Differences in MBs ....again/continued
Feb 25, 2024 13:08:32 #
clansman
Loc: wendover,england
Just to follow on from a few days earlier. These are from today, again indoors. This time I used 1/1000th, 2.8 (70-200 instead of the previous 70-300 minimum 5.6)) and ISO of 2500. Both are approx 4 .5 MBs, while the one with the yellow wings, when showing the whole of those wings was 30MBs ! Quite an education.
The heavier 70-200 meant using the body screen instead of the viewfinder, (hence loss of part of helmet!) taking time to get used to such, so compromise eventually by taking a larger pic, and cropping.
So thank you all for all the info and explanations, which have been most useful.
The heavier 70-200 meant using the body screen instead of the viewfinder, (hence loss of part of helmet!) taking time to get used to such, so compromise eventually by taking a larger pic, and cropping.
So thank you all for all the info and explanations, which have been most useful.
Feb 25, 2024 13:17:23 #
Feb 25, 2024 13:24:44 #
clansman
Loc: wendover,england
Rongnongno wrote:
Gallery.... AGAIN!
Apologies, these were for explanation, not as a general gallery content, and I thought it best to continue in the same chapter for the sake of continuity as to results achieved. My mistake, apologies.
Feb 25, 2024 13:41:15 #
It has to do with how the pixel information is stored.
Think of one scenario- for simplicity sake; two rows of pixel information, 100 pixels wide:
The first row is all one color, lets say white #FFFF, the second row is alternate black (#0000) and white.
Saving the information with a certain (imaginary) algorithm could be:
100(FFFF)/50(0000,FFFF)/...
(Where "/" is the row separator.)
If both rows were all black:
100(0000)/100(0000)/...
If all pixels in the second row are all different, the algorithm could yield:
100(0000)/0000,2020,01AC,CCFF,0000,CDBF,0100,73CD,AF34, <and on for 100 pixels>
As you can see the second line information string becomes rather lengthy as the above example shows only nine pixels.
This is why more complex images require more storage space for the file. They have to save all the differences, and can't use a "shorthand" like "<number of pixels>"(<pixel color>) or "100(FFFF)".
The manufacturers try to come up with a storage algorithm that will create a small file while retaining all the image info.
Think of one scenario- for simplicity sake; two rows of pixel information, 100 pixels wide:
The first row is all one color, lets say white #FFFF, the second row is alternate black (#0000) and white.
Saving the information with a certain (imaginary) algorithm could be:
100(FFFF)/50(0000,FFFF)/...
(Where "/" is the row separator.)
If both rows were all black:
100(0000)/100(0000)/...
If all pixels in the second row are all different, the algorithm could yield:
100(0000)/0000,2020,01AC,CCFF,0000,CDBF,0100,73CD,AF34, <and on for 100 pixels>
As you can see the second line information string becomes rather lengthy as the above example shows only nine pixels.
This is why more complex images require more storage space for the file. They have to save all the differences, and can't use a "shorthand" like "<number of pixels>"(<pixel color>) or "100(FFFF)".
The manufacturers try to come up with a storage algorithm that will create a small file while retaining all the image info.
Feb 25, 2024 13:59:03 #
clansman
Loc: wendover,england
Longshadow wrote:
It has to do with how the pixel information is sto... (show quote)
That does make sense, so thankyou for setting it out so clearly. I had no idea of the composition, so thank you again.
Feb 25, 2024 14:20:52 #
clansman wrote:
That does make sense, so thankyou for setting it out so clearly. I had no idea of the composition, so thank you again.
Glad it helped!
Feb 25, 2024 17:18:13 #
Feb 25, 2024 17:19:22 #
clansman wrote:
Apologies, these were for explanation, not as a general gallery content, and I thought it best to continue in the same chapter for the sake of continuity as to results achieved. My mistake, apologies.
There is nothing wrong with your post. We have some overly zealous hall monitors.
Feb 25, 2024 17:19:28 #
Blenheim Orange wrote:
It isn't a gallery post.
They are examples for the discussion.
Feb 25, 2024 18:15:38 #
Feb 25, 2024 23:09:57 #
Orphoto
Loc: Oregon
And yet you got the same answer as the first time. You presented two images with differing degrees of detail. They wont compress the same.
Feb 26, 2024 04:21:29 #
clansman
Loc: wendover,england
Orphoto wrote:
And yet you got the same answer as the first time. You presented two images with differing degrees of detail. They wont compress the same.
Fair point, though all the info has helped me return to the 70-200 with lower ISO and to cope with waist-level screen instead of the viewfinder. As I explained , a weak left shoulder is a nuisance hence my use of the lightweight 70-300. All in all, the UHH forum has been most positive as ever. Thankyou again.
Feb 26, 2024 09:55:35 #
Not sure why you can't look through the viewfinder with the 70-200. I've been using that lens for yers and have had no problem. I suggest you practice and I suspect you will become accustomed to it. Am I missing something? Best of luck.
Feb 26, 2024 10:33:34 #
clansman
Loc: wendover,england
cjc2 wrote:
Not sure why you can't look through the viewfinder with the 70-200. I've been using that lens for yers and have had no problem. I suggest you practice and I suspect you will become accustomed to it. Am I missing something? Best of luck.
Thanks for yours. The 70-200, an excellent lens, is too heavy along with the R5 (which replaced a heavier 1Dx Mk11), as I have a rather useless left shoulder and arm which allows only little weight carrying, hence using the swivel screen while sitting down indoors in gallery seats. I will be using a monopod with ball swivel once outdoors, and will then revert to the viewfinder along with 70-200 and 100-400. Apols if I was unclear.
Feb 26, 2024 12:54:56 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.