Sony isn't serious about fixing 11+7 bit color

[Max the Dog]

If you read the Kimio Interview closely, you can see that Sony and Kimio aren't taking 14 bit color seriously. 

 

 

Kimio all but laughs off the fraud of Sony advertising 14 bit color on its cameras and Sony’s 2 year lag in offering a fix for the problem.

 

http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2015/06/16/sony-qa-the-must-have-sensor-tech-of-the-future

 

 

Look at the text just after the copper photo.

#1.   Kimio laughs when the interviewer introduces the subject.

# 2.  Kimio admits that Sony’s compression scheme doesn’t produce 14 bit non-compressed images.

# 3.  Kimio won’t offer any guarantee whether they will fix it or not.

# 4.  Kimio moves on to next subject as fast as possible.

 

Sony fanboys are in a dream if they think that Sony is going to fix this issue or offer a retroactive fix to the hundreds of thousands that purchased a Sony camera and was cheated through their fraudulent marketing practices.

[OldNoob]

Max, why do you waste so much time and energy trolling?

People are very capable of deciding and choosing what cameras they like using or dislike using for themselves.

Nikon is a wonderful company and they make wonderful amazing quality cameras, but why go out of your way to discredit another company that is not Nikon? What is your agenda?

Your constant unbalanced trollish posts only serve to reveal that you have some sort unbalanced obsession, or possibly have some form of mental disability.

If you are mentally handicapped Max, please let us know so that we can better understand the nature of your posts.

 

Regards.

[Neroon]

Here is the actual transcript of the section in question:

DM: This next question is more of a request maybe, but we've had a lot of questions asking about raw format. And...

KM: Ah, raw. <laughs> 14-bit.

DE: Yeah, well 14-bit is OK, but many people are asking "could we please have uncompressed RAWs?"

KM: Sony RAW is compressed, not uncompressed. But if we're getting a lot of requests for it, we should make such a kind of no-compression raw. Of course we recognize that. But I cannot give you a guarantee when we're going to fix or not fix.

DE: Right. When you're going to address that, yeah.

KM: Sure, sure. And so we recognize the customer's requirement, and actually we are working on it.

DE: So it's something that you're aware of. I'm sure that the image processing pipeline is optimized for the way that it is now, but it seems to me that, while it might involve some trading off some performance, that it could just be a firmware change. Could it? Would you be able to provide uncompressed raw as a firmware update, or would it require new hardware?

KM: Right, yes. So... not hardware.

DE: It is firmware. OK, good! I think people would be willing to accept a slower transfer time or lower frame rate in an uncompressed mode. Some people really, really want that.

Your observations are pretty screwed up:

#1. Kimio laughs when the interviewer introduces the subject.
#2. Kimio admits that Sony’s compression scheme doesn’t produce 14 bit non-compressed images.
#3. Kimio won’t offer any guarantee whether they will fix it or not.
#4. Kimio moves on to next subject as fast as possible.
 

1. Duh, of course he laughs, he knows this is an issue, and he acknowledges that it is an issue. I realize you are just a troll, but turning an embarrassed laugh into something evil is pretty stupid. I am sure he gets asked about it every time he talks to anyone.
2. Where? He says nothing of the sort. Once again, the end user is the judge and the only one that matters. I am willing to accept the limitations and hope Sony is able to fix it via Firmware. 
3. Of course he doesn't. He works for the company, he does not run Sony. Wanting to do something and being able to actually do it can be two different things. He does say it will be firmware and the desire is to make it available on existing cameras. Another comment that paints you as an idiot.
4. Yep, they moved on as the interviewer changed subjects since he was satisfied with the positive answer.

Sony cameras just like any camera are compromises and a huge set of decisions. Every company has its culture and its issues. Nikon for example has screwed around with its mount so many times it makes my head hurt. Canon on the other hand had the balls to do the mount right when they painfully made the decision int he late 80's to leave the legacy mount behind. It's the reason Canon has had an advantage on  lenses every since. Personally I hate the ergonomics of the Nikon cameras and much prefer Canon's menu structure. That is my preference and used Canon from 1989-2015 when I went Sony.

Keep crying your tears of impotent rage.

[artmaltman]

I worry when I read that "compression" is a problem.  LOSSY compression is a problem, or at least a potential problem.  Compression that is LOSSLESS, i.e. retains all the data, is wonderful.  

 

I do think that Sony should provide a LOSSLESS compression option like other vendors do, so that photographers can experiment and decide for themselves when it's worth the space and speed penalty.  

 

Mostly what we get on the internet are snarky comments like "show me where it matters ha ha".  But we can't determine for sure where it matters unless we can do the comparison.  

 

I also have read that the losses of the lossy compression are greater in AFC mode than in AFS mode. That is, again, as a compromise for speed.  I wish, at the least, that Sony would document this clearly and give us control, so that we can decide what is best for our needs.  (Perhaps it is documented and I missed it?)