Raw file size
Dec 18, 2019 19:28:16 #
abc1234 wrote:
The size of the raw file depends upon the camera. My point is that unless you are making large prints, probably greater than 11x14, the small raw may be all you need. If you have a large raw, then you are losing a lot of pixels when you make the appropriate size jpg. In that case, why even shoot large?
Sure, storage is cheap but by waste it for unneeded pixels?
Sure, storage is cheap but by waste it for unneeded pixels?
Those numbers I mentioned are from your 80D. You still have S raw which is 6 megapixels, but it still costs you 15 megabytes to store it. 24 megapixels for on 28 megabytes is a bargain.
Dec 18, 2019 19:30:48 #
abc1234 wrote:
I'm very glad that I didn't join UHH when I still had an 8 mp camera with 18-55 mm kit lens, was shooting jpg and not editing. I had three 20x30 posters printed that I enjoyed tremendously. Two were about color and form, one was an autumn shot in Maine with great light and an engaging composition. The size of the raw file depends upon the camera. My point is that unless you are making large prints, probably greater than 11x14, the small raw may be all you need. If you have a large raw, then you are losing a lot of pixels when you make the appropriate size jpg. In that case, why even shoot large?
Sure, storage is cheap but by waste it for unneeded pixels?
Sure, storage is cheap but by waste it for unneeded pixels?
None were about being sharp at 100% or showing extreme details throughout -- Ignorance can be blissful
Dec 19, 2019 03:03:51 #
abc1234 wrote:
This came up in another thread. Wat size do you r... (show quote)
I got interested in what you said about the M raw and S raw because my Canon does not have those file types. I have only raw and compressed raw, but both have the same pixel count, just different amounts of compression.. Anyway I saw this article which had a link to a technical paper. It seems they get from the regular raw to the M raw and S raw by interpolation, since there are fewer pixels than regular raw, they get there by sampling a cluster of pixels to decide what the value will be for each of the resulting pixels. Of course you could do the same downsampling in post from a full size raw file. The supposed advantage would be a slightly smaller file and a faster burst rate in camera. They mention wedding photographers as an example of needing that. So it could have some uses if you worried over storage or shooting speed.
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3653405
Dec 19, 2019 11:59:20 #
Linda From Maine wrote:
I'm very glad that I didn't join UHH when I still had an 8 mp camera with 18-55 mm kit lens, was shooting jpg and not editing. I had three 20x30 posters printed that I enjoyed tremendously. Two were about color and form, one was an autumn shot in Maine with great light and an engaging composition.
None were about being sharp at 100% or showing extreme details throughout -- Ignorance can be blissful
None were about being sharp at 100% or showing extreme details throughout -- Ignorance can be blissful
"I still had an 8 mp camera with 18-55 mm kit lens..."
I'm having fun revisiting 8 MP photography. Current cameras that shoot 4K video are recording 30 to 60 8 MP images every second. Buried in a lot of our software is the ability to pick individual "frames" as photos. Sizing, resizing and other processing can make those "small" images into good photos.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.