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 01 Jun 2010 (Tuesday) 00:12
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

XSi Raw files arn't full sized

 
dwarfcow
Senior Member
Avatar
640 posts
Joined Feb 2010
Location: South Central, Alaska
     
Jun 01, 2010 00:12 |  #1

So i'm not completely retarded, or so i thought... But today, my wife stole all our newer/nicer bodies to go do a session; so i had some free time to go out and shoot.

Well, aside from the fact that she forgot to bring cards for the extra bodies she brought with her which rendered all but 1 body useless (to her to which i laughed to myself about)
all i had to play with was our XSi, and the lowly D60 (which after shooting it again gives me a new-found appreciation for the AF systems in all our other bodies including the XSi)

So anyway, I just got back and was uploading the pictures to flip through them, and noticed something odd; the D60 is supposed to be a 6mp camera, and the XSi a 12mp camera. I shot in Raw, full sized as i'm accustom to, and on the camera it told me the files on the xsi were going to be 12M 4272x2848, and the D60 i assumed would be around 6.3mp at 3072 x 2048. i guess it just seemed logical as the 7d at 18M makes raw files that are 5184x3456 just shy of 18million pixels, all are at 24bit, and the xsi and D60 don't have a small or medium raw size that i can find in the menu, and the menu told me the size the images would be on the xsi. But the files i have on the computer are much smaller, just around 3mp from both cameras 2256x1504 from the xsi and 2048x1360 from the D60.

am i just being stupid or what's goin on?


"Evidently the photo shop at the college I go to is one of the best in the country. They actually have a handful of digital medium format cameras for students to use; Haliburtons, or hasslehoffs, or something like that."
-name withheld to protect dignity.
Toys

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
dwarfcow
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
640 posts
Joined Feb 2010
Location: South Central, Alaska
     
Jun 01, 2010 00:24 |  #2

on a side note, the files from the XSi are all around 12-14mb, which seems on par for raw files of the correct dimensions... as our 5dII's raws are around 24-26mb, and the 7D's are 18-20mb


"Evidently the photo shop at the college I go to is one of the best in the country. They actually have a handful of digital medium format cameras for students to use; Haliburtons, or hasslehoffs, or something like that."
-name withheld to protect dignity.
Toys

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
K6AZ
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,250 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 9
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Richmond VA USA
     
Jun 01, 2010 00:28 |  #3

Are the RAWs that size or are you shooting RAW+JPG? Go through the menu again and make sure the quality settings are correct.


Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dwarfcow
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
640 posts
Joined Feb 2010
Location: South Central, Alaska
     
Jun 01, 2010 00:34 as a reply to  @ K6AZ's post |  #4

its just on RAW, and it says the files should be 4272x2848, i just took a few more of my computer speaker and they are still comming out 3.4 mega pixles


"Evidently the photo shop at the college I go to is one of the best in the country. They actually have a handful of digital medium format cameras for students to use; Haliburtons, or hasslehoffs, or something like that."
-name withheld to protect dignity.
Toys

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DANATTHEROCK
Goldmember
Avatar
1,264 posts
Joined Apr 2008
Location: North Carolina
     
Jun 01, 2010 00:38 |  #5

Look at your post processing/resizing settings perhaps. Could be a computer issue.


Canon 5D Mark II & 50D with 17-40, 24-105, 100-400, 50 f/1.4, 100 f/2.8 macro, and 1.4TC

FEISOL CT-3442 (ARL) tripod w/ Photo Clam 40-NS ballhead:lol:

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SkipD
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
20,476 posts
Likes: 163
Joined Dec 2002
Location: Southeastern WI, USA
     
Jun 01, 2010 00:42 |  #6

I suspect you are confusing file size (megabytes) with pixel count (megapixels). There is no direct relationship between the two. .JPG files are compressed files, and the file size will vary greatly depending on the scene in the images. RAW files are not even true image files, but data files from which image files can be made and are effectively "compressed" as well.

If you shot a plain wall with all one color in either RAW or .JPG mode, the file sizes will be quite a bit smaller than if you shot a very "busy" scene with a lot of detail and many colors in it.


Skip Douglas
A few cameras and over 50 years behind them .....
..... but still learning all the time.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dwarfcow
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
640 posts
Joined Feb 2010
Location: South Central, Alaska
     
Jun 01, 2010 00:50 |  #7

SkipD wrote in post #10280070 (external link)
I suspect you are confusing file size (megabits) with pixel count (megapixels). There is no direct relationship between the two. .JPG files are compressed files, and the file size will vary greatly depending on the scene in the images. RAW files are not even true image files, but data files from which image files can be made and are effectively "compressed" as well.

If you shot a plain wall with all one color in either RAW or .JPG mode, the file sizes will be quite a bit smaller than if you shot a very "busy" scene with a lot of detail and many colors in it.

I'm following what you're saying, but MB is mega-byte as in 1024^2 bytes, or (1024^2)x8 bits (8mega-bit)

however, as RAW files are uncompressed files, you typically get a file size that is nearly 1 to 1 bytes per pixel, each pixel is recorded with 8 bits of data, unless they are completely white or completely black, in which case their data is lumped together. (so they are related when shooting in raw, and somewhat related with JPG, but not to the same degree; as the camera compresses similar colors other than white and black to make the image sizes significantly smaller) sooo i brought up the file size (being around 12megabytes each) because it implies that the raw file should be much larger dimension wise...

DANATTHEROCK wrote in post #10280049 (external link)
Look at your post processing/resizing settings perhaps. Could be a computer issue.

so i'm trying to figure out if perhaps my computer is not decoding the cr2 files correctly (we don't really use the xsi or D60, so i have never noticed before) we are using the most upto date camera raw codec to my knowledge. Any ideas?


"Evidently the photo shop at the college I go to is one of the best in the country. They actually have a handful of digital medium format cameras for students to use; Haliburtons, or hasslehoffs, or something like that."
-name withheld to protect dignity.
Toys

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SkipD
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
20,476 posts
Likes: 163
Joined Dec 2002
Location: Southeastern WI, USA
     
Jun 01, 2010 00:59 |  #8

dwarfcow wrote in post #10280100 (external link)
I'm following what you're saying, but MB is mega-byte as in 1024^2 bytes, or (1024^2)x8 bits (8mega-bit)

however, as RAW files are uncompressed files, you typically get a file size that is nearly 1 to 1 bytes per pixel, each pixel is recorded with 8 bits of data, unless they are completely white or completely black, in which case their data is lumped together. (so they are related when shooting in raw, and somewhat related with JPG, but not to the same degree; as the camera compresses similar colors other than white and black to make the image sizes significantly smaller) sooo i brought up the file size (being around 12megabytes each) because it implies that the raw file should be much larger dimension wise...


so i'm trying to figure out if perhaps my computer is not decoding the cr2 files correctly (we don't really use the xsi or D60, so i have never noticed before) we are using the most upto date camera raw codec to my knowledge. Any ideas?

It's late. I edited the "bits" to "bytes" in my previous post. :rolleyes:

The only thing you should care about is that all of the pixels are accounted for in your images. In general, no two photo files (with different images in them) will provide the same byte count even though the pixel counts will be the same. Open a file in an editing program such as Photoshop and then look at the size in pixels.

I just took a look at a folder full of RAW files from my 20D, and the file sizes just in that folder range from 7,797KB to 11,280KB. It's rather obvious that there is something along the line of "compression" going in in the creation of RAW files. ALL of the files, though, produce images with identical pixel counts.


Skip Douglas
A few cameras and over 50 years behind them .....
..... but still learning all the time.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ETERNAL
Senior Member
272 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada
     
Jun 01, 2010 01:00 |  #9

SkipD wrote in post #10280070 (external link)
If you shot a plain wall with all one color in either RAW or .JPG mode, the file sizes will be quite a bit smaller than if you shot a very "busy" scene with a lot of detail and many colors in it.

This I imagine is exactly the issue. You can take two pictures seconds apart with the same camera and have very different file sizes. All dependent upon exposure and the details of what you are photographing. Takeing a picture of a landscape with 50% being sky will make a much smaller picture, when it comes to file size.
But the pixel size, 3072 x 2048 or whatever, will be the constant. (based on what settings you choose int he camera)


Canon 7D...28-135mm IS...70-300mm...and a desire for a lot more...with a wallet that does not fit that desire...

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dwarfcow
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
640 posts
Joined Feb 2010
Location: South Central, Alaska
     
Jun 01, 2010 01:11 as a reply to  @ ETERNAL's post |  #10

okay, i guess you guy's aren't understanding. I'm very computer savy, i understand that some images are larger and or smaller than others due to the amount of information contained in them. they can vary buy as much as 20% in file size if a picture is tact sharp, blurry, vividly color full, bland whatever.

that makes sense.

THIS:

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://i32.photobucket​.com …/d24/akkell85/w​hatsup.jpg (external link)

does not make sense. a 3.4mp image SHOULD NOT be 16mb, try and sell me on a file size that is 4-5mb PER million pixels, I'm not buying it.

"Evidently the photo shop at the college I go to is one of the best in the country. They actually have a handful of digital medium format cameras for students to use; Haliburtons, or hasslehoffs, or something like that."
-name withheld to protect dignity.
Toys

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dwarfcow
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
640 posts
Joined Feb 2010
Location: South Central, Alaska
     
Jun 01, 2010 01:16 as a reply to  @ dwarfcow's post |  #11

Alright, i think i have narrowed down the culprit :confused:

Windows is stupid.

that is all.


(for whatever reason windows has decided that these image files are the size it shows in explorer, but photoshop knows the truth. so now i'm just gonna have to figure out wtf is up with my window's raw decoder; or just not worry about it and just open them in PS or LR)

sorry, my frustration got the better of me PS has the correct 12 and 6mp file sizes
;)


"Evidently the photo shop at the college I go to is one of the best in the country. They actually have a handful of digital medium format cameras for students to use; Haliburtons, or hasslehoffs, or something like that."
-name withheld to protect dignity.
Toys

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Stone ­ 13
Goldmember
Avatar
1,690 posts
Likes: 8
Joined Aug 2009
Location: Huntersville, NC
     
Jun 01, 2010 01:25 |  #12

I still don't think I understand what you're issue was, your file sizes seem normal to me. I just had a look at my .cr2 archive, out of ~8000 raw files all shot full size, the smallest is 12,986KB & the largest is 24,419KB average is around 15-16KB. I always shoot raw only, no raw+jpg.


Ken
Fujifilm X100T | 5D III gripped |35L | 24-70 2.8L II | 70-200 2.8L IS II | 85 1.8 | 430 EX II | Yongnuo YN-568EX | Billingham 445 | Think Tank UD 60 |

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SkipD
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
20,476 posts
Likes: 163
Joined Dec 2002
Location: Southeastern WI, USA
     
Jun 01, 2010 01:27 |  #13

The file sizes I quoted in my previous post (7.8 to 11.3 megabytes) were all for RAW files (from my 20D) of images that all have the same 3504 x 2236 pixel counts in the images. Of 36 different RAW files in the folder, no two files had the same byte count.


Skip Douglas
A few cameras and over 50 years behind them .....
..... but still learning all the time.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SkipD
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
20,476 posts
Likes: 163
Joined Dec 2002
Location: Southeastern WI, USA
     
Jun 01, 2010 01:29 |  #14

dwarfcow wrote in post #10280219 (external link)
Alright, i think i have narrowed down the culprit :confused:

Windows is stupid.

that is all.

(for whatever reason windows has decided that these image files are the size it shows in explorer, but photoshop knows the truth. so now i'm just gonna have to figure out wtf is up with my window's raw decoder; or just not worry about it and just open them in PS or LR)

sorry, my frustration got the better of me PS has the correct 12 and 6mp file sizes
;)

Your problem, I believe, is your belief that RAW files encode the data with one byte per pixel. This is far from the truth for Canon's RAW files. .TIF files, on the other hand, come close to that.

RAW files carry more data than just the information for populating the pixels in image files made from them, and even the information for the pixels is somewhat "compressed" for a lack of a more technical description which I don't have information about.


Skip Douglas
A few cameras and over 50 years behind them .....
..... but still learning all the time.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
hqqns
When the frick did I get this new title and why?
Avatar
11,619 posts
Gallery: 29 photos
Likes: 922
Joined Mar 2010
Location: I've seen it. It's rubbish.
     
Jun 01, 2010 01:32 |  #15

I hate to say this but all those RAW files have JPEG's embedded if you like it or not :) This adds to the file size.


subby

Wife|Son|Daughter|Comp​uters|Cameras|Lenses|A Home|Pans|Spatula|No Frogs

"42"

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

4,103 views & 0 likes for this thread
XSi Raw files arn't full sized
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 m.nobles
828 guests, 215 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.