Image Resolution and File Size
Apr 28, 2019 14:38:44 #
BebuLamar wrote:
Yes if your Fuji stores your 16MP image as uncompressed 14 bit RAW and the 32MB is about the same as my Nikon Df which also has 16MP. I checked the D610 manual and there is no option for saving the images as uncompressed RAW. With lossless compressed RAW it's about 29MB which you observed.
Is only the RAW data compressed? That would be totally different than compressing an image.
It would be similar to a zip file then.
Apr 28, 2019 15:12:14 #
The 1920 x 1280 dimension is the embedded jpg in the raw file.
Actual size for raf. file will be 4896 x 3264
Actual size for raf. file will be 4896 x 3264
Apr 28, 2019 16:31:46 #
Longshadow wrote:
Is only the RAW data compressed? That would be totally different than compressing an image.
It would be similar to a zip file then.
It would be similar to a zip file then.
The RAW data is compressed and you have options of whether lossy or lossless compression. You also have the options of either 12 or 14 bits RAW.
Apr 29, 2019 08:49:33 #
Dikdik
Loc: Winnipeg, Canada
tenny52 wrote:
I use Jing to catch the screen; I don't know any other way
I use <Alt><PrnScrn> and paste it to a *.docx file.
Dik
Apr 29, 2019 08:55:54 #
Dikdik wrote:
I use <Alt><PrnScrn> and paste it to a *.docx file.
Dik
Dik
FYI-
If you can't read a .docx file (I can't, I have Word 2003)), here is a link to a place to circumvent that:
https://document.online-convert.com/
Apr 29, 2019 09:07:03 #
Dikdik
Loc: Winnipeg, Canada
Longshadow wrote:
FYI-
If you can't read a .docx file (I can't I have Word 2003)), here is a link to a place to circumvent that:
https://document.online-convert.com/
If you can't read a .docx file (I can't I have Word 2003)), here is a link to a place to circumvent that:
https://document.online-convert.com/
I use Libreoffice, and I can write to *.doc file, too. Just a matter of <Ctrl><V> to paste the image into a document. Also use landscape make better use of the monitor width and height.
Dik
Apr 29, 2019 09:09:27 #
Dikdik wrote:
I use Libreoffice, and I can write to *.doc file, too. Just a matter of <Ctrl><V> to paste the image into a document. Also use landscape make better use of the monitor width and height.
Dik
Dik
The problem with having older software, it has no idea what to do with a new format.
Apr 29, 2019 09:13:55 #
Dikdik
Loc: Winnipeg, Canada
Longshadow wrote:
The problem with having older software, it has no idea what to do with a new format.
Libreoffice will create a file that is readable as a *.doc file. You should be able to cut and paste into your earlier version of Word. Give it a try... it's easy to do. The <Ctrl><PrnScr> just puts a copy of the screen image into the 'clipboard'.
Dik
Apr 29, 2019 09:16:55 #
Dikdik wrote:
Libreoffice will create a file that is readable as a *.doc file. You should be able to cut and paste into your earlier version of Word. Give it a try... it's easy to do. The <Ctrl><PrnScr> just puts a copy of the screen image into the 'clipboard'.
Dik
Dik
That's why I use the docx converter.
(Probably a dozen or so options out there.)
Apr 29, 2019 09:21:14 #
Dikdik
Loc: Winnipeg, Canada
Longshadow wrote:
That's why I use the docx converter.
(Probably a dozen or so options out there.)
(Probably a dozen or so options out there.)
I've been using Libreoffice for years (decades?) and have never had a problem with not being able to open an MS Word file, or writing to one. It's free, works in Linux, too and no rental fees to MS. No conversion required... and, I write (default) to *.docx.
Dik
Apr 29, 2019 09:59:43 #
Dikdik wrote:
I use Libreoffice, and I can write to *.doc file, too. Just a matter of <Ctrl><V> to paste the image into a document. Also use landscape make better use of the monitor width and height.
Dik
Dik
Libreoffice is good, and so is OpenOffice. Both are word work alikes, and read and write from the earliest versions to the current version of word. Both are free.
Apr 29, 2019 10:03:53 #
Dikdik
Loc: Winnipeg, Canada
frankraney wrote:
Libreoffice is good, and so is OpenOffice. Both are word work alikes, and read and write from the earliest versions to the current version of word. Both are free.
Yes
Dik
Apr 29, 2019 10:13:48 #
tenny52 wrote:
I am confused by my recent finding. br I recently ... (show quote)
Different algorithms used. I notice the same "confusing" effect between my several Pentax cameras, a Fuji X-100T, a Samsung PnS, and a Kodak PnS. The MP size is not linear to the file sizes in MB. Newer models may be more efficient yet contain more data. Same was true with MS-Word VS WordPerfect files of the "same" document. The "math" differs.
As noted by another UHH'er you are asking about an Apples to Kumquats comparison. It is meaningless.
I use Photoshop CS6 for PP. Add a few layers and my file size goes from 20MB to 85MB. I sometimes make panoramas that are 1.2 GB! So don't fret over file size in bytes. You really need to think about the size(s) in pixels (say 4000x6000).
Apr 29, 2019 14:10:02 #
tenny52
Loc: San Francisco
rebride wrote:
The 1920 x 1280 dimension is the embedded jpg in the raw file.
Actual size for raf. file will be 4896 x 3264
Actual size for raf. file will be 4896 x 3264
thank you, it makes sense.
My window explorer does not show the meta data of the Raf file as yours did(don't know why), but Faststones shows the 1920x1280
Since I don't have Capture One so I open the Raf file with PS Camera Raw and it shows 4896 x 3264.
Now I know my Fuji uses more memory(32MB) to store a raf file because it has an embedded jpg file.
Fuji Raf uses about 29MB to store 16MP of raw image plus 2.5MB of embedded jpg,
while Nikon Nef uses 26MB to store 24 MP of raw image and an embedded jpg. Numbers is approximation only.
Can I say the Nikon NEF formatting method is much better in my.
Since there are many good reviews for the Fuji jpg, I wonder how many Fuji users bypass shooting raw?
Apr 29, 2019 14:21:31 #
tenny52 wrote:
Do you mean that the mp number will change according to the image taken?
Then why the RAF size is larger than that of my NEF, that means a SD will store less RAF than NEF?
I use Jing to catch the screen; I don't know any other way
Then why the RAF size is larger than that of my NEF, that means a SD will store less RAF than NEF?
I use Jing to catch the screen; I don't know any other way
NO. It changes with the "image quality" selected as the file type. This is a selectable camera setting. You do not have it on the highest setting.
Photo resolution in megapixels and file size in megabytes are not necessarily related. A high megapixel photo can be highly compressed into a small megabyte file. On the other hand, a small megapixel photo can be uncompressed and make a bigger (more megabyte) file.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.