RAW file size.

This came up in the Mac Photoshop forum so I thought I'd ask the real photographers.
I had been told that one reason a RAW file is smaller than an uncompressed TIFF is because the RAW files contain un-interpolated pixel data, i.e., each pixel location only contains data from one color (R, G or B).  Anyone know if that is the case?
It has to happen somewhere, either the camera or ACR.
Thanks for any enlightenment you can give.

Thanks, great help! Now I no longer have a medium format camera!
BR, peter

Similar Messages

  • Nikon D1x - raw file size and sharpening in Aperture

    Good day all:
    I have looked for several hours but can't find the answer to two questions:
    1) How to set Aperture to use the full file size for the D1x, approx. 10.7 MB, vs the smaller Raw file size of 7.7 MB. The Nikon software all allows this function. Can aperture do it?
    2)Aperture greys out the shrapening buttons for my D1x files, but allows it for my D100. I have tried every permutation I can think of, no luck. I wonder if it might be related to question #1? Thanks so much. I really need to do some sharpening!
    Randy

    Good day all:
    I have looked for several hours but can't find the answer to two questions:
    1) How to set Aperture to use the full file size for the D1x, approx. 10.7 MB, vs the smaller Raw file size of 7.7 MB. The Nikon software all allows this function. Can aperture do it?
    2)Aperture greys out the shrapening buttons for my D1x files, but allows it for my D100. I have tried every permutation I can think of, no luck. I wonder if it might be related to question #1? Thanks so much. I really need to do some sharpening!
    Randy

  • 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

  • Camera Raw file size

    I have accidently noticed that Camera Raw's files size nearly doubled between 6.4 and 6.5. Not that I care about a few megs of lost disk space, but what little secrets are there hidden? I don't remember any major new features being added.
    P.S. I have not been around for a good couple of months, so maybe I missed something.

    No, I said "no new features" in ACR 6.5, but a big jump in file size.
    Camera Raw.8bi is 11.9 MB for version 6.4
    Camera Raw.8bi is 19.0 MB for version 6.5
    Remember how ACR 5.7 had no UI for editing PV2010 adjustments, but could interpret it to assure some compatibility of the old Photoshop CS4 with the new process? At first, I thought maybe it's the same thing here: there's some code in ACR 6.5 for PV2012 interpretation. But seems a bit unlikely, given that it was released about 5 month ago and PV2012 is still considered unfinished in LR4.
    Then I thought it has something to do with fixing the dreaded "hue shift when using Recovery" issue. But that was fixed in 6.4 already. (BTW, how come this went unnoticed, without any mention of it in release notes? This was a huge problem for some images and fixing also caused a major difference in rendering of some images, thus braking backward compatibility.)
    But I don't believe that the sudden doubling of ACR file size is an accident either.

  • 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.

  • Jpg vs raw file size PSE9/Camera raw 6.3

    It seems that there is quite a difference in jpg file sizes between converting jpg's Process multiple files (batch) or Save as (single photo).
    I'm converting Sony A580 arw files that are about 16xxxxKB each, when doing batch processing file sizes for jpg are larger than raw about 19xxxKB (setting jpg max quality) but when saving same photos Save as setting max quality 12 file sizes are about 14xxxKB.
    Has anyone noticed same behavior when using Camera raw 6.3 and PSE9  ?
    Edit:
    Ooops, I had Auto sharpen selected when I did batch processing.

    None of this is unusual, and I wouldn't worry about it at all.
    I would advise against saving quality 12, it gives you very large files but rarely if ever does it result in a noticeable quality improvement over level 9 or 10, which are smaller.
    If you want to read more about this, here is an excellent article written about Lightroom, but the concepts are the same (PSE uses a 0 to 12 scale, while Lightroom uses a 0 to 100 scale, but other than that, everything is the same for PSE). http://regex.info/blog/lightroom-goodies/jpeg-quality

  • Raw file sizes

    Hi, My imported raw files (NEF in my case) from my 10 mpix camera is, as expected, about 10 mpix. If I save (export) this file even with no adjustments made (that I know of), the file size is over 40 megapixels! Does anyone have an explanation for this? Thanks much in advance, Andy

    To the OP, the blow up of the file size when exporting to tiff is not mainly due to the fact that most RAW files are compressed (lossless or virtually lossless) but owes to the fact that a RAW file is actually mosaiced. Every pixel in the 10MP RAW only has one color! In that file, there are actually 5 million green values, and 2.5 Blue and red values each. But each pixel has 12 bit resolution. Your camera manufacturer makes a small white lie to you when they say you have a 10MP camera. The actual real full color resolution is about a factor 2 lower than that. Anyway, for a 10MP RAW, you come to about 15 MB uncompressed and 7.5MB compressed (assuming a 50% compression efficiency, which is quite common). Now LR demosaics the original RAW and interpolates (the algorithm is more complex than that, but that is not important for this discussion) a red, green, and blue value for each pixel location that originally only had a single color. At 16 bit per color, this makes the file blow up a factor of (3*16)/12=4, or to a size of about 60MB (30MB compressed).

  • Change in RAW File Size From CS5 to CC?

    I've been shooting with a Nikon D700 in RAW format. When I was using CS5, my RAW files were opening up in Photoshop at approx. 11" x 17" at 300 dpi. (4256 x 2832 pixels). Since I've upgraded to PS Creative Cloud, however, the same RAW files from the same camera are opening up at approx. 9" x 14" at 300 dpi., with the SAME number of pixels...and I can't seem to find any way of changing that. Can anyone advise what's going on here?

    911pix wrote:
    I seemed to have more choices; now, unless I check the "Resize" box I'm just left with the "Default 12.1 MP" option. If I leave this unchanged, and open the image from the RAW ACR dialog screen by clicking on "Open Image" at bottom right, it simply opens at 9.44" x 14.187" at 300 dpi. Any other ideas?
    You seem to be confused about how many megapixels your camera has.  You have 12.1 megapixels.  4256 x 2832, which is most certainly NOT 11 x 17 at 300 ppi (do the math).
    Or maybe you didn't realize what Camera Raw was doing before with the setting you chose.
    Check the Resize to Fit box.  Go ahead, it won't bite.  It will give you the opportunity to open your D700 images at an upsampled resolution, as before (which, by the way, is a good idea; you can get better quality images that way - I do it all the time).
    -Noel

  • CC BRIDGE FILE SIZE REDUCTION/NO ADJUSTMENT

    In previous versions of ADOBE BRIDGE (CS4-CS5) the RAW file size was adjustable using the dialog box accessed from the bottom of the RAW frame.  Set to MAXIMUM it produced an image  20x14 @ 21mb for JPEG files.  Usable.
    The NEW version of BRIDGE creates a file size  14x9@ 9mb for JPEG files.
    Using a NIKON D300, shooting RAW, I cannot get a larger file size from BRIDGE no matter what I do.  Same raw file loaded into BRIDGE (CS4) GIVES me the larger size, in CC...smaller file.
    I've gone through BRIDGE/settings/prefs/adjustments....and there is no control for adjusting file size OR output size.
    Very frustrating.
    Anyone know about this and if there is a workaround??

    I've gone through BRIDGE/settings/prefs/adjustments....and there is no control for adjusting file size OR output size.
    Bridge CC uses a different way of resizing then before. You now have almost unlimited choices to set the wanted size using the new image sizing option in the same menu as before in ACR (blue line at the bottom)
    Click on the checkmark in front of 'resize to fit' and select the option you want from the drop down menu,  e.g. set to match the wanted Megapixels size. By default it stays at the last set option like it was before with the few offered presets.
    Try it out, it would be nice to have the option to save your own presets but sadly enough this is not the case. However there are a lot more options to choose from

  • ACR PSD files - larger file size and max compatible

    When using ACR > Save As to save a bunch of PSD files from raw files the resulting PSD file sizes are larger.
    for example:
    if I output and save from ACR directly to a folder as a PSD, I'm seeing the file size at 63.1 MB
    If I open the raw file to PS and save it within Photoshop to a PSD file the file size is 56.1 MB ( this is true whether the Max Compatible is turned on or off... probably because it's a flat PSD file)
    why the difference?  same output settings from ACR, bit depth etc.
    Also,
    The file saved out of ACR appears to be "tagged" as a Maximum compatible file even though it is flat, so subsequent saves, even if the PS pref is set to Never for maximum compatibility are disregarded. Whereas the same file that was opened into PS from ACR and then saved with the Never PS pref behaves correctly.
    Is there a preference setting within ACR to not save the PSD's as Maximum compatible?
    thanks
    j
    ACR 6.4
    PS 12.0.4
    10.6.7

    Hi Noel
    I may not have been clear in my post. It's not about PSD v. Raw file size, just comparing PSD files.
    Starting with a raw file ( in this case a 5DmII CR2)
    Using the same settings (mid-bottom of ACR window) when saving a file using the "save image" within ACR or opening the file into PS and then saving. This is where I'm seeing the file size difference.
    The second part of the problem is that PSD files that are saved directly out of ACR using the "save image" (bottom left of ACR window) are all set as Maximum Compatibility. As a result opening these files will always be have the extra data and saving time that files with Maximum Compatibility enabled have. The only way to get around this is to have your PS prefs set to Never or Ask and the "Save As" to overwrite the file.
    I just reprocessed a folder of PSD's that were saved out of ACR by overwriting as above and the 36 files (with layers, retouching etc) went from 6.9GB to 5.6GB, and the save time is also faster.
    This isn't intended to be a discussion about the benefits or disadvantages of the Maximum Compatibiliy "feature", but just a question as to whether it can be turned off in PSDs saved from ACR.
    thanks
    j

  • Jpeg file size 6D vs 60D

    Hi all,
    Being a bit newer at all this I'm sure there is something I don't know that I don't know  which would answer this:
    Been taking some identical test shots on my new 6D and my old 60D to compare.  Jpeg only for now, same "quality" setting.    I noticed that the file sizes of the pictures on the 60D were larger than the 6D's.  I would have thought that with a larger sensor and roughly 2mp more the 6D's would have been the larger, or at least the same.  Some of the 60d's were almost 3-4 mb larger.  
    Lenses if it matters:  6D 24-105L kit, 60D EFS 15-85 IS.   ISO was the same in some, apetures pretty close in most.
    What am I missing? 

    Thanks for the response.
    Good point on the noise reduction, I'll check those settings to see if they are on the same setting.
    I tried to frame the shots exactly the same, using only the center AF point focused on the same point for both.   Got them pretty close.
    I came across a 6D review that had a table showing the raw file sizes for various cameras at various ISO's, and it showed the 60d and 6d pretty similar (still not understanding why given larger sensor and 2 more mpixel) .  The 60D's got larger at the higher ISO.  I am guessing increased noise may be the reason?

  • Aperture is exporting large file size e.g. original image is 18.2MB and the exported version (TFF 16 Bit) is 47.9MB, any ideas please

    Aperture is exporting large file size e.g. original image is 18.2MB and the exported version (TFF 16 Bit) is 47.9MB, any ideas please

    Raws, even if not compressed, Sould be smaller than a 24-bit Tiff, since they have only one bitplane. My T3i shoots 14 bit 18MP raws and has a raw file size of 24.5 MB*. An uncompressed Tiff should have a size of 18 MP x 3 bytes per pixel or 54 MB.
    *There must be some lossless compression going on since 18 MP times 1.75 bytes per pixel is 31.5MB for uncompressed raw.

  • File size deviation between Finder and Quicktime

    Today I encountered a weird phenomenon:
    Some Quicktime .movs show different filesizes in the finder (e.g. 69,3MB) than the same clip has in Quicktime (Command-I says 34,71MB)
    This happens if the clip was opened, truncated and saved (under the same name).
    It still occurs after the computer was restartet.
    Any idea what this may be?

    Hi
    According to the QuickTime help, after you delete parts of a movie, the file size stays the same until you choose File > Save As and select "Save as a self-contained movie". I'm only guessing, but this may be to enable the deletion to be undone, even after the file has been saved.
    I guess the Finder is reporting the raw file size, whereas QuickTime is reporting the size of the edited clip.

  • Exporting raw files - Average speed.

    I am presently exporting several hundred raw files, created by an Olympus E300, to jpg. The raw file size are 13.5 mb each and the time per file is averaging 42 seconds. Is this good /bad what should I expect?????
    Win XP sp3 Pentium 4 with 3GB ram. My HDD has lots of room only about 50% full.

    The batch process has just completed the time was 24.81 sec per image. The only other use on the computer was browsing on Safari. Would that have a sigificant effect??
    My raw files are on an internal 250 GB HDD and the jpegs are being saved to the regular internal 80 GB HDD. My processor uses Hyper Threading not a Dual or Quad core. Tomorrow I will do a test with Bibble and SilkyPix.
    Maybe I should try saving the jpegs to the secondary HDD instead of the main HDD which runs the OS and programs. They are only there temporary untill I burn to DVD or upload to the web.

  • Why would two copies of Lightroom 5 create DNG files with different sizes from the same RAW file? (size is dramatically different, on the order of doubled in size.)

    I have a copy of LIghtroom 5 on my office computer and a personal copy on my home computer. I convert my RAW files to DNG with Lightroom when I import them. Files I shoot for work also get imported on my home workstation. I noticed today that the resulting DNG files for the same RAW image are widely different in size. The ones at home are roughly twice as big as the ones from the office.
    To the best of my knowledge, things are set up the same on both workstations. Any idea what setting might be causing this variation?

    I don't think it's possible to apply lossy compression when importing directly into Lightroom.  I know you can do it with the DNG converter and on export but I don't think this is the case here.
    In which case we need to determine which set-up producing is the "correctly" sized files.  What's the camera and what are the respective file sizes from work and home?

Maybe you are looking for