Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-05-2014, 06:10 PM   #1
Pentaxian
MadMathMind's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Houston, TX
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,533
Why are in-camera JPEGs so huge?

When I process the RAW files in Lightroom and then export them, it's rare an image goes over 8MB. Everything straight from the camera is 9-12 MB. Why is there such a huge disparity?

Noise reduction is obviously a huge difference maker (as mosquito noise crushes JPEG), but I don't apply that to all images. Even clean ones seem to be much, much smaller.

10-05-2014, 06:20 PM   #2
Veteran Member
kp0c's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Montreal
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 721
Good question. Do you export as sRGB? Do you have the jpeg quality slider at 90% (I think it's the default)? Some guesses.
10-05-2014, 06:23 PM   #3
Pentaxian
MadMathMind's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Houston, TX
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,533
Original Poster
I use Adobe RGB (in Photoshop), not sure what in Lightroom. Quality is set to 100%.
10-05-2014, 06:38 PM   #4
Pentaxian
Miguel's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Near Seattle
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,700
Perhaps different compression schemes are used by each product? Have you read Jeffrey Friedl's analysis of LR's jpeg exporting capabilities?

M

10-05-2014, 06:48 PM   #5
Administrator
Site Webmaster
Adam's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arizona
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,993
QuoteOriginally posted by MadMathMind Quote
When I process the RAW files in Lightroom and then export them, it's rare an image goes over 8MB. Everything straight from the camera is 9-12 MB. Why is there such a huge disparity?

Noise reduction is obviously a huge difference maker (as mosquito noise crushes JPEG), but I don't apply that to all images. Even clean ones seem to be much, much smaller.
Some Pentax cameras have **** JPEG quality in addition to ***. Stick to 3 stars if that's the case.

Adam
PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide | Site Help | My Photography)



PentaxForums.com's high server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover those costs by donating. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

10-06-2014, 04:43 AM   #6
Pentaxian
Oldbayrunner's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Havre de Grace, MD
Posts: 1,221
Food for thought, usually Pentax camera raw or dng photos are anywhere from 9-14 bits data with zero to very little compression depending on what model of camera one is using, meaning a larger file size. Camera Jpeg mostly are 8 bits of data and smaller than raw to start with. If you are working in Lightroom or photoshop etc. from a raw file using Pro photo RGB, which is one of the widest color gamuts, then converting to jpeg the files have information tossed and compressed into a smaller 8 bit file vs exporting using Tiff or PSD hence a much smaller file size. I do need to mention if your workflow is in 32 or 16 bit color, then your conversion to jpeg tosses some of that color information also reducing it to 8 bit color, however you would not visually notice any difference outside of possible banding.

Last edited by Oldbayrunner; 10-06-2014 at 05:39 AM.
10-06-2014, 05:21 AM   #7
Veteran Member
kp0c's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Montreal
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 721
QuoteOriginally posted by Adam Quote
Some Pentax cameras have **** JPEG quality in addition to ***. Stick to 3 stars if that's the case.
Why *** instead of ****? Is there not a difference in image quality?
10-07-2014, 03:57 AM   #8
Pentaxian
adwb's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Bristol UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,631
QuoteOriginally posted by kp0c Quote
Why *** instead of ****? Is there not a difference in image quality?
Because its more physical size, computer screens compress images to make them fit, if you look in PS at the image and look at actual size and fit screen you will see that , but I think you know that, the point is you can take the lowest MP and star rating and the highest and using fit screen they will look the same , but try actual pixels or ( if you have calibrated correctly) print size then you will see the difference.

10-09-2014, 06:54 PM   #9
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Chicago suburb, IL, USA
Posts: 1,535
QuoteOriginally posted by kp0c Quote
Why *** instead of ****? Is there not a difference in image quality?
In the K-5 series bodies at least, there is ****, but I quickly found that there was little to gain from the lower compression (higher quality) setting, so I just set it at *** for both my K-5 and K-5 IIs. Theoretically, the lower compression ratio of **** should give better IQ, but I found that I couldn't distiguish them after pixel peeping both for about a week's shooting in the field, so after that, I "settled" for the higher compression setting, and have found no reason to change this after shooting both for a couple of years. BTW, I'm primarily a jpeg shooter (birds).

Apparently Pentax engineers felt the same, and on the K-3 set the highest quality jpeg compression back to ***, which I assume is approx. the same compression ratio as the *** on the K-5.

BTW (2) I also tried the ** setting, and immediately noticed jpeg artifacts, so I never use that much compression in the cameras.

Scott
10-09-2014, 07:36 PM   #10
Veteran Member
kp0c's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Montreal
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 721
Thanks for that, nice detailed answer backed up with personal experience. I'll try the *** rating (although I mostly shoot raw, it will help speed up my camera in raw+ mode)
10-22-2014, 09:21 AM   #11
Pentaxian
emalvick's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Davis, CA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,467
The other thing that could make a difference is any noise removal you are adding can reduce image size. Noise can add to the file size and reduce the efficiency of the compression ratio.
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!
camera, dslr, in-camera jpegs, noise, photography
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Why are M Lenses so cheap! kentishrev Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 27 09-18-2014 06:44 AM
So, why are new pentax lenses so expensive? texandrews Pentax Medium Format 63 08-20-2014 03:13 AM
Why are viewfinders so small today? Penceler Pentax K-5 10 04-19-2014 03:58 PM
Why are camera bags so expensive? 6BQ5 Pentax Camera and Field Accessories 32 11-15-2013 10:19 AM
Why are wide angle primes so expensive? bullitt_60 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 23 01-26-2013 04:13 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:27 AM. | 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