32mg per image in Raw on XE-2?

Started 7 months ago | Questions
Georgyboy
New MemberPosts: 12
Like?
32mg per image in Raw on XE-2?
7 months ago

Last week I used a demo XE-2 body with 3 new lenses, 35, 60 and 55-200. I shot 650 images in RAW and all my images when viewed in Bridge CC are 32mg. I thought the XE-2 was a 16mg camera, how is this possible? I turned off sharpening and noise reduction, only turned on Camera Shake. Waiting for my new XT-1 and 14 and 23mm lenses. Can't wait. Finally I took the plunge and traded in 35lbs of Canon gear.

ANSWER:
This question has not been answered yet.
nixda
Senior MemberPosts: 1,876Gear list
Like?
Re: 32mg per image in Raw on XE-2?
In reply to Georgyboy, 7 months ago

Georgyboy wrote:

Last week I used a demo XE-2 body with 3 new lenses, 35, 60 and 55-200. I shot 650 images in RAW and all my images when viewed in Bridge CC are 32mg. I thought the XE-2 was a 16mg camera, how is this possible? I turned off sharpening and noise reduction, only turned on Camera Shake. Waiting for my new XT-1 and 14 and 23mm lenses. Can't wait. Finally I took the plunge and traded in 35lbs of Canon gear.

Are you talking about megapixels or megabytes? Megapixels does not equal megabytes. FWIW, the X-E1 images are 26.1 MB, but these data are only 12 bit. The X-E2 writes 14-bit data, thus the larger size of the raw files.

 nixda's gear list:nixda's gear list
Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 27mm F2.8
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Georgyboy
New MemberPosts: 12
Like?
Re: 32mg per image in Raw on XE-2?
In reply to nixda, 7 months ago

Thank you for the quick response. I am a bit confused, my Canon 5D mk2 FF was a 23-24 mg camera and the files were about 27mg on Bridge, so why would a 16mg file show up as 32mg. I didn't make any changes to Bridge.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
SVPhotography
Regular MemberPosts: 165
Like?
Re: 32mg per image in Raw on XE-2?
In reply to nixda, 7 months ago

nixda wrote:

Georgyboy wrote:

Last week I used a demo XE-2 body with 3 new lenses, 35, 60 and 55-200. I shot 650 images in RAW and all my images when viewed in Bridge CC are 32mg. I thought the XE-2 was a 16mg camera, how is this possible? I turned off sharpening and noise reduction, only turned on Camera Shake. Waiting for my new XT-1 and 14 and 23mm lenses. Can't wait. Finally I took the plunge and traded in 35lbs of Canon gear.

Are you talking about megapixels or megabytes? Megapixels does not equal megabytes. FWIW, the X-E1 images are 26.1 MB, but these data are only 12 bit. The X-E2 writes 14-bit data, thus the larger size of the raw files.

I was surprised as well as it is getting close to the D800 raw files when shot with full compression at 12 bit.

Fuji doesn't appear to use any compression for its raw files.

Plus no option to downscale to 12-bit files on output.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
nixda
Senior MemberPosts: 1,876Gear list
Like?
Re: 32mg per image in Raw on XE-2?
In reply to SVPhotography, 7 months ago

SVPhotography wrote:

nixda wrote:

Georgyboy wrote:

Last week I used a demo XE-2 body with 3 new lenses, 35, 60 and 55-200. I shot 650 images in RAW and all my images when viewed in Bridge CC are 32mg. I thought the XE-2 was a 16mg camera, how is this possible? I turned off sharpening and noise reduction, only turned on Camera Shake. Waiting for my new XT-1 and 14 and 23mm lenses. Can't wait. Finally I took the plunge and traded in 35lbs of Canon gear.

Are you talking about megapixels or megabytes? Megapixels does not equal megabytes. FWIW, the X-E1 images are 26.1 MB, but these data are only 12 bit. The X-E2 writes 14-bit data, thus the larger size of the raw files.

I was surprised as well as it is getting close to the D800 raw files when shot with full compression at 12 bit.

Fuji doesn't appear to use any compression for its raw files.

Plus no option to downscale to 12-bit files on output.

Fuji does indeed not compress the raw files. For archiving purposes, I do compress the raw files myself.

 nixda's gear list:nixda's gear list
Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 27mm F2.8
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Georgyboy
New MemberPosts: 12
Like?
Re: 32mg per image in Raw on XE-2?
In reply to SVPhotography, 7 months ago

I was shocked when filled up a 32gig card with 650 images and 50 short video files.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Georgyboy
New MemberPosts: 12
Like?
Re: 32mg per image in Raw on XE-2?
In reply to nixda, 7 months ago

Do you compress them into JPEG? Or do you use some software to reduce the files in RAW?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: 32mg per image in Raw on XE-2?
In reply to Georgyboy, 7 months ago

Didn't realize they weren't compressed and always wondered about the large file size. Thanks Fuji!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
nixda
Senior MemberPosts: 1,876Gear list
Like?
Re: 32mg per image in Raw on XE-2?
In reply to Georgyboy, 7 months ago

Georgyboy wrote:

Thank you for the quick response. I am a bit confused, my Canon 5D mk2 FF was a 23-24 mg camera and the files were about 27mg on Bridge, so why would a 16mg file show up as 32mg. I didn't make any changes to Bridge.

'mg' is not a valid specification.

The 5D mk2 has a 22.3MP sensor: megapixels, MP

The size of a raw file is 27MB: megabytes, MB (I don't know what the file size is, so I am using the number you provided).

As mentioned before, megapixels and megabytes are two completely different things; there is no equivalency here. Also, cameras with the same sensor size and pixel density and thus pixels can have different file sizes due to different bit depths and/or how the data are written to the file.

 nixda's gear list:nixda's gear list
Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 27mm F2.8
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
nixda
Senior MemberPosts: 1,876Gear list
Like?
Re: 32mg per image in Raw on XE-2?
In reply to Georgyboy, 7 months ago

Georgyboy wrote:

Do you compress them into JPEG? Or do you use some software to reduce the files in RAW?

I compress the raw files, losslessly, using a Unix tool (bzip2). Converting raw files to JPEG is not equal to compressing them.

 nixda's gear list:nixda's gear list
Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 27mm F2.8
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Perry Kivolowitz
Regular MemberPosts: 268Gear list
Like?
Back of the envelope
In reply to SVPhotography, 7 months ago

I was surprised as well as it is getting close to the D800 raw files when shot with full compression at 12 bit.

Fuji doesn't appear to use any compression for its raw files.

Plus no option to downscale to 12-bit files on output.

4896*3246 * 3 channels * 2 bytes per channel = 95,883,264 > 32MB

 Perry Kivolowitz's gear list:Perry Kivolowitz's gear list
Nikon D7000 Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm X-E2 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED +8 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
nixda
Senior MemberPosts: 1,876Gear list
Like?
Re: Back of the envelope
In reply to Perry Kivolowitz, 7 months ago

Perry Kivolowitz wrote:

I was surprised as well as it is getting close to the D800 raw files when shot with full compression at 12 bit.

Fuji doesn't appear to use any compression for its raw files.

Plus no option to downscale to 12-bit files on output.

4896*3246 * 3 channels * 2 bytes per channel = 95,883,264 > 32MB

The raw data image size is 5120*3288*14 bits = 28.1MB

There aren't 3 channels per pixel, just one. Add to that the JPEG thumbnail, the metadata and some other stuff, and you'll end up with the ~32MB file size.

 nixda's gear list:nixda's gear list
Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 27mm F2.8
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Perry Kivolowitz
Regular MemberPosts: 268Gear list
Like?
Re: Back of the envelope
In reply to nixda, 7 months ago

nixda wrote:

Perry Kivolowitz wrote:

I was surprised as well as it is getting close to the D800 raw files when shot with full compression at 12 bit.

Fuji doesn't appear to use any compression for its raw files.

Plus no option to downscale to 12-bit files on output.

4896*3246 * 3 channels * 2 bytes per channel = 95,883,264 > 32MB

The raw data image size is 5120*3288*14 bits = 28.1MB

There aren't 3 channels per pixel, just one. Add to that the JPEG thumbnail, the metadata and some other stuff, and you'll end up with the ~32MB file size.

Ah (as in Doh!). I should have known that.

But, it is unlikely that 14 bits are written as 14. Rather as 16, making the file requirements marginally larger.

 Perry Kivolowitz's gear list:Perry Kivolowitz's gear list
Nikon D7000 Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm X-E2 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED +8 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
nixda
Senior MemberPosts: 1,876Gear list
Like?
Re: Back of the envelope
In reply to Perry Kivolowitz, 7 months ago

Perry Kivolowitz wrote:

nixda wrote:

Perry Kivolowitz wrote:

I was surprised as well as it is getting close to the D800 raw files when shot with full compression at 12 bit.

Fuji doesn't appear to use any compression for its raw files.

Plus no option to downscale to 12-bit files on output.

4896*3246 * 3 channels * 2 bytes per channel = 95,883,264 > 32MB

The raw data image size is 5120*3288*14 bits = 28.1MB

There aren't 3 channels per pixel, just one. Add to that the JPEG thumbnail, the metadata and some other stuff, and you'll end up with the ~32MB file size.

Ah (as in Doh!). I should have known that.

But, it is unlikely that 14 bits are written as 14. Rather as 16, making the file requirements marginally larger.

Any number of bits can be written. They don't have to be 8, 16 or 32, i.e., 1, 2 or 4 bytes. Normally, to keep files as smalls possible, no empty bits are written. Only when loading the data into a processing program are they converted to 8, 16, or 32 bit formats for the subsequent mathematical operations. In other words, there is a difference between storing data and performing operations on them. One can also define operations in any bit space, but that's usually only done when space is of the utmost premium.

 nixda's gear list:nixda's gear list
Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 27mm F2.8
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Perry Kivolowitz
Regular MemberPosts: 268Gear list
Like?
Re: Back of the envelope
In reply to nixda, 7 months ago

nixda wrote:

Perry Kivolowitz wrote:

nixda wrote:

Perry Kivolowitz wrote:

I was surprised as well as it is getting close to the D800 raw files when shot with full compression at 12 bit.

Fuji doesn't appear to use any compression for its raw files.

Plus no option to downscale to 12-bit files on output.

4896*3246 * 3 channels * 2 bytes per channel = 95,883,264 > 32MB

The raw data image size is 5120*3288*14 bits = 28.1MB

There aren't 3 channels per pixel, just one. Add to that the JPEG thumbnail, the metadata and some other stuff, and you'll end up with the ~32MB file size.

Ah (as in Doh!). I should have known that.

But, it is unlikely that 14 bits are written as 14. Rather as 16, making the file requirements marginally larger.

Any number of bits can be written. They don't have to be 8, 16 or 32, i.e., 1, 2 or 4 bytes. Normally, to keep files as smalls possible, no empty bits are written. Only when loading the data into a processing program are they converted to 8, 16, or 32 bit formats for the subsequent mathematical operations. In other words, there is a difference between storing data and performing operations on them. One can also define operations in any bit space, but that's usually only done when space is of the utmost premium.

I'm not sure I agree with you that 14 bit data is "normally" written in a packed format.

 Perry Kivolowitz's gear list:Perry Kivolowitz's gear list
Nikon D7000 Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm X-E2 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED +8 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
nixda
Senior MemberPosts: 1,876Gear list
Like?
Re: Back of the envelope
In reply to Perry Kivolowitz, 7 months ago

Perry Kivolowitz wrote:

nixda wrote:

Perry Kivolowitz wrote:

nixda wrote:

Perry Kivolowitz wrote:

I was surprised as well as it is getting close to the D800 raw files when shot with full compression at 12 bit.

Fuji doesn't appear to use any compression for its raw files.

Plus no option to downscale to 12-bit files on output.

4896*3246 * 3 channels * 2 bytes per channel = 95,883,264 > 32MB

The raw data image size is 5120*3288*14 bits = 28.1MB

There aren't 3 channels per pixel, just one. Add to that the JPEG thumbnail, the metadata and some other stuff, and you'll end up with the ~32MB file size.

Ah (as in Doh!). I should have known that.

But, it is unlikely that 14 bits are written as 14. Rather as 16, making the file requirements marginally larger.

Any number of bits can be written. They don't have to be 8, 16 or 32, i.e., 1, 2 or 4 bytes. Normally, to keep files as smalls possible, no empty bits are written. Only when loading the data into a processing program are they converted to 8, 16, or 32 bit formats for the subsequent mathematical operations. In other words, there is a difference between storing data and performing operations on them. One can also define operations in any bit space, but that's usually only done when space is of the utmost premium.

I'm not sure I agree with you that 14 bit data is "normally" written in a packed format.

I don't think they are packed data, just plain 12 or 14 bits resp., depending on whether we are talking about the X-E1 or the X-E2.

Let's take the X-E1, for example. It has the same number of pixels as the X-E2, yet the file size of a raw image is much smaller than that of the X-E2. If the data were both written in 16-bit format, the files would be roughly the same size. The X-E1 files (~26MB) clearly are too small to contain 16-bit data, not even 14-bit data. Here, 5120*3288*12 bits = 24.1MB, which is already close to the file size.

 nixda's gear list:nixda's gear list
Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 27mm F2.8
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads