Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-22-2016, 08:38 PM   #16
Senior Member




Join Date: May 2010
Location: Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 274
Why are raw files so huge? I have read that they contain jpegs imbeded in them to facilitate in-camera review. If this is the case, how much does this practice increase the size of the raw file? If it is substantial why not offer an antichimp file option to keep raws small?

03-22-2016, 11:56 PM   #17
Veteran Member




Join Date: May 2008
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 417
Thanks but ISO 100 most modern APSC DLSRs would do well. ISO 3200 and above @ -2 EV, F2.8 (Wide Open) and then we can talk. Up until that point other than DOF (difference vs APSC) and body builder weight what is there to an FF camera?
03-23-2016, 12:10 AM   #18
Senior Member




Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 291
QuoteOriginally posted by indy Quote
Why are raw files so huge? I have read that they contain jpegs imbeded in them to facilitate in-camera review. If this is the case, how much does this practice increase the size of the raw file? If it is substantial why not offer an antichimp file option to keep raws small?
Because they are not compressed like jpegs and contains 14bits for every pixel.
The theoretical maximum of RAW files for this sensor is 60MB ( 7360 * 4912 * 14 / (1024 *1024 *8) ), but for a clean image with low ISO it is usually around 70-75% (applicable to any Pentax camera).
I'm not sure but I don't think that Pentax embedded jpeg for previews in their raw files.
DNG format also has a little overhead because it actually encapsulates native raw format.
03-23-2016, 04:45 AM   #19
Loyal Site Supporter
WPRESTO's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Massachusetts
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,512
I am impressed by the IQ of the first image, especially after first enlarging the graffiti on the brick building far left, then enlarging the boat and distant buildings on far right. Both sensor and optic are delivering in spades.

03-23-2016, 04:48 AM   #20
Senior Member
Fire Angel's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 120
QuoteOriginally posted by banep Quote
Because they are not compressed like jpegs and contains 14bits for every pixel.
The theoretical maximum of RAW files for this sensor is 60MB ( 7360 * 4912 * 14 / (1024 *1024 *8) ), but for a clean image with low ISO it is usually around 70-75% (applicable to any Pentax camera).
I'm not sure but I don't think that Pentax embedded jpeg for previews in their raw files.
DNG format also has a little overhead because it actually encapsulates native raw format.
Actually many RAW files ARE compressed, it depends upon the camera manufacturer whether they bother to do this and how. They do however use lossless compression techniques if they use any at all, rather like faster versions of .ZIP compression. This kind of compression does not achieve such good reductions as the methods used in a JPEG, but it can still achieve worthwhile reductions. This is why Olympus RAW files from their most recent cameras are often half the size of RAW files of similar resolution and bit depth from other camera makers, Olympus have used a better compression technique for theirs. I'm not sure, but I expect that the processor in their cameras must use dedicated compression hardware to get the files compressed so quickly, because usually better compression methods take longer and there is no noticeable delay in the Olympus cameras that do this clever trick.
03-23-2016, 05:26 AM   #21
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: GMT +10
Photos: Albums
Posts: 10,576
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by WPRESTO Quote
I am impressed by the IQ of the first image, especially after first enlarging the graffiti on the brick building far left, then enlarging the boat and distant buildings on far right. Both sensor and optic are delivering in spades.
I was impressed too, even though they were JPEG's (and no doubt could have been processed better). I found myself scrolling around the image, discovering new points of detail. 36MP can be fun viewed on-screen (for the right kind of scene).
03-23-2016, 06:00 AM   #22
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Texas
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,715
I am so disappointed! I couldn't clearly distinguish the mortar lines between the bricks in that Church steeple. I was certainly expecting better than that, even if they are pre-production and maybe even shot with a 18-55 kit lens?

Where is the miracle, where is that resolution I was hoping for?

....before you beat me up, I just wanted to say it before some naysayer beat me to it.

Regards!
03-23-2016, 06:42 PM   #23
Senior Member




Join Date: May 2010
Location: Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 274
QuoteOriginally posted by Fire Angel Quote
Actually many RAW files ARE compressed, it depends upon the camera manufacturer whether they bother to do this and how. They do however use lossless compression techniques if they use any at all, rather like faster versions of .ZIP compression. This kind of compression does not achieve such good reductions as the methods used in a JPEG, but it can still achieve worthwhile reductions. This is why Olympus RAW files from their most recent cameras are often half the size of RAW files of similar resolution and bit depth from other camera makers, Olympus have used a better compression technique for theirs. I'm not sure, but I expect that the processor in their cameras must use dedicated compression hardware to get the files compressed so quickly, because usually better compression methods take longer and there is no noticeable delay in the Olympus cameras that do this clever trick.
Thanks, I was aware of the above. My post was intended to be 1/2 smarta** comment on antichimping and part serious inquiry into some detail as to why some camera companies embed such large jpegs into their raw files. Apparently Nikon embeds very high quality jpegs in their raws, but Ricoh embedded very low res jpegs in the GR raws. With file sizes getting as large as they are, I would not mind having a raw with no jpeg component. I would have smaller raws and could have the best of both worlds by shooting raw+jpeg, then easily delete what I choose. As it stands now (if I understand things correctly)I am really shooting raw+jpeg+jpeg. Doesn't that extra jpeg data just waste space and slow down processing? Heck if this is the case, you could just embed the highest quality jpeg in the raw file, get rid of the jpeg option all together and put a button in photoshop or whatever that strips the two apart should one decide to keep the images and work with both.

03-23-2016, 06:50 PM   #24
Site Supporter
reh321's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,722
QuoteOriginally posted by Rupert Quote
I am so disappointed! I couldn't clearly distinguish the mortar lines between the bricks in that Church steeple. I was certainly expecting better than that, even if they are pre-production and maybe even shot with a 18-55 kit lens?

Where is the miracle, where is that resolution I was hoping for?

....before you beat me up, I just wanted to say it before some naysayer beat me to it.

Regards!
What people seem to want today is enough sharpness to be able to inspect a rodent for fleas.
03-23-2016, 07:26 PM   #25
Loyal Site Supporter
WPRESTO's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Massachusetts
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,512
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
What people seem to want today is enough sharpness to be able to inspect a rodent for fleas.
I remain impressed. In the original image the clock on the tower is minuscule, but enlarged it's clear what time it it is. The Roman numerals are not resolved so you can distinguish IX from XI, but JEEPERS they are so tiny in the original image they are essentially invisible. What lens of the same FL could resolve those numerals?
03-24-2016, 04:24 AM   #26
Senior Member
Fire Angel's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 120
QuoteOriginally posted by indy Quote
Thanks, I was aware of the above. My post was intended to be 1/2 smarta** comment on antichimping and part serious inquiry into some detail as to why some camera companies embed such large jpegs into their raw files. Apparently Nikon embeds very high quality jpegs in their raws, but Ricoh embedded very low res jpegs in the GR raws. With file sizes getting as large as they are, I would not mind having a raw with no jpeg component. I would have smaller raws and could have the best of both worlds by shooting raw+jpeg, then easily delete what I choose. As it stands now (if I understand things correctly)I am really shooting raw+jpeg+jpeg. Doesn't that extra jpeg data just waste space and slow down processing? Heck if this is the case, you could just embed the highest quality jpeg in the raw file, get rid of the jpeg option all together and put a button in photoshop or whatever that strips the two apart should one decide to keep the images and work with both.
In theory the embedded JPEG is there to speed up display when using an image browser, either in your computer or in camera. Nowadays I am not sure if it's actually worth bothering since both computer and camera processors are so much faster they could probably decode the RAW quickly enough so you may not notice the delay. It does probably save a tiny, teeny bit of battery power when browsing in camera, but somehow I doubt we'd notice the difference if the RAW was just a RAW. There are processors with embedded hardware for encoding and decoding JPEGs pretty near to instantly so a camera manufacturer has less work to do if they just use those designs. If they leave out the embedded JPEG they would have to design a similar decoder for RAW just so you can see your images on the camera's screen. Less design work to do if the camera chipset can only encode a RAW, not decode it for the screen, plus of course the chipset ends up with a lower component count which makes it cheaper.

As for slowing down processing, it actually need not slow it down at all. As the data is fetched from the sensor one chip in the camera can be producing the RAW while another chip (or another part part of the same chip) is encoding the JPEG. It uses more power, yes, but many chips and chipsets can do more than one thing at a time nowadays. It does make the files bigger though, which is why I am with you in wishing embedding JPEGs in a RAW would stop. I don't think we need it with today's faster processors.

Last edited by Fire Angel; 03-24-2016 at 04:40 AM.
03-24-2016, 04:50 AM   #27
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,883
QuoteOriginally posted by Fire Angel Quote
In theory the embedded JPEG is there to speed up display when using an image browser, either in your computer or in camera. Nowadays I am not sure if it's actually worth bothering since both computer and camera processors are so much faster they could probably decode the RAW quickly enough so you may not notice the delay. It does probably save a tiny, teeny bit of battery power when browsing in camera, but somehow I doubt we'd notice the difference if the RAW was just a RAW. There are processors with embedded hardware for encoding and decoding JPEGs pretty near to instantly so a camera manufacturer has less work to do if they just use those designs. If they leave out the embedded JPEG they would have to design a similar decoder for RAW just so you can see your images on the camera's screen. Less design work to do if the camera chipset can only encode a RAW, not decode it for the screen, plus of course the chipset ends up with a lower component count which makes it cheaper.
I doubt it, hard disk drives arenít that quick. A directory with 50 files a 40MB each means that the computer has to fetch about 2GB from storage, only to display icons. That is not efficient in any way.

A better way would be that the user could select the quality and size of the embedded jpeg.
03-24-2016, 06:34 AM   #28
Senior Member




Join Date: May 2010
Location: Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 274
QuoteOriginally posted by Gimbal Quote
I doubt it, hard disk drives arenít that quick. A directory with 50 files a 40MB each means that the computer has to fetch about 2GB from storage, only to display icons. That is not efficient in any way.

A better way would be that the user could select the quality and size of the embedded jpeg.
Thanks Fire Angel and Gimbal. I started thinking about all of this because of recent threads along the lines of ...need new computer, software, sd card etc if I buy a new megamegapixle camera...It just seems to make sense to allow for multiple raw options, like they have been doing for years with jpeg options. With the GR, the embedded jpeg is small but enough to ck exposure, focus, and blur. If I shoot raw+ the preview defaults to the high quality non embedded jpeg and allows for full quality review.

To take thoughts a step futher, now that wifi is rapidly becoming part of the work flow for many, these additional options make even more sense. Would it be possible to offer an in-camera file zip option to allow for quick and easy sending of large files? Or compression on an sd card if you find yourself short on storage space? The raw option stripped of embedded jpegs is a step in the right direction, but still a large file.
03-24-2016, 08:06 AM   #29
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Texas
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,715
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
What people seem to want today is enough sharpness to be able to inspect a rodent for fleas.
There does seem to be an over emphasis on sharpness and resolution i certain circles. Nothing wrong with a camera that can deliver those qualities, but I see a ton of shots with razor sharpness and superb resolution that are not all that interesting or impressive to view.

The photographers I admire most give us shots with emotional value, artistic beauty, or reason to want to linger and view for more than a few seconds. Fleas on a damn squirrel don't seem to hit my hot button.

I'm gonna take lots of photos with my K1, most just ordinary, but always hoping for that "one" that is special. There is little doubt that the K1 can deliver if that opportunity arises.

Regards!
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
dslr, full frame, full-frame, full-size k-1 image, k-1, k-1 image samples, k1, pentax, pentax k-1, samples
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
K-1 full resolution samples @ Cyberphoto.se Finntax Pentax K-1 3 03-21-2016 07:57 AM
06 Zoom full-size samples audiobomber Pentax Q 6 05-31-2013 10:44 AM
K-01 vs K-5 (JPG, DNG, ISO100~25600) - Full Size Samples. frank Pentax K-01 82 06-07-2012 10:24 AM
Official Full Size Samples of K-r eigelb Pentax News and Rumors 29 10-25-2010 09:00 PM
nobody is interested in the official k-5 full size samples? pighead Pentax News and Rumors 2 10-15-2010 09:47 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:27 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top