The NX200 RAW controversy, seen from a different light . . .

Started Apr 3, 2012 | Discussions thread
ForumParentFirstPreviousNextNext unread
Flat view
Billx08
Forum ProPosts: 11,373
Like?
The NX200 RAW controversy, seen from a different light . . .
Apr 3, 2012

Thom Hogan commented today about a controversy concerning RAW files, their sizes, and points that he feels haven't been considered by some, similar to what was discussed in a recent thread here . . .

Still Lots of Confusion II

April 3 (commentary) --With the mega megapixles of the 36mp sensor on the Nikon D800, the question of "small raw" has returned to the fore given the 75MB file size at the best capture quality. The 21mp Canon 5DII has three "raw" sizes (21, 10, and 5mp) after all. So why didn't Nikon do something similar?

The first problem we have is definitional: what is raw? In theory, raw is the actual data from the sensor, basically the digital version of the analog count of electrons at each photosite position. Anything that changes that is no longer "raw", it's something derived from raw data.

So just how would we create a "smaller raw"? We have quite a few possibilities:

. . .

Other possibilities exist, of course, but each has some form of downside. The real question is whether that downside is actually worse than the upside.

. . .

Personally, while I understand the desire for "smaller raw," in practice it doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense to me. Since I'm a control freak with my images, anyway, if I'm going to start throwing away raw data or change it to interpolated, I want to be in charge of that process and decide what gets thrown away or changed. I'll throw away bit depth (12-bit versus 14-bit) before I'll throw anything else out, then highlight data (Compressed NEF) before letting anything else start distorting my raw data via interpretation I don't control. That nets me files almost half the size. Why do I need more reduction than that and still need raw?

. . .

Full disclosure : I'm not a wedding photographer. It seems that a lot of the argument for Small Raw is coming from wedding shooters. Perhaps I don't see their argument clearly enough, but perhaps they also don't have enough computer in the first place ;~). The usual complaint seems to be "I shoot too many raws to post process them quickly." Dropping from 21mp to 10mp (sRaw1 on a Canon 5DII) drops you from 25.8MB to 14.8MB a file. I'll be kind and say this is "half the size," so it should result in half the post processing time, right? Is there another way to reduce the post processing time? Well, I asked one of the folk who wanted sRaw about his computer: two generations old, 2GB of RAM running Windows XP. At that point I was afraid to ask the rotational speed of his hard drives ;~). It's difficult for me to understand why you need a new 36mp camera if you are going to try to stick with a 10 year computer. That seems like flying in a supersonic jet across the ocean and then trying to bike the last 200 miles and being disturbed that you're late. Yeah, I know: harsh.

. . .

http://bythom.com/

Samsung NX200
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
ForumParentFirstPreviousNextNext unread
Flat view
ForumParentFirstPreviousNextNext unread
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow