D1X and file size

[Peter Bronsteen]

I have my D1X set to shoot large JPG files at fine compression. According to my manual, that should produce a file size of approximately 2.8 megs. Most of the photos I shoot turn out to be less than 1 meg. Most of these shots are of ice hockey.

Can anyone explain to me why file size varies so much and why my file size is typically so small?

Also, how much of a clarity gain could I expect if I switced to raw files rather than the fine JPGs?--My thanks,

Peter

 

[Ger Bee]

Ice is white - so the files size would be smaller.

Assuming one can take advantage of it - I'd not think one could with the ice hockey - but for studio or product shots or where the ultimate quality is desired - then the difference is spectacular.

I have my D1X set to shoot large JPG files at fine compression.
According to my manual, that should produce a file size of
approximately 2.8 megs. Most of the photos I shoot turn out to be
less than 1 meg. Most of these shots are of ice hockey.

Can anyone explain to me why file size varies so much and why my
file size is typically so small?

Also, how much of a clarity gain could I expect if I switced to raw
files rather than the fine JPGs?
--
My thanks,

Peter

 

[Stephen Livick]

Hello Everybody

I agree with Gerard on this one, lots of white ice in the image would reduce the file size considerably.

As far as Nef (raw) files verses Jpg, Think of it just like this... Jpgs are simply watered down full sized Nef's. In the Nef format the prints look so much richer than they do in Jpg, the highlights contain more detail and the shadows look like real shadows with some depth to them depth.

If you did an actual side by side comparison with the exact same image you would then only use Jpgs for web work and quick proofing. Ask anyone working with the Nikon Nef format, you'll soon "see" the light ; )

Is there anyone out there who likes their lunch time soup watered down?

Stephen

-- http://www.livick.com

 

[Peter Bronsteen]

Dear Stephen and Gerard:

My thanks for your comments about the raw files. I will experiment with them today.

Given the large size of these files, is there an economic way to store them? Are compact flash cards the best route, or is the IBM microdrive now the preferred technology?

Thanks, again,

Peter

 

[KenEis]

It isn't that the ice is white but rather that its homogeneous. You can experiment and take a picture of a featureless scene like an all black lens cap on image of of a blue sky with not clouds or smoke. You will find the jpeg compression algorithm will make a very small file of these scenes. The more complex the image in terms of details and color changes the larger the file. So it you have a scene that is half ice with no features you will get a smaller file.

I have my D1X set to shoot large JPG files at fine compression.
According to my manual, that should produce a file size of
approximately 2.8 megs. Most of the photos I shoot turn out to be
less than 1 meg. Most of these shots are of ice hockey.

Can anyone explain to me why file size varies so much and why my
file size is typically so small?

Also, how much of a clarity gain could I expect if I switced to raw
files rather than the fine JPGs?
--
My thanks,

Peter

 

[David Woodworth]

Peter,

At $380 (B&H) with a $20 rebate, the 1GB MicroDrive seems to be the most economical and at least for me the most practical. I shoot a D1 with a RAW file size of 4MB so I get about 264 images per drive. I've had no problems with my drives so that would be my choice again. Also, the longer you can avoid compressing your files the better your final image will be. I convert from RAW to 16bit tiff; then work in PS with the tiff file. I only convert to jpg if I'm posting to the web. A 1 or 2MB jpg means alot of compression going on there.

David

Dear Stephen and Gerard:

My thanks for your comments about the raw files. I will experiment
with them today.

Given the large size of these files, is there an economic way to
store them? Are compact flash cards the best route, or is the IBM
microdrive now the preferred technology?

Thanks, again,

Peter

--David Woodworth

 

[Paul F Caldwell]

Thats hitting the nail on the head, the more of one feature i.e whilte, black etc, the less complex the file will need to be.

See if when you point the camera outdoors and get a series of buildings, trees, anything, if you file size isn't larger.

On the microdrive, I am a believer, have used from 340 to 1gb over a 1 1/2 year period. On the D1x the 1gb is quite fast I never notice a lag, but again I am not speed shooting for action like you might be.

Paul

I have my D1X set to shoot large JPG files at fine compression.
According to my manual, that should produce a file size of
approximately 2.8 megs. Most of the photos I shoot turn out to be
less than 1 meg. Most of these shots are of ice hockey.

Can anyone explain to me why file size varies so much and why my
file size is typically so small?

Also, how much of a clarity gain could I expect if I switced to raw
files rather than the fine JPGs?
--
My thanks,

Peter