Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

8 megapixel RAW file converted to 16-bit Tiff...

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
September 13, 2005 2:09:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

....45 Megs!!! And I thought the RAW file was large.
-Rich
Anonymous
September 13, 2005 12:04:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In news:46dci1p402rad9vvst5gje38got5imcdta@4ax.com,
Rich <none@none.com> typed:
> ...45 Megs!!! And I thought the RAW file was large.
> -Rich

Does that mean you've now taken a photograph at long last? ;-)

nv
Related resources
Anonymous
September 13, 2005 2:52:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Colin D wrote:

> Rich wrote:
>>
>> ...45 Megs!!! And I thought the RAW file was large.
>> -Rich
>
> Yes, 8 megapixels at six bytes per pixel - each color uses two bytes in
> 16-bit files - is 48 megabytes, so why the surprise?

Rich just learned how to multiply.

> You want top quality, you got top quality. Size does matter {:-)

Size tends to reflects the inefficiency of the source coder than
anything else. I have a growing suite of programs which do random
things to images. They all use a floating point format internally;
for a full 1DMkII frame, it comes to about a 100MB footprint. The
point isn't quality, but simplicity. I have never pushed one of these
things across a process boundary yet. The day I need to, though, is
the day I start using the OpenEXR:

http://www.openexr.com/
Anonymous
September 13, 2005 8:06:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Rich" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:46dci1p402rad9vvst5gje38got5imcdta@4ax.com...
> ...45 Megs!!! And I thought the RAW file was large.

You actually DO take pictures?
I thought all you did around here was assume that nobody ever browsed
anywhere.
Anonymous
September 13, 2005 9:57:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Rich wrote:
>
> ...45 Megs!!! And I thought the RAW file was large.
> -Rich

Yes, 8 megapixels at six bytes per pixel - each color uses two bytes in
16-bit files - is 48 megabytes, so why the surprise?

You want top quality, you got top quality. Size does matter {:-)

Colin D.
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 4:03:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Rich" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:46dci1p402rad9vvst5gje38got5imcdta@4ax.com...
> ...45 Megs!!! And I thought the RAW file was large.
> -Rich

So ... ?

Even a "low resolution" scan of a 6 x 6 transparency can run well over 80
megabytes!
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 4:04:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"RSD99" <rsdwla.NOSPAM@gte.net> wrote in message
news:ZS2We.24861$8h6.3988@trnddc09...
> "Rich" <none@none.com> wrote in message
> news:46dci1p402rad9vvst5gje38got5imcdta@4ax.com...
> > ...45 Megs!!! And I thought the RAW file was large.
> > -Rich
>
> So ... ?
>
> Even a "low resolution" scan of a 6 x 6 transparency can run well over 80
> megabytes!
>
>
>
>


I forgot to add ... that's at 8-bits per color, 24-bits per pixel.

If you want "Quality" ... you have to have big files. Always been that way,
will always be that way.
Anonymous
September 16, 2005 1:15:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Thu, 15 Sep 2005 00:04:50 GMT skrev RSD99:
> "RSD99" <rsdwla.NOSPAM@gte.net> wrote in message
> news:ZS2We.24861$8h6.3988@trnddc09...
>> "Rich" <none@none.com> wrote in message
>> news:46dci1p402rad9vvst5gje38got5imcdta@4ax.com...
>> > ...45 Megs!!! And I thought the RAW file was large.
>> > -Rich
>>
>> So ... ?
>>
>> Even a "low resolution" scan of a 6 x 6 transparency can run well over 80
>> megabytes!
>
>
> I forgot to add ... that's at 8-bits per color, 24-bits per pixel.
>
> If you want "Quality" ... you have to have big files. Always been that way,
> will always be that way.

Not necessarily true. Some years ago, that size was considered enormous,
now it is big, in some more years it is small. The human eyes, and hence
the size-requirement will not change, but what is considered big will
change.

--
Mandus - the only mandus around.
September 23, 2005 2:18:59 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Rich" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:46dci1p402rad9vvst5gje38got5imcdta@4ax.com...
> ...45 Megs!!! And I thought the RAW file was large.
> -Rich

....Which is somewhat smaller than the 202MB Tiff files I'm getting from
scanning 6x4.5 120 film this evening @ 3200 DPI.
Resulting image pixel count is about 33 megapixel!

....Hence I'm saving them as .jpgs now as 3GB storage for every roll of film
I scan is just mad!

Alan.
September 23, 2005 3:15:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 22:18:59 +0100, "Alan"
<alz_deane@ntlworld.nospam.com> wrote:

>
>"Rich" <none@none.com> wrote in message
>news:46dci1p402rad9vvst5gje38got5imcdta@4ax.com...
>> ...45 Megs!!! And I thought the RAW file was large.
>> -Rich
>
>...Which is somewhat smaller than the 202MB Tiff files I'm getting from
>scanning 6x4.5 120 film this evening @ 3200 DPI.
>Resulting image pixel count is about 33 megapixel!
>
>...Hence I'm saving them as .jpgs now as 3GB storage for every roll of film
>I scan is just mad!
>
>Alan.
>

Well, you could burn them to DVDs. Cost for bulk is now down to
$0.25/ea. Still pricey, if you have alot of pictures.
-Rich
Anonymous
September 23, 2005 1:57:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Alan" <alz_deane@ntlworld.nospam.com> writes:

> "Rich" <none@none.com> wrote in message
> news:46dci1p402rad9vvst5gje38got5imcdta@4ax.com...
>> ...45 Megs!!! And I thought the RAW file was large.
>> -Rich
>
> ...Which is somewhat smaller than the 202MB Tiff files I'm getting from
> scanning 6x4.5 120 film this evening @ 3200 DPI.
> Resulting image pixel count is about 33 megapixel!
>
> ...Hence I'm saving them as .jpgs now as 3GB storage for every roll of film
> I scan is just mad!

There is such a thing as lossless compression. With modern Photoshop
you have a choice of LZW and zip/deflate. Not as much savings as JPEG,
but no loss. Might it be better to resample down a bit and save with
lossless compression?

--
-Stephen H. Westin
Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not
represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.
!