OK, thanks to all of you. I'm reading up on image size and pixel numbers.
shells wrote:
OK, thanks to all of you. I'm reading up on image size and pixel numbers.
Good to do, but it won't help here. The answer is in the content of the image. All that white snow and grey sky.
PHRubin wrote:
Good to do, but it won't help here. The answer is in the content of the image. All that white snow and grey sky.
Could you tell from the thumbnail it was a 6000x4000 pixel image? I couldn't ...
Could you tell from the thumbnail it was a full-resolution RAW? I couldn't ...
Could you tell from the thumbnail it was SOOC or edited? I couldn't ...
Could it have accidently been shot in DX mode or another image size.?
---
Vienna74
Loc: Bountiful, Utah now Panama
If you were to shoot the same scene twice, one shot underexposed and one overexposed, the resulting RAW file would be larger for the overexposed shot. Why? Because a histogram is logarithmic. Pixels at the right represent more data than pixels at the left. That is perhaps the best reason for shooting to the right in digital. More data means better quality post-production.
Vienna74 wrote:
If you were to shoot the same scene twice, one shot underexposed and one overexposed, the resulting RAW file would be larger for the overexposed shot. Why? Because a histogram is logarithmic. Pixels at the right represent more data than pixels at the left. That is perhaps the best reason for shooting to the right in digital. More data means better quality post-production.
Nah! if you grossly overexpose your shot the file will be small. But regardless of brightness. If all pixels in the frame have the same brightness and color then the file is very small.
How is image quality set in your Menu? You can select raw or Large and Fine (I think those are the terms). My NEF files are around 28MB (D750)
jerryc41 wrote:
How is image quality set in your Menu? You can select raw or Large and Fine (I think those are the terms). My NEF files are around 28MB (D750)
28MB sounds reasonable for a 24MP FF.
lamiaceae wrote:
28MB sounds reasonable for a 24MP FF.
"Reasonable" is my goal for everything.
This is why I love this forum......you all help people when they need it. God Bless All of You.
CHG_CANON:
Great technical answer.
Used to use a black square ⬛️ inside a white background in [analog] Video to generate a square wave you could see on an oscilloscope.
This image had almost NO content.
shells wrote:
Hello UH,
I shoot with a Nikon d750. I want to enlarge a certain photo, but my MB is only 6.57 ??? Why?
Thanks!
For JPEGs, there are three factors that affect file size. Captured resolution (picture quality) and compression (size) depend on the settings you choose. As has been noted, image content also can have a significant affect on file size.
I have found that if your camera is set for Fine/Large or Fine*/Large (a somewhat 'enhanced' choice available on some later model Nikons) it is very typical to see JPEG files about half as large as camera resolution. This is about what you report. Images with less detail, like your snow scene, will be correspondingly smaller, depending on content.
Uncompressed raw files tend to be about twice as large as camera resolution. They are often slightly smaller...like 87 MB for a 45 MP D850 image or 39 MB for a 21 MP D500 image.
So as some others have concluded, the file sizes you are seeing for your 24 MP camera seem to be just about right.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.