-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Convert RAW to sRAW?
- Thread starter dfbb
- Start date
pixseal
Senior Member
It's my understanding that sRAW stores information about fewer pixels, so it would not "keep the original" - if there was software available to do a conversion from RAW to sRAW.
--
-Dave
http://pixseal.com
I know it's technically not the original anymore, but I would like to have (almost) the file I would have had if I choose sRAW on the camera. Of course I would end up with hlaf the resolution, but that's just what I would like to have.
bobn2
Forum Pro
Why use sRAW - it is a very inefficient way of saving space? throws away a lot of information and doesn't save that much file space. There are some raw compression softwares around, such as Rawzor ( http://www.rawzor.com/ ). Alternatively, 16 bit JPEG2000 would probably preserve more of the original file than sRAW and also offers a lossless option. You can use Image Magick for JPEG2000 compression.
--
Bob
bill hansen
Forum Pro
Maybe I don't understand the question. It's perfectly simple to downsize a RAW file to any size you want. For example, in PS, just go to Image/Image Size and divide the number for pixels transversely by 2 while preserving aspect ratio. That will give you a file of the same size as sRAW1.
Theorectically, an even better way to downsize would be to do the same sort of maneuver in Qimage or in Genuine Fractals - though for practical purposes, the imrovement you'd get from these programs while downsizing would never be noticed. (Quite different from the very noticeable improvement you get from upsizing in Qimage or GF, as compared to upsizing in PS CS.)
Bill Hansen
Theorectically, an even better way to downsize would be to do the same sort of maneuver in Qimage or in Genuine Fractals - though for practical purposes, the imrovement you'd get from these programs while downsizing would never be noticed. (Quite different from the very noticeable improvement you get from upsizing in Qimage or GF, as compared to upsizing in PS CS.)
Bill Hansen
sRAW does save quite a lot of space. A normal RAW file can get 20MB, while an sRAW1 (
I did not try JPEG2000 yet, maybe that's an option too, but I always thought it was a dying format. I tried Rawzor, but it didn't compress very well (not enough for me).
I would like to convert a RAW file into a file which would have been generated if I selected sRAW1 (
marsbar
Leading Member
This cannot presently be done.
But in the December 2008 issue if Tech Tips, by Chuck Westfall, somebody asked a very simular question. He said he would pass the idea on. So we might see this ability in future update of DPP. It may not be popular, but if it can be done in camera, it makes sense to have it available in DPP.
Here is the article:
http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0812/tech-tips.html
--
Thanks for the article. It would be great if Canon made a converter to convert RAW to sRAW1 or sRAW2, they know how it should be done.
As far as I know, it is not.
Then why keep it?
Now let's think a bit, RAW --> sRAW. If that were possible, then what would be the sense of RAW? With due respect, really, but your reasing sounds to me like wanting to pour a bucket full of water into a small cooking pot. You would waste quite a lot of water, wouldn't you? I guess the same will happen with RAW --> sRAW.
You could always save that file as a compressed TIFF-file...
Kind regards.
Because while it's not the nicest picture ever, I still want to keep it, only I don't want it to take up too much space. In the link posted earlier the interviewer explains it as follows (for a 5D Mark II):
Would it be possible with some software (like DPP) to get sRAW from a RAW file? This function would be very useful to me to keep outstanding shots in 21MP and reduce the size to 10MP for all the others. I would prefer to archive 10MP RAW than 21MP JPEG
That's correct, but than the original RAW would probably be smaller then the reduced resolution TIFF-file.
bill hansen
Forum Pro
I think if you try it once, you'll find that it's very quick and easy to resize a full RAW file to half its normal size, using the method I described above. It will take you less than 10 seconds - probably less than 5 seconds. You can even resize several dozen (or a few hundred, for that matter) RAW files at once using the PS "Batch" command. Then, if you like, you can delete your full sized RAW files to save space.
However - external hard drives are very very inexpensive right now. Why not save all those full sized RAW files on an external HD? Get a HD with a half terrabyte of storage - about $70 if you catch a sale, and sales are frequent. Better yet, get a full terrabyte of storage, probably no more than $120 or so - sure, that's real money, but compared to the loss of your originals, it's nothing.
You could write an Action in PS to resize all your original RAWs and save them to a particular HD or folder, and also save all your original RAWs to a different folder or HD (or to the same one, if you wanted to do that - but you wouldn't want to). The whole thing could be done with one keystroke.
That way, you won't have to take all the time it rrequires to edit a full sized RAW (editing the half sized one will take much less time), you'll save space on whatever drive you like to save your half-sized RAW files, and if you ever want to return to your full sized RAWs, they'll be there for you.
When I first began in digital photography about 8 years ago, I threw away all my original files. I can't go back and re-edit them now - and I have often wished that I could do that. My editing skills are much better now than they were back then. But my originals are gone forever.
However - external hard drives are very very inexpensive right now. Why not save all those full sized RAW files on an external HD? Get a HD with a half terrabyte of storage - about $70 if you catch a sale, and sales are frequent. Better yet, get a full terrabyte of storage, probably no more than $120 or so - sure, that's real money, but compared to the loss of your originals, it's nothing.
You could write an Action in PS to resize all your original RAWs and save them to a particular HD or folder, and also save all your original RAWs to a different folder or HD (or to the same one, if you wanted to do that - but you wouldn't want to). The whole thing could be done with one keystroke.
That way, you won't have to take all the time it rrequires to edit a full sized RAW (editing the half sized one will take much less time), you'll save space on whatever drive you like to save your half-sized RAW files, and if you ever want to return to your full sized RAWs, they'll be there for you.
When I first began in digital photography about 8 years ago, I threw away all my original files. I can't go back and re-edit them now - and I have often wished that I could do that. My editing skills are much better now than they were back then. But my originals are gone forever.
JerryG1
Senior Member
Sure you can open the raw image and resize it but you can't re-save it as a smaller raw file. It must be saved as a tiff or psd if 16-bit.
--
JerryG
See my galleries at:
http://www.pbase.com/jerryg1
--
JerryG
See my galleries at:
http://www.pbase.com/jerryg1
I want to save the originals, so deleteing the RAW files is no option.
I know, I have enough disk space, that's not a problem. I only also backup to Mozy.com and upload can take a long time with 20MB RAW files. If I can convert the RAW files to sRAW1, it saves half the time to upload them.
That's why I want to keep the RAW files and not convert them into a JPEG2000 (TIFF is no option since it is a lot bigger than RAW).
bobn2
Forum Pro
But you are not dodging the problem. With sRAW your originals are gone forever too. sRAW files are more degraded than JPEG2000. If viewed as a lossy compression technique, sRAW is both very lossy and inefficient at compressing. If you want to make the files as small as possible, and leave scope for future adjustment, sRAW is a poor option. JPEG2000 is better in some ways. Yes, it introduces compression artifacts, but so does sRAW, and the artifacts are nastier.
--
Bob
bill hansen
Forum Pro
--
There's been mention of saving not-so-nice pictures in a smaller format, but keeping the RAW files of the very best images.
Actually, JPEG quality 12 (or equivalent) is very very good! Lots of excellent photographers use JPEG - some use it all the time, and some use it on occasion. The biggest difference is that when shooting JPEG, you need to be more certain of your exposure and WB (and you can argue that once faulty exposure and WB have been corrected while processing a RAW file, you've cooked the image just as much as you'd cook a JPEG). So - I wouldn't be too scared of saving high quality JPEG images of "not-so-nice" images.
Bill
There's been mention of saving not-so-nice pictures in a smaller format, but keeping the RAW files of the very best images.
Actually, JPEG quality 12 (or equivalent) is very very good! Lots of excellent photographers use JPEG - some use it all the time, and some use it on occasion. The biggest difference is that when shooting JPEG, you need to be more certain of your exposure and WB (and you can argue that once faulty exposure and WB have been corrected while processing a RAW file, you've cooked the image just as much as you'd cook a JPEG). So - I wouldn't be too scared of saving high quality JPEG images of "not-so-nice" images.
Bill
GoldenSpark
Senior Member
I wonder whether it is possible to convert RAW to DNG, then down-size to 7.1 MP and finally save as DNG again?
I'm very new to DNG conversion, so I'm not sure what faciilities are available.
I'm very new to DNG conversion, so I'm not sure what faciilities are available.
I do not know what you mean by saying sRAW is lossy. sRAW is the same as RAW, just with half the resolution, so no compression and no artifacts. What I mean by sRAW is the file you would get if you had selected sRAW1 instead of RAW on the camera.
I could consider that. If I adjust the white balance (and maybe some small highlight/shadow corrections) and than save as JPEG, I guess I wouldn't loose too much. Maybe even better (but I haven't tried yet) is to save in the newer HD Photo format.
You cannot save to DNG from PS.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum