Why do most DSLRs offer JPEG as the only processed format instead of a lossless RGB format?
Asked 4/1/2015
5 views
2 answers
0
I'm new to photography and noticed that some DSLRs only let you save either RAW or JPEG. Since JPEG is lossy, why don't cameras commonly offer a processed but lossless format such as TIFF or PNG? Wouldn't a 24-bit RGB file be useful if you want the camera's built-in processing but don't want JPEG compression losses?
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
11y ago
2 Answers
9
Wouldn't it be useful to have a 24-bit RGB format (taking advantae of the camera's automatic processing modes)?
Not really. Raw files are actually very space efficient, since they only store one greyscale channel, in 12 or 14 bit per pixel. A lossless 24bit format will inevitably create larger files, while dropping 4 or 6 bits of dynamic range. A 48bit format would even be twice as large, of course.
Meanwhile, the camera's processing can be reproduced on the computer using the manufacturer's proprietary software from the raw file, so in the fringe cases where a photographer would on the one hand desire absolute losslessness, but on the other hand would be satisfied with the default processing, that option exists.
Otherwise, the in camera JPEG with max. quality is "good enough" for most use cases that there's just no market for implementing another format.
(But i'd very much support that manufacturers stop using their proprietary raw formats, i just don't see any reason for those.)
Originally by user32110. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user32110
11y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
Because for most photographers there’s little practical benefit between RAW and high-quality JPEG. RAW is already quite space-efficient because it stores sensor data directly, often as a single-channel 12- or 14-bit mosaic. A processed lossless RGB file would usually be much larger, and a 24-bit RGB file would also throw away some of the tonal range compared with RAW. A 48-bit version would be even larger.
If you want maximum editing flexibility, RAW is the better choice than a lossless in-camera processed file anyway. If you want a finished image straight from the camera, high-quality JPEG is usually good enough, with artifacts hard to notice at low compression.
Also, the camera maker’s software can often apply the manufacturer’s default processing to RAW files later on a computer, so the niche for a lossless in-camera processed format is small.
Some cameras have supported TIFF, but it’s uncommon because demand is low and the files are large.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI11y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
What lossy formats can compress 16-bit grayscale images without reducing dynamic range?
Why don’t cameras usually offer PNG as a capture format?
How can I tell whether a TIFF file uses lossy or lossless compression?
Why do most DSLRs offer RAW and JPEG, but not TIFF?
Does TIFF offer higher image quality than PNG, and when would converting lose quality?