raw at less than max pixel count??

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by ray, Jan 26, 2012.

  1. ray

    ray Guest

    Strange question, I know, but I was just wondering if any cameras support
    saving a raw file at less than the full resolution? Reason: I don't
    14mpixel raw images - 4 or so would be fine.
     
    ray, Jan 26, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. ray

    Savageduck Guest

    Nikon (for my D300s at least) permits the choice of three types of RAW
    (NEF) Recording;

    Lossless Compressed: NEF images are compressed using a reversible
    algorithm, reducing file size by about 20-40% with no effect on image
    quality.

    Compressed: NEF images are compressed using a non-reversible
    algorithm, reducing file size by about 40-55% with almost no effect on
    image quality.

    Uncompressed; No NEF compression.
     
    Savageduck, Jan 26, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. ray

    eatmorepies Guest

    Canon 50D, 5D2 and 1D mkIV all do it.

    But why do you want to do it? Cards are fairly cheap and you may need a big
    file one day. If you're using RAW you're presumably keen on quality - why
    throw data away? Do tell.

    John
     
    eatmorepies, Jan 26, 2012
    #3
  4. I've rarely done it, and always regretted it when I did.

    However, I use RAW not for ultimate quality, but for the ability to
    recover from mistakes. Thus, while I use it all the time, I do much
    more drastic adjustments in shots from fast-moving events than I do from
    studio work where I can control the pacing and the lighting.
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Jan 26, 2012
    #4
  5. ray

    ray Guest

    One thought that comes to mind is processing power. If I'm on a trip and
    only have the netbook along, it's not going to be feasible to work on
    14mp images - 4 or 5 would be a lot more practical. Fact is, about the
    only thing we do with our pictures is look at them on the computer or
    print - rarely larger than 4x6 and never more than 8x10. You don't need
    14mp for an 8x10 photo.
     
    ray, Jan 27, 2012
    #5
  6. ray

    Eric Stevens Guest

    Why then do you want to save your photographs as RAW? Wouldn't JPG
    serve equally as well?

    Regards,

    Eric Stevens
     
    Eric Stevens, Jan 27, 2012
    #6
  7. ray

    Robert Coe Guest

    :
    : >On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 21:28:54 +0000, eatmorepies wrote:
    : >
    : >> : >>> Strange question, I know, but I was just wondering if any cameras
    : >>> support saving a raw file at less than the full resolution? Reason:
    : >>> I don't 14mpixel raw images - 4 or so would be fine.
    : >>>
    : >>>
    : >> Canon 50D, 5D2 and 1D mkIV all do it.
    : >>
    : >> But why do you want to do it? Cards are fairly cheap and you may
    : >> need a big file one day. If you're using RAW you're presumably keen
    : >> on quality - why throw data away? Do tell.
    : >>
    : >> John
    : >
    : >One thought that comes to mind is processing power. If I'm on a trip
    : >and only have the netbook along, it's not going to be feasible to work
    : >on 14mp images - 4 or 5 would be a lot more practical. Fact is, about
    : >the only thing we do with our pictures is look at them on the computer
    : >or print - rarely larger than 4x6 and never more than 8x10. You don't
    : >need 14mp for an 8x10 photo.
    :
    : Why then do you want to save your photographs as RAW? Wouldn't JPG
    : serve equally as well?

    Depends, to some extent, on your post-processing software. Canon's DPP, for
    example, does a very decent job on RAW files, much less so (as far as I've
    been able to tell) on JPEGs.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jan 27, 2012
    #7
  8. ray

    bugbear Guest

    Depends if colour depth (shadows etc) is more important than
    pixel count.

    There's more than one kind of resolution.

    BugBear
     
    bugbear, Jan 27, 2012
    #8
  9. ray

    ray Guest

    raw adds flexibility. Point is I don't NEED 14mp - but all the newer
    cameras seems to be caught up in the pixel count race.
     
    ray, Jan 27, 2012
    #9
  10. ray

    RichA Guest

    Then why not just use the centre 60% of the field of view and crop the
    images?
     
    RichA, Jan 27, 2012
    #10
  11. ray

    Savageduck Guest

    Then don't shoot RAW.

    Requiring the camera manufacturers to fit your computing needs is not a
    reality.
    If on a trip, you are just going to make basic edits on a netbook and
    distribute online, you might as well just get a G11/G12/S90 and shoot
    jpeg only. Perhaps get a bargain D70, my old D70 is still quite capable
    of producing reasonable size prints, and it is tough to discern much
    difference in quality between shots taken with my D70 or my D300s when
    viewed on a display.
    D70:
    < http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DSC_0035Aw.jpg >
    D300s:
    < http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DNC5767Gw.jpg >

    Personally, if I were you, and I really wanted RAW files, I would carry
    extra SDHC/CF cards, and shoot RAW + JPEG. Down size the JPEGS in the
    camera and edit those on your netbook. That way you will have the
    unmolested RAW files for work on your desk top when you get home.

    Otherwise, understand what your needs are and shoot jpeg only.
     
    Savageduck, Jan 27, 2012
    #11
  12. ray

    me Guest


    Another somewhat useful option might be to use a raw converter which
    allows you to specify the pixel count of the process image. Yes, it
    still requires you to start with what you have.
     
    me, Jan 27, 2012
    #12
  13. ray

    ray Guest

    Ya still gotta unpack the whole damned mess.
     
    ray, Jan 28, 2012
    #13
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.