What your lens actually produces at 24mm

[Digital Nigel]

If I use exiftool on one of my really old DSC-R1 raw images _DSC9746.SR2, I have fields

Preview Image : (Binary data 134338 bytes, use -b option to extract)
Thumbnail Image : (Binary data 24085 bytes, use -b option to extract)

either of which are JPEGs, 640×424 and 160×120, respectively. The corresponding JPG file contains

For RX series cameras, I believe the preview image is 1616x1080 (for 3:2 images).

That's what's embedded in the RAW in all Sony cameras that I know of, but is there any equivalent preview in JPEGs, if you shoot JPEG-only?

Yes, SOOC JPEGs have a 1616x1080 JPEG embedded as well as a tiny thumbnail.

Ah, so that can be used for the initial review in playback, with the full JPEG or instant JPEG from RAW used when you zoom in.

 

[sybersitizen]

The usual thing for cameras is to display the preview when leafing through and replace it by the real thing when zooming in. You usually get some delay when zooming in and it would be absurd to think that the camera needs significant time to scale images (it does that all the time, like when creating lower-res shots which speeds it up rather than slows it down). Instead, that's the time for reading the data from the media.

Yes, Sony cameras creates an instant full-res JPEG from RAW-only files. I don't think any other manufacturers do this.

My Nikon V2 and V3 do it. I assume it's the norm rather than the exception. Any cameras that don't do it would be pretty dismal when chimping RAW files to check focus accuracy.

 

[Digital Nigel]

The usual thing for cameras is to display the preview when leafing through and replace it by the real thing when zooming in. You usually get some delay when zooming in and it would be absurd to think that the camera needs significant time to scale images (it does that all the time, like when creating lower-res shots which speeds it up rather than slows it down). Instead, that's the time for reading the data from the media.

Yes, Sony cameras creates an instant full-res JPEG from RAW-only files. I don't think any other manufacturers do this.

My Nikon V2 and V3 do it. I assume it's the norm rather than the exception. Any cameras that don't do it would be pretty dismal when chimping RAW files to check focus accuracy.

I'm pretty sure that most don't, and that's why so many people assume that Sony doesn't, either.

 

[sybersitizen]

The usual thing for cameras is to display the preview when leafing through and replace it by the real thing when zooming in. You usually get some delay when zooming in and it would be absurd to think that the camera needs significant time to scale images (it does that all the time, like when creating lower-res shots which speeds it up rather than slows it down). Instead, that's the time for reading the data from the media.

Yes, Sony cameras creates an instant full-res JPEG from RAW-only files. I don't think any other manufacturers do this.

My Nikon V2 and V3 do it. I assume it's the norm rather than the exception. Any cameras that don't do it would be pretty dismal when chimping RAW files to check focus accuracy.

I'm pretty sure that most don't, and that's why so many people assume that Sony doesn't, either.

Actually, I was going to correct my post. The Nikons (and probably most other manufacturers) embed full resolution JPEGs in their RAW files, not the reduced resolution JPEGs that Sony uses. That's the difference, and that's the only reason why Sony cameras have to generate full resolution versions for chimping.

 

[Digital Nigel]

The usual thing for cameras is to display the preview when leafing through and replace it by the real thing when zooming in. You usually get some delay when zooming in and it would be absurd to think that the camera needs significant time to scale images (it does that all the time, like when creating lower-res shots which speeds it up rather than slows it down). Instead, that's the time for reading the data from the media.

Yes, Sony cameras creates an instant full-res JPEG from RAW-only files. I don't think any other manufacturers do this.

My Nikon V2 and V3 do it. I assume it's the norm rather than the exception. Any cameras that don't do it would be pretty dismal when chimping RAW files to check focus accuracy.

I'm pretty sure that most don't, and that's why so many people assume that Sony doesn't, either.

Actually, I was going to correct my post. The Nikons (and probably most other manufacturers) embed full resolution JPEGs in their RAW files, not the reduced resolution JPEGs that Sony uses. That's the difference, and that's the only reason why Sony cameras have to generate full resolution versions for chimping.

I have cameras from two other manufacturers that don't.

It seems like this isn't a subject one can generalise on.

 

[Horacecoker]

The usual thing for cameras is to display the preview when leafing through and replace it by the real thing when zooming in. You usually get some delay when zooming in and it would be absurd to think that the camera needs significant time to scale images (it does that all the time, like when creating lower-res shots which speeds it up rather than slows it down). Instead, that's the time for reading the data from the media.

Yes, Sony cameras creates an instant full-res JPEG from RAW-only files. I don't think any other manufacturers do this.

My Nikon V2 and V3 do it. I assume it's the norm rather than the exception. Any cameras that don't do it would be pretty dismal when chimping RAW files to check focus accuracy.

I'm pretty sure that most don't, and that's why so many people assume that Sony doesn't, either.

Actually, I was going to correct my post. The Nikons (and probably most other manufacturers) embed full resolution JPEGs in their RAW files, not the reduced resolution JPEGs that Sony uses. That's the difference, and that's the only reason why Sony cameras have to generate full resolution versions for chimping.

I have cameras from two other manufacturers that don't.

It seems like this isn't a subject one can generalise on.

But if you think about it logically, it would be ridiculous not to be able to zoom in and check focus when shooting RAW-only. All camera manufacturers must allow this one way or the other with a full-res jpeg.

 

[Dak on cam]

On a completely different topic, I'm having a little argument discussion with Guy Parsons regards what we see when reviewing images on the LCD screen of the camera when shooting RAW only on Sony cameras. Guy has got a silly idea into his head that we are only seeing the small embedded jpeg that's included with the RAW file. On the other hand, I am 100% certain we are seeing a full-res jpeg. Especially as I did a little experiment whereby I took a RAW only shot quickly followed by a jpeg only shot of the same subject. I reviewed both images in play mode on the camera LCD at 100% zoom and they were both identical. Of course, I told Guy this but he still won't have it!

I tried Googling this but can't find any official answer. Just the odd posts on DPReview. It seems most people are of the same mind as Guy on the subject. Which is very strange to me. For instance, how the devil could you check for the subject being in true focus on the small embedded jpeg? How could you check image quality, sharpness, noise etc etc?

Well, it's easy to find out, isn't it? Just swap the preview in a raw file for that of a completely different photograph (it's usually a matter of EXIF manipulation to do that with most raw files).

The usual thing for cameras is to display the preview when leafing through and replace it by the real thing when zooming in. You usually get some delay when zooming in and it would be absurd to think that the camera needs significant time to scale images (it does that all the time, like when creating lower-res shots which speeds it up rather than slows it down). Instead, that's the time for reading the data from the media.

Yes, Sony cameras creates an instant full-res JPEG from RAW-only files. I don't think any other manufacturers do this.

It's not just with raw files: JPEG files also tend to work from preview first, full file as needed.

I'm not sure if that's true. What preview would it be accessing?

The same one file browsers use. Often JPEGs include both a Thumbnail and a Preview as separate EXIF items, the thumbnail at a size useful for icons, and the Preview at about VGA resolution. When file browsers offer a directory view of JPEG files, they are usually just accessing the thumbnails or previews rather than decoding and reducing the full files. Particularly when using cardreaders (more often than not working in comparatively slow USB and/or card modes).

If I use exiftool on one of my really old DSC-R1 raw images _DSC9746.SR2, I have fields

Preview Image : (Binary data 134338 bytes, use -b option to extract)
Thumbnail Image : (Binary data 24085 bytes, use -b option to extract)

either of which are JPEGs, 640×424 and 160×120, respectively. The corresponding JPG file contains

Thumbnail Image : (Binary data 15820 bytes, use -b option to extract)

so it does not have the (usually) VGA-size preview and a (lower-quality?) thumbnail, again at 160×120. I'd have posted them, but happened to get a picture involving personality rights.

You can extract preview and thumbnail and just the thumbnail with commands like

exiftool -b -PreviewImage _DSC9746.SR2 >/tmp/pr.jpg
exiftool -b -ThumbnailImage _DSC9746.SR2 >/tmp/th1.jpg
exiftool -b -ThumbnailImage _DSC9746.JPG >/tmp/th2.jpg

Those files would be far too small to use. So the full-size JPEGs must be being used even for previews.

I said DSC-R1. That one has an EVF with 235000 pixels. The LCD resolution is probably half of that. Preview image sizes tend to be what the camera can make use of. While I agree that the JPEG here will have its main part decoded except when in the camera's directory view... Uh, there is not much of a use pontificating about what this camera does with the raw files, actually. It writes them and never looks at them again. Any subsequent image manipulations (like rotating/extraction) are done on the JPEG and leave the RAW alone. Remove the JPEG, and the camera does not display anything anymore at all, I think. You can only save JPEG, or JPEG+RAW. Not raw on its own.

Since it's the only camera writing raw from Sony I have, it's up to someone else to extract the previews and check their size on newer models. For the DSC-R1, the raw file previews would be the right size for in-camera full-scale view, but I don't think it even looks in the raw.

 

[Dak on cam]

The usual thing for cameras is to display the preview when leafing through and replace it by the real thing when zooming in. You usually get some delay when zooming in and it would be absurd to think that the camera needs significant time to scale images (it does that all the time, like when creating lower-res shots which speeds it up rather than slows it down). Instead, that's the time for reading the data from the media.

Yes, Sony cameras creates an instant full-res JPEG from RAW-only files. I don't think any other manufacturers do this.

My Nikon V2 and V3 do it. I assume it's the norm rather than the exception. Any cameras that don't do it would be pretty dismal when chimping RAW files to check focus accuracy.

I'm pretty sure that most don't, and that's why so many people assume that Sony doesn't, either.

Actually, I was going to correct my post. The Nikons (and probably most other manufacturers) embed full resolution JPEGs in their RAW files, not the reduced resolution JPEGs that Sony uses. That's the difference, and that's the only reason why Sony cameras have to generate full resolution versions for chimping.

I have cameras from two other manufacturers that don't.

It seems like this isn't a subject one can generalise on.

But if you think about it logically, it would be ridiculous not to be able to zoom in and check focus when shooting RAW-only. All camera manufacturers must allow this one way or the other with a full-res jpeg.

The camera obviously has no problem converting raw image information to JPEG at high speed. It has to do it all the time. The problem is not the conversion but rather drawing the much larger files off the memory card. JPEG files require quite more, not less processing to display than raw files. But since they take less space on the card, they are loaded faster. And if the camera can do one thing efficiently, it is decoding and encoding JPEG files.

 

[Digital Nigel]

The usual thing for cameras is to display the preview when leafing through and replace it by the real thing when zooming in. You usually get some delay when zooming in and it would be absurd to think that the camera needs significant time to scale images (it does that all the time, like when creating lower-res shots which speeds it up rather than slows it down). Instead, that's the time for reading the data from the media.

Yes, Sony cameras creates an instant full-res JPEG from RAW-only files. I don't think any other manufacturers do this.

My Nikon V2 and V3 do it. I assume it's the norm rather than the exception. Any cameras that don't do it would be pretty dismal when chimping RAW files to check focus accuracy.

I'm pretty sure that most don't, and that's why so many people assume that Sony doesn't, either.

Actually, I was going to correct my post. The Nikons (and probably most other manufacturers) embed full resolution JPEGs in their RAW files, not the reduced resolution JPEGs that Sony uses. That's the difference, and that's the only reason why Sony cameras have to generate full resolution versions for chimping.

I have cameras from two other manufacturers that don't.

It seems like this isn't a subject one can generalise on.

But if you think about it logically, it would be ridiculous not to be able to zoom in and check focus when shooting RAW-only. All camera manufacturers must allow this one way or the other with a full-res jpeg.

The camera obviously has no problem converting raw image information to JPEG at high speed. It has to do it all the time. The problem is not the conversion but rather drawing the much larger files off the memory card.

Yes, but it only has to do that when you zoom in. There is a tiny delay, but it's almost too short to notice.

JPEG files require quite more, not less processing to display than raw files.

Why would that be?

But since they take less space on the card, they are loaded faster.

True, but the difference is a small fraction of a second.

And if the camera can do one thing efficiently, it is decoding and encoding JPEG files.

 

[Digital Nigel]

On a completely different topic, I'm having a little argument discussion with Guy Parsons regards what we see when reviewing images on the LCD screen of the camera when shooting RAW only on Sony cameras. Guy has got a silly idea into his head that we are only seeing the small embedded jpeg that's included with the RAW file. On the other hand, I am 100% certain we are seeing a full-res jpeg. Especially as I did a little experiment whereby I took a RAW only shot quickly followed by a jpeg only shot of the same subject. I reviewed both images in play mode on the camera LCD at 100% zoom and they were both identical. Of course, I told Guy this but he still won't have it!

I tried Googling this but can't find any official answer. Just the odd posts on DPReview. It seems most people are of the same mind as Guy on the subject. Which is very strange to me. For instance, how the devil could you check for the subject being in true focus on the small embedded jpeg? How could you check image quality, sharpness, noise etc etc?

Well, it's easy to find out, isn't it? Just swap the preview in a raw file for that of a completely different photograph (it's usually a matter of EXIF manipulation to do that with most raw files).

The usual thing for cameras is to display the preview when leafing through and replace it by the real thing when zooming in. You usually get some delay when zooming in and it would be absurd to think that the camera needs significant time to scale images (it does that all the time, like when creating lower-res shots which speeds it up rather than slows it down). Instead, that's the time for reading the data from the media.

Yes, Sony cameras creates an instant full-res JPEG from RAW-only files. I don't think any other manufacturers do this.

It's not just with raw files: JPEG files also tend to work from preview first, full file as needed.

I'm not sure if that's true. What preview would it be accessing?

The same one file browsers use. Often JPEGs include both a Thumbnail and a Preview as separate EXIF items, the thumbnail at a size useful for icons, and the Preview at about VGA resolution. When file browsers offer a directory view of JPEG files, they are usually just accessing the thumbnails or previews rather than decoding and reducing the full files. Particularly when using cardreaders (more often than not working in comparatively slow USB and/or card modes).

If I use exiftool on one of my really old DSC-R1 raw images _DSC9746.SR2, I have fields

Preview Image : (Binary data 134338 bytes, use -b option to extract)
Thumbnail Image : (Binary data 24085 bytes, use -b option to extract)

either of which are JPEGs, 640×424 and 160×120, respectively. The corresponding JPG file contains

Thumbnail Image : (Binary data 15820 bytes, use -b option to extract)

so it does not have the (usually) VGA-size preview and a (lower-quality?) thumbnail, again at 160×120. I'd have posted them, but happened to get a picture involving personality rights.

You can extract preview and thumbnail and just the thumbnail with commands like

exiftool -b -PreviewImage _DSC9746.SR2 >/tmp/pr.jpg
exiftool -b -ThumbnailImage _DSC9746.SR2 >/tmp/th1.jpg
exiftool -b -ThumbnailImage _DSC9746.JPG >/tmp/th2.jpg

Those files would be far too small to use. So the full-size JPEGs must be being used even for previews.

I said DSC-R1. That one has an EVF with 235000 pixels. The LCD resolution is probably half of that. Preview image sizes tend to be what the camera can make use of. While I agree that the JPEG here will have its main part decoded except when in the camera's directory view... Uh, there is not much of a use pontificating about what this camera does with the raw files, actually. It writes them and never looks at them again. Any subsequent image manipulations (like rotating/extraction) are done on the JPEG and leave the RAW alone. Remove the JPEG, and the camera does not display anything anymore at all, I think. You can only save JPEG, or JPEG+RAW. Not raw on its own.

Since it's the only camera writing raw from Sony I have, it's up to someone else to extract the previews and check their size on newer models. For the DSC-R1, the raw file previews would be the right size for in-camera full-scale view, but I don't think it even looks in the raw.

I agree.

I don't think it's worth using the ancient R1 as a guide to anything Sony does these days. It might be of historical interest, but no more. Modern Sony cameras are descendants of Minolta cameras from that era, not the R1.

 

[Horacecoker]

On a completely different topic, I'm having a little argument discussion with Guy Parsons regards what we see when reviewing images on the LCD screen of the camera when shooting RAW only on Sony cameras. Guy has got a silly idea into his head that we are only seeing the small embedded jpeg that's included with the RAW file. On the other hand, I am 100% certain we are seeing a full-res jpeg. Especially as I did a little experiment whereby I took a RAW only shot quickly followed by a jpeg only shot of the same subject. I reviewed both images in play mode on the camera LCD at 100% zoom and they were both identical. Of course, I told Guy this but he still won't have it!

I tried Googling this but can't find any official answer. Just the odd posts on DPReview. It seems most people are of the same mind as Guy on the subject. Which is very strange to me. For instance, how the devil could you check for the subject being in true focus on the small embedded jpeg? How could you check image quality, sharpness, noise etc etc?

Well, it's easy to find out, isn't it? Just swap the preview in a raw file for that of a completely different photograph (it's usually a matter of EXIF manipulation to do that with most raw files).

The usual thing for cameras is to display the preview when leafing through and replace it by the real thing when zooming in. You usually get some delay when zooming in and it would be absurd to think that the camera needs significant time to scale images (it does that all the time, like when creating lower-res shots which speeds it up rather than slows it down). Instead, that's the time for reading the data from the media.

Yes, Sony cameras creates an instant full-res JPEG from RAW-only files. I don't think any other manufacturers do this.

It's not just with raw files: JPEG files also tend to work from preview first, full file as needed.

I'm not sure if that's true. What preview would it be accessing?

The same one file browsers use. Often JPEGs include both a Thumbnail and a Preview as separate EXIF items, the thumbnail at a size useful for icons, and the Preview at about VGA resolution. When file browsers offer a directory view of JPEG files, they are usually just accessing the thumbnails or previews rather than decoding and reducing the full files. Particularly when using cardreaders (more often than not working in comparatively slow USB and/or card modes).

If I use exiftool on one of my really old DSC-R1 raw images _DSC9746.SR2, I have fields

Preview Image : (Binary data 134338 bytes, use -b option to extract)
Thumbnail Image : (Binary data 24085 bytes, use -b option to extract)

either of which are JPEGs, 640×424 and 160×120, respectively. The corresponding JPG file contains

Thumbnail Image : (Binary data 15820 bytes, use -b option to extract)

so it does not have the (usually) VGA-size preview and a (lower-quality?) thumbnail, again at 160×120. I'd have posted them, but happened to get a picture involving personality rights.

You can extract preview and thumbnail and just the thumbnail with commands like

exiftool -b -PreviewImage _DSC9746.SR2 >/tmp/pr.jpg
exiftool -b -ThumbnailImage _DSC9746.SR2 >/tmp/th1.jpg
exiftool -b -ThumbnailImage _DSC9746.JPG >/tmp/th2.jpg

Those files would be far too small to use. So the full-size JPEGs must be being used even for previews.

I said DSC-R1. That one has an EVF with 235000 pixels. The LCD resolution is probably half of that. Preview image sizes tend to be what the camera can make use of. While I agree that the JPEG here will have its main part decoded except when in the camera's directory view... Uh, there is not much of a use pontificating about what this camera does with the raw files, actually. It writes them and never looks at them again. Any subsequent image manipulations (like rotating/extraction) are done on the JPEG and leave the RAW alone. Remove the JPEG, and the camera does not display anything anymore at all, I think. You can only save JPEG, or JPEG+RAW. Not raw on its own.

Since it's the only camera writing raw from Sony I have, it's up to someone else to extract the previews and check their size on newer models. For the DSC-R1, the raw file previews would be the right size for in-camera full-scale view, but I don't think it even looks in the raw.

I agree.

I don't think it's worth using the ancient R1 as a guide to anything Sony does these days. It might be of historical interest, but no more. Modern Sony cameras are descendants of Minolta cameras from that era, not the R1.

Please do a little experiment with your Canon and Panasonic like I did to satisfy myself I was viewing a full-res jpeg when zooming in on the screen in play mode when shooting RAW-only., Set the cameras to shoot one RAW-only and then one jpeg-only on the same subject. Check the images in play mode zoomed in. If the 'RAW'-only shots look anyway inferior to the jpeg-only shots, I will be astonished.

 

[sybersitizen]

The usual thing for cameras is to display the preview when leafing through and replace it by the real thing when zooming in. You usually get some delay when zooming in and it would be absurd to think that the camera needs significant time to scale images (it does that all the time, like when creating lower-res shots which speeds it up rather than slows it down). Instead, that's the time for reading the data from the media.

Yes, Sony cameras creates an instant full-res JPEG from RAW-only files. I don't think any other manufacturers do this.

My Nikon V2 and V3 do it. I assume it's the norm rather than the exception. Any cameras that don't do it would be pretty dismal when chimping RAW files to check focus accuracy.

I'm pretty sure that most don't, and that's why so many people assume that Sony doesn't, either.

Actually, I was going to correct my post. The Nikons (and probably most other manufacturers) embed full resolution JPEGs in their RAW files, not the reduced resolution JPEGs that Sony uses. That's the difference, and that's the only reason why Sony cameras have to generate full resolution versions for chimping.

I have cameras from two other manufacturers that don't.

They don't what? They don't offer any kind of full resolution view, at all, for use when chimping RAW files? If so, that's truly sad.

It seems like this isn't a subject one can generalise on.

I'll generalize enough to say such a limitation would be a serious oversight. The important thing is that it be done regardless of which way it's done.

 

[Digital Nigel]

The usual thing for cameras is to display the preview when leafing through and replace it by the real thing when zooming in. You usually get some delay when zooming in and it would be absurd to think that the camera needs significant time to scale images (it does that all the time, like when creating lower-res shots which speeds it up rather than slows it down). Instead, that's the time for reading the data from the media.

Yes, Sony cameras creates an instant full-res JPEG from RAW-only files. I don't think any other manufacturers do this.

My Nikon V2 and V3 do it. I assume it's the norm rather than the exception. Any cameras that don't do it would be pretty dismal when chimping RAW files to check focus accuracy.

I'm pretty sure that most don't, and that's why so many people assume that Sony doesn't, either.

Actually, I was going to correct my post. The Nikons (and probably most other manufacturers) embed full resolution JPEGs in their RAW files, not the reduced resolution JPEGs that Sony uses. That's the difference, and that's the only reason why Sony cameras have to generate full resolution versions for chimping.

I have cameras from two other manufacturers that don't.

They don't what? They don't offer any kind of full resolution view, at all, for use when chimping RAW files? If so, that's truly sad.

Canon and Panasonic don't embed full-res JPEGs in RAW files. It looks like Nikon still does.

But does that mean that when you shoot RAW+JPEG you're actually storing two full-size JPEGs? That sounds very wasteful.

It seems like this isn't a subject one can generalise on.

I'll generalize enough to say such a limitation would be a serious oversight. The important thing is that it be done regardless of which way it's done.

Last time I checked, they don't allow full res zoom in when you shoot RAW-only. However, they do embed a larger preview than Sony does, so you can zoom in a bit before the image gets pixellated.

 

[sybersitizen]

The usual thing for cameras is to display the preview when leafing through and replace it by the real thing when zooming in. You usually get some delay when zooming in and it would be absurd to think that the camera needs significant time to scale images (it does that all the time, like when creating lower-res shots which speeds it up rather than slows it down). Instead, that's the time for reading the data from the media.

Yes, Sony cameras creates an instant full-res JPEG from RAW-only files. I don't think any other manufacturers do this.

My Nikon V2 and V3 do it. I assume it's the norm rather than the exception. Any cameras that don't do it would be pretty dismal when chimping RAW files to check focus accuracy.

I'm pretty sure that most don't, and that's why so many people assume that Sony doesn't, either.

Actually, I was going to correct my post. The Nikons (and probably most other manufacturers) embed full resolution JPEGs in their RAW files, not the reduced resolution JPEGs that Sony uses. That's the difference, and that's the only reason why Sony cameras have to generate full resolution versions for chimping.

I have cameras from two other manufacturers that don't.

They don't what? They don't offer any kind of full resolution view, at all, for use when chimping RAW files? If so, that's truly sad.

Canon and Panasonic don't embed full-res JPEGs in RAW files. It looks like Nikon still does.

But does that mean that when you shoot RAW+JPEG you're actually storing two full-size JPEGs? That sounds very wasteful.

It is, kind of ... especially if you have a reasonably convenient way to extract the one from the RAW file if you want it. However, the usual retort I've seen to this kind of thing is memory is cheap, so I guess a lot of people don't care.

It seems like this isn't a subject one can generalise on.

I'll generalize enough to say such a limitation would be a serious oversight. The important thing is that it be done regardless of which way it's done.

Last time I checked, they don't allow full res zoom in when you shoot RAW-only. However, they do embed a larger preview than Sony does, so you can zoom in a bit before the image gets pixellated.

 

[Dak on cam]

The usual thing for cameras is to display the preview when leafing through and replace it by the real thing when zooming in. You usually get some delay when zooming in and it would be absurd to think that the camera needs significant time to scale images (it does that all the time, like when creating lower-res shots which speeds it up rather than slows it down). Instead, that's the time for reading the data from the media.

Yes, Sony cameras creates an instant full-res JPEG from RAW-only files. I don't think any other manufacturers do this.

My Nikon V2 and V3 do it. I assume it's the norm rather than the exception. Any cameras that don't do it would be pretty dismal when chimping RAW files to check focus accuracy.

I'm pretty sure that most don't, and that's why so many people assume that Sony doesn't, either.

Actually, I was going to correct my post. The Nikons (and probably most other manufacturers) embed full resolution JPEGs in their RAW files, not the reduced resolution JPEGs that Sony uses. That's the difference, and that's the only reason why Sony cameras have to generate full resolution versions for chimping.

I have cameras from two other manufacturers that don't.

It seems like this isn't a subject one can generalise on.

But if you think about it logically, it would be ridiculous not to be able to zoom in and check focus when shooting RAW-only. All camera manufacturers must allow this one way or the other with a full-res jpeg.

The camera obviously has no problem converting raw image information to JPEG at high speed. It has to do it all the time. The problem is not the conversion but rather drawing the much larger files off the memory card.

Yes, but it only has to do that when you zoom in. There is a tiny delay, but it's almost too short to notice.

JPEG files require quite more, not less processing to display than raw files.

Why would that be?

Raw files require demosaicing. JPEG files require converting Huffman decoding of DCT transform data, doing an inverse DCT, interpolating the chroma subsampling of the format, converting from the color space used in the JPEG to RGB.

There is a reason JPEG compresses typical photographic material well, and that reason involves a lot of math.

But since they take less space on the card, they are loaded faster.

True, but the difference is a small fraction of a second.

And if the camera can do one thing efficiently, it is decoding and encoding JPEG files.

 

[Guy Parsons]

I have cameras from two other manufacturers that don't.

It seems like this isn't a subject one can generalise on.

But if you think about it logically, it would be ridiculous not to be able to zoom in and check focus when shooting RAW-only. All camera manufacturers must allow this one way or the other with a full-res jpeg.

For sure Olympus uses the embedded jpeg in the models I have, indeed it is a 3200x2400 embedded jpeg but seems to be highly compressed, so that's exactly why I use the raw+jpeg habit to get a better detail review. The Olympus can do raw conversions on command in camera, but it certainly does not do them for review. Maybe the very latest models with better processing power have done that?

For me (only?) the jury is still out on the RX100M6 as I have seen differences in an early test that made me believe that it was using the embedded jpeg for review, even at zoom. Need to do more careful shots and using a tripod on some high resolution target to (dis) prove what I thought I saw.

 

[Horacecoker]

I have cameras from two other manufacturers that don't.

It seems like this isn't a subject one can generalise on.

But if you think about it logically, it would be ridiculous not to be able to zoom in and check focus when shooting RAW-only. All camera manufacturers must allow this one way or the other with a full-res jpeg.

For sure Olympus uses the embedded jpeg in the models I have, indeed it is a 3200x2400 embedded jpeg but seems to be highly compressed, so that's exactly why I use the raw+jpeg habit to get a better detail review. The Olympus can do raw conversions on command in camera, but it certainly does not do them for review. Maybe the very latest models with better processing power have done that?

For me (only?) the jury is still out on the RX100M6 as I have seen differences in an early test that made me believe that it was using the embedded jpeg for review, even at zoom. Need to do more careful shots and using a tripod on some high resolution target to (dis) prove what I thought I saw.

See what I mean folks. He still doesn't believe us!

 

[Guy Parsons]

I have cameras from two other manufacturers that don't.

It seems like this isn't a subject one can generalise on.

But if you think about it logically, it would be ridiculous not to be able to zoom in and check focus when shooting RAW-only. All camera manufacturers must allow this one way or the other with a full-res jpeg.

For sure Olympus uses the embedded jpeg in the models I have, indeed it is a 3200x2400 embedded jpeg but seems to be highly compressed, so that's exactly why I use the raw+jpeg habit to get a better detail review. The Olympus can do raw conversions on command in camera, but it certainly does not do them for review. Maybe the very latest models with better processing power have done that?

For me (only?) the jury is still out on the RX100M6 as I have seen differences in an early test that made me believe that it was using the embedded jpeg for review, even at zoom. Need to do more careful shots and using a tripod on some high resolution target to (dis) prove what I thought I saw.

See what I mean folks. He still doesn't believe us!

I believe what I test for myself as there has always been lots of wrong information spread on these forums for the 17 years that I've been here on DPReview.

I'll report back with what I find when I have time to do the tests that satisfy my own curiosity.

So basically yes, I don't believe anybody, especially the dogmatic ones.

 

[Digital Nigel]

I have cameras from two other manufacturers that don't.

It seems like this isn't a subject one can generalise on.

But if you think about it logically, it would be ridiculous not to be able to zoom in and check focus when shooting RAW-only. All camera manufacturers must allow this one way or the other with a full-res jpeg.

For sure Olympus uses the embedded jpeg in the models I have, indeed it is a 3200x2400 embedded jpeg but seems to be highly compressed, so that's exactly why I use the raw+jpeg habit to get a better detail review. The Olympus can do raw conversions on command in camera, but it certainly does not do them for review. Maybe the very latest models with better processing power have done that?

For me (only?) the jury is still out on the RX100M6 as I have seen differences in an early test that made me believe that it was using the embedded jpeg for review, even at zoom. Need to do more careful shots and using a tripod on some high resolution target to (dis) prove what I thought I saw.

See what I mean folks. He still doesn't believe us!

I believe what I test for myself as there has always been lots of wrong information spread on these forums for the 17 years that I've been here on DPReview.

I'll report back with what I find when I have time to do the tests that satisfy my own curiosity.

Tests? It takes <10 seconds with one RAW shot containing some detail (eg, a magazine or newspaper page). It's trivially easy to do. I have eight Sony cameras and they all work the same way.

So basically yes, I don't believe anybody, especially the dogmatic ones.

Oh well, you won't believe what I've just said then.

 

[sybersitizen]

The camera obviously has no problem converting raw image information to JPEG at high speed. It has to do it all the time. The problem is not the conversion but rather drawing the much larger files off the memory card.

Yes, but it only has to do that when you zoom in. There is a tiny delay, but it's almost too short to notice.

JPEG files require quite more, not less processing to display than raw files.

Why would that be?

Raw files require demosaicing.

RAW files normally require more than just demosaicing in order to be displayed by a camera. They also receive some treatment related to color space/gamma/tone curve at the minimum. I've seen lots of my own RAW files that seem to have received nothing but demosaicing, and they look pretty drab.

JPEG files require converting Huffman decoding of DCT transform data, doing an inverse DCT, interpolating the chroma subsampling of the format, converting from the color space used in the JPEG to RGB.

There is a reason JPEG compresses typical photographic material well, and that reason involves a lot of math.

But since they take less space on the card, they are loaded faster.

True, but the difference is a small fraction of a second.

And if the camera can do one thing efficiently, it is decoding and encoding JPEG files.

Aren't we talking about the time required to load and display something, presumably from the moment the request is initiated? If you're separating data transfer time from data processing time, then you may have a point; but in the end, both things contribute to the time required to load and display an image.

It clearly takes longer for any computer-based viewer/converter I use to load and display a RAW file than it does to load and display a corresponding JPEG file. Are you saying what's true of computers in this case is not true of cameras?