I've got a Canon 50D with a Sandisk Extreme IV 4GB card. I use the Raw format and Friday I took a bunch of pictures and the card was full after 185 pictures. Is this about right. I could of swore I used to get alot more pics on the card before it was full. I re-format the card after each down load. Thanks for the help.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Sandisk CF card
Collapse
X
-
Full Curl....RAW files are huge and since your shooting a Canon 50D, they are extra huge, so yes, you fill up the CF card quickly.
Canon 50D Raw modes
RAW: 4752x3168 (15.05MP), 20.2 MB, 16 in a burst
sRAW1: 3267x2178 ( 7.11MP), 12.6 MB, 16 in a burst
sRAW2: 2376x1584 ( 3.76MP), 9.2 MB, 19 in a burst
Jpeg is simply smaller and my average sizes are roughly 5-6mb, Canon 50D.
Comment
-
Originally posted by texag93 View PostI have not try taking any pics using the RAW format. I know my camera will take them just haven't messed with it. What are the advantages of shooting in RAW?
Comment
-
RAW file size per Rob = 20.2 MB
JPEG file size per Rob = 5 - 6 MB
Like zramsey says, a RAW file contains every pixel that the camera was able to capture when you hit the shutter button. An in-camera JPEG (like any other JPEG) is highly compressed. The camera's software, per your settings, applies contrast, saturation, brightness, and sharpening to the RAW data, and then it compresses the file and saves only a JPEG. This means that it throws away a bunch of pixels/data to make the kept file smaller.
If you like what the camera did with a JPEG, then you're cool. If you would like to make further adjustments to a JPEG in a software editing program, then you can only work with the edited pixels that the camera kept.
If you want to edit ALL of the pixels that the camera started with, you need to have the RAW file. After editing a RAW file to your liking, you save it as a JPEG. That keeps your RAW original intact, as the editing you did is non-destructive. In other words, you still have all the original pixels that the camera captured. If you want to redo your edit later, you don't lose anything.
Comment
-
Not to be picky here, but JPEG doesn't throw away pixels/data. Its a numerical algorithm that converts data (whether an image or music) from spacial (or time for music) domain to frequency domain. This does nothing really, just a different way to represent the data set. What it allows is for the high frequency components of the image to be easily dropped (or quantized, meaning loss of high frequency precision) without humans really noticing. When the image/music is displayed/played we get back the original image minus it's high frequency components which humans don't really notice as much.
Same numerical concept used in mp3 audio.
JPEG is not "highly compressed" necessarily, it depends on your jpg settings (generally called "quality" setting).
One issue with jpg is that the image distortions (numerical deviations from the original) accumulate each time you save the file and then read it back in later for further editing, so do as much editing as possible before saving the file. This goes for something as simple as rotating the file 90 degrees, you lose detail as you rotate the data set in the frequency domain, whereas raw data formats would not lose any precision as you rotate the image (by a factor of 90 degrees).Last edited by DavisHollow; 06-04-2009, 07:42 AM.
Comment
-
Thanks for the clarification. Thrown away....dropped....compressed (highly or "lowly")......accumulated distortions......whatever you call it, you lose detail with jpegs (and mp3s) - sometimes a tiny amount and sometimes a huge amount, just depending on your quality settings and the amount of processing and reprocessing you do. You can see it on a histogram with a JPEG. When you make some adjustments, the histogram "mountain" isn't solid anymore. It turns striped all the way across. Whatever the terminology is, there are empty spaces where colors/detail used to be, and you can't get it back.
Comment
Comment