12bit RAW v 14bit RAW: Hi, Is there any advantage to using 14bit? I use this now but saw an article on Photography Life with lots of photos as evidence . This showed that the human eye...

Hammer Loc: London UK

Hi,

Is there any advantage to using 14bit?

I use this now but saw an article on Photography Life with lots of photos as evidence . This showed that the human eye cannot perceive the difference, concluding that its not worth using 14bit, particularly in view of the extra storage requirements .

Your view please.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Hammer wrote:

Hi,

Is there any advantage to using 14bit?

I use this now but saw an article on Photography Life with lots of photos as evidence . This showed that the human eye cannot perceive the difference, concluding that its not worth using 14bit, particularly in view of the extra storage requirements .

Your view please.

Easy answer! If you shoot RAW there is very little reason to ever shoot 12-bit as opposed to 14-bit. If you don't have a very solid reason, based on a very good understanding of the difference, shoot 14-bit.

The "extra storage requirements" simply are not a problem with 1 TB USB hard disks going for under $100.

The advantage is 2 fstops more dynamic range on most cameras.

Hammer Loc: London UK

Apaflo wrote:

Easy answer! If you shoot RAW there is very little reason to ever shoot 12-bit as opposed to 14-bit. If you don't have a very solid reason, based on a very good understanding of the difference, shoot 14-bit.

The "extra storage requirements" simply are not a problem with 1 TB USB hard disks going for under $100.

The advantage is 2 fstops more dynamic range on most cameras.

Hi,

I did not really that 14bit give two more stops, so why i the author of the article saying that the naked eye cannot see the difference in the shots . Very confused.

JimH123 Loc: Morgan Hill, CA

Hammer wrote:

Hi,

Is there any advantage to using 14bit?

I use this now but saw an article on Photography Life with lots of photos as evidence . This showed that the human eye cannot perceive the difference, concluding that its not worth using 14bit, particularly in view of the extra storage requirements .

Your view please.

The difference is slight. There is considerably more difference when comparing to 8-bit JPG. Here is some info on 12-bit vs 14-bit:

http://www.diyphotography.net/12bit-vs-14bit-raw-and-compressed-vs-uncompressed-does-it-matter/

Hammer Loc: London UK

JimH123 wrote:

The difference is slight. There is considerably more difference when comparing to 8-bit JPG. Here is some info on 12-bit vs 14-bit:

http://www.diyphotography.net/12bit-vs-14bit-raw-and-compressed-vs-uncompressed-does-it-matter/

Hi,

Thanks for this , it shows that there is little difference . Now I have to convince myself to stop using 14bit uncompressed, just find it difficult to let go.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Hammer wrote:

... so why i the author of the article saying that the naked eye cannot see the difference in the shots . Very confused.

Apaflo is correct and the article was probably not presenting clear examples. The differences may be very hard to detect visually.

You get more dynamic range with 14-bit but the difference is hard to see, especially if you are looking mainly at the mid-tones. The difference might be more visible in the shadows.

The real advantage of 14-bit will show up when you change the color, brightness and contrast as you convert it from raw to something else.

But if you are working with the raw files, why not start with the best version - 14-bits. You don't really need to keep all of your raw files, only the ones that you might want to work with again. After all, not every image we take is a keeper.

This might clarify things: http://www.digitalcameraworld.com/2014/06/05/nef-file-types-and-sizes-what-effect-do-bit-depth-and-compression-have-on-raw-files/

Hammer Loc: London UK

selmslie wrote:

Apaflo is correct and the article was probably not... (show quote)

Hi,

That really does clarify it . Many thanks, will now stick with 14bit, just in case and who cares about getting another drive which I won't need after I dumped the unrequired files.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Hammer wrote:

Now I have to convince myself to stop using 14bit uncompressed, just find it difficult to let go.

Do not use uncompressed raw files. Use "lossless compressed" files.

The both provide exactly the same data, but the uncompressed file takes longer to transfer, longer to load, and takes up more storage space. The time lost there is more than the time lost in the compression/uncompression cycle.

kavner58 Loc: Portland, Oregon

Apaflo wrote:

Easy answer! If you shoot RAW there is very little reason to ever shoot 12-bit as opposed to 14-bit. If you don't have a very solid reason, based on a very good understanding of the difference, shoot 14-bit.

The "extra storage requirements" simply are not a problem with 1 TB USB hard disks going for under $100.

The advantage is 2 fstops more dynamic range on most cameras.

Fully agree with you. I do not know why the major brands do offer this option to select 12 vs. 14 bits and do not fix it at the 14 bits.
Maybe just to confuse the users...

- AK

JimH123 Loc: Morgan Hill, CA

kavner58 wrote:

Fully agree with you. I do not know why the major brands do offer this option to select 12 vs. 14 bits and do not fix it at the 14 bits.
Maybe just to confuse the users...

- AK

It gives the marketing people something to brag about.

Leitz Loc: Solms

JimH123 wrote:

It gives the marketing people something to brag about.

And the UHH something to argue about (as if we need more! :lol: )

BebuLamar

Let assume that one can not see more than 256 shades and thus doesn't need more than 8 bit. Having 14 bits is still and advantage because when you lighten your image in post you may have to throw away some brightness levels in the highlight.

Db7423 Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

See this excellent review from Photography Life: https://photographylife.com/14-bit-vs-12-bit-raw.
After reading this I've switched to 12 bit lossless on my D7200. The big benefit is a lot more shots before the buffer runs out and sometimes this is important to me when shooting sports. For the time being I will continue shooting 14 bit with my D610 for landscape though I'm really not sure why... ;)

kavner58 Loc: Portland, Oregon

Db7423 wrote:

See this excellent review from Photography Life: https://photographylife.com/14-bit-vs-12-bit-raw.
After reading this I've switched to 12 bit lossless on my D7200. The big benefit is a lot more shots before the buffer runs out and sometimes this is important to me when shooting sports. For the time being I will continue shooting 14 bit with my D610 for landscape though I'm really not sure why... ;)

Thank you for the reference. I will stay @ 14 bits since I do not care much about maximizing the number of shots before the buffer fills up.

-AK

Db7423 Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

kavner58 wrote:

Thank you for the reference. I will stay @ 14 bits since I do not care much about maximizing the number of shots before the buffer fills up.

-AK

No problem. I found this very informative and made me really question why I had both cameras set for 14 bit and I certainly didn't need it for my sports shooting but will likely continue with14 bit for everything else.
Something I should have added, you need to remember to downsize the file if you plan on sending many photos at one time via email- they are very large compared to the 12 bit files. Hammer asked a great question and started a good discussion- thanks. ;)