Aperture 2.0, the Nikon D300 and RAW compression settings

DarkDTSHD · DarkDTSHD #1 (**permalink**)

08-29-2008, 08:24 PM

Hello,

I just received my copy of Aperture 2.0. Upgraded it to the latest version (forget which). And will be shooting in RAW for the first time. And would like to know which compression setting I should set my D300 to to work with the Aperture 2.0 RAW converter. As I was told not all modes in all DSLR's work with all converters.

The D300, as D300 users should know, has 3 options. "Lossless" (loose 20-40% of data with no loss in image quality, the default), "compressed" (loose 40-50% with noticeable loss in image quality) and "uncompressed" (no compression at all, RAW file saved in it's entirety as it was shot).

Recommendations? Thanks!!

Dysfunction · Dysfunction #2 (**permalink**)

08-29-2008, 08:43 PM

I shoot uncompressed, works fine in Aperture 2. I really don't see a lot of need for compression with the availability of CF storage in multi-GB ranges.

DarkDTSHD · DarkDTSHD #3 (**permalink**)

08-29-2008, 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dysfunction

I shoot uncompressed, works fine in Aperture 2. I really don't see a lot of need for compression with the availability of CF storage in multi-GB ranges.

Thanks for posting.

I take it you're a D300 owner too. Roughly how big are the file sizes uncompressed? And have you tried "lossless" while using Aperture 2.0? Why aren't you shooting in "lossless"?

Mjc.americor · Mjc.americor #4 (**permalink**)

08-29-2008, 11:24 PM

I shoot RAW with my canon 20D and the RAW files are about 9MB, using Lightroom to import and edit

shmendall · shmendall #5 (**permalink**)

08-30-2008, 08:03 AM

I would shoot in RAW if I could notice any difference!

Mjc.americor · Mjc.americor #6 (**permalink**)

08-30-2008, 10:09 AM

i dont think that you notice a difference, but it is easier to edit and manipulate to your standards and how you like things. there is an advantage over JPEG

DarkDTSHD · DarkDTSHD #7 (**permalink**)

08-30-2008, 11:20 AM

I haven't shot in RAW yet but supposedly you DO see a difference in detail and color range in prints. You (we) probably wouldn't see much if any difference on the monitor. Though I wonder...if we properly calibrate our monitors (most of us don't) would we not see a difference? Hmmm...

Any how if one poster says he can use "uncompressed" with Aperture 2.0 without problems then it's likely there would be no problems in the "lossless" setting. Has this been your experience too? Any one can comment of course.

Del · Del #8 (**permalink**)

09-01-2008, 03:18 AM

You WONT see a difference by shooting RAW, but dang there is a massive difference when it comes to post processing them, RAW is much more forgiving allowing you to rescue files that would otherwise be deleted.

For a real world example of what i mean see this thread in my blog.
http://derekclegg.net/blog/?cat=8

MissMurder · MissMurder #9 (**permalink**)

09-02-2008, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Del

You WONT see a difference by shooting RAW, but dang there is a massive difference when it comes to post processing them, RAW is much more forgiving allowing you to rescue files that would otherwise be deleted.

For a real world example of what i mean see this thread in my blog.
http://derekclegg.net/blog/?cat=8

hmmm, that was very clarifying, thanks!
i have yet to shoot in raw (i have yet to shoot at all, actually), and i was wondering if i was going to notice any difference...

CameraMike · CameraMike #10 (**permalink**)

12-30-2008, 08:08 PM

Usually I won't see any difference between Raw and shooting Jpg but if I look closely in my highlights I do see color aberrations more in the Jpgs.

Dysfunction #2 (permalink)
Member Since: Mar 17, 2008 Location: Tucson, AZ Posts: 6,588 Mac Specs: 2008 and 2011 15" mbps, late 11 iMac, iPhone 4s, and too many ipods and other stuff	08-29-2008, 08:43 PM I shoot uncompressed, works fine in Aperture 2. I really don't see a lot of need for compression with the availability of CF storage in multi-GB ranges. mike This machine kills fascists Got # ? phear the command line!
	QUOTE Thanks

Mjc.americor #4 (permalink)
Member Since: Feb 02, 2008 Location: Traverse City MI Posts: 447 Mac Specs: 15.4" MacBook Pro 4GB 500GB 2.4Ghz	08-29-2008, 11:24 PM I shoot RAW with my canon 20D and the RAW files are about 9MB, using Lightroom to import and edit 15.4" MacBook Pro Unibody 2.4GHz 4GB Ram and 500GB HD nVidia Geforce 9600
	QUOTE Thanks

shmendall #5 (permalink)
Member Since: Jun 04, 2007 Location: Lancaster, England Posts: 145 Mac Specs: IMAC 20"!! WOOH YEAH!! 2gb ram - 250gb hd 2.16ghz core 2 duo	08-30-2008, 08:03 AM I would shoot in RAW if I could notice any difference! Diana F+ HOLGA 135 Actionsampler
	QUOTE Thanks

Mjc.americor #6 (permalink)
Member Since: Feb 02, 2008 Location: Traverse City MI Posts: 447 Mac Specs: 15.4" MacBook Pro 4GB 500GB 2.4Ghz	08-30-2008, 10:09 AM i dont think that you notice a difference, but it is easier to edit and manipulate to your standards and how you like things. there is an advantage over JPEG 15.4" MacBook Pro Unibody 2.4GHz 4GB Ram and 500GB HD nVidia Geforce 9600
	QUOTE Thanks

Aperture 2.0, the Nikon D300 and RAW compression settings

Internet Services

Web Development

Digital Marketing

Consumer Tech

DarkDTSHD #1 (permalink)
Member Since: Jun 09, 2007 Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Posts: 117	08-29-2008, 08:24 PM Hello, I just received my copy of Aperture 2.0. Upgraded it to the latest version (forget which). And will be shooting in RAW for the first time. And would like to know which compression setting I should set my D300 to to work with the Aperture 2.0 RAW converter. As I was told not all modes in all DSLR's work with all converters. The D300, as D300 users should know, has 3 options. "Lossless" (loose 20-40% of data with no loss in image quality, the default), "compressed" (loose 40-50% with noticeable loss in image quality) and "uncompressed" (no compression at all, RAW file saved in it's entirety as it was shot). Recommendations? Thanks!!
	QUOTE Thanks

DarkDTSHD #7 (permalink)
Member Since: Jun 09, 2007 Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Posts: 117	08-30-2008, 11:20 AM I haven't shot in RAW yet but supposedly you DO see a difference in detail and color range in prints. You (we) probably wouldn't see much if any difference on the monitor. Though I wonder...if we properly calibrate our monitors (most of us don't) would we not see a difference? Hmmm... Any how if one poster says he can use "uncompressed" with Aperture 2.0 without problems then it's likely there would be no problems in the "lossless" setting. Has this been your experience too? Any one can comment of course.
	QUOTE Thanks

Del #8 (permalink)
Member Since: Dec 24, 2006 Location: N. Ireland Posts: 900 Mac Specs: Mac Pro 2xQuad core 2.8GHZ	09-01-2008, 03:18 AM You WONT see a difference by shooting RAW, but dang there is a massive difference when it comes to post processing them, RAW is much more forgiving allowing you to rescue files that would otherwise be deleted. For a real world example of what i mean see this thread in my blog. http://derekclegg.net/blog/?cat=8
	QUOTE Thanks

CameraMike #10 (permalink)
Member Since: Dec 28, 2008 Location: Japan Posts: 58 Mac Specs: BlackBook 13.3" 2.13ghz Intel Core 2 Duo 2gb SDRAM 160gb HD	12-30-2008, 08:08 PM Usually I won't see any difference between Raw and shooting Jpg but if I look closely in my highlights I do see color aberrations more in the Jpgs.
	QUOTE Thanks

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)