RAW files 12 bit vs 14
Oct 31, 2012 14:58:53 #
Does anyone know if there is a noticeable difference in the final image between a 12 bit raw and 14 bit raw file? These would be dng files from a Pentax. I am thinking about switching from Canon to one of the new Pentax cameras (K-30 or K-5 II).
Oct 31, 2012 15:14:50 #
Short answer: No it does not matter. Choose 12-bit compressed (because they take up less space). Or choose 14-bit uncompressed because theoretically youre getting the most from your camera.
Approximate RAW file
size on a Nikon D7000 12 bit 14 bit
compressed 12.6 MB 15.7 MB
uncompressed 14.9 MB 18.8 MB
Now to get a little technical:
Computer science tells us that 14 bits store more data than 12 bits. To be exact: you can store 4 times as many shades of intensity in a given range, or if using the same step size you can cover a range of values 4 times as large.
Computer science also tells you that lossy encoding throws data away. So then it seems logical that images obtained from 14-bit lossless RAW files should have a larger dynamic range and be more detailed and nuanced than images from 12-bit lossy RAW files. The big question is whether these theoretical advantages are ever visible in real life.
Emil Martinec, came to this conclusion: "Due to sensor noise you cannot see the difference between 12 and 14 bits, and neither will you see the difference between lossy and lossless RAW encoding." I think that in order for a difference to be noticable, the sensor would have to have sufficient dynamic range and at this juncture in sensor technology, we are not there yet.
Run a few tests on your own using both and you will be very hard pressed to see a difference. Here is my recommendation: use the 14 bit RAW encoding since drive/ storage real estate is cheap. If you need to save drive space then the 12 bit encoding will be fine.
Approximate RAW file
size on a Nikon D7000 12 bit 14 bit
compressed 12.6 MB 15.7 MB
uncompressed 14.9 MB 18.8 MB
Now to get a little technical:
Computer science tells us that 14 bits store more data than 12 bits. To be exact: you can store 4 times as many shades of intensity in a given range, or if using the same step size you can cover a range of values 4 times as large.
Computer science also tells you that lossy encoding throws data away. So then it seems logical that images obtained from 14-bit lossless RAW files should have a larger dynamic range and be more detailed and nuanced than images from 12-bit lossy RAW files. The big question is whether these theoretical advantages are ever visible in real life.
Emil Martinec, came to this conclusion: "Due to sensor noise you cannot see the difference between 12 and 14 bits, and neither will you see the difference between lossy and lossless RAW encoding." I think that in order for a difference to be noticable, the sensor would have to have sufficient dynamic range and at this juncture in sensor technology, we are not there yet.
Run a few tests on your own using both and you will be very hard pressed to see a difference. Here is my recommendation: use the 14 bit RAW encoding since drive/ storage real estate is cheap. If you need to save drive space then the 12 bit encoding will be fine.
Nov 1, 2012 14:27:09 #
Thank you for the information. After posting the question here I did what I should have done first, just Google the question. I got lots of info and basically came away with that if your shooting jpeg it doesn't matter at all, and in raw 14 bit makes only a slight difference in the shadows if you shoot underexposed. The file size will be a little larger for the 14 bit.
I don't think I will let that enter into what camera to buy.
I don't think I will let that enter into what camera to buy.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.