Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Pentax / Samsung dSLR, K Mount Mirrorless

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 17, 2006, 11:40 AM   #21
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

BenjaminXYZ wrote:
Quote:
Quote:

The solution appears quite simple - if you want smaller compressed files, which would take longer to store, then go for the Nikon, otherwise choose the Pentaxif that your preference.
No, not true. Smaller or compressed files are FASTER! That is what I like! :-)


Not necessarily. It takes overhead to compress an image.

One example of how this can slow down a camera is the Nikon D100 (it lets you choose compressed or uncompressed .nef files).

If you choose compressed, the camera is *much* slower, even though the compressed .nef files are smaller.

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2002_..._d100_pg6.html

Quote:
The maximum capture rate is 3 frames per second and the D100's buffer can handle 6 frames in JPEG and TIFF or 4 frames in raw NEF mode. As the buffer data is processed you can shoot another Large/Fine frame in about one and a half seconds in JPEG mode or wait about twelve seconds for the entire buffer to be processed. It takes about seven seconds in NEF uncompressed mode to be able to take the next shot and about a half a minute to process the four buffered images. Things really slow down in NEF compressed mode, each image requires about 35-40 seconds to process.



JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 17, 2006, 11:53 AM   #22
Senior Member
 
BenjaminXYZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 788
Default

I see, thanks for informing me bro.
BenjaminXYZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 17, 2006, 11:57 AM   #23
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Wigan, UK
Posts: 568
Default

people lived with 36 or 24 exposures for a long time (even less with medium format). now you have 200+ and it's not enough? grow up and be reasonable. spend more time composing pictures instead of shooting hundreds of them and keepink only few, it will benefit you more than complaining on the filesize. by the way, most stock libraries accept only large file sizes (30MB or larger) so if it was small you'd complain that you can't send them there because ther're too small.

greg
gfurm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 17, 2006, 12:35 PM   #24
Senior Member
 
BenjaminXYZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 788
Default

Code:
people lived with 36 or 24 exposures for a long time (even less with medium format). now you have 200+ and it's not enough? grow up and be reasonable. spend more time composing pictures instead of shooting hundreds of them and keepink only few, it will benefit you more than complaining on the filesize. by the way, most stock libraries accept only large file sizes (30MB or larger) so if it was small you'd complain that you can't send them there because ther're too small.

greg

Sorry, I seriously have to disagree with this post.

Based on my past experience (even until this very day), a daily visit to the capital city alone will fill up my camera with 300+ shots at full resolution. (There is just so much to capture!!) For example, I can take several shots of a building from various angles and distance. (Not to mention the many buildings there...)

A trip overseas will demand even more shots as there are always so much for me to capture. (And I thought I was being conservative!) For example again; I can take tons of shots already just on the air plane alone ) If the plane happened topass over thecapital city, I will be snapping away. (My hobby)

In fact, I (capturing at HQ JPEGs) already find that the memory is often not enough, and I always have to reduce the resolution later on. (Sometimes it is not convenient to change memory cards on the move)

***You need to grow up and understand that PEOPLE have different criteria(s).*

BenjaminXYZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 17, 2006, 2:35 PM   #25
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Wigan, UK
Posts: 568
Default

benjamin: since you showed up can you tell me what is UK dollar? that's what you mentioned in sigma forum about the price of their new camera. I thought we have pound sterling in UK. but since you're well informed about something which is not out yet (K10D I mean) maybe you know better about that as well?

for everyone else: that's a question for somebady who wants everything perfect and accurate.

for 300+ pictures from one day. that's a lot of space wasted for something you'll never watch again don't you think? especially for someone who's looking at them at full size trying to find all hot pixels and unsharp edges not to mention all this terrible noise. And how's the quality after shooting through plane window? I bet it's better with Nikon or Sony than with anything else.
I prefer taking one good picture instead of 20 rubbish and exactly the same hoping for something good to come out.

greg
gfurm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 17, 2006, 3:17 PM   #26
TDN
Senior Member
 
TDN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,288
Default

Quote:
Thus, a 4GB latest SDHC card can store only up to 174 images!!
Hahaha, I kindly invite you to shoot 174 images in RAW and post-process them all. That's like a week of work! Long live JPEG

However, I see what you're saying. I can imagine that for a wedding you might want to shoot in raw for extra security, and still shoot a lot...

So yes, it would be better if the size were smaller, if the quality doesn't decrease.

However, this is nothing a later firmware update can't fix. I think Pentax is laying their priority with more pressing issues and further testing of the K10D right now.
Once it is on the market, the software engineers can try to work out a better way to store the RAW files.
If Pentax recieves enough complaints about it from people who actually use the K10D ,then I'm sure they will look at the issue.

I wouldn't lay awake about it...

TDN
TDN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 17, 2006, 4:53 PM   #27
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 79
Default

TDN wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
Thus, a 4GB latest SDHC card can store only up to 174 images!!
Hahaha, I kindly invite you to shoot 174 images in RAW and post-process them all. That's like a week of work! Long live JPEG

However, I see what you're saying. I can imagine that for a wedding you might want to shoot in raw for extra security, and still shoot a lot...

So yes, it would be better if the size were smaller, if the quality doesn't decrease.

However, this is nothing a later firmware update can't fix. I think Pentax is laying their priority with more pressing issues and further testing of the K10D right now.
Once it is on the market, the software engineers can try to work out a better way to store the RAW files.
If Pentax recieves enough complaints about it from people who actually use the K10D ,then I'm sure they will look at the issue.

I wouldn't lay awake about it...

TDN


I have processed 300+ RAWs in an hour or two. Using the right software is the key. I use Adobe Lightroom Beta and it is very easy to process loads of RAW files. If you're stuck using PPL3, it may take over a week. I'll never shoot JPeg mainly for the reason of exposure compensation and white balance tweek.

If there is no compression hardware in the original design, it's unlikely to see a firmware fix that compresses without noticeably slows down the burst rate of the camera.

There will no quality loss for RAW compression because it will always be lossless compression. The average compression ratio for any lossless compression is about 2:1.

I have no problem either way. For one, 4GB SD cards are real cheap. For two, DVD-R/+R discs are cheaper than CD-R discs now. I always archive them to DVD disc right away. No need to occupy HD space at all. The only down side of uncompressed RAW is transfer time. Hence a faster SD card read speed helps.

Foxbat121 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 17, 2006, 4:54 PM   #28
Senior Member
 
ennacac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 4,198
Default

BenjaminXYZ wrote:
Quote:
Quote:

The solution appears quite simple - if you want smaller compressed files, which would take longer to store, then go for the Nikon, otherwise choose the Pentaxif that your preference.
No, not true. Smaller or compressed files are FASTER! That is what I like! :-)

So keep your Nikon and don't buy a Pentax!

Tom
ennacac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 17, 2006, 5:28 PM   #29
TDN
Senior Member
 
TDN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,288
Default

Foxbat, I've never heard anything about compression hardware in cameras...can't find anything on the web either.

usually data storage is a software problem. The only hardware that makes a difference is the actual SD card, and how fast it can read/write.
The sensor simply transmits the information about the image it just captured to whatever processes it, and stores it in a file format. Which file format is used is up to the manufacturer / programmer.
So a RAW file must be generated by software, right? The sensor and hardware act as a collector of information, which is then used to generate a RAW file, and sent to the SD card.

I mean, imagine if the RAW generating process was a hardware application, that would mean that if the slightest thing went wrong with the first test, the entire hardware design has to be rebuilt. I don't even want to think about when a mistake is discovered after production...

But if a programmer finds a good algorithm to make the RAW files smaller after release of the camera, he can access the function that sends the digital information to the SD card and modify it so it does it more efficiëntly, right?


I'm only in my 2nd year of Computer Science, and I still have a lot to learn...
So if you're an expert in the matter and can actually give an example of this my sincere apologies for being a smartass.
If not, I still believe the way the RAW file is stored depends on the software generating it, and can easily be edited by a firmware update.


TDN
TDN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 17, 2006, 5:47 PM   #30
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Essex, UK
Posts: 1,868
Default

Foxbat121 wrote:
Quote:
I have processed 300+ RAWs in an hour or two. Using the right software is the key. I use Adobe Lightroom Beta and it is very easy to process loads of RAW files. If you're stuck using PPL3, it may take over a week. I'll never shoot JPeg mainly for the reason of exposure compensation and white balance tweek.

If there is no compression hardware in the original design, it's unlikely to see a firmware fix that compresses without noticeably slows down the burst rate of the camera.

There will no quality loss for RAW compression because it will always be lossless compression. The average compression ratio for any lossless compression is about 2:1.

I have no problem either way. For one, 4GB SD cards are real cheap. For two, DVD-R/+R discs are cheaper than CD-R discs now. I always archive them to DVD disc right away. No need to occupy HD space at all. The only down side of uncompressed RAW is transfer time. Hence a faster SD card read speed helps.

I think a new thread with a "RAW file processing" title would be a good idea. 300+ in an hour or two would help me no end.



Darren
Dal1970 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 3:26 PM.