[RR645]

Hi
Finally I have my 645Z and I could take some dozen first photos.
In the manual (s. R59) Pentax speeks about of the following converted file sizes:
JEPG L** = 15.3 MB; RAW = ca. 103 MB; TIFF = ca. 150 MB
Making Photos with the 645z (new lenses 25mm, 55mm and 90mm) produces:
JEPG L** = 12-13.5 MB; RAW = 60-85MB; TIFF = 149.9 MB
Only the statements for TIFF are consistent. For JEPG and RAW I do never reach or (for an average of indicated file sizes) even exceed the indicated file sizes, although I select fine landscape pictures with a lot of fine details.
Can everyone reach the indicated file sizes for JEPG and RAW (DNG)? Or do I overlook something (I have still about factory settings).
Thanks

[jatrax]

Jpeg is compressed so file size will vary widely with subject matter.

DNG also varies quite a bit so there might be some compression there as well but not sure.

[Adam]

Hi
Finally I have my 645Z and I could take some dozen first photos.
In the manual (s. R59) Pentax speeks about of the following converted file sizes:
JEPG L** = 15.3 MB; RAW = ca. 103 MB; TIFF = ca. 150 MB
Making Photos with the 645z (new lenses 25mm, 55mm and 90mm) produces:
JEPG L** = 12-13.5 MB; RAW = 60-85MB; TIFF = 149.9 MB
Only the statements for TIFF are consistent. For JEPG and RAW I do never reach or (for an average of indicated file sizes) even exceed the indicated file sizes, although I select fine landscape pictures with a lot of fine details.
Can everyone reach the indicated file sizes for JEPG and RAW (DNG)? Or do I overlook something (I have still about factory settings).
Thanks

The DNG file size (interestingly) goes up as you crank up the ISO. At ISO 100 expect files between 60 and 70Mb. Every 1-stop increase in ISO increases the file size by 2-3Mb, so eventually you'll be at 90-100Mb. Jpeg files remain constant at 25-35Mb. This is based on my results with the camera so far

[Giklab]

Well, of course. JPEG and DNG are both compressed. (That's why the file size varies, as explained above. Don't worry, it's losslessly compressed raw )

That also means that, as you go up with the ISOs, you get noise which is random and not easily compressible (ex. instead of a mostly blank wall you get lots of specks).

[fgaudet]

Darker images also "compresses" less (larger file size). Save a 1000x1000 pure white in JPG and then a 1000x1000 pure black in JPG and the black one will be about 10% larger.

So I am guessing that when making their estimates, they probably use a neutral grey image. Any variation in lightness or darkness will affect file size.

[rawr]

The standard way of measuring file size (CIPA, I think) is at 100 ISO, possibly under a certain level of illumination, and possibly shooting something boring like the ISO 12233 test chart or a standard GretagMacbeth colour swatch.

The same yardstick impacts stuff like quoted camera fps and quoted battery life as well.

[algrove]

This thread got me to thinking about using TIFF instead of DNG.

Are most of you using DNG or TIFF excluding any discussion about jpeg?

[texandrews]

This thread got me to thinking about using TIFF instead of DNG.

Are most of you using DNG or TIFF excluding any discussion about jpeg?

DNG for sure. No advantage shown for PEF. I wouldn't use a TIFF until after I PP'd...

[Kolor-Pikker]

This thread got me to thinking about using TIFF instead of DNG.

Are most of you using DNG or TIFF excluding any discussion about jpeg?

DNG is the format the camera shoots, TIF is the output format I export from Lightroom, so both have their place. I usually output 16-bit tiffs if I need to do further processing in Photoshop, and sample the final edit to 8-bits.

For a camera of this level, I do not see why I would use jpegs at any part of the process, except for posting images online.

[constable]

KolorP

Why do you prefer DNG to PEF. I could not decide which to use as standard and chose PEF on the assumption that the native RAW format would have optimum information.

Cheers

Ed

[Kolor-Pikker]

KolorP

Why do you prefer DNG to PEF. I could not decide which to use as standard and chose PEF on the assumption that the native RAW format would have optimum information.

Cheers

Ed

There is no practical difference between the two, DNG is simply a more widely accepted format and I don't have to concern myself about whether or not an application supports it. This may matter more to people who use applications that may lack native support for this specific camera (pano stitching software maybe) but it's better to be on the safe side.

[acoufap]

Before I describe my example where DNG shows an advantage over PEF I have to say that I usually use CaptureOne Pro as raw converter but also have Photoshop Elements 8 for Mac that was bundled with CS4 Bridge and the corresponding ACR. The latter is long time "out of date".

CO cannot handle PEF and not DNG raw format from 645Z. The old CS4-Bridge ACR cannot handle PEF. But it can handle the DNG-Format of the 645Z! So if you go with DNG you can at least use older Adobe ACR-Versions to convert the raw to a RGB color space, do basic development and then export to 16bit tiff for advanced development.

So I would say depending on the available computer software you can have an advantage using DNG in post processing.

[wombat2go]

No Z here but I am scanning 6x7 film. The file size is about 300 MB.
I am making 16 bit tiffs.
I am down sampling by exactly 4 so that the files are 1:1 pixels on the 27 inch eizo.
That takes the size down. The problem is loading time.
Media on USB is hopeless. The Sata drives are also slow.
On linux , there is a file system ( in volatile ram) at /dev/shm. By default it is 4GB max and as big as it needs to be.
Last night I copied my working directory up there.
The photo processing apps and viewer are working a lot better with the files in there.

Some years ago I recall using a purchased 3rd party utility to create a similar ram media on Win.
Not sure if such is available for the other o/s's.

[constable]

Before I describe my example where DNG shows an advantage over PEF I have to say that I usually use CaptureOne Pro as raw converter but also have Photoshop Elements 8 for Mac that was bundled with CS4 Bridge and the corresponding ACR. The latter is long time "out of date".

CO cannot handle PEF and not DNG raw format from 645Z. The old CS4-Bridge ACR cannot handle PEF. But it can handle the DNG-Format of the 645Z! So if you go with DNG you can at least use older Adobe ACR-Versions to convert the raw to a RGB color space, do basic development and then export to 16bit tiff for advanced development.

So I would say depending on the available computer software you can have an advantage using DNG in post processing.

acoufap

Many thanks for that. It makes sense. I am always a bit cautious about DNg as a supposedly universal format which is at the same time linked to Adobe and is also not universal. I thought for a wonderful moment that you had found a way to import 645z DNG's into C1. The DNG files seem to open a bit slower in PhotoNinja than the PEFs but that might be subjective

wombat2go - for me it makes no sense to generate tiffs in camera. The files are so large.

[ndevlin]

TIFFs are only useful as an output format. Shoot DNGs. They are losslessly compressed so file size will always vary. Stick to LR5 (soon 6) and PS for post.

Scanned files are massive, but often don't actually yield that much real data. Beware creating useless monsters.

- N.