How much does Nikon’s lossy-compressed 14-bit NEF affect real-world image quality vs JPEG?
Asked 3/27/2015
9 views
2 answers
0
I’m considering a Nikon D5300, which records 14-bit NEF RAW files using lossy compression. I’m concerned about whether that compression meaningfully reduces image quality.
In practical use, how does Nikon’s lossy-compressed NEF compare with JPEG? If I shoot JPEG+RAW, then convert the RAW to TIFF, will the TIFF still preserve noticeably more usable image data than the JPEG? I’m especially interested in whether the RAW file remains better for post-processing, and in what situations the lossy compression might actually matter.
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
11y ago
2 Answers
5
The particular lossy compression used here is nothing to worry about. Here's why.
Camera sensors are more or less linear devices, if you double the amount of light you double the signal produced by the sensor. Our eyes work logarithmically, so if you double the amount of light, it appears much less than twice as bright. Another example of this is if you display pure black and pure white on a computer screen, then find a shade of grey that looks right in the middle of those two colours it will only be around 18% of the brightness of pure white.
Our eyes are thus much more sensitive to slight changes in absolute brightness near the bottom of the scale and almost completely insensitive to small changes in absolute brightness near the white end. The sRGB/Adobe RGB colour spaces (amongst others) take advantage of this and store brightness on a nonlinear scale, using more bits (smaller steps) in the shadows where you're most likely to detect similar shades and fewer bits (larger steps) in the highlights where fine steps go unnoticed.
Nikon's lossy RAW compression maps a linear 14 bit space (that contains values directly from the linear sensor) to a non-linear 12 bit space similar to sRGB etc. in that is uses the bits where they make the most difference.
Technically you are losing data, but it's data that is not perceivable in most cases anyway.
Originally by user1375. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user1375
11y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
In normal use, Nikon’s lossy-compressed 14-bit NEF is still far superior to JPEG for editing flexibility, and the compression is generally nothing to worry about.
A JPEG is already heavily processed in-camera: demosaiced, white balance applied, tone and sharpening decisions made, and reduced to 8-bit output. A NEF, even lossy-compressed, retains much more sensor data and tonal information. So if you convert that RAW to TIFF, the main benefit is not that the TIFF itself is magically higher quality, but that you can make better processing decisions before conversion.
If you simply compare straight-out-of-camera JPEG to a default RAW-to-TIFF conversion with no careful editing, the difference may be small. The real advantage shows up when adjusting exposure, white balance, curves, color, or recovering shadows/highlights: the RAW file holds up much better before degrading.
The lossy NEF compression only tends to matter in edge cases, mainly very subtle differences in extreme highlights near sensor saturation. For most real-world photography, the impact is negligible compared with the much larger difference between RAW and JPEG.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI11y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
What artifacts can Nikon's lossy NEF compression cause?
Can a 16-bit TIFF be edited like a RAW file, or does RAW still retain more information?
Does the Nikon D4 record 16-bit RAW images or only process internally at 16-bit?
What lossy formats can compress 16-bit grayscale images without reducing dynamic range?
How can I tell whether a TIFF file uses lossy or lossless compression?