Torgny Dellsen
Leading Member
Why are the raw files THAT MUCH larger than the .jpeg files (X100S)
For instance 32 vs 3.2 MB
What do you REALLY miss?
For instance 32 vs 3.2 MB
What do you REALLY miss?
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Why are the raw files THAT MUCH larger than the .jpeg files (X100S)
- Thread starter Torgny Dellsen
- Start date
Limburger
Veteran Member
Jpeg is a compressed file and RAW isn't.
P
Perry Kivolowitz
Guest
dark13star
Senior Member
14-bit uncompressed data container vs. 8-bit lossy-compressed final image.
One way to think of what makes up the size difference are all the data that you don't have to work with when manipulating the jpeg file.
BTW, they get even bigger when you save them as 16-bit tiffs, since there isn't a 14-bit tiff option.
Rich
One way to think of what makes up the size difference are all the data that you don't have to work with when manipulating the jpeg file.
BTW, they get even bigger when you save them as 16-bit tiffs, since there isn't a 14-bit tiff option.
Rich
Tom Schum
Forum Pro
One thing I noticed with the Fuji X cameras is that the out-of-camera JPG is quite a bit smaller than what you get from other cameras, and it doesn't take much post processing to balloon it up to over twice the size (6.4megabytes vs 3.2megabytes).
For example my Sigma SD1 raw is about 50 meg, and the JPG is about 12 meg. This is about 4:1. This makes sense to me. The ratio with Fuji is quite a bit higher.
For all this time (I've been using X cameras over 2 years, X10 and X-E1) I've been thinking the JPGs are too small (too few bytes, too much compression regardless of camera FINE setting).
--
Tom Schum
For example my Sigma SD1 raw is about 50 meg, and the JPG is about 12 meg. This is about 4:1. This makes sense to me. The ratio with Fuji is quite a bit higher.
For all this time (I've been using X cameras over 2 years, X10 and X-E1) I've been thinking the JPGs are too small (too few bytes, too much compression regardless of camera FINE setting).
--
Tom Schum
Last edited:
Ricardo Maia
Well-known member
5
57even
Guest
14 bit files vs. compressed 8 bit, which is helped by the low noise produced at default levels (noise is uncompressible because it looks like detail).
They get larger at higher ISO...
Torgny Dellsen
Leading Member
I hope I know the basics on compression. There are things I don't understand about the files from the X cameras though.
What I wanted was practical points of views. Let's say that you are happy about a certain outcome of your photographic efforts (that you've made a helluva great image, that is). The .jpeg is great. You just want to adjust some minor issues you couldn't do with the .jpeg
So. Life is great. The sky is blue, birds are singing etc. but you've got one question nagging you: do I really have to buy another 3 TB drive or can I save space by saving only the .jpeg, not the RAF
For pictures you really want to save for generations to come, it may be no problem. You save it all. But for the bulk of your photography?
--
Visit:
http://torgnydellsen.zenfolio.com/
Last edited:
R Neuschul
Leading Member
- Messages
- 588
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 157
You've asked a question nobody else can answer for you; that's a personal decision.
Just remember that you can't put back what you don't have.
Just remember that you can't put back what you don't have.
W
wchutt
Guest
If the color balance and exposure are perfect, then the information destroyed by the lossy compression is truly redundant. Included in exposure for this discussion is dynamic range. A perfect exposure implies the dynamic range of the scene does not exceed the technical limits of the sensor.
The more the color balance and exposure fall below perfection, the more valuable the raw information becomes.
The raw data is a digital negative while the jpeg is more like a print. If a jpeg version meets all your needs now and you are sure it will in the future too, then the raw file has no value.
i never destroyed negatives and I keep all my raw files (and multiple back ups) too.
P
Perry Kivolowitz
Guest
I almost never delete a picture.
Here's my storage strategy (note: not all storage is used by pictures - a lot of software development on large data sets):
- 3 TB local drive for fast access
- 3 TB local drive with nightly incremental backups / weekly cycles
- 30 TB of monthly and epoch backups going back more than 15 years - for example I can go back to the desktop (files) I had in 1998. Look at source code I wrote then and wonder how it ever worked.
Point is, I sometimes come back years later to a shitty photo that I realize can be cropped or processed in a new way. Or what was shitty then might today be important for some reason.
Electrons are essentially free. Use them.
gerard boulanger
Senior Member
Wow!
You keep everything...
I only keep 3-5% of all my shots.....
You keep everything...
I only keep 3-5% of all my shots.....
P
Perry Kivolowitz
Guest
You are probably deleting a fair number of shots that might be truly great given a new day's perspective (or technology). Also, there might be a "throw away" grab shot of something / someone you can't replace or recreate that becomes meaningful later.
One reasonable example is exposing a blah image 10 years ago in RAW when I didn't know about single image derived HDR. Fast forward to today and there might be a contrasty colorful shot there.
Storage is ridiculously cheap in the scheme of things.
meagre offerings
Veteran Member
I'm vicious on the delete button also, I would guess I keep on average about 5% max.
and to be honest, I probably could get this down to maybe 1-2%.
having only come to the digital format one year ago (I shot film in the 70s & 80s) I find digital somewhat throwaway, I suppose like most things these days feel.
so that's what I do, i go through a days shooting maybe three or four times deleting as I go, and I also delete as I'm doing my PP, where I think what may be ok doesn't turn out that way.
my brother for example has never deleted a image he recons.
best
pc
--
also a proud member of the `lesser leica owners club`.
and to be honest, I probably could get this down to maybe 1-2%.
having only come to the digital format one year ago (I shot film in the 70s & 80s) I find digital somewhat throwaway, I suppose like most things these days feel.
so that's what I do, i go through a days shooting maybe three or four times deleting as I go, and I also delete as I'm doing my PP, where I think what may be ok doesn't turn out that way.
my brother for example has never deleted a image he recons.
best
pc
--
Galleries by paul cheeseman
www.pbase.com
also a proud member of the `lesser leica owners club`.
gerard boulanger
Senior Member
I do not keep shots because they are technically good enough or could be better with some PP, but because they carry a message, a feeling, an interesting or surprising composition.
Storage is cheap indeed, but why should I keep stuff because I have room for it? On average, I shoot 8,000 pictures per year. I am sure I could keep more, but for what?
I am actually glad when I could get 5% "good". For example, I shot 200 pictures of my grand daughter during my last trip. I kept 5 of them. 195 were random shots, nice indeed, well exposed, sharp, but... the 5 I kept represent her much better and this is what I am looking for, not store sharp and well exposed pictures I will never use anymore.
The Fuji raw files, since they are uncompressed, can be losslessly compressed quite a bit, saving a ton of space. A compressor such as bzip2 can reduce file sizes up to 95% (extreme case, for example, for shots of the night sky). It's a tremendous space saver as well as time saver when uploading files to somewhere. I do that all the time before archiving my images. I wish Fuji would do that in-camera, but I am sure the processor is at the limit already.
P
Perry Kivolowitz
Guest
The speed lost due to processor time on compression could be made up (especially with slower cards) in writing the smaller file.
A 35 MB file can at most be written in a second on a 35 MB/sec card (probably slower). The processor can compress a huge amount of data in, say 1/2 second, leaving a 3.5 MB file to write in at best 1/10 second, a net savings of 4/10 of a second.
All hypothetical of course.
On a faster card, the savings would go down.
A 35 MB file can at most be written in a second on a 35 MB/sec card (probably slower). The processor can compress a huge amount of data in, say 1/2 second, leaving a 3.5 MB file to write in at best 1/10 second, a net savings of 4/10 of a second.
All hypothetical of course.
On a faster card, the savings would go down.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum