RAW file sizes

[Juanito123]

Hi everyone.

I had an A6000, 24 megapixel sensor, RAW files were 24MBytes. I moved to the A7C, again 24 megapixel sensor, RAW files were consistently 24MBytes. I have now upgraded to A7Cii, 33 megapixel sensor, RAW files are consistently 38MBytes.

If 1 byte of info is captured / assigned to each pixel, I would have expected 33MByte files. The Sony camera Help Guides don't give an explanation. Can anyone explain what I'm finding?

Thanks.

 

[panther fan]

You are talking about compressed file sized here.

And those vary a lot with ISO, etc...

Direct assignment only works for uncompressed files

 

[AlephNull]

Hi everyone.

I had an A6000, 24 megapixel sensor, RAW files were 24MBytes. I moved to the A7C, again 24 megapixel sensor, RAW files were consistently 24MBytes. I have now upgraded to A7Cii, 33 megapixel sensor, RAW files are consistently 38MBytes.

If 1 byte of info is captured / assigned to each pixel, I would have expected 33MByte files. The Sony camera Help Guides don't give an explanation. Can anyone explain what I'm finding?

Thanks.

The RAW files do NOT contain one byte per pixel. Think about it - these files contain 14 bit samples, and there's a sample for every output pixel, plus a bunch of extras around the edges (the Bayer matrix algorithms need extra samples around the edges to be able to generate full colour for the edge pixels). 14 bits don't fit into 1 byte.

If you used uncompressed RAW, then you'd find the files would be a bit bigger than two bytes per pixel (because of the edges, and because the RAW file contains metadata and an embedded JPEG thumbnail). That's the data that's in the RAW file. Anything smaller is because of compression.

I would guess you were using Sony's lossy compressed format (just called "compressed") in your first two cameras (they don't support lossless) - it tends to average compressing the files by about half. That's where you get the impression that it's 1 byte / pixel.

Are you using lossless compressed in your latest camera? It doesn't compress quite as tight as the old lossy compressed version, but you are guaranteed lossless. The lossless compression is a bit more variable in its compression ratio, too - a lossless compressed picture of a solid white wall will be smaller (better compression ratio), while a picture of a random colour mosaic (or extremely detailed vegetation) will be larger (worse compression ratio).

 

[Martin_99]

You are talking about compressed file sized here.

And those vary a lot with ISO, etc...

Sony's compressed RAW's have allways the same size, not vary with image content or camera setting

Direct assignment only works for uncompressed files

I don't have an answer for OP though. I assume, that 24Mpx/MB fit was just luck.

 

[Juanito123]

Aha, makes sense, thanks.

I think I used default RAW settings, which I see is compressed, so the 24MBytes for A6000 and A7C must have been down to algorithm. Just tried Lossless RAW L on A7Cii, the file jumps up further to 48MBytes!

Thanks again.

 

[panther fan]

You are talking about compressed file sized here.

And those vary a lot with ISO, etc...

Sony's compressed RAW's have allways the same size, not vary with image content or camera setting

That's not true

Already simply because the embedded JPEG changes in size

Direct assignment only works for uncompressed files

I don't have an answer for OP though. I assume, that 24Mpx/MB fit was just luck.

 

[Martin_99]

You are talking about compressed file sized here.

And those vary a lot with ISO, etc...

Sony's compressed RAW's have allways the same size, not vary with image content or camera setting

That's not true

Already simply because the embedded JPEG changes in size

OK...I wrote it rather from practical perspective, not exact/scientific.

When JPG vary between 10 and 20MB it's hugely different over 25,1 and 25,3MB of compressed RAW (examples, didn't check it detail).

Direct assignment only works for uncompressed files

I don't have an answer for OP though. I assume, that 24Mpx/MB fit was just luck.

 

[AlephNull]

You are talking about compressed file sized here.

And those vary a lot with ISO, etc...

Sony's compressed RAW's have allways the same size, not vary with image content or camera setting

That's not true

Already simply because the embedded JPEG changes in size

OK...I wrote it rather from practical perspective, not exact/scientific.

When JPG vary between 10 and 20MB it's hugely different over 25,1 and 25,3MB of compressed RAW (examples, didn't check it detail).

Direct assignment only works for uncompressed files

I don't have an answer for OP though. I assume, that 24Mpx/MB fit was just luck.

If the embedded JPEG were 20MB I doubt the whole file would be 25.3MB I suspect you meant 0.2MB :-D

But I agree with you - the lossy compressed RAW files don't vary a lot in size. much less than the lossless ones.

 

[Mike Riach]

On my A7RV, an uncompressed RAW is around 124MB, Losslessly compressed 70MB and Compressed 65MB.

Mike

 

[Martin_99]

You are talking about compressed file sized here.

And those vary a lot with ISO, etc...

Sony's compressed RAW's have allways the same size, not vary with image content or camera setting

That's not true

Already simply because the embedded JPEG changes in size

OK...I wrote it rather from practical perspective, not exact/scientific.

When JPG vary between 10 and 20MB it's hugely different over 25,1 and 25,3MB of compressed RAW (examples, didn't check it detail).

Direct assignment only works for uncompressed files

I don't have an answer for OP though. I assume, that 24Mpx/MB fit was just luck.

If the embedded JPEG were 20MB I doubt the whole file would be 25.3MB I suspect you meant 0.2MB :-D

Do you know the difference between camera JPG output (6000*4000) and JPG embedded in RAW file (I think 1000*700)? You probably wrongly understood my point, I compared camera output and it's size variability.

But I agree with you - the lossy compressed RAW files don't vary a lot in size. much less than the lossless ones.

 

[panther fan]

You are talking about compressed file sized here.

And those vary a lot with ISO, etc...

Sony's compressed RAW's have allways the same size, not vary with image content or camera setting

That's not true

Already simply because the embedded JPEG changes in size

OK...I wrote it rather from practical perspective, not exact/scientific.

When JPG vary between 10 and 20MB it's hugely different over 25,1 and 25,3MB of compressed RAW (examples, didn't check it detail).

Direct assignment only works for uncompressed files

I don't have an answer for OP though. I assume, that 24Mpx/MB fit was just luck.

If the embedded JPEG were 20MB I doubt the whole file would be 25.3MB I suspect you meant 0.2MB :-D

Do you know the difference between camera JPG output (6000*4000) and JPG embedded in RAW file (I think 1000*700)? You probably wrongly understood my point, I compared camera output and it's size variability.

But I agree with you - the lossy compressed RAW files don't vary a lot in size. much less than the lossless ones.

Well here lies the issue

Sonys old cameras included a 1616x1080 embedded JPEG (A6000, A7 III etc...)

Sonys new cameras A1, A7C II etc... (basicaly everything bionz XR) have both a 1616x1080 and a full sized embedded jpeg. So an additional 33MP embedded JPEG easily explains the original size difference observed by OP

 

[Martin_99]

You are talking about compressed file sized here.

And those vary a lot with ISO, etc...

Sony's compressed RAW's have allways the same size, not vary with image content or camera setting

That's not true

Already simply because the embedded JPEG changes in size

OK...I wrote it rather from practical perspective, not exact/scientific.

When JPG vary between 10 and 20MB it's hugely different over 25,1 and 25,3MB of compressed RAW (examples, didn't check it detail).

Direct assignment only works for uncompressed files

I don't have an answer for OP though. I assume, that 24Mpx/MB fit was just luck.

If the embedded JPEG were 20MB I doubt the whole file would be 25.3MB I suspect you meant 0.2MB :-D

Do you know the difference between camera JPG output (6000*4000) and JPG embedded in RAW file (I think 1000*700)? You probably wrongly understood my point, I compared camera output and it's size variability.

But I agree with you - the lossy compressed RAW files don't vary a lot in size. much less than the lossless ones.

Well here lies the issue

Sonys old cameras included a 1616x1080 embedded JPEG (A6000, A7 III etc...)

Sonys new cameras A1, A7C II etc... (basicaly everything bionz XR) have both a 1616x1080 and a full sized embedded jpeg.

What is the source of this information? Why should be full size JPG included? I will check with my A7cii at home.

So an additional 33MP embedded JPEG easily explains the original size difference observed by OP

 

[panther fan]

You are talking about compressed file sized here.

And those vary a lot with ISO, etc...

Sony's compressed RAW's have allways the same size, not vary with image content or camera setting

That's not true

Already simply because the embedded JPEG changes in size

OK...I wrote it rather from practical perspective, not exact/scientific.

When JPG vary between 10 and 20MB it's hugely different over 25,1 and 25,3MB of compressed RAW (examples, didn't check it detail).

Direct assignment only works for uncompressed files

I don't have an answer for OP though. I assume, that 24Mpx/MB fit was just luck.

If the embedded JPEG were 20MB I doubt the whole file would be 25.3MB I suspect you meant 0.2MB :-D

Do you know the difference between camera JPG output (6000*4000) and JPG embedded in RAW file (I think 1000*700)? You probably wrongly understood my point, I compared camera output and it's size variability.

But I agree with you - the lossy compressed RAW files don't vary a lot in size. much less than the lossless ones.

Well here lies the issue

Sonys old cameras included a 1616x1080 embedded JPEG (A6000, A7 III etc...)

Sonys new cameras A1, A7C II etc... (basicaly everything bionz XR) have both a 1616x1080 and a full sized embedded jpeg.

What is the source of this information?

The RAWs themself. Also discussions all across the net

Why should be full size JPG included? I will check with my A7cii at home.

On old cameras if you shoot just RAW (not RAW + JPEG) there was significant lag when trying to review pictures and go into 100% zoom. Having the JPEG makes this significantly faster. I guess this is the main reason. It also makes exporting full sized JPEGs to the app or via FTP easy, even if just RAWs were stored

Also there were requests for larger embedded files by various users

So an additional 33MP embedded JPEG easily explains the original size difference observed by OP