PHRubin wrote:
By your way ot thinking each pixel puts out only 1 bit! What a lame A/D that would be.
I think he meant 16MB (MegaByte and not MegaBit) but that means each pixel is only 1 byte or 8 bit. It's possible to store 14 bit RAW at that size but it has to be compressed.
My uncompressed RAW from a 16MP camera is 34MB. I think the camera takes the 14 bit value and store it in 2 bytes (16 bit). That would make it simpler but of course takes more storage space.
BebuLamar wrote:
I think he meant 16MB (MegaByte and not MegaBit) but that means each pixel is only 1 byte or 8 bit. It's possible to store 14 bit RAW at that size but it has to be compressed.
My uncompressed RAW from a 16MP camera is 34MB. I think the camera takes the 14 bit value and store it in 2 bytes (16 bit). That would make it simpler but of course takes more storage space.
My Canon shoots 26mp at 14 bit. The lossless compressed raw file is 29.1 mb. It doesn't offer uncompressed raw. The lossy compressed raw for 26mp is 17.1 mb.
bleirer wrote:
My Canon shoots 26mp at 14 bit. The lossless compressed raw file is 29.1 mb. It doesn't offer uncompressed raw. The lossy compressed raw for 26mp is 17.1 mb.
If I set my camera for lossless 14 bit compressed RAW the file is 19-20MB. That is about the same as your because mine is only 16MP.
DirtFarmer
Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA
PHRubin wrote:
By your way ot thinking each pixel puts out only 1 bit! What a lame A/D that would be.
Ultimate black and white.
DirtFarmer wrote:
Ultimate black and white.
One bit isn't sufficient for black and white. I would be either full black or full white. There is no tonal gradation.
DirtFarmer
Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA
BebuLamar wrote:
One bit isn't sufficient for black and white. I would be either full black or full white. There is no tonal gradation.
I didn't say anything about gray.
But to clarify, I should have said "black or white".
BebuLamar wrote:
One bit isn't sufficient for black and white. I would be either full black or full white. There is no tonal gradation.
Actually, newspapers have been sucessful making photos that are only black or white!
PHRubin wrote:
Actually, newspapers have been sucessful making photos that are only black or white!
Not really! Similar to printing B&W image with an inkjet. The printer can only produce black dots or nothing. But by grouping a number of dots to create one pixel they are able to produce a continuous tone image with lower resolution.
BebuLamar wrote:
Not really! Similar to printing B&W image with an inkjet. The printer can only produce black dots or nothing. But by grouping a number of dots to create one pixel they are able to produce a continuous tone image with lower resolution.
If you consider the paper as the white, then yes, really.
BigDaddy wrote:
That doesn't sound right to me. A 16 MP file should be around 16Mb, a little more for file overhead. My 24MP NEF files are around 24Mb, some a bit more, some a bit less, plus the small sidecar file that contains the edits. Curious why yours would be 2x larger than the data they contain? What camera is making your raw files?
On that note, some of my 24mp raw files are less than 24mb, and that doesn't make sense to me either?
I know some of my PSD files can get really, really huge, but not the raw file. I have no idea what all Adobe puts in a PSD file to get it super large, some almost 400Mb, others just over a meg.
That doesn't sound right to me. A 16 MP file shou... (
show quote)
I've converted many RAW files to 16 bit tiff, having to do with reversing photos taken of color negatives and using the Color Perfect plugin. That's the first step. I have a Nikon D810. I start with 200+ megabyte files after the conversion.
DirtFarmer
Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA
BebuLamar wrote:
Not really! Similar to printing B&W image with an inkjet. The printer can only produce black dots or nothing. But by grouping a number of dots to create one pixel they are able to produce a continuous tone image with lower resolution.
The halftone produced in a newspaper (or an inkjet) is still only (the color of the ink) or (the color of the paper). The illusion of the continuous tone is caused by our eye/brain being unable to resolve the individual dots. Look closely and you will see them.
PHRubin wrote:
By your way ot thinking each pixel puts out only 1 bit! What a lame A/D that would be.
Not my way of thinking, it is how my 24 mb Nikon D5200 NEF file sizes come out. As you can see, they are very close to what I said. These are bytes btw, not bits.
Checking further, my old Panasonic fz 18 is an 8 mp camera and it's raw file sizes are around 13mb. Why these variations I don't know. I've read RAW files are compressed by some manufacturers, and this could be what is going on, I sure don't know what all these folks do with raw files, they are all proprietary and different. My Panasonic files are closer to what BebuLamar is getting with his camera, but not my Nikon.
What are your raw file sizes, and from what camera?
Streets wrote:
I wonder when this topic will be covering the sub-atomic physics level of raw vs. jpeg. We appear to be getting close. Just shoot jpeg and use the extra time you have by enjoying the outdoors.
I await the reply that invokes “string theory” to clarify ‘raw vs compressed.’
A 16 MP image yielding a 34 MB file means the pixels are 16 bit depth. The excess 2 MB file size would be file overhead - but a bit way high tho. At a 16 bit pixel depth the 3 color channels (RGB) could be 5 bits. When such a file comes into Photoshop, PS will create 8 bit color channels. PS can be adjusted to make greater bit depth color channels, but production color printers might not be able to handle such color detail except for certain specialty equipment.
BebuLamar wrote:
I think he meant 16MB (MegaByte and not MegaBit) but that means each pixel is only 1 byte or 8 bit. It's possible to store 14 bit RAW at that size but it has to be compressed.
My uncompressed RAW from a 16MP camera is 34MB. I think the camera takes the 14 bit value and store it in 2 bytes (16 bit). That would make it simpler but of course takes more storage space.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.