File size loss: .NEF .DNG

I lose about one third of my total file size when .NEF's are converted to .DNG.
Is this Nikon coding, compression or? Wondering what kind of quality hit this
causes. Got started on .DNG conversion, having 2d thoughts.

Also noticed I can open .DNG in CS4 and use the distortion tool on it, unlike .NEF's.

Similar Messages

File size difference between DNG Converter and Lightroom Beta 4

Hi,
I want to go the all-DNG route and am trying several things ATM. I want my files to be as small as possible, thus I disable previews and RAW embedding and enable compression in DNG Converter. In Lightroom, there are no options at all. What I do get, are pretty amazing file size differences:
Original .NEF as it came from my D70s: ~5MB
.DNG created by DNG Converter: ~1MB
.DNG created by Lightroom: ~4MB
The very small file size in DNG Converter is the one that bother's me most. I get these small files from time to time. I checked both the DNG and the NEF in Photoshop, and they seem to be identical. So my question is: What triggers these small file sizes? Do I loose anything? Or is the Lightroom DNG converter not as advanced as the stand alone version?
Maybe this helps: I get the ridicolous small files for very dull subjects that tell the computer scientist in me that it should be easily compressable by common compression algorithms.
Thanks for any pointers,
Markus

Thanks for the hint! It did make me revisit those files and now I see the reason for the small file sizes: The Apple Finder does note update the file size view once a file was added to a folder. Here's what I did:
Opened a folder full of .NEFs in detail view in Finder.
Converted them using DNG Converter
Looked at the sizes of the files as they were shown in the Finder window allready open.
Unfortunately, those file sizes are not correct. If I open a new Finder window of the same folder, file sizes are correctly reported as between 3.5 and 5 MB.

Huge file sizes after editing DNGs in PS

Whenever I need to make a local adjustment and I bring the raw file (DNG) into Photoshop, it saves as TIFF or PSD, which increases the file size from 20mb to around 150-200mb. Is there a better format I can save as without compressing? Cheers.

Rendered files are big files and always will be. Only render files when you require them and delete them after us as you can always render them again. Of course once you have opened into LR you have rendered the file. The best way of reducing the size of the rendered file is to save as a compressed Tiff as this retains everything in a lossless format. If you don't require layers then why open into PS anyway?

Significant reduction in file size from Camera Raw to DNG

Hi,
I am currently testing the conversion of Leaf camera raw files into DNGs for a photographer's archive. I am hoping to convert all of the mos files to DNGs because Leaf Capture and the Leaf Raw Converter are not being updated and because the photographer wants to have an Adobe centered workflow. In my testing I discovered that converting mos files to DNGs through ACR 8.4 and LightRoom 5.4 resulted in a reduction of file size by nearly 50%. A 44.5MB mos file became a 23.6MB DNG. From what I've read only about 15-20% of the camera raw file should be lost and all of the data lost should be propietary.
Here-in lies my quesiton, is there any way that I can track or determine exactly what sort of compression is being done to the mos file and what information is or is not travelling in the conversion to DNG?
These are the settings I have used for converting raw files to DNGs:
ACR:
JPEG Preview: Medium Size
Embed fast load data
Don't use lossy compression
Preserve pixel counts
Don't embed original
LIGHTROOM 5.4:
Only Convert Raw files
Delete originals after successful conversion
File Extension DNG
Compatibility Camera Raw 7.1 and later
Jpeg Preview Medium Size
Embed Fast Load Data
Thanks!

50%? - I thought we were talking about 15-20%?
In my first post I questioned why I was seeing a reduction in file size of 50% when according to forums and articles I've read I should only be seing a 15-20% reduction in file size. I then wondered what data I might be losing, which you addressed.
Same as what? - what were the results.
I was referring to testing I preformed on camera raw files produced during different years (all mos). I converted all files with the same ACR and LR settings and found that the DNGs always reflected a 50% reduction in file size. This test suggests that any conversion issues is not necessarily related to how the camera raw files might have been differently built across years.
Adobe's raw data compression is touted by DNG zealots, but I haven't scrutinized it enough to corroborate or refute.., but my experience is that reduction is relatively marginal. All of this assumes original is also compressed - if uncompressed in original source, savings would be large.
The files I am dealing with are definitely uncompressed which could account for the large reduction in file size. I didn't realize until I posted to this thread that converting to a DNG results in a compression of the original image data. I understand that this compression is supposed to be lossless like a lossless compression to a tiff and thus result in no decrease in image quality or harm to the original image. I am baffled by how it is possible that any compression of a file (especially by 50%) could not result in a loss of important data but I will accept that it is possible to have a truly lossless compression and that the size reduction I am seeing could be a result of all of the different processes a file undergoes that you have outlined.
I looked into the effects that backwards compatibility has on the conversion process which might interest you http://dpbestflow.org/DNG#backwards-compatibility
I also posted to luminous landscape's forums http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=89101.new;topicseen#new
Although it wouldn't surprise me if the DNG conversion process tossed the xmp-like metadata, and kept the original stuff, but it would surprise me if it tossed the original stuff - but as I said before, I haven't scrutinized for completeness so I don't know.
I've done testing in which I converted .mos camera raw files with their sidecar xmps and without their sidecar xmps. My tests revealed that the DNG definitely carries over xmp metadata although it is not clear to me exactly how it is carried and if anything is lost.

My Nikon D810 NEF/RAW File Size

I'm wondering if the 72mg file size is normal or is it something I have set up iinadvertantly. My D800 has a 36mg file size. Thanks. BTW, I also cannot read these files in Lightroom 5.5 for Mac. I hope a fix is coming soon!

There is support in the release candidate for Camera Raw 8.6 as well. So that should be an indication that native support for your NEF files will be available in the next Lightroom update. I would guess that update should be available soon, probably within the next few weeks. But you will just have to wait for the update. If you keep in touch with this forum you will know when the update is available as soon as anyone else does.
I understand your need to have Lightroom support your NEF files. But, in the meantime, (I'm going to mention it again) that DNG converter release candidate will enable you to work on DNG copies of your files so that you can evaluate how things are going. You'll still have the original NEF files that you can go to as soon as Lightroom supports them. I know it isn't the solution that you want or need, but it will at least give you access to your raw data now.

Converting to DNG without RAW embed increases file size...????

I convert all my Canon CR2 Raw files to DNG. I have recently noticed though that selected folders full of these DNGs are twice the file size of the original CR2. The thing is, I have never embedded the original CR2. My file sizes go from a little over 12M to 25M in the conversion. When testing to try to find the problem, I found that when I do embed the original that file size increases to 30M. If I try to go backwards, selecting a folder that contains the larger-than-normal DNGs, and I try to extract the original CR2, it tells me there is no original to extract. So from everything I can tell, these files are doubling in size for a reason other than the original Raw file being embedded. As far as I can tell, there also is no rhyme or reason to how some folders end up with normal file size DNGs, and others are double the file size....Anyone know?

Reed:
Why don't you use the lossless compression algorithm? Absolutely no data is lost. Not a single bit is changed. The image data is preserved EXACTLY. That is what "lossless" means--there is no loss at all. The "way you see it" is wrong.
The ONLY reason the uncompressed option is available at all is so simple third party utility programs can read the files if their programmers have not written the code to decode the lossess compression agorithm yet. Even this is less of an issue now since Adobe provides the free DNG SDK with source code that does this decoding.

CS4 will not open NEF files. I installed DNG converter and it did not help.

CS4 will not open NEF files. I installed DNG converter and it did not help. Also, I tried to just "update" photoshop and it did not work. It is a new camera (Nikon 1).

Yes, you need CS6. DNG Converter is just a standalone tool to convert RAW to DNG files which then may be possible to open in older versions of Adobe tools.
Mylenium

Camera Raw reduces DNG file size

I have raw file(CR2) size at 13.6 mb straight out of my Canon 7D. When I convert them in Adobe dng converter 5.7 I get 21.7 mb. When opening in Photoshop CS3 with Camera Raw 4.4.1 I get image size as W:3888 pixels by H:2592 pixels. I dont understand at which point the file size reduction takes place, as its supposed to be larger than that providing it was 13.6mb original file size. ( There is no compression option in camera raw or dng converter).

There is a hyperlink at the bottom of the Camera Raw interface that allows you to change some of the settings. One of the changes is to make the image smaller, the image that is sent to Photoshop. Is it possible that you have a setting chosen that reduces the size? Additionally, DNG files are usually a little smaller. Are you embedding the raw file in your DNG file? The DNG converter does not change the size of the image. It simply takes the raw image data and puts it in a new container DNG file.

Iphoto '08 NEF file size info missing

Some of the photos that I have taken on my Nikon D50 (which are imported into iphoto as NEF files) show "0 KB" as their file size. So I have no way to figure out how large an album is. Iphoto told me that one album has 356 MB of pictures and when I went to burn them on a CD in Toast 8 the size came up as 5.6 GB (which sounds accurate for 200 pictures at around 5 MB each)!
And some do show file size; I thought it might be related to whether or not I had made adjustments but that doesn't seem to be true. It just seems random.

Is it a portrait oriented photo? If it is then iPhoto created a modified version which is rotated and underwent one level of JPEG compression.
OT

I have a .mov file that is 59 gigs. Is there a converter that can reduce the file size with minor resolution loss so I can import it into final cut express?

I have a .mov file that is 59 gigs. Is there a converter that can reduce the file size with minor resolution loss so I can import it into final cut express?

Open the file in QuickTime Player. Then do Tools > Show Movie Inspector. What does it say for Format and FPS?
At 59GB, I suspect you have either a 4 hour DV video or a 1+ hour video that was converted to Apple Intermediate Codec. If it's either of those, you can import it directly into FCE provided you select the appropriate Easy Setup first. Your clips have to match the properties of the Easy Setup you are using.
If it's neither DV or AIC then you need to convert it to one of those codecs. (QuickTime/DV or QuickTime/AIC) Many people in this forum rely on MPEG Streamclip (it's free and works great).

Exported Wraptor dcp File-Size difference and quality loss

Hi,
I am currently working on exporting a short trailer (45 sec) to wraptor-dcp with AME straight from an After Effects project.
In the export-preferences the estimated files size is about 8000MB (check out the screenshot).
But the finalized dcp only has a size of 180MB. That irritated me so I downloaded a demo of easyDCP to check the material. The dcp is working fine but the quality is a mess even in comparison to a small mp4 (take a look at the second comparison screenshot: dcp left and mp4 (H264) on the right). Gradients are destroyed and chunky.
Also with the color transformation off, the colors feel dull and only fit if I choose 'X'Y'Z » R'G'B (P3). Should it be that way? How can I enhance the quality of the dcp?
All the best,
Jay
1 Export Settings (I just choose the wraptor setting in AME '2K Digital Cinema Flat' and did not change any settings)
2. Comparison dcp / mp4 (H264)

Will there be a new update coming soon?
Problem: Wraptor DCP will play on GDC-TMS 8.0 at one theater and will not play at another theater running GDC-TMS 9.0
Identified: Xsize/Ysize problems when reading on GDC-TMS 9.0. XOsize is wacked!
Although GDC-TMS is part of the problem...please help fix the Wraptor DCP part of the problem!
-Eric
Geek-4-Hire
@DailyGeekTip

Burning to dvd and the loss of file size

I am new to aperture and in trying to burn my photos to dvd (with toast 6 or idvd), I have a couple of questions. First, can I just drag and drop the images or do I need to export them? Secondly, when I have dragged and dropped photos into the Toast screen the file size is considerably smaller (about one fifth the size). Am I just dragging the preview? It seems when I export a photo to my desktop it is also then a smaller file size. (one third or so) How to I burn to dvd select full size versions of my photos?
Thank you for any help.

hello, lupita
Welcome to the Aperture forum!
I am new to aperture and in trying to burn my photos
to dvd (with toast 6 or idvd), I have a couple of
questions. First, can I just drag and drop the
images or do I need to export them?
if you have made Aperture Previews (if not Update the Version Previews first that you want to drag & drop) you can drag & drop them into the drop zone of iDVD from the Browser (it takes a while for iDVD Media option to see the Previews while they Update)
or you can access your photos through the Media/Photos/Aperture Library option in iDVD
or you can export Versions to a folder on a hard drive and iDVD/File/Import/Image
Secondly, when I
have dragged and dropped photos into the Toast screen
the file size is considerably smaller (about one
fifth the size). Am I just dragging the preview?
yes.
It
seems when I export a photo to my desktop it is also
then a smaller file size.
Exporting a photograph (Version) from Aperture can have several size and quality options, since you want your photos to be the same size then make sure the Versions are not being resized which it sounds like they have been. Select & edit the Presets/Image Presets... for Export
or, Export the Version and at the window prompt select the Export Preset: Edit to modify the presets to your liking.
How to
I burn to dvd select full size versions of my
photos?
Export Version/Edit/Export Preset/ now select file type TIFF or JPEG or PSD you want "Original Size" etc.
At the Export window select the DVD/CD so the files go into it
REF:
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=304499
victor

Question about RAW to JPG file sizes

Hello all, I have a question/concern in reference to file size changes when converting from RAW to JPG formats in PSE6. I've recently purchased a CANON 50D, and have started shooting in RAW format (actually RAW2+JPG). I have the CAMERA RAW 5.2 plugin and my workflow process is something akin to this:
1. Separate all RAW and JPG images into their respective folders.
2. Open the RAW folder in BRIDGE, and then open up a CR2 file. CR2 file is approx 15MB at this point, as reported in Finder.
3. Perform various corrections in ACR52 to the file, then do as SAVE AS to a DNG file.
4. Next step is to OPEN IMAGE, bringing it up in PSE6.
5. Make any necessary corrections to the picture, and then do a SAVE AS to a new file name and folder, selecting JPG format.
6. Selection MAX QUALITY from subsequent dialogue box, and SAVE.
When the file is saved, its now down to a mere 2.1 or 2.2MB, and when viewing its properties (vs. the same file that came from camera in JPG format), its down from a 44x66" format, to somewhere around 4x6" and 240dpi.
I've been doing some reading on this over the weekend, but cant explain away the severe loss in file size, and whether this is right, or if I'm doing something wrong in the process.
Appreciate any advice or suggestions to help improve my work processes, and ultimately the final photos!

Regarding your file size questions, have a look at this thread and see if it answers some of your questions:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/741532/0
> When the file is saved, its now down to a mere 2.1 or 2.2MB, and when viewing its properties (vs. the same file that came from camera in JPG format), its down from a 44x66" format, to somewhere around 4x6" and 240dpi.
Dimensions and resolution are related and multiple combinations can be produced from the same number of pixels. For example, your 50D at maximum image size produces 4,752 by 3,168 pixels. This full-size image could be printed at:
- 19.8 x 13.2 inches at 240 PPI
- 47.52 x 31.68 inches at 100 PPI
- 7.92 x 5.28 inches at 600 PPI
As you can maybe see, talking about dimensions and resolution doesn't make much sense until you are ready to consider printing. Note also that I used "PPI" or Pixels Per Inch since this is the slightly more correct terminology. DPI or "Dots Per Inch" is usually a reference to how a printer lays down the ink drops onto the paper. Many printers actually put more "dots" on the paper than there are pixels. Many people and companies use DPI when they mean PPI.
Now in your case you are apparently starting with an SRAW2 raw file. SRAW2 files from the 50D have a reduced number of pixels and are 2,276 pixels wide by 1,584 pixels high. At 240 PPI this would allow you to print the image at 9.9 by 6.6 inches. If you are ending up with something smaller than that, it means you have either re-sampled the image (changed the image so the same image is displayed with fewer pixels) or you have cropped the image.
Hope that helps.

Aperture Exporting JPEG's from RAW: file size and quality questions?

Hey Everyone,
So, I'm using Aperture 2 and I've got some questions about exporting from RAW to JPEG. I shoot with a Nikon D70 so original RAW files are 5-6mb in size. After doing some basic post processing when I export the pics at "full size" with picture quality of 11 out of 12 then the resulting JPEG is about half the file size of the original RAW file. For example a 5.6mb RAW becomes a 2.6mb JPEG. The resolution in pixels per inch and and the overall image size remain unchanged. Have I lost picture quality due to the exporting JPEG being smaller in file size?
My friend who works with me prefers to edit in Photoshop and when he follows the same workflow his saved JPEG from the identical RAW file in Photoshop is minimally smaller in file size, say 5.6mb to 5.3mb. He's telling me that my Aperture edited photos are losing quality and resolution.
Is he right, are my pics of lesser quality due to being a smaller file size? I've always been told that the quality of a picture is not in the mbs, but the pixel density.
I've bee told that Aperture has a better compression engine and that the resulting files are of the exact same quality because the PPI and image size are the same. Is that what explains the much smaller file sizes in Aperture?
I tried changing the picture quality in the export menu to 12 out of 12, but the resulting JPEG then becomes larger than the original RAW at over 7mbs.
Can someone please help me understand this better? I don't want to lose picture quality if that is indeed what is happening.
Thanks in advance for your help.

mscriv wrote:
So, I'm using Aperture 2 and I've got some questions about exporting from RAW to JPEG. I shoot with a Nikon D70 so original RAW files are 5-6mb in size. After doing some basic post processing when I export the pics at "full size" with picture quality of 11 out of 12 then the resulting JPEG is about half the file size of the original RAW file. For example a 5.6mb RAW becomes a 2.6mb JPEG. The resolution in pixels per inch and and the overall image size remain unchanged. Have I lost picture quality due to the exporting JPEG being smaller in file size?
JPEG is a "lossy" file compression algorithm. Whether Aperture or PS, *every time a JPEG is saved some loss occurs*, albeit minimal at the 11 or 12 level of save, huge losses at low save levels. Some images (sky, straight diagonal lines, etc.) are more vulnerable to showing visible jpeg artifacts.
My friend who works with me prefers to edit in Photoshop and when he follows the same workflow his saved JPEG from the identical RAW file in Photoshop is minimally smaller in file size, say 5.6mb to 5.3mb. He's telling me that my Aperture edited photos are losing quality and resolution.
*Both of you are losing image data when you save to jpeg.* IMO the differences between the apps is probably just how the apps work rather than actually losing significantly more data. The real image data loss is in using JPEG at all!
Is he right, are my pics of lesser quality due to being a smaller file size?
I doubt it.
I've always been told that the quality of a picture is not in the mbs, but the pixel density.
The issue here is not how many pixels (because you are not varying that) but how much data each pixel contains. In this case once you avoid lossy JPEG the quality mostly has to do with different RAW conversion algorithms. Apple and Adobe both guess what Nikon is up to with the proprietary RAW NEF files and the results are different from ACR to Apple to Nikon. For my D2x pix I like Nikon's conversions the best (but Nikon software is hard to use), Aperture second and Adobe ACR (what Photoshop/Bridge uses) third. I 98% use Aperture.
I tried changing the picture quality in the export menu to 12 out of 12, but the resulting JPEG then becomes larger than the original RAW at over 7mbs. Can someone please help me understand this better? I don't want to lose picture quality if that is indeed what is happening.
JPEG is a useful format but lossy. Only use it as a _last step_ when you must save files size for some reason and are willing to accept the by-definition loss of image data to obtain smaller files (such as for web work or other on-screen viewing). Otherwise (especially for printing) save as TIFF or PSD which are non-lossy file types, but larger.
As to the Aperture vs. ACR argument, RAW-convert the same original both ways, save as TIFF and see if your eyes/brain significantly prefer one over the other. Nikon, Canon etc. keep proprietary original image capture data algorithms secret and each individual camera's RAW conversion is different.
HTH
-Allen

Using LR and DxO in work flow.. file size problems

Hi,
Does anyone have experience with using both DxO and LR in their work flow that can help me with the following problem?
DxO takes my NEF and creates a DNG optically corrected. Great. Now I should just import these DNG files into LR and be on my way.. except that it seems to use Linear DNG rather then mosaiced and the file sizes are through the roof. My 10mb NEF file is converted into a 30mb DNG. Trying to reconvert using LR has no effect. If I start working with images in this size I will immediately see all my storage space cut by a third from the point of view of the number of images stored.
Has anyone found a way to work around this problem? I tried to use the adobe DNG converter to reconvert the images but it can go from mosaic to linear but not linear to mosaic. Turning on compression has no effect implying it is already a compressed DNG. Trying to zip the files also fails to have an effect.
I am really bummed out.. and wish I had paid more attention to file sizes during my trial.
Right now I am leaning toward only using DxO for a few special images and doing the rest entirely in LR.. but that really defeats the purpose of what I thought would be a great one two punch.
Thanks,
Chris

David,
The output preset you're using must have TIF enabled. Either edit it to remove the TIF option or create a new JPG-only one if you want to keep the option of exporting to both in the future.
I can't be more precise as I'm currently away from home and the DxO installation on my laptop has decided to deactivate and revert to time-expired demo mode, meaning I can't actually open the app!
[Edit]
Okay, sorted now.... In the DxO Optics Pro "Process" module, under the "Options" section you'll see "Output Formats". There should be one called "Default Output" which outputs to JPG. Ensure that the checkbox next to it is checked and that any others are disabled (unchecked). Your images will now only be exported after processing as JPGs. If you click the "X" next to an output preset you can delete it if no longer required.
Alan

File size loss: .NEF .DNG

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for