 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / October 2007sRaw VS Raw
my computer is having a hard time with the large raw files. One or two is no problem but after that the computer starts to slow up. I figure for the size I display at around 600 x 400 the small raw should be just as good as the large Raw. Problem is that Photoshop CS3 does not open small raw :( or maybe its better to say I don't know how to do it. I guess I could convert them to DNG. or is there an update I don't know about yet. Tom > my computer is having a hard time with the large raw files. One or two is > no problem but after that [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I guess I could convert them to DNG. or is there an update I don't know > about yet. RAW files don't come in small medium or large. Perhaps you should shoot RAW + JPEG, view in JPEG and work with only select RAW files, and archive the rest of the RAWs. Or get a new computer!  Signaturejohn mcwilliams >> my computer is having a hard time with the large raw files. One or two >> is no problem but after that [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > RAW + JPEG, view in JPEG and work with only select RAW files, and archive > the rest of the RAWs. Or get a new computer! Look in the left column at RAW files http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canoneos40d/ K.r. Aad >>> my computer is having a hard time with the large raw files. One or two >>> is no problem but after that [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> RAW + JPEG, view in JPEG and work with only select RAW files, and archive >> the rest of the RAWs. Or get a new computer! > Look in the left column at RAW files > http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canoneos40d/ > K.r. Ah, so. I thought the subject line had a typo. Ok, Regular and Small..... If the OP sends me an sRAW, I'll try it in Lightroom and CS3. Signaturejohn mcwilliams >>>> my computer is having a hard time with the large raw files. One or two >>>> is no problem but after that [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > If the OP sends me an sRAW, I'll try it in Lightroom and CS3. OP here :) I will be happy to post it to my web site so you and others can see whats up with the sRaw thing. would there be a certain type of picture that would give the best test? Manhattan Skyline - Day or Night, Half Dead Flowers, my 2 dogs, a 2 inch Porter House steak? I don't have the steak handy but am looking for an excuse to get one. I could go up to my roof and get some nice pictures of the Empire State Building at night or day and would love to know how some of you would set up the camera.. ISO, and other settings. I am about 45 blocks away and will post sRaw and Raw of the same pic with out moving the camera or making any adjustments. Tom Tom >>>>> my computer is having a hard time with the large raw files. One or two >>>>> is no problem but after that [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > I am about 45 blocks away and will post sRaw and Raw of the same pic with > out moving the camera or making any adjustments. I'd vote for the Manhattan skyline at dusk. The light changes rapidly, so you'd want to take your two photos within a few seconds of each other. Use a tripod and say ƒ 8 for each. Signaturejohn mcwilliams Just Shoot Me wrote: >> Aad wrote: >>> "John McWilliams" <jpmcw@comcast.net> schreef in bericht [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > I am about 45 blocks away and will post sRaw and Raw of the same pic with > out moving the camera or making any adjustments. I'd vote for the Manhattan skyline at dusk. The light changes rapidly, so you'd want to take your two photos within a few seconds of each other. Use a tripod and say ƒ 8 for each. Signaturejohn mcwilliams I will be more than happy to take that picture. there are often very nice fire work shows that I can see from up there. I will let you know when they are up on my site. Tom "John McWilliams" <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote in message I'd vote for the Manhattan skyline at dusk. The light changes rapidly, so you'd want to take your two photos within a few seconds of each other. Use a tripod and say ƒ 8 for each. Signaturejohn mcwilliams sorry I didnt get to it and today is very cloudy here. You probably would like a nice colorful sky. Tom > "John McWilliams" <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote in message > I'd vote for the Manhattan skyline at dusk. The light changes rapidly, > so you'd want to take your two photos within a few seconds of each > other. Use a tripod and say ƒ 8 for each. No rush, no worries! Go in peace and good health. SignatureJohn McWilliams Just Shoot Me wrote: > "John McWilliams" <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote in message > I'd vote for the Manhattan skyline at dusk. The light changes rapidly, > so you'd want to take your two photos within a few seconds of each > other. Use a tripod and say ƒ 8 for each. No rush, no worries! Go in peace and good health. SignatureJohn McWilliams Feeling good :). I didn't know if i was going to be able to get back in time to do the pictures at dusk like I wanted. here are a few in the mean time that are from Queens. pretty nice view. http://www.takebetterpix.com/pictures.html I just clicked the links on the page for the raw files. Seems I may have not done something correct. sorry. Maybe you will have better luck or tell me what I am doing wrong. Tom > I didn't know if i was going to be able to get back in time to do the > pictures at dusk like I wanted. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > not done something correct. > sorry. Maybe you will have better luck or tell me what I am doing wrong. I don't think most photo sites can or will handle RAW files. But putting it up via your ISP might work. Also, when using OE without the patch for more consistent usenet styles, you should remove the dash dash space return, as many news readers will lop off your message and anything below the said sig. delimiter. Signaturejohn mcwilliams Everything old is new again in the latest film about the beloved pooch with the I.Q. of a grad student and the instincts of a boomerang. [NY Times; Review of "Lassie".] >> I didn't know if i was going to be able to get back in time to do the >> pictures at dusk like I wanted. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > you should remove the dash dash space return, as many news readers will > lop off your message and anything below the said sig. delimiter. I wouldnt want to play scrabble with lassie. I thought the pix would have uploaded when I updated the page. the raw files are almost done. I am thankful to you for asking for those pics. I love them and with out a doubt the best pictures I have ever taken. You will be able to download the files. when looking at 6242 I believe the tall buildings to the left is the upper east side of Manhattan. Tom soo this is how it feels :) >> I didn't know if i was going to be able to get back in time to do the >> pictures at dusk like I wanted. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I don't think most photo sites can or will handle RAW files. But putting > it up via your ISP might work. did you try the Sraw files? did anybody try them? > Also, when using OE without the patch for more consistent usenet styles, > you should remove the dash dash space return, as many news readers will > lop off your message and anything below the said sig. delimiter. not really sure what you mean by this. Tom I posted some jpegs from the 2 kinds of raws. I also saved the raw file to the same size as sraw. thats 1936x1291 incase anyone wants to compare. 1/640 F6.3 Tom http://www.takebetterpix.com/pictures.html break time > I posted some jpegs from the 2 kinds of raws. I also saved the raw file > to the same size as sraw. thats 1936x1291 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Tom > http://www.takebetterpix.com/pictures.html > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> 1/640 >> F6.3 Thanks, Tom. Looks somewhat familiar! Nice sky, too. Signaturejohn mcwilliams >> http://www.takebetterpix.com/pictures.html >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Thanks, Tom. Looks somewhat familiar! Nice sky, too. Sorry John I thought you wanted to compare sRaw to Raw but perhaps you wanted to try sRaw in light room to help me figure if there was a difference for the kind of work I do. I mostly post and read here inbetween work and always getting phone calls or the wifey is talking to me about work or about closing the toilet seat. Sorry for the mix up. il let you know when I take some shots of Manhattans skyline at dusk. Tom >>> http://www.takebetterpix.com/pictures.html >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> >> Thanks, Tom. Looks somewhat familiar! Nice sky, too. > Sorry John I thought you wanted to compare sRaw to Raw but perhaps > you wanted to try sRaw in light room to help me figure if there was a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Sorry for the mix up. > il let you know when I take some shots of Manhattans skyline at dusk. In another part of the the thread, I said I couldn't open either file with good results. Perhaps someone else could. john >>>> http://www.takebetterpix.com/pictures.html >>>> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > john When you said you didn't think most photo sites can or will handle raw files. I didn't think you had tried and if you did it is possible that you tried before I actually uploaded the files. but if you did download them and were still unable to open them. do you think if I converted them to dng. it would be better? www.takebetterpix.com is pointed to a fully functional web site but I guess it is possible that it cant handle raw. Maybe better luck would be had if I just posted them on the main web site. I understand if you changed your mind.. those files are pretty huge and as long as I only have 1 picture open at a time Raw works fine. Right now I am not planning on switching to sRaw. Time will tell. Tom >>>>> http://www.takebetterpix.com/pictures.html >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > www.takebetterpix.com is pointed to a fully functional web site but I > guess it is possible that it cant handle raw. A web site can handle any type of file. Whether a web browser can display it is up to the browser. And AFAIK no web browser in existence can display RAW files natively. But others can still download the files and process them if they have an application that will handle them. Greg SignatureThemes of isolation in the low desert: http://lodesertprotosites.org Ticketmaster and Ticketweb suck, but everyone knows that: http://ticketmastersucks.org Dethink to survive - Mclusky I would try installing the latest Camera Raw update (4.2) if you haven't already. Although, to be honest, I'm not sure whether CS3 supports sRaw. I noticed the sRaw mode when looking at the 40D specs and thought who on earth would use this format. Well, looks like you're the one. ;-) > my computer is having a hard time with the large raw files. One or two is > no problem but after that [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Tom > I would try installing the latest Camera Raw update (4.2) if you haven't > already. Although, to be honest, I'm not sure whether CS3 supports sRaw. > > I noticed the sRaw mode when looking at the 40D specs and thought who on > earth would use this format. Well, looks like you're the one. ;-) sRaw is going to be way better then jpeg but smaller then plain raw, seems like a pretty good idea to me. I believe Nikon has been doing this kind of thing for sometime and it is very hard to take a photo where there is any real difference between the two mode of raw. Scott I can only see a few reasons to use sRaw: 1) For some reason, you find yourself in a situation where you don't have much space left on your storage media(s) (which is crazy considering the low cost of storage now-a-days). However, in such an emergency JPEG would be a better option, because a large/fine JPEG would still be half the file size. 2) You're transmitting images from your camera using a wireless transmitter and want to speed up the transfer rate (IMO, the main reason for it). Some say it will increase burst, but this is not really true. On a 40D, you still have an official high speed burst of 17 frames, the same as full Raw. Some say it's an advantage for journalist's shooting for low res media such as papers, but I don't buy it. If you get a killer shot, you are limited to what you can do with it. You would also be unable to crop the image as much to get the final output you want. Finally, you are always in a dangerous position whereby you forget to change modes back to full RAW, which could be devastating! Maybe the same people who thought that sRAW was a good function, were the same people who thought the direct print button was needed on a DSLR (I.E. the Canon accessories product planners). Canon should have spent their efforts on something more useful, such as aperture bracketing. >> I would try installing the latest Camera Raw update (4.2) if you haven't >> already. Although, to be honest, I'm not sure whether CS3 supports sRaw. >> >> I noticed the sRaw mode when looking at the 40D specs and thought who on >> earth would use this format. Well, looks like you're the one. ;-) > sRaw is going to be way better then jpeg but smaller then plain raw, seems > like a pretty good idea to me. I believe Nikon has been doing this kind > of thing for sometime and it is very hard to take a photo where there is > any real difference between the two mode of raw. >> I would try installing the latest Camera Raw update (4.2) if you >> haven't already. Although, to be honest, I'm not sure whether CS3 [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > this kind of thing for sometime and it is very hard to take a photo > where there is any real difference between the two mode of raw. No, it's not. It is a smaller file size physically. It's not like Sony's cRAW or Nikon's compressed RAW. CS3 ACR 4.2 does not open it. I tried a few shots I've got on file and could see little point to it, as the last thing I want is a half-dimension final image (quarter of the data size) taking up twice as much raw space, relatively, as the normal size .CR2 does for its full size image. David >>>> my computer is having a hard time with the large raw files. One or two is >>>> no problem but after that [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > taking up twice as much raw space, relatively, as the normal size .CR2 > does for its full size image. What do you mean "taking up twice as much raw space, relatively, as the normal size .CR2"? Apparently it is something other than a simple half size RAW and is not supported by Adobe: http://forum.adobe.com/webx/.3bca2329 SignaturePaul Furman Photography http://edgehill.net Bay Natives Nursery http://www.baynatives.com > What do you mean "taking up twice as much raw space, relatively, as the > normal size .CR2"? Apparently it is something other than a simple half > size RAW and is not supported by Adobe: > http://forum.adobe.com/webx/.3bca2329 I thought so too - I thought that perhaps is was like a Foveon file, and stacked the Bayer pattern into an RGB matrix instead - but it isn't. I nearly assumed that it was an wrote about it on this basis, because the filesize seemed disproportionately large - was it 16-bit? Was it a sort of raw which could be reconstructed to full res? But no. It is a raw format which processes to a small JPEG, and it's half the size of a regular raw file, in exchange for one quarter the data size of final image. Incomprehensible! It is not supported by Adobe simply because Adobe doesn't recognise it, just like many other formats. I am sure they will in a few weeks. Along with awful high ISO conversion, which is something else I was not really aware of until newsgroups/forums flagged it up (I don't shoot much at 1600/3200 so I am not as aware of bad conversion routines for high ISO, which I now see does apply to 40D/ACR4.2 and also to Sony A700/ACR4.2). David SignatureIcon Publications Ltd, Maxwell Place, Maxwell Lane, Kelso TD5 7BB Company Registered in England No 2122711. Registered Office 12 Exchange St, Retford, Notts DN22 6BL VAT Reg No GB458101463 Trading as Icon Publications Ltd, Photoworld Club and Troubadour.uk.com www.iconpublications.com - www.troubadour.uk.com - www.f2photo.co.uk - www.photoclubalpha.com - www.minoltaclub.co.uk Tel +44 1573 226032 > It is a raw format which processes to a small JPEG, and it's half the > size of a regular raw file, in exchange for one quarter the data size of > final image. > Incomprehensible! What ails you, friend? Let us assume a RAW file is, appart from metadata, mostly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 R G R G R G R G 2 G B G B G B G B 3 R G R G R G R G 4 G B G B G B G B 5 R G R G R G R G 6 G B G B G B G B 7 R G R G R G R G 8 G B G B G B G B like that. Now, there are obviously many ways to downsample. One would be to merge every 4 R and B into one value, and a merged G value to all the merged R and B values, e.g. 1 BG g BG g BG g GB g 2 g RG g RG g RG g RG 3 BG g BG g Bg g GB g 4 g RG g RG g RG g RG Half the horizontal resolution, half the vertical resolution, half the data (as each data point now carries 2, instead of 1, 14-bit value). It would also keep the 1:2:1 distribution of R:G:B. -Wolfgang >>It is a raw format which processes to a small JPEG, and it's half the >>size of a regular raw file, in exchange for one quarter the data size of [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > It would also keep the 1:2:1 distribution of R:G:B. I thought they would do that, but it isn't. It's just a small regular raw file, not a clever use of 16-bit depth to store RG/BG or RGB values concurrently. David >>> I would try installing the latest Camera Raw update (4.2) if you >>> haven't already. Although, to be honest, I'm not sure whether CS3 [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > David Ok I looked it up, yup your right, you get 1/4 the number of pixels, hard to see how that even counts as a raw file format. Scott > Ok I looked it up, yup your right, you get 1/4 the number of pixels, > hard to see how that even counts as a raw file format. One unique-to-Canon feature of the 40D is that it supports Pictbridge/EXIFII printing (via USB) from raw files, even if no JPEG is present. Maybe the sRAW format is there for event shooters who want much quicker direct Pictbridge printing, but might also want to make massive adjustments to a raw file later on. This 0.5% of all shooters clearly counts a lot :-) The camera is great and I love the live view - see article: http://www.dphotoexpert.com/2007/09/21/live-view-versus-the-cheating-dslr-viewfinder/ but sRAW is a strange feature and may have a reason we don't know about, such as a government or military requirement Canon is servicing. This has happened many times before with cameras and digital cameras. Indeed, we probably would not have had many digital SLRs in the 1990s if not for military procurement and specific markets (opthalmic, dental and surgical all helped drive the development of DSLRs). David SignatureIcon Publications Ltd, Maxwell Place, Maxwell Lane, Kelso TD5 7BB Company Registered in England No 2122711. Registered Office 12 Exchange St, Retford, Notts DN22 6BL VAT Reg No GB458101463 Trading as Icon Publications Ltd, Photoworld Club and Troubadour.uk.com www.iconpublications.com - www.troubadour.uk.com - www.f2photo.co.uk - www.photoclubalpha.com - www.minoltaclub.co.uk Tel +44 1573 226032 >> I would try installing the latest Camera Raw update (4.2) if you haven't >> already. Although, to be honest, I'm not sure whether CS3 supports sRaw. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Scott I will give it a try. I have tried it in my apartment and in the size I use for display there does not seem to be a difference. Tomorrow I will test both out on the job and see what happens - i really don't think it will hurt at all. I normally display my pictures at 600 x 400 and that's still much smaller than sRaw. Tom >I would try installing the latest Camera Raw update (4.2) if you haven't >already. Although, to be honest, I'm not sure whether CS3 supports sRaw. > > I noticed the sRaw mode when looking at the 40D specs and thought who on > earth would use this format. Well, looks like you're the one. ;-) at 2.5 megapixels I thought it was for those of us who show our pictures over the web at smaller sizes but still want to be able to work on them as a raw file. it is still a very large file and picture size. The few pictures I tried on my colorless apartment didnt show any difference. Tomorrow I will be taking all the pics in sRaw. I just bought 2 computers not to long ago but only have 1gig of ram. in each :( . I am going to give spending money a break for a while. Tom ONLY one gig of RAM each? Until very recently, I was using 384MB of RAM (with a fairly slow processor) to edit 134MB TIFF scans. In all fairness, that was too slow and I ended up buying a new computer, but I don't understand why a machine with 1GB of RAM would be that unbearably that slow for a full 40D RAW. My old PC with 384MB RAM had no problems at all with processing 20D RAW files. Are you opening lots of files in PS at the same time? Of course, it's your choice what you shoot in at the end of the day. >>I would try installing the latest Camera Raw update (4.2) if you haven't >>already. Although, to be honest, I'm not sure whether CS3 supports sRaw. >> >> I noticed the sRaw mode when looking at the 40D specs and thought who on >> earth would use this format. Well, looks like you're the one. ;-) > I just bought 2 computers not to long ago > but only have 1gig of ram. in each :( . I am going to give spending > money a break for a while. > ONLY one gig of RAM each? > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Of course, it's your choice what you shoot in at the end of the day. I usually have bridge open displaying thumb nails of raws. when working with photoshop I open 1 image at a time and like to have 2 open to duplicate the layers I create from one pic to the other. Tom >>>I would try installing the latest Camera Raw update (4.2) if you haven't >>>already. Although, to be honest, I'm not sure whether CS3 supports sRaw. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> but only have 1gig of ram. in each :( . I am going to give spending >> money a break for a while. > In all fairness, that was too slow and I ended up > buying a new computer, but I don't understand why a machine with 1GB of RAM > would be that unbearably that slow for a full 40D RAW. It depends on the OS (Windows Vista?), the program, the definition of "unbearably" (maybe your bear is a grizzly, mine a teddy?), what else is running on the computer, etc. ect. -Wolfgang I had a similar problem when I first got a DSLR & started shooting RAW, I just increased the computers RAM to 4GB. Bruce > my computer is having a hard time with the large raw files. One or two is > no problem but after that [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Tom > my computer is having a hard time with the large raw files. One or two is > no problem but after that > the computer starts to slow up. Buy more RAM. Don't open so many RAWs at once. Buy more RAM. Don't use an OS that uses tons of RAM for itself (yes, that means Vista in particular, and Windows to a lesser amount). Buy more RAM. Give your computer permament swap space (OK, technically it should be page space, but noone calls it that). You want at least 2 or 3 times your RAM in swap. Buy more RAM. Tell Photoshop where to swap out data. Give it enough disk space. Buy more RAM. It may help moving swap and Photoshop-swap to a disk not used much otherwise, or, depending on the OS, spread over multiple disks in parallel. Buy more RAM. Did I mention you might want to buy more RAM? -Wolfgang > Give your computer permament swap space (OK, technically it > should be page space, but noone calls it that). You want at [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > -Wolfgang I just tried to do what you suggested.. Not sure if i did it right. I will look into getting more ram. thanks for the tips. Tom |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.