Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Memory Card Image Capacity
Page <prev 2 of 3 next>
May 19, 2021 16:13:56   #
chrissybabe Loc: New Zealand
 
Longshadow wrote:
Don't need no stinking manual...

You might not but the OP might.

Reply
May 19, 2021 16:22:03   #
Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States
 
chrissybabe wrote:
You might not but the OP might.

Ahhh, it's a "saying" in the US.

Not taken literally.

Reply
May 19, 2021 16:26:42   #
chrissybabe Loc: New Zealand
 
Longshadow wrote:
Ahhh, it's a "saying" in the US.
Not taken literally.

Okay. We don't speak US where I come from.

Reply
 
 
May 19, 2021 16:37:15   #
Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States
 
chrissybabe wrote:
Okay. We don't speak US where I come from.

That's why I s'plained that.

Reply
May 19, 2021 17:53:25   #
Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)
 
ahudina wrote:
I have searched the archives here and did an internet search, but surprisingly I could not find a consistent chart or calculator for memory card image capacity. I also tried the San Disk website. The camera is a Nikon D 850 (45.7 MP), I shoot Raw 14 bit uncompressed. I did find a detailed chart that only went to 22 MP but had "uncompressed RAW" denoted as "24 bits per pixel" and a image size for this indicated as 66 MB. I do not know if the chart's "bits per pixel" can be proportionately reduced to 14 bit or if this is even a correct equivalency. Presuming "bits per pixel" is equivalent to "bit depth," then the chart values need to be multiplied by .58 (14/24) for a file size of 38 MB and then times 2.1 to get from the chart figure for a 22 MP camera to my 45.7 MP Nikon, or a file (image) size for my camera of 74 MB. A 64 GB card would then, based upon the above, hold 479 14 bit uncompressed 45.7 MB images. I realize, if calculated correctly, this is only an approximation, but I was just looking for some approximation. Any thoughts, comments, corrections or perhaps better yet a link to a chart that allows for input of values upon which calculations can be made? Thanks.
I have searched the archives here and did an inter... (show quote)


Paul posted the page from the manual. But I have to ask - what do you think you are gaining by shooting uncompressed raw 14 bit, when lossless compressed provides results that are indistinguishable from uncompressed . . .

Reply
May 19, 2021 18:12:07   #
larryepage Loc: North Texas area
 
Alphabravo2020 wrote:
Not to hijack the post but what is the maximum size card you guys have successfully used in the d850? I think for me it is 120gb.


I am using a 512 GB SD card for 14 bit uncompressed NEF files and a 240 GB XQD card for Fine/Large JPEGs. These balance just about perfectly and will hold 3200 or 3300 image files. Video also goes to the XQD. I don't shoot bursts except rarely, and never more than what the camera buffer will hold, so I've never had a performance issue because I'm set up this way.

Gene--if one shoots bursts, the camera still has to write the uncompressed data to the buffer, then compress it, then write to the memory card. The process is measurably slower than simply writing uncompressed data.

Reply
May 19, 2021 18:29:28   #
Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States
 
larryepage wrote:
...
...
... if one shoots bursts, the camera still has to write the uncompressed data to the buffer, then compress it, then write to the memory card. The process is measurably slower than simply writing uncompressed data.

Is an uncompressed NEF file a RAW file? Or is it different?
On my camera, changing from RAW+JPEG to RAW almost doubles my burst speed. No CPU overhead compressing & writing the JPEG. Saving only JPEG really ramps up the burst rate, smaller files. But I, myself, would rather have the RAW.

Reply
 
 
May 19, 2021 18:38:26   #
larryepage Loc: North Texas area
 
Longshadow wrote:
Is an uncompressed NEF file a RAW file? Or is it different?
On my camera, changing from RAW+JPEG to RAW almost doubles my burst speed. No CPU overhead compressing & writing the JPEG. Saving only JPEG really ramps up the burst rate, smaller files. But I, myself, would rather have the RAW.


Same data, just compressed to save space. Takes processor cycles and time to do the compression. It's just a tradeoff between speed and space.

If I shot sports (or pretty much anything involving high ISOs) I'd probably use 12 bit uncompressed raw files. The reduced dynamic range at high ISOs doesn't need those extra two bits, so there's about 15% less data to move and to store. Faster and smaller space requirement. Winner all around.

Reply
May 19, 2021 19:11:00   #
MrT Loc: Gilbert, AZ
 
Don’t have my D850 handy but the display on the top will tell you how many frames are left. I think you have to select this option in setup. This also changes for any card and any format selection. Small raw, fine jpg etc. put in a 64 or 128 and the frames left changes. Sorry for this disjointed comment at work typing on a phone. Good luck.

Reply
May 19, 2021 19:34:25   #
cahale Loc: San Angelo, TX
 
ahudina wrote:
I have searched the archives here and did an internet search, but surprisingly I could not find a consistent chart or calculator for memory card image capacity. I also tried the San Disk website. The camera is a Nikon D 850 (45.7 MP), I shoot Raw 14 bit uncompressed. I did find a detailed chart that only went to 22 MP but had "uncompressed RAW" denoted as "24 bits per pixel" and a image size for this indicated as 66 MB. I do not know if the chart's "bits per pixel" can be proportionately reduced to 14 bit or if this is even a correct equivalency. Presuming "bits per pixel" is equivalent to "bit depth," then the chart values need to be multiplied by .58 (14/24) for a file size of 38 MB and then times 2.1 to get from the chart figure for a 22 MP camera to my 45.7 MP Nikon, or a file (image) size for my camera of 74 MB. A 64 GB card would then, based upon the above, hold 479 14 bit uncompressed 45.7 MB images. I realize, if calculated correctly, this is only an approximation, but I was just looking for some approximation. Any thoughts, comments, corrections or perhaps better yet a link to a chart that allows for input of values upon which calculations can be made? Thanks.
I have searched the archives here and did an inter... (show quote)


What is the size of a single image taken by your camera. It doesn't matter whether it's RAW or JPG. Divide card total capacity by that figure and you know how many images (of that type) the card will hold. Probably subtract one for house keeping duties by the card.

Reply
May 19, 2021 19:43:48   #
Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States
 
larryepage wrote:
Same data, just compressed to save space. Takes processor cycles and time to do the compression. It's just a tradeoff between speed and space.

If I shot sports (or pretty much anything involving high ISOs) I'd probably use 12 bit uncompressed raw files. The reduced dynamic range at high ISOs doesn't need those extra two bits, so there's about 15% less data to move and to store. Faster and smaller space requirement. Winner all around.

Basically RAW-1 and RAW-2, interesting.

Reply
 
 
May 19, 2021 19:55:09   #
Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States
 
cahale wrote:
What is the size of a single image taken by your camera. It doesn't matter whether it's RAW or JPG. Divide card total capacity by that figure and you know how many images (of that type) the card will hold. Probably subtract one for house keeping duties by the card.

File sizes will be different depending what is in the image data. More complex/colors, larger file. Maybe not by much, but all files from a camera will not necessarily be the same size. My RAW files are about three times larger than the JPEGS out of the camera.

Reply
May 19, 2021 21:20:41   #
User ID
 
larryepage wrote:
I am using a 512 GB SD card for 14 bit uncompressed NEF files and a 240 GB XQD card for Fine/Large JPEGs. These balance just about perfectly and will hold 3200 or 3300 image files. Video also goes to the XQD. I don't shoot bursts except rarely, and never more than what the camera buffer will hold, so I've never had a performance issue because I'm set up this way.

Gene--if one shoots bursts, the camera still has to write the uncompressed data to the buffer, then compress it, then write to the memory card. The process is measurably slower than simply writing uncompressed data.
I am using a 512 GB SD card for 14 bit uncompresse... (show quote)

If your work style would not suffer, some cameras allow the user to cap the size of the burst. Since I use the HS max burst speed only as insurance against camera shake in handheld exposures, I set the cap at four frames.

On a Z6 with a CFexpress card this takes about a half second at the slow dim light shutter speeds where I use HS burst to back up the IBIS. Usually only one frame has camera motion blur, but sometimes it’s the first frame, so this is a good idea. Very occasionally only just one frame is acceptable. All in all, four frames seems the right cap for my dim light work.

Reply
May 19, 2021 21:34:50   #
Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States
 
User ID wrote:
If your work style would not suffer, some cameras allow the user to cap the size of the burst. Since I use the HS max burst speed only as insurance against camera shake in handheld exposures, I set the cap at four frames.

On a Z6 with a CFexpress card this takes about a half second at the slow dim light shutter speeds where I use HS burst to back up the IBIS. Usually only one frame has camera motion blur, but sometimes it’s the first frame, so this is a good idea. Very occasionally only just one frame is acceptable. All in all, four frames seems the right cap for my dim light work.
If your work style would not suffer, some cameras ... (show quote)

Interesting, "cap the size of the burst"? Just lift finger? Or does it take four shots regardless if finger is pressing button?
Bummer if all of a sudden one would want six, or more.

Reply
May 20, 2021 01:29:55   #
MrT Loc: Gilbert, AZ
 
I confirmed that with the camera off, the top display shows the number of frames based on the current quality setting. If I set it to TIFF I get 850, RAW gets 1200 on a 128GB card. This changes as I change the quality setting.

Reply
Page <prev 2 of 3 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.