8 megapixel RAW file converted to 16-bit Tiff...

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Rich - 13 Sep 2005 03:09 GMT

...45 Megs!!! And I thought the RAW file was large.
-Rich

Reply to this Message

Colin D - 13 Sep 2005 06:57 GMT

> ...45 Megs!!! And I thought the RAW file was large.
> -Rich

Yes, 8 megapixels at six bytes per pixel - each color uses two bytes in
16-bit files - is 48 megabytes, so why the surprise?

You want top quality, you got top quality. Size does matter {:-)

Colin D.

Reply to this Message

eawckyegcy@yahoo.com - 13 Sep 2005 18:52 GMT

>> ...45 Megs!!! And I thought the RAW file was large.
>> -Rich
>
> Yes, 8 megapixels at six bytes per pixel - each color uses two bytes in
> 16-bit files - is 48 megabytes, so why the surprise?

Rich just learned how to multiply.

> You want top quality, you got top quality. Size does matter {:-)

Size tends to reflects the inefficiency of the source coder than
anything else. I have a growing suite of programs which do random
things to images. They all use a floating point format internally;
for a full 1DMkII frame, it comes to about a 100MB footprint. The
point isn't quality, but simplicity. I have never pushed one of these
things across a process boundary yet. The day I need to, though, is
the day I start using the OpenEXR:

http://www.openexr.com/

Reply to this Message

nv - 13 Sep 2005 09:04 GMT

> ...45 Megs!!! And I thought the RAW file was large.
> -Rich

Does that mean you've now taken a photograph at long last? ;-)

nv

Reply to this Message

RichA - 13 Sep 2005 18:17 GMT

Sure!

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm

Reply to this Message

Gormless - 13 Sep 2005 16:06 GMT

> ...45 Megs!!! And I thought the RAW file was large.

You actually DO take pictures?
I thought all you did around here was assume that nobody ever browsed
anywhere.

Reply to this Message

RSD99 - 15 Sep 2005 01:03 GMT

> ...45 Megs!!! And I thought the RAW file was large.
> -Rich

So ... ?

Even a "low resolution" scan of a 6 x 6 transparency can run well over 80
megabytes!

Reply to this Message

RSD99 - 15 Sep 2005 01:04 GMT

> > ...45 Megs!!! And I thought the RAW file was large.
> > -Rich
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Even a "low resolution" scan of a 6 x 6 transparency can run well over 80
> megabytes!

I forgot to add ... that's at 8-bits per color, 24-bits per pixel.

If you want "Quality" ... you have to have big files. Always been that way,
will always be that way.

Reply to this Message

Mandus - 15 Sep 2005 22:15 GMT

Thu, 15 Sep 2005 00:04:50 GMT skrev RSD99:

>> > ...45 Megs!!! And I thought the RAW file was large.
>> > -Rich
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> If you want "Quality" ... you have to have big files. Always been that way,
> will always be that way.

Not necessarily true. Some years ago, that size was considered enormous,
now it is big, in some more years it is small. The human eyes, and hence
the size-requirement will not change, but what is considered big will
change.

Signature

Mandus - the only mandus around.

Reply to this Message

Alan - 22 Sep 2005 22:18 GMT

> ...45 Megs!!! And I thought the RAW file was large.
> -Rich

...Which is somewhat smaller than the 202MB Tiff files I'm getting from
scanning 6x4.5 120 film this evening @ 3200 DPI.
Resulting image pixel count is about 33 megapixel!

...Hence I'm saving them as .jpgs now as 3GB storage for every roll of film
I scan is just mad!

Alan.

Reply to this Message

Rich - 23 Sep 2005 04:15 GMT

>> ...45 Megs!!! And I thought the RAW file was large.
>> -Rich
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
>Alan.

Well, you could burn them to DVDs. Cost for bulk is now down to
$0.25/ea. Still pricey, if you have alot of pictures.
-Rich

Reply to this Message

westin@graphics.cornell.nospam.edu - 23 Sep 2005 14:57 GMT

>> ...45 Megs!!! And I thought the RAW file was large.
>> -Rich
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> ...Hence I'm saving them as .jpgs now as 3GB storage for every roll of film
> I scan is just mad!

There is such a thing as lossless compression. With modern Photoshop
you have a choice of LZW and zip/deflate. Not as much savings as JPEG,
but no loss. Might it be better to resample down a bit and save with
lossless compression?

Signature

-Stephen H. Westin
Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not
represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.

Reply to this Message