Hi
I have had my d800 for a few days now and the file size of the RAW files is only 45mb, I was under the impression they were going to be 75 mb. Do i have it set on a low quality? images look fine to me.
I have the quality set to RAW.
cheers
B
D800 pics only 45mb
(13 posts) (9 voices)-
Posted 1 year ago #
-
There are different settings for RAW images regarding color depth and compression (none, lossless or lossy). Have a look at your settings and play around with them to see the effect.
Posted 1 year ago # -
RTFM p436
NEF (RAW) lossless compressed 12 bit 32.4 MB
NEF (RAW) uncompresed 14 bit 74.4 MBI use NEF (RAW) lossless compressed 14 bit 41.3 MB
Posted 1 year ago # -
Teo said:
Hi,
Is their any actual differences between the lossless compressed and uncompressed ?
And what could be the advantages between compressed and uncompressed ?Thanks
As I understand it, the use of "lossless compressed" compromises quality almost zero. The use of 14 bit vs 12 bit will be seen only in the extremes,i.e., the darkest shadows or brightest highlights. The primary limiting factor in the recording is the sensor noise. This is far more of a limiting factor than the amount of compression. So, unless one is overexposing or underexposing by several f/stops, the most efficacious use of space is probably 12 bit lossless compressed. But a lot of us Obsessive compulsives just must go with 14 bit thinking somehow we are getting more colors or something.
I would suggest Googling the topic and you will find a lot of interesting articles about this including some real world tests. We are a funny lot, the camera quality geeks, and so a lot of this argument is similar to the "high end audio" fanatics who believe they can tell the difference between analog and digital sound and $3000 vs $50,000 speakers. Probably a function of imagination.
So, great question and I look for all those with expertise to correct me!
Posted 1 year ago # -
-
hehe, I might get shout at now, I use my D800 and shoot raw,
The main resin for this is that I like spending time making all the settings perfect on camera,
And for my photoshop work,
I've seen the limitations of jpeg, but never to the point of needed raw files...
I'm starting to shoot raw+jpeg now and see how much better I can make the raw files look.
Thanks for the replies :)Posted 1 year ago # -
There not much difference in 12 bit and 14 bit. But if you're shooting RAW, aren't you trying to get the best out of your camera? Moreover, 12 bit isn't much smaller than 14 bit. While compression is another topic, most likely if they said it is lossless, then it is lossless. I'd prefer using lossless compression than 12 bit to decrease file size. It's like using PNG compression vs very high quality JPEG setting. I'd totally go for PNG compression.
Posted 1 year ago # -
At this size you can't get many images on an 8 GB card!
Posted 1 year ago # -
@mikewhis - there's a huge difference between 12bit and 14bit, if You don't get the difference than please stick to 12bit but please don't confuse others as for the rest of Your post, well if they say it's lossless it's not lossless at all, it only means that the compression part doesn't affect You too much - let's say it's marginal, the main difference though is in processing power, with compressed NEF's this size You need to have a powerful box to deal with it in real time aka work comfortable.
Posted 1 year ago # -
@DaveO - on 16GB card I have app 200 shots (14bit NEF, uncompressed), so on 8GB card there's gonna be around 100 (106 is I remember correctly).
Posted 1 year ago # -
Adam is totally right on this one, guys. The difference is huge and is easy to notice if you do some tests. And the difference between 14 bit and 16 bit is even bigger, hence the dominance of MF in the studio.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Reply
You must log in to post.
