Anyone still using "lossless compression" image quality with Z9?

[harshilsharma63]

I got my Z9 few days back and reading all the nice articles and videos around "High Efficiency Star" being practically equivalent to "Lossless Compression" quality. With many softwares now supporting the HE format, i'm wondering if anyone still using the "lossless compression" option and if so, whats the reason?

 

[dabhand16]

I still use lossless as it is not inhibiting my photography.

 

[harshilsharma63]

@dabhand16 have you considered switching to high efficiency as it offers no measurable loss of image quality with about 30% smaller file sizes?

 

[dabhand16]

@dabhand16 have you considered switching to high efficiency as it offers no measurable loss of image quality with about 30% smaller file sizes?

For my photography file size is not an issue.

 

[Unscript]

I got my Z9 few days back and reading all the nice articles and videos around "High Efficiency Star" being practically equivalent to "Lossless Compression" quality. With many softwares now supporting the HE format, i'm wondering if anyone still using the "lossless compression" option and if so, whats the reason?

If you're not using open-source software, and if you're using a Z7/Z8/Z9. with more pixels, there's really no reason not to use HE*. Unless maybe in some extreme cases.

I'm only using lossless because HE* isn't supported by Darktable, which is a pain. And I don't take enough photos that the extra size is a real problem; besides, I have a Z6III, so the NEF files are smaller than on a Z9.

I may consider using Adobe DNG Converter again, which can convert HE* into DNG for Darktable, but it wasn't a perfect solution when I tried (isn't it dropping some of the metadata?). I'll have to make other tests, now that Darktable 5.0 is out and officially supports the Z6III. I need to convert only the photos I must retouch with Darktable, so it'd be OK to go through that, if a bit annoying. Otherwise, NX Studio usually gives better results for basic operations like changing the WB, cropping, etc. - or at least, I observe a better sharpness in a number of cases.

Unfortunately, since the algorithms behind HE (demosaicing combined with TicoRAW) is patented, I don't think we'll see an open-source project supporting it anytime soon. Even if someone paid for the SDK, it would still make the libraries available to any other project, so it'll never be accepted. Nikon offers a free Windows codec, though, so perhaps it's possible for any software to use that, but the problem remains for Linux and macOS.

At least, Affinity can read HE*, so there's that. So does DxO.

 

[SoCalRick]

I shoot in RAW lossless so that I can have the most flexibility with post processing. Also, the larger file sizes (over HE*) are not an issue for me.

HE* is a compressed file format, and therefore some data is removed in order to achieve the smaller file sizes. HE* files do not have the complete set of data availlable for post processing that the original RAW file contains.

 

[JAS]

Given that I can get about 8,000 files on a 512 CFE B card, and I do not do unusual shots, nor do I do precapture or other long burst work, I am quite comfortable staying with the NEF format..
Others can and should make their own choices, but I see no personal advantages to change.

 

[Cameron T]

When shooting wildlife, he/he*. When shooting astro, normal raw so the files can be read by other programs.

 

[MartyD]

I use HE* for most of my RAW shooting. The key is "practically equivalent" and I think that still scares some photographers off. It also takes a little longer for the HE formats to be recognized by editing applications than the lossless compressed.

 

[maxxus46]

Agree with this approach.. Raw HE* can pickup quite a few frames for burst shooting (wildlife, sports)...for landscape or macro where long bursts aren't needed, I switch to lossless . Regardless, I have yet to see any differences when I compare Raw losslless files to HE.. the HE* files still have a lot of latitude in the shadows and highlights. Maybe lossless is worthwhile for extreme low light (astro photography).

When shooting wildlife, he/he*. When shooting astro, normal raw so the files can be read by other programs.

 

[Whiskeyman]

I never have used it. At least, I've never used it on purpose, or that I know of.

 

[Lee R]

I've tried Lossless Compressed, HE* and HE then tortured the files by under and overexposed them to see if I could detect any loss difference. I could not so I just started using HE since it significantly cuts down on storage requirements on my cloud and hard drives.

I used a calibrate color chart and could not see additional noise or color loss side by side.

In any high ISO shooting which is common at higher shutter speeds I would think the actual noise from high ISO will be far more destructive than than any difference between lossless compressed and HE*/HE. So why not reduce storage needs and HE makes for unlimited shooting buffers.

 

[Steve]

I was resistant to switching to HE* but once I did, I never went back. I can abuse the RAW files in Lightroom to the extent that I’m worried about running afoul of the Geneva Convention, yet they seem as pliable as lossless compressed files.

 

[Tom-Neth]

@Steve I am using HE* only on those days I expect to make a lot of pictures, especially using pre-capture when photographing bee-eaters and small birds from hides in Spain. I never saw or found any difference with lossless compressed. But there was always something that kept me from using HE* all the time. Now reading the comment of Steve, HE* is my new standard. Thanks very much for this post, this is one of the reasons why this forums is so valuable.

 

[Steve]

@Steve I am using HE* only on those days I expect to make a lot of pictures, especially using pre-capture when photographing bee-eaters and small birds from hides in Spain. I never saw or found any difference with lossless compressed. But there was always something that kept me from using HE* all the time. Now reading the comment of Steve, HE* is my new standard. Thanks very much for this post, this is one of the reasons why this forums is so valuable.

For me, I played with it a little here and there and never saw a difference. So, I went all-in last year in the Serengeti and shot the entire thing in HE* - no issues. I did the same the rest of the year with the Z8/9 and have been happy with the results.

 

[Tom-Neth]

For me, I played with it a little here and there and never saw a difference. So, I went all-in last year in the Serengeti and shot the entire thing in HE* - no issues. I did the same the rest of the year with the Z8/9 and have been happy with the results.

If you are happy with it, there is no reason at all why we wouldn't be happy !

 

[mathjak107]

i assume software like dxo pure raw has no problem with the he format

 

[Mal Paso]

I'll wait until HE* thumbnails are visible on Mac.

My Z8 came with HE* as default RAW and it was a couple days before I found that menu. In the meantime I upgraded my OS and NX Studio which didn't work with HE* either. Automatic updates everywhere else, I Haden't noticed old versions.

 

[maxxus46]

I was resistant to switching to HE* but once I did, I never went back. I can abuse the RAW files in Lightroom to the extent that I’m worried about running afoul of the Geneva Convention, yet they seem as pliable as lossless compressed files.

Lol... Good feedback Steve! Take care

 

[Ken Miracle]

I had some early compatibility problems with things I used and @Steve had tried HE and went back so I did to. Now that @Steve has gone all in I will have to try it again in my Z9's and test it on my mac studio with all the programs I interact with. With my Z6III HE* is not something I need to mess with for what I use the Z6III for and with smaller file size and fast cards like the ProGrade Digital CF Express Type B memory card (cobalt) 325GB I use there is no pressing reason to use HE* or mess with HEIF for me. However if I do go back to HE* on Z9's I would do the same on the Z6III for consistency.

 

[maxxus46]

The reason HE is available with jpeg combination is due to your Raw conversion software. It's able to read the jpeg file, but cannot read HE Raw files. What are you using for post processing your RAW files ? For example ; Programs like DxO PhotoLab can process HE Raw files...

I had some early compatibility problems with things I used and @Steve had tried HE and went back so I did to. Now that @Steve has gone all in I will have to try it again in my Z9's and test it on my mac studio with all the programs I interact with. I have to use RAW in my Z6III since HEIF is only available when set to some combo with jpg and then not in HE*

 

[BillW]

@Steve I am using HE* only on those days I expect to make a lot of pictures, especially using pre-capture when photographing bee-eaters and small birds from hides in Spain. I never saw or found any difference with lossless compressed. But there was always something that kept me from using HE* all the time. Now reading the comment of Steve, HE* is my new standard. Thanks very much for this post, this is one of the reasons why this forums is so valuable.

Pre-capture uses jpegs only, not raw. So unfortunately, HE* is not available for pre-capture now. I have been hoping Nikon might add HE* raw for pre-capture for the Z9 and Z8 in a firmware update, but it hasn’t done so yet.

 

[BillW]

I use HE* for my wildlife photograph and most general photography. I like the smaller file size, especially when I shoot large numbers of frames, for example BIF in bursts. I generally have not needed HE* to get longer bursts, as I am using fast CFe cards (mostly Delkin Black). I use lossless compressed raw for landscape work, where the smaller file size of HE* is not as useful, as I take fewer photos.

Adobe and DxO support HE*/HE raw. I think Topaz might, but I use Topaz as a Photoshop plugin (when I use it), so the question does not come up. I think Raw Digger and Fast Raw Viewer have recent beta releases out that support HE*/HE and will presumably go to non-beta versions in the near future. HE*/HE files have jpegs embedded in them, so can be seen by many browsers (e.g., Photo Mechanic). Unfortunately, my iMac and MBP will not see them, even with the most recent OS.

I was on a trip to the Great Bear Rainforest in British Columbia this fall (9/2024) with Brad Hill. Brad was shooting HE* on his Z9s. You can also see this in the recent photos he has posted to his galleries.

 

[ButlerKid]

How much smaller are HE* files than raw Z8 files? I guess you have less "crop-ability" with the small sizes? Any other pro's or con's to using HE*?

 

[DRwyoming]

I guess you have less "crop-ability" with the small sizes?

No, it in no way alters the pixel dimensions, just the file size in megabytes.

Any other pro's or con's to using HE*?

Theoretically HE* applies some non reversible file compression but testing and reviews including by members here show it to be very, very similar to results from shooting true RAW files with lossless (completely bit for bit reversible) compression. So yeah, there's a tiny theoretical risk that an image that needs a ton of salvage work in post processing might lack a tiny bit of processing latitude but in practice folks that evaluate to the pixel level aren't really seeing a problem even with heavily cropped images.

The only other risk is that HE* is a proprietary compression format so some tools may not support it or display images correctly when saved in that format. I know at least early on the Mac Photos app had trouble natively displaying thumbnails of HE* files but most mainstream photo editing apps including LR, PS and many others support the format.