Canon sRAW to DNG Size Question

Hi,
I shot some images with my Canon 40D set to sRAW. A sample image size is 6.1 MB. In Lightroom 1.3.1, I convert the RAW (.CR2) file to DNG. The resulting DNG file is 6.7MB in size. The DNG Creation settings I used in the conversion were:
JPEG preview: None
Image Conversion Method: Preserve Raw Image
Options: Compressed - ON / Embed Original Raw File - OFF
I was under the impression that DNG format would be smaller than the RAW format.
Is this larger DNG file because my original RAW file was a compressed RAW file (sRAW) and, as a result, the RAW image needs to be uncompressed before it is converted into a DNG file? If the original RAW image was NOT compressed, would I be seeing a reduction if file size after the DNG conversion.
I guess the heart of my questions is this: Will conversion from RAW to DNG only provide a file size reduction if the original RAW file is uncompressed? Is it normal for me to see an increase in size when converting from sRAW to DNG, due to the fact that the original RAW file is a compressed RAW format?
Thanks in advance for your clarification.
Steve

The reason for the larger DNG file is quite complicated, one needs to know some JPEG details. In short, the original sRaw file contains four 15 bit pixel values for two pixels, while the DNG file contains three values per pixel.
The size difference would be much larger if the CR2 file did not contain a 050 KB large thumbnail, which is in the DNG file only between 100 KB abd 200 KB large (approximation).
Plus, the DNG converter fine-tunes the compression; this is not affordable in-camera.

Similar Messages

Canon 40D sRAW and DNG

I know that Aperture 2 does not support the Canon sRAW format natively. It is, however, supported by the Adobe DNG converter. I expected that Aperture would be able to work with sRAW converted to DNG. It does not.
I assume that the reason is that Aperture sees that it is from a 40D and tries to interpret it natively, when it is really a different format. It is unfortunate that the adjustments pane is greyed out, so I can't force it to use DNG conversion. It would be useful to be able to force DNG conversion just as you can force RAW1.1 conversion.
Does anyone know of a workaround in DNG? I know I could just use ACR to batch convert sRAW to TIFF or JPG, but that seems like it shouldn't be necessary.

hi all. I'm having the same issue with the 40d and sraw. I know the camera stores the images in a combined sraw/JPEG format, and I can visualize both forms in the Aperture photo browser using Pixelmator (I can even open and work with the JPEG version using Pixelmator). Pardon my ignorance, but is there a way to visualize/work with/export the JPEG version with Aperture? I have the latest versions of Aperture and OS X. Thanks.
John

Eventual Support of Canon sRAW files?

Hi all, any idea when Apple/Aperture will support Canon sRAW format? I just got my fancy new 5D mark II and get "Unsupported Image Format" and a beautiful burgundy screen when the download completes. Thumbnails yes, actual images, no.
I'm in the midst of choosing a post processing and filing program and at the moment Lightroom is winning...

For what it's worth, I'm in exactly the same situation with the same camera and created an account to ask the same question only to discover that you had already asked it. So, thank you! I have been using sRAW for shooting events where I can stand to sacrifice some resolution to gain the extra low noise performance, and I've been very happy with the results.
I have already sent my feedback to Apple, and now I'm hoping for an Aperture miracle before my 30 day trial period on Lightroom runs out. I really don't want to have to buy LR2 just so I can process sRAW. One possible alternative would be using DPP to convert sRAW to TIFF to read into Aperture, but that makes workflow more cumbersome.

IMovie 6 HD - Export Movie Size Question

There is a confusing list of movie export size options that I need to get your clarification about. Some of the selections seem to be similar.
To see what I am referring to go into iMovie HD 6, under the SHARE menu, go to Save Movie For: Expert Settings Export Settings > Select Movie to QuickTime Movie (then hit the options tab to the right > Under the Video Section, select SIZE - note the Export Size Settings - DImensions drop down list. Note there are two sections. The last two items in the top section listed are (exactly worded as) 1280 x 720 HD and 1920 X 1080 HD. In the bottom section the last three entries are HD 1280 x 720 16:9, HD 1440 x 1080 16:9 and HD 1920 x 1080 16:9. What's the difference, for example, between the 1280 x 780 HD and the bottom one HD 1280 x 780 16:9? I ask because my HD camcorder movie footage (shot at 1080i, 29.97, 16:9) with an HV30 exports smooth at 1280x720 HD but jerky at HD 1280 x 780 16:9. They sound the same, but one is jerky and one smooth.
The other question I have is 1440x1040 is 4:3 ratio. But it exports at 16:9 aspect ratio. I don't understand why.

Donna:
While I have a lot of video editing experience with an SD digital camcorder, the Canon HV30 HDV cam is new to me. So I am experimenting. That said, footage that will be shot will end up in a couple of places. Some of it will be passed onto my company's web master for posting to the web in some kind of Flash video format. Other video will be used in Keynote presentations as full screen video clips. Others will be used as source video for creating 4x3 SD clips for PowerPoint on a PC by others. So, the video will be used in different formats. (In what format to shoot is another question, but I have concluded (I hope correctly) that I should just shoot HDV 1080i since it seems to be the easiest to deal with for uploading to iMovie6 HD.)
The purpose of my inquiry was to determine what the various selections are used for and what they do. Sometimes the video is jerky, sometimes an identical movie size is smooth (but must be rendered or processed differently). I was only trying to determine why there appeared to be repetative choices in the list of movie sizes as I mentioned in my original post. To be blunt, iMovie 6 HD documentation is spotty at best. The O"Reilly books don't cover the hard parts.

Canon CR2 to DNG issue. DNG files too big!

I'm experiencing what I believe may be a few issues whilst converting from Canon CR2 RAW files to the Adobe DNG format.
(Camera is Canon 5D Mk2)
For example, I have a folder containing CR2 RAW files which size = approx' 410MB. But when I perform the DNG conversion to a new folder, the total file size of that folder containing the converted DNG images is over 800MB! Does this sound correct?
I thought converting to DNG reduced the overall file size of the RAW image somewhat?
For info, I'm using the latest version of the converter with no JPEG preview or embedded original RAW file selected.
THANKS

When converting to DNG, is "Embed original Raw File" selected?
If it is, it will double the size of the DNG file.
I have not seen any reason to select this option, and the only time that I have seen reference to it (in Better Digital Camera, I think), it was suggested that this option be turned off.

Raw vs sraw hot pixel issue question

From tests I've come to realize that lightroom processes raw and sraw files differently in Lightroom 3. Hot pixels are automatically removed in standard raw files, but sraw files are not corrected the same way.
It seems odd that they would not add this as I can't think of any other reason to shoot timelapses in such a large format besides this one serious issue. Sraw is more than large enough, for even a 2k format.
My question is whether LR4 remedies this issue, or if I need to take a different route?
Thank you,

sRaw is no longer a true raw file - it's already been demosaiced. You could call it 'half-baked'. So Lightroom doesn't have as much control over things like hot pixels. Lightroom 4 doesn't change that, sorry.
An alternative you could consider for timelapse would be to shoot full raw and then convert them to a lower resolution lossy DNG format, at a similar res to the sRaw file. You'd need extra cards at the time of shooting, but you'd end up with smaller files in the end, and your hot pixels should be removed in the process as LR would have all the data to work with.

DNG converter questions

1. What is the recommended way to store images? Convert all to dng and discard the camera raw or keep both? If keep both I double my storage needs.
2. Under preferences there is a compression selection. I know it says lossless but is it really, and do many people use it?
3. Are there any other advantages to using dng over raw within the editing process?
TIA

1. If you are going to convert to DNG, you should keep the original raw images. Not all raw converters are capable of editing DNG files. As far as storage space is concerned, burn the original raw images to a DVD, or get an external hard drive. After a while you might realize that all your images are not needed.
2. If there is any loss of quality, I will be surprised if you will be able to actually see it. As far as I'm concerned, it is truly lossless. In my opinion most images are not so unbelievably priceless and irreplaceable that this should be of any concern whatsoever.
3. "Other" advantages? Is there really an advantage at all in the first place? That is my question. With my camera there is no reduction in the size of the image in DNG format. If you are using Camera Raw you don't have to concern yourself with XMP files because all the changes are stored within the DNG itself. But in Lightroom that isn't a concern because you only have XMP files if you specifically want them. So, I guess the real question for you is, is there ANY advantage to using DNG? Personally, I don't see any real advantage to converting.

When will Adobe be able to use Canon SRAW?

I just installed Camera Raw 4.2 but it still does not open Canon Mark III SRAW files. When will Adobe be able to open these files?
Please respond Adobe staff.

I'd really like to know the reason why sRaw isn't supported as well.. as I've been expecting Adobe to get it working. If they can't for some reason, I'd settle for an explanation, but the rest of us are holding our breath waiting for this to be supported.
I was on my way to posting this question myself today, but found I'm not the only one. If it can't be done, or the developers just don't want to support it for one reason or another, just tell us! I'll move on and except it.. but SOME response to the user community would really be appreciated.
I know this is the user-to-user forum, but there doesn't appear to be a user-to-developer forum for camera raw.. so I'm left whining to you folks.. :/

IMac (24-inch, Early 2009) Hard Drive Replacement: Hybrid and Maximum Size Question

I have a 24-inch iMac, early 2009 model and the internal hard drive has died so am looking to replace it and also upgrade it in the process.
At the moment the broken internal drive was the standard 1TB model that comes with the computer. I have been doing a little bit of research and I'm liking the sound of a hybrid drive as they seem to be a relatively economical was of achieving close to SSD speeds. I've been looking particularly at 'Seagate ST4000DX001 DESKTOP SSHD 4TB SATA 6GB/s NCQ NAND 8GB 64MB HYBRID' for the replacement. I guess my question is if this drive will work in the iMac. Does a hybrid drive present and problems? Also, is there a limit to the maximum size the replacement drive can be? Will 4TB exceed this limit? Lastly, I understand this drive uses SATA III to connect with the computer, which is backwards compatible (I think?) so I'm presuming this will work in my iMac?
Thanks in advance.

The hybrid drive will kinda sorta be as fast as an SSD. The newest Seagate Hybrid is quite intelligent about caching the most often used files in flash and is quite an improvement over the first iteration. I used both the first and second generation drives in my 2007 iMac and was quite impressed with their performance…until I installed an SSD. The problem with the hybrids is that they just don’t have enough flash and no matter how intelligent the drive is it is guesswork so sometimes you’ll find the drive access just as pokey as any other 5400 RPM drive and then other times very fast.
For about $200 it is a decent upgrade but with SSD prices having dropped nearly 50% in the last 18 months it is worth considering a smallish internal SSD for the OS and applications and an external drive for data.

File size questions

new to Apple MAC and iPhoto...so....I shot my new camera in jpeg, files are roughly 20mb...then I shot in RAW and after editing, the saved jpegs are ~ 5-10mb and up to 15mb....what happens to make this discrepency? how could my RAW converted jpegs be ~ 1/3 the size of straight out of camera jpegs?
another question...iPhoto is 1.7 gb, my iPhoto Library size it 37gb, but my pictures in iPhoto total 17gb.....is the discrepecy due to stuff like Slideshows I created? Faces just is referring the files right, not making duplicate files?...having trouble wrappping my head around stuff I''m seeing that doesn't add up...
thanks

It's all a bit more complex that that. There is no correlation between file size and the quality of a shot. A well exposed shot of 2 or 3 mb will print just as well as a well exposed shot of 25mb. There is no difference in what gets printed. A poorly exposed shot of 25mb will print like garbage.
It gets worse, we used to suggest a rule of thumb that printing at 300dpi was a reasonable giude to printing quality. Not any more. Printers and cameras have improved, iPhoto books are uploaded at something akin to 150 dpi.
Again, a 3 mb jpeg will print exactly as well as a 30 mb tiff.
Remember, the internet is full of high quality images that weigh in at a lot less than 500kb.
Where file size comes into play is when you're using destructive editing on a lossy format, like Jpeg, and, as I said above, that doesn't come into play in a non-destructive editing system like iPhoto.
The output from the export will - depending on the settings you use - either be smaller or larger than the jepg from a camera. It means very little - unless you're going to go an an edited destructively.

Oracle Block Size - question for experts

Hi ,
For years i thought that my system block size was 8K.
Lately due to an HPUX Bug i found that the file system block size is gust .... 1K
(HP DocId: DCLKBRC00006913 fstyp(1m) returns unexpected block size (f_bsize) for VXFS )
My instance is currently 10204 but previously was 7.3 --> 8 --> 8174 --> 10204.
Since its old instance its block size is gust 4kb.
We are planing to create new file system block size of 8k.
The instance size is about 2 TB.
Creating the whole database with 8 kb is impossible since its 24*7 instance.
Do you think that i sould move gust few important tables to a new tablespace with 8k block size , or should i leave it with 4 kb ?
Thanks

Given that your Oracle Database Block_Size (4K) is a multiple of the FileSystem Block_Size (1K), there should be no inherent significant issue, as such.
Yes, it would have been nice to have an 8KB Oracle Database Block_Size but whether you should recreate your FileSystems to 8KB is a difficult question. There would be implications on PreFetch that the OS does and on how the underlying Storage (must be a SAN, I presume) handles those requests.
A thorough test (if you can setup a test environment for 2TB such that it does NOT share the same HW, doesn't complicate PreFetches in the existing SAN) would be well adviced.
Else, check with HP and Veritas support if there are known issues and/or any Desupport plans for this combination ?!
Oracle, obviously, would have issues with Index Key Length sizes if the Block Size is 4KB. Presumably you do not need to add any new indexes with very large keys.
Having said that, you would have read all those posts about how Oracle doesn't (or really does ?) test every different block-size ! However, Oracle had, before 8i, been using 2K and 4K block sizes. Except that the new features (LMT, ASSM etc) may not have been well tested.
Since you upgraded from 7.3 in place without changing the Block_Size, I would venture to say that your database is still using Dictionary Managed and Manual Allocation and Segment Space Management Manual ?
Hemant K Chitale
http://hemantoracledba.blogspot.com

DNG converter question

I apologize for asking this question in this forum. But the DNG forum is not very active it seems. I have seen this problem mentioned in the past, but paid no attention to it and I can't find any of the references. I have no convert button on my DNG converter dialogue. Windows 7, DNG converter 8.4, 8 GB RAM. I have used this utility in the past without problems. I don't use it very often but was experimenting this morning

I posted a similar question quite a while ago, and what I learned was that Bridge has a DNG converter built in, but it's using ACR to read the file before it can convert. So you need ACR support for your camera.
AFAIK there's no way to point Bridge to a standalone DNG converter.
I suggested an updateable DNG converter plugin for Bridge, don't know why nobody listened...I thought it was an excellent idea
As for the metadata, you just have to try. I don't know if it can write metadata when it can't read the file.

Canon MP 620 printer setup question

Hi, I have installed the network and drivers for my Canon MP 620. I have used the wireless connection utility to see how good the connection between the time capsule and the printer. I use the printer wirelessly but every so often I can't print to it so I have to plug the printer back into the computer, put the Canon Install disk into the Computer, re-install the network and drivers, restart the computer, follow the wireless connection wizard and then I can print to it.
My question is: Do I have to do this every time I want to access the setup wizard? Is the setup wizard already on my computer? Also is there some way of accessing the wireless connection tool without having to put the install disk in the computer?
Thanks guys

Update: I found it: the network and printer tools are located in Library/Printers/Canon/BJPrinter and it's in Utilities

Player size question for player developers

Question for all player developers:
For media players that you've built or that you've seen out on the web today, how big are they in k? And of that total size, how much code does it take to support each of the service integrations with CDNs, ad servers/networks, analytics services, and content management systems?
I'm interested in total player size, the % of that total devoted to each type of service integration, and the average for an individual service integration.
-Sumner

As I understand it, the new FME (Jan 2008?) will include
support for mp3 audio and much higher audio bitrates, as well as
possibly DRM.

JPEG - Original Size question

Hi gang,
Strange question.
I accidentally edited my Export .. Versions ... JPEG Original Size settings. Can someone let me know the original settings?
Cheers!

H there,
"Original Size" picks up the resolution from the image, so is image dependent.
The DPI settings by default are 300.
G.

Canon sRAW to DNG Size Question

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for