5 ms·

I always thought camera RAW formats were optimize continuous shooting rates. About being able to linearly write an image as fast as possible. I don't know the

I always thought camera RAW formats were optimize continuous shooting rates. About being able to linearly write an image as fast as possible. I don't know the details of DNG but even the slightest complication could be a no-go for some manufacturers.

gbin 2y ago
This was my guess too, get the raw bayer data from the sensor in one go + some metadata. Then as the sensors and cameras evolve they are just accumulating different formats?
m000 2y ago
I believe this might have been the case in the past, where (a) sensor resolutions were lower - so the raw images less bulky, (b) camera CPUs were slower - so you would like to take them out of the equation. These days, the bottleneck for achieving continuous shooting rate is probably writting to the sd card (which is the standard for the consumer/pro-sumer models).
octacat 2y ago
It is always written into a memory buffer first, which could be like 256 megabytes... it tooks time to fill it up, once it is filled, memory card speed becomes a bottleneck. So, actually, writing only jpegs would trigger the slowdown later, so you could take more frames before the buffer fills up
tmoravec 2y ago
The bottleneck is usually in SD card write speeds, however. Sport photographers often skip raw and only use JPG because the files are smaller and as a result, one can take more photos in one burst.
- tomatocracy 2y ago
  For raw at high frame rates, high end cameras don't use SD cards but things like CFexpress which absolutely can keep up (and there are also various compressed RAW formats these days which apply a degree of lossy compression to reduce file size). As I understand it, the reason some professional sports photographers don't shoot RAW (or it's less important) is more because they are in an environment where publishing quickly is important, so upload speeds matter and there isn't really much time to postprocess.
- FireBeyond 2y ago
  Canon’s “sport professional” camera has lower resolution than the “second tier” cameras. It has a higher frame rate and CFExpress and SDXC2 so bandwidth isn’t an issue. Last I checked you could burst 40 or 50 frames (at 20ish fps) before filling the internal buffer.
  - tristor 2y ago
    You can definitely do more than that these days. My Nikon Z8 can do 30fps with 1xCFExpress, and the flagship Z9 can do 120fps because it has 2xCFExpress and alternates writes. On the Sony side they have a closer differentiation to what you describe, the flagship (A1 II) does only 30fps compared to the next-best (A9 III) which does 120fps, while the prosumer (A7 RV) only does 10fps. I don't know Canon well, but 120fps w/ dual CFExpress + 800-1200 frames buffer is fairly standard on top-end professional sports/wildlife mirrorless cameras these days.
    - redeeman 2y ago
      Z8 and Z9 can do the same, Z9 can do 120fps in jpeg mode 11MP, similar to your Z8. Z8/Z9 will do 30fps in jpeg fullresolution, 20fps in RAW. how long it can do it without slowing down depends on your card, and whether you use uncompressed raw, lossless raw, lossy raw etc
      - tristor 2y ago
        Yes, you are correct. The spec sheet isn't particularly clear on this so I got it wrong taking it at face value, but on the Rolling Shutter Project it shows the sensor readout speed is the limit, which both use the same sensor. For the higher speed continuous (which is only on the Z9 AFAIK, 30fps is the max I see for CH on my Z8) it uses the video pipeline rather than the standard photo pipeline, which is resolution limited and not in RAW. The Z9 /does/ support alternate write mode, however the Z8 only supports split format or overflow with two cards since Z8 is CFExpress + SD and Z9 is 2x CFExpress. I am not sure how this affects write-out speeds but presumably improves it. Personally I only shoot at 6fps in continuous for birds because anything faster is usually unnecessary (except for hummingbirds) and just creates more exposures to review/delete in post. I generally preference doing quiet single exposure (Qs) when doing wildlife to avoid any sounds, although since switching to the Z8 it's not really an issue since mirrorless is effectively silent in all modes at fairly open apertures.
donatzsky 2y ago
DNG is a TIFF file, just like most proprietary raw formats.
Zak 2y ago
The main reason people shoot raw is to have more creative control over the final product. A simple example is white balance. The sensor doesn't know anything about it, but typical postprocessing makes both a 2700K incandescent and a 5700K strobe look white. A photographer might prefer to make the incandescent lights look more yellow. There's a white balance setting in the camera to do that when taking the picture, but it's a lot easier to get it perfect later in front of a large color-calibrated display than in the field. Another example is dealing with a scene containing a lot of dynamic range, such as direct sunlight and dark shadows. The camera's sensor can capture a greater range of brightness than a computer screen can display or a printer can represent, so a photographer might prefer to delay decisions about what's dark grey with some details and what's clipped to black.
- grandempire 2y ago
  ?? This was not asked.
- harrall 2y ago
  Everything you said is supported by regular image formats. You can adjust white balance of any photo and you think image formats are only limited to 16-bit and sRGB? That’s not why we use RAW. It’s partly because (1) if you used Adobe RGB or Rec. 709 on a JPEG, a lot of people would screw it up, (2) you get a little extra raw data from the pre-filtering of Bayer, X-Trans, etc. data, (3) it’s less development work for camera manufacturers, and (4) partly historical.
  - davidgay 2y ago
    > Everything you said is supported by regular image formats. You can adjust white balance of any photo and you think image formats are only limited to 16-bit and sRGB? No - the non-RAW image formats offered were traditionally JPG and 8-bit TIFF. Neither of those are suitable for good quality post-capture edits, irrespective of their colour space (in fact, too-wide a colour space is likely to make the initial capture worse because of the limited 8-bit-per-colour range). These days there is HEIF/similar formats, which may be good enough. But support in 3rd party tools (including Adobe) is no better than RAW yet, i.e., you need to go through a conversion step. So...

gbin 2y ago

This was my guess too, get the raw bayer data from the sensor in one go + some metadata. Then as the sensors and cameras evolve they are just accumulating different formats?

m000 2y ago

I believe this might have been the case in the past, where (a) sensor resolutions were lower - so the raw images less bulky, (b) camera CPUs were slower - so you would like to take them out of the equation. These days, the bottleneck for achieving continuous shooting rate is probably writting to the sd card (which is the standard for the consumer/pro-sumer models).

octacat 2y ago

It is always written into a memory buffer first, which could be like 256 megabytes... it tooks time to fill it up, once it is filled, memory card speed becomes a bottleneck. So, actually, writing only jpegs would trigger the slowdown later, so you could take more frames before the buffer fills up

tmoravec 2y ago

The bottleneck is usually in SD card write speeds, however. Sport photographers often skip raw and only use JPG because the files are smaller and as a result, one can take more photos in one burst.

tomatocracy 2y ago
For raw at high frame rates, high end cameras don't use SD cards but things like CFexpress which absolutely can keep up (and there are also various compressed RAW formats these days which apply a degree of lossy compression to reduce file size). As I understand it, the reason some professional sports photographers don't shoot RAW (or it's less important) is more because they are in an environment where publishing quickly is important, so upload speeds matter and there isn't really much time to postprocess.
FireBeyond 2y ago
Canon’s “sport professional” camera has lower resolution than the “second tier” cameras. It has a higher frame rate and CFExpress and SDXC2 so bandwidth isn’t an issue. Last I checked you could burst 40 or 50 frames (at 20ish fps) before filling the internal buffer.
- tristor 2y ago
  You can definitely do more than that these days. My Nikon Z8 can do 30fps with 1xCFExpress, and the flagship Z9 can do 120fps because it has 2xCFExpress and alternates writes. On the Sony side they have a closer differentiation to what you describe, the flagship (A1 II) does only 30fps compared to the next-best (A9 III) which does 120fps, while the prosumer (A7 RV) only does 10fps. I don't know Canon well, but 120fps w/ dual CFExpress + 800-1200 frames buffer is fairly standard on top-end professional sports/wildlife mirrorless cameras these days.
  - redeeman 2y ago
    Z8 and Z9 can do the same, Z9 can do 120fps in jpeg mode 11MP, similar to your Z8. Z8/Z9 will do 30fps in jpeg fullresolution, 20fps in RAW. how long it can do it without slowing down depends on your card, and whether you use uncompressed raw, lossless raw, lossy raw etc
    - tristor 2y ago
      Yes, you are correct. The spec sheet isn't particularly clear on this so I got it wrong taking it at face value, but on the Rolling Shutter Project it shows the sensor readout speed is the limit, which both use the same sensor. For the higher speed continuous (which is only on the Z9 AFAIK, 30fps is the max I see for CH on my Z8) it uses the video pipeline rather than the standard photo pipeline, which is resolution limited and not in RAW. The Z9 /does/ support alternate write mode, however the Z8 only supports split format or overflow with two cards since Z8 is CFExpress + SD and Z9 is 2x CFExpress. I am not sure how this affects write-out speeds but presumably improves it. Personally I only shoot at 6fps in continuous for birds because anything faster is usually unnecessary (except for hummingbirds) and just creates more exposures to review/delete in post. I generally preference doing quiet single exposure (Qs) when doing wildlife to avoid any sounds, although since switching to the Z8 it's not really an issue since mirrorless is effectively silent in all modes at fairly open apertures.

donatzsky 2y ago

DNG is a TIFF file, just like most proprietary raw formats.

Zak 2y ago

The main reason people shoot raw is to have more creative control over the final product. A simple example is white balance. The sensor doesn't know anything about it, but typical postprocessing makes both a 2700K incandescent and a 5700K strobe look white. A photographer might prefer to make the incandescent lights look more yellow. There's a white balance setting in the camera to do that when taking the picture, but it's a lot easier to get it perfect later in front of a large color-calibrated display than in the field. Another example is dealing with a scene containing a lot of dynamic range, such as direct sunlight and dark shadows. The camera's sensor can capture a greater range of brightness than a computer screen can display or a printer can represent, so a photographer might prefer to delay decisions about what's dark grey with some details and what's clipped to black.

grandempire 2y ago
?? This was not asked.
harrall 2y ago
Everything you said is supported by regular image formats. You can adjust white balance of any photo and you think image formats are only limited to 16-bit and sRGB? That’s not why we use RAW. It’s partly because (1) if you used Adobe RGB or Rec. 709 on a JPEG, a lot of people would screw it up, (2) you get a little extra raw data from the pre-filtering of Bayer, X-Trans, etc. data, (3) it’s less development work for camera manufacturers, and (4) partly historical.
- davidgay 2y ago
  > Everything you said is supported by regular image formats. You can adjust white balance of any photo and you think image formats are only limited to 16-bit and sRGB? No - the non-RAW image formats offered were traditionally JPG and 8-bit TIFF. Neither of those are suitable for good quality post-capture edits, irrespective of their colour space (in fact, too-wide a colour space is likely to make the initial capture worse because of the limited 8-bit-per-colour range). These days there is HEIF/similar formats, which may be good enough. But support in 3rd party tools (including Adobe) is no better than RAW yet, i.e., you need to go through a conversion step. So...