is largely a very ignorant totally addicted market..........In my mind the smart phone market for want of a better description is the Digital version of Cocaine that has the world is totally addicted.............and under controle and at top $.
Phone cameras frankly at the Samsung and Apple level are killing it in delivering some stunning images as we all know.
Dreadful Bokah in smart phones today, yes, but we need to fear tomorrow as they will get it right faster than any new changes Nikon Sony Canon alliance ever will.
I mean the trio has only recently been getting into mirror less..........
Notice scanning is becoming highly developed, you can take still subject images by scanning and things are tack sharp and almost 3d form your toes to the horizon with perfect exposure.
The thing to watch for is the new technology all ready under the wing of Apple...........it will change the world as we know it and possibly make every smart phone as we know it obsolete...............
Its not the big and strong that always survive its the adaptable.
RoyC
Active member
A non-issue issue as far as I am concerned. Shooting action, wildlife there really is not much that takes up more than 1 to 2 seconds before the shot is over. Yes one can shoot a stop action sequence if your are in to that.
My D5s will shoot 200 frames, as we all know. But the only time I ever did that was to see if it was true once and I shoot 1 to 2 second burst at the most.
Just my opinion.
fcotterill
Well-known member
Considering post processing algorithms to compress signals and clean electronic noise etc... another possibility to consider is at which 2 ISO settings, Nikon has designated to use higher gain in the ISO 64 sensor. Testing by Bill Claff should reveal these settings, and see Jim Kasson's correction to Nikon's answer in an interview after Z9 launch:
"Apina-based technology allows optimum suppression of read noise at two ISO settings which are determined when the sensor is designed. If the Z9 [sic] is to be a high-ISO monster, it will make the switch to high conversion gain at a high ISO setting."
The original Nikon answer by an interviewee:
Quote...
Does offering a base ISO of 64 come with any trade-off in high ISO image quality performance?
By adopting dual conversion gain technology, it is possible to suppress noise to the utmost limit at each ISO sensitivity from low ISO sensitivity to high ISO sensitivity, and expand the dynamic range. The Z 9 not only inherits the minimum ISO of 64, but also achieves an expanded shutter speed of 1/32,000sec, further increasing the creative potential of fast lenses such as the Noct or the Z 50mm F1.2 S.
For example, when shooting outdoors on sunny days at F1.2, optimal exposure, as well as under-exposure for low-key images, are possible. Low sensitivities are required when F1.2 and other fast lenses are used at maximum aperture. With the Z mount system especially, a group of lenses including the F0.95, F1.2 and lenses offer rendering performance that enables worry-free use and maximum sharpness from maximum aperture. Nikon designs with an emphasis on resolution, which is something that can be felt in comparison with all other manufacturers, and is a place where Nikon has a distinct advantage.
The pixel count of the Z9 is the same as the Z 7II: will the Z 9 be able to deliver the same image quality?
The image quality of the Z 9 is superior to that of the Z 7II in a few different ways. For still images, the faster scan speed minimizes rolling shutter distortion. Additionally, there is also improved stability in automatic white balance, and improved rendering of sunset scenes through higher performance of natural light auto WB.....
...Compared to the high sensitivity of the Z 7II, the noise in the flat area is particularly low. Compared to the D6 used by many sports photographers, the Z 9 is better suited to the [needs] of a sports photographer who shoots with a need for cropping, since the number of pixels is large. Additionally, when the high-sensitivity noise reduction is set to Strong, the roughness of the image can be reduced.
Unquote
"Apina-based technology allows optimum suppression of read noise at two ISO settings which are determined when the sensor is designed. If the Z9 [sic] is to be a high-ISO monster, it will make the switch to high conversion gain at a high ISO setting."
The original Nikon answer by an interviewee:
Quote...
Does offering a base ISO of 64 come with any trade-off in high ISO image quality performance?
By adopting dual conversion gain technology, it is possible to suppress noise to the utmost limit at each ISO sensitivity from low ISO sensitivity to high ISO sensitivity, and expand the dynamic range. The Z 9 not only inherits the minimum ISO of 64, but also achieves an expanded shutter speed of 1/32,000sec, further increasing the creative potential of fast lenses such as the Noct or the Z 50mm F1.2 S.
For example, when shooting outdoors on sunny days at F1.2, optimal exposure, as well as under-exposure for low-key images, are possible. Low sensitivities are required when F1.2 and other fast lenses are used at maximum aperture. With the Z mount system especially, a group of lenses including the F0.95, F1.2 and lenses offer rendering performance that enables worry-free use and maximum sharpness from maximum aperture. Nikon designs with an emphasis on resolution, which is something that can be felt in comparison with all other manufacturers, and is a place where Nikon has a distinct advantage.
The pixel count of the Z9 is the same as the Z 7II: will the Z 9 be able to deliver the same image quality?
The image quality of the Z 9 is superior to that of the Z 7II in a few different ways. For still images, the faster scan speed minimizes rolling shutter distortion. Additionally, there is also improved stability in automatic white balance, and improved rendering of sunset scenes through higher performance of natural light auto WB.....
...Compared to the high sensitivity of the Z 7II, the noise in the flat area is particularly low. Compared to the D6 used by many sports photographers, the Z 9 is better suited to the [needs] of a sports photographer who shoots with a need for cropping, since the number of pixels is large. Additionally, when the high-sensitivity noise reduction is set to Strong, the roughness of the image can be reduced.
Unquote