Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
Thread started 06 Feb 2012 (Monday) 22:30
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Not 36MP!!

 
RhysPhotograph.Me
Senior Member
Avatar
504 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Nov 2011
     
Feb 21, 2012 09:46 |  #226
bannedPermanent ban

^^^
It's an average, sometimes I get 11mb files, sometimes I get 13, but 90% of them are 12mb, at least for my style of shooting.


Wedding photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
mafoo
Goldmember
Avatar
1,503 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Dec 2011
     
Feb 21, 2012 09:47 |  #227

RhysPhotograph.Me wrote in post #13935709 (external link)
^^^
It's an average, sometimes I get 11mb files, sometimes I get 13, but 90% of them are 12mb

ok, that makes more sense.


-Jeremy
5D Mk II | SL1 | 24-105 f4.0L IS | 70-200 f2.8L IS | S35 1.4 | 40 2.8 Pancake | Samyang 14 2.8 | 430EX II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CameraMan
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
13,337 posts
Gallery: 26 photos
Likes: 745
Joined Dec 2010
Location: In The Sticks
     
Feb 21, 2012 09:47 |  #228

I hardly ever use 21MP on my 5DMII. I considered bying the 5Dc but I had the $$$ for the MKII so I opted for that and am happy with the purchase. It's nice knowing that if I ever needed to I could shoot 21MP shots but 10MP is just fine for me ATM.


Photographer (external link) | The Toys! | Facebook (external link) | Video (external link) | Flickr (external link)
Shampoo sounds like an unfortunate name for a hair product.
You're a ghost driving a meat-coated skeleton made from stardust, riding a rock, hurtling through space. Fear Nothing!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Numenorean
Cream of the Crop
5,013 posts
Likes: 28
Joined Feb 2011
     
Feb 21, 2012 09:50 |  #229

mafoo wrote in post #13935647 (external link)
Not sure why he has a constant file size for the compressed files. The size should change with the complexity of the data. Unless what they are compressing is not the image data itself, and other information in the RAW file that is constant across all captures.

Looks like an average size - see the number of pictures to the right?


Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AJSJones
Goldmember
Avatar
2,647 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 92
Joined Dec 2001
Location: California
     
Feb 21, 2012 10:36 |  #230

mwsilver wrote in post #13935235 (external link)
"if the algorithm is truly lossless". That's the thing. I was a software developer and have some knowledge about compression algorithms, and addtionally I know from my audio experience that lossless compression is not truly lossless on a high resolution sound system. The technology is only as "lossless" as the algorithms used allow. Once you've converted the original data, that data no longer exists. You're looking at a modified copy. With regard to your example, it was of course simplistic to make a point. However. conversion of a highly complex digital image is anything but simplistic. Again to use audio as a comparison, there are a number of lossless sound file technologies based on different algorithms resulting in different sounding files on a high resolution system. Of course on the kind of sound system that 95% of the public owns the results will "sound" identical. I suspect the same could be true of lossless raw files, but unlike audio I have no expertise. In the mean time, I'll stick with RAW. I don't want to hope that compression does not degrade the image when I can have the whole enchilada.

That may be true in audio "algorithms" but if they do not allow complete reconstruction of the original file, then, no matter what the purveyors say, they are not lossless. Period. If there is a string of values that should be 128 - a gray of some sort in any of the color channels, then it's far more efficient to encode that as "1000 values of 128", than to repeat the code for the value for "128 one thousand times" in the file. That's what lossless encoding/compression is all about.


My picture galleries (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RTPVid
Goldmember
3,365 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Aug 2010
Location: MN
     
Feb 21, 2012 12:08 as a reply to  @ AJSJones's post |  #231

Common example of lossless compression: zip.

While I would not be totally shocked to see Apple try to re-define the word "lossless", I seriously doubt they did. If I use a lossless audio compression for ripping a CD track, when the file is decompressed, the original CD track comes back exactly. If Apple "Lossless" cannot do that, it is not lossless, regardless of what Apple names it. But, I expect it is actually lossless.

If Nikon claims to have a lossless compression of their RAW files, it is no doubt actually lossless (i.e. the original RAW file can be reproduced exactly). The "cost" for using it is most likely performance... it probably takes longer to write the file.


Tom

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RhysPhotograph.Me
Senior Member
Avatar
504 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Nov 2011
     
Feb 21, 2012 12:15 |  #232
bannedPermanent ban

^^^
No, the sacrifice is a slightly reduced buffer, however as the files are smaller they are written to card faster.


"Uncompressed

This file format does not apply any compression to the images when recorded on the card. This means that files will be larger and take longer to write to the card than when using compression.
Uncompressed offers the best image quality without applying any compression to the file. This method is useful for customers who wish to use 3rd party software to open their images."


Wedding photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Vascilli
Goldmember
1,474 posts
Joined Jul 2008
Location: Calgary
     
Feb 21, 2012 12:17 |  #233

If 36MP is too much then shoot in a smaller resolution.


Flickr (external link) | Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RhysPhotograph.Me
Senior Member
Avatar
504 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Nov 2011
     
Feb 21, 2012 12:21 |  #234
bannedPermanent ban

^^^
Lossless compressed full res raw's should be around 40mb.
But you don't get an s or mraw option, at least with Nikon...


Wedding photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mwsilver
Goldmember
4,028 posts
Gallery: 54 photos
Likes: 598
Joined Oct 2011
Location: Central New Jersey
     
Feb 21, 2012 12:35 |  #235

mafoo wrote in post #13935694 (external link)
The delta in sound quality I suspect you are hearing, is due to how different software decides to represent the bit stream, based on the algorithm. Also, there is no guarantee that an application that tries to implement a lossless standard, did it right.

I have no argument with your assessment. For audiophiles the issues is an ongoing one and most of us listen to uncompressed FLAC, WAV or AIFF files as a result. But if differences can be heard between lossless and uncompressed audio files, how confident can we be that similar issues won't occur for image files? I've read that there have been documented differences between RAW files processed in ACR and DPP. Perhaps these differences are now resolved. However, given the number of RAW programs and converters out there, other than to save space, why would we risk conversion or recovery issues with MRAW and SRAW if space was not an issue?


Mark
Canon 7D2, 60D, T3i, T2i, Sigma 18-35 f/1.8, 30 f/1.4. Canon EF 70-200 L f/4 IS, EF 35 f/2 IS, EFs 10-18 STM, EFs 15-85, EFs 18-200, EF 50 f/1.8 STM, Tamron 18-270 PZD, B+W MRC CPL, Canon 320EX, Vanguard Alta Pro 254CT & SBH 250 head. RODE Stereo Videomic Pro, DXO PhotoLab Elite, ON1

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RhysPhotograph.Me
Senior Member
Avatar
504 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Nov 2011
     
Feb 21, 2012 12:39 |  #236
bannedPermanent ban

^^^
MRAW and SRAW are completely different, they reduce the size (resolution) of the entire image.


Wedding photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RTPVid
Goldmember
3,365 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Aug 2010
Location: MN
     
Feb 21, 2012 12:41 as a reply to  @ mwsilver's post |  #237

RhysPhotograph.Me wrote in post #13936665 (external link)
^^^
No, the sacrifice is a slightly reduced buffer, however as the files are smaller they are written to card faster.


"Uncompressed

This file format does not apply any compression to the images when recorded on the card. This means that files will be larger and take longer to write to the card than when using compression.
Uncompressed offers the best image quality without applying any compression to the file. This method is useful for customers who wish to use 3rd party software to open their images."

This is true is all you are measuring is literally the time to write the file. However, actually compressing the file takes time, too.


Tom

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RhysPhotograph.Me
Senior Member
Avatar
504 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Nov 2011
     
Feb 21, 2012 12:49 |  #238
bannedPermanent ban

^^^
No doubt it does, but it certainly doesn't seem to be noticeable with my D700.
I presume the processor die has some dedicated transistors to accomplish this without noticeable penalty, it may even provide a benefit if the CF card speed is a bottleneck.
(Intel's quick sync is a good example of hardware Vs software efficiency gains)


Wedding photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AJSJones
Goldmember
Avatar
2,647 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 92
Joined Dec 2001
Location: California
     
Feb 21, 2012 23:10 |  #239

mwsilver wrote in post #13936813 (external link)
I have no argument with your assessment. For audiophiles the issues is an ongoing one and most of us listen to uncompressed FLAC, WAV or AIFF files as a result. But if differences can be heard between lossless and uncompressed audio files, how confident can we be that similar issues won't occur for image files? I've read that there have been documented differences between RAW files processed in ACR and DPP. Perhaps these differences are now resolved. However, given the number of RAW programs and converters out there, other than to save space, why would we risk conversion or recovery issues with MRAW and SRAW if space was not an issue?

WAV and AIFF are uncompressed, but can use many bitrates bitdepths, so they aren't necessarily "perfect", although they can be. The L in FLAC stands for lossless:

FLAC (Free Lossless Audio Codec) is a codec (compressor-decompressor) which allows digital audio to be losslessly compressed such that file size is reduced without any information being lost. Digital audio compressed by FLAC's algorithm can typically be reduced to 50–60% of its original size, and decompressed into an identical copy of the original audio data.

. The other compressors are more or less lossy - like jpeg at various "quality" levels, while lossless image compressors decompress into an identical copy ...


My picture galleries (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mwsilver
Goldmember
4,028 posts
Gallery: 54 photos
Likes: 598
Joined Oct 2011
Location: Central New Jersey
     
Feb 21, 2012 23:25 |  #240

AJSJones wrote in post #13941202 (external link)
WAV and AIFF are uncompressed, but can use many bitrates bitdepths, so they aren't necessarily "perfect", although they can be. The L in FLAC stands for lossless:

I know about the FLAC files. I myself do not use them. I mostly listen to Redbook CD's and LP's. Yes LPs. When I listen to wireless streaming music from my computer to my main stereo only system I usually listen to AIFF files.The whole process of listening to high definition streaming data is still in a somewhat transitional phase. I can't imagine that there are not similar issues and concerns with digital image files.


Mark
Canon 7D2, 60D, T3i, T2i, Sigma 18-35 f/1.8, 30 f/1.4. Canon EF 70-200 L f/4 IS, EF 35 f/2 IS, EFs 10-18 STM, EFs 15-85, EFs 18-200, EF 50 f/1.8 STM, Tamron 18-270 PZD, B+W MRC CPL, Canon 320EX, Vanguard Alta Pro 254CT & SBH 250 head. RODE Stereo Videomic Pro, DXO PhotoLab Elite, ON1

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

30,712 views & 0 likes for this thread
Not 36MP!!
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is tinaharper
832 guests, 267 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.