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 18, 2006, 10:06 AM   #41
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,196
Default

my first digicam was an Olympus 800 with 6 mb inside, no memory card.

ooooouuuuuuhhhh how happyI was, pictures were 1024x786 :-)

in two years we will ask: one RAW is 180 mb, what should I do with my 256 GB card ? ? ?




DonalDuc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 18, 2006, 10:16 AM   #42
Senior Member
 
BenjaminXYZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 788
Default

In future, the technology of the memory cardsmay alsoincrease for the better.
BenjaminXYZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 18, 2006, 10:44 AM   #43
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 79
Default

gfurm wrote:
Quote:
foxbat: I'm using Rawshooter. It has all the same features like lightroom, auto white balance exposure compensation and all other. but adjusting all of that, like WB, exposure, levels, curves, saturation, sharpness takes time. Examining 300 photos to select only those which are pin sharp takes time,. so please don't say you can process tham all in an hour or two because it's imposibble if you want to do all of it. unless you call processing only deleting obviously blurred photos and letting the software adjust everything automatically, but that's just like shooting jpg. if you want quality pictures from your RAW files it takes time do do it right.

greg
Greg,

I don't have any experience with RawShooter and can't say how it compares to Lightroom. Lightroom is designed to be a batch RAW converter. All I can say is that try it out yourself before accuse me of lying.

For inidividual photos I like to have optimum quality out of the RAW, I actually use Pentax Photo Lab 3 to do it. It produces better Jpeg than Lightroom.
Foxbat121 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 18, 2006, 11:34 AM   #44
TDN
Senior Member
 
TDN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,288
Default

Yeah in that aspect Ricehigh is completely right. If the RAW files are even bigger, raw is not for the low-budget 512MB shooter like myself & other students with me.

Smaller raw with the same quality would benifit everyone. I don't think you can be "against" it, even if you can afford the 4GB cards.

Noone is responding hostile to this thread because they think what's posted is entirely wrong. What we all found so troubling is that this is just another one in the long row of worked up critiques against pentax, coming from ricehigh. It would seem he only has negative things to say about his cameras, instead of showing us the benifits by posting pictures.


foxbat: I was actually talking about processing after selection. I always delete blurred out & badly composed pictures whenever I have a 5 minute break from shooting. Basicly everything I can make out on the LCD. Saves space and work afterwards.

For me RAW is an extra certitude, if it's really, really important and I dont want anything to go wrong. Or if I'm shooting macro's, when I have a lot of time.

Mostly I shoot JPEG, because it will help me practice my techniques, simply because if the image is badly taken, the picture is lost. Just like with film.
TDN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 18, 2006, 12:42 PM   #45
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 79
Default

TDN wrote:
Quote:
Smaller raw with the same quality would benifit everyone. I don't think you can be "against" it, even if you can afford the 4GB cards.

foxbat: I was actually talking about processing after selection. I always delete blurred out & badly composed pictures whenever I have a 5 minute break from shooting. Basicly everything I can make out on the LCD. Saves space and work afterwards.

For me RAW is an extra certitude, if it's really, really important and I dont want anything to go wrong. Or if I'm shooting macro's, when I have a lot of time.

Mostly I shoot JPEG, because it will help me practice my techniques, simply because if the image is badly taken, the picture is lost. Just like with film.

RAW compression is always lossless. There will be no quality lost. The problem is the compressing process takes a lot of CPU power and memory, both are limited on an embedded system like digital camera. For example, try compress 15MB files to ZIP on your PC and check how long it take and how much memory does it requires. Now the camera will have a muchless powerful processor than your PC and much less memory to work with. That's why I say unless there is special compression hardware to help it, anything done in firmware is unlikely.

Not everyone wants to shoot RAW exclusively. It is a personal preference. To me it is about the ability to do (1) exposure compensation (2) WB adjustment without affect IQ. Both are weak points on current Pentax dSLR.
Foxbat121 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 18, 2006, 1:18 PM   #46
Senior Member
 
oreo57's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 152
Default

RAW compression is not always lossless. Just ask the Nikon people. "Essentially lossless" is the term.

Start here:

http://www.majid.info/mylos/weblog/2004/05/02-1.html

"In conclusion, Thom is right - there is some loss of data, mostly in the form of lowered resolution in the highlights"
oreo57 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 18, 2006, 2:02 PM   #47
Senior Member
 
ennacac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 4,198
Default

I never said Ricehigh was wrong about the time to save files that are larger, it is obvious that larger files will take longer to save. I just don't care about the longer time to save enough to switch to Nikon or Canon, as they don't have any camera I am interested in and I am interested in the K10D.

I have used extensively the D70s, the D200 and a 20D and none of them work for me enough to switch from Pentax. I don't see any results in the final output of those three cameras including the D200 that makes me not want my DS and I am convinced the K10D will be a step up from that. The D200 has higher resolution which is obvious in the images it produces, but I have to shoot in RAW with the D200 to insure highlight results, while I don't have to with my DS.

Bashing a camera that is not even out yet is more than strange, since no one has used the final version of the K10D, so comparisons are a waste of time until the camera is released.

It is nice to see Ricehigh posting some photos, but they are typical through the airplane window photos that could have been taken with a P&S instead of a DSLR. I know he must have some quality photos and wish he would post some of them instead of the ones he did.

Tom
ennacac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 18, 2006, 4:45 PM   #48
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 150
Default

I must say it is amazing.

It seems that some of you will try to find excuses for anything Pentax makes.
You say, memory's cheap, compressed RAW doesn't make your life better and so on.

Sorry, but that's complete bullshit and just unconditional defending of Pentax (and doesn't matter if critique is correct or not). Basically, you say, that you are very happy when you're forced to buy double size SD cards, double size HDD and so on? come on. I'd rather have Pentax RAW files compressed and instead of spending additional $200 or $300 on storage I'd spend them on some nice Pentax lense. That would definately would make my life better.

And for those who think that saving a few hundred bucks doesn't make their life better, I ask another question: would compressed 10MB Pentax RAW files make your life worse?

Why are you trying to deny feature which would save your money and defend feature which forces you to spend your money? Following your logic, it is a very bad thing that Pentax developed sensor stabilisation system (and saved you a lot of money), you'd rather have them producing stabilised lenses (and forcing you to pay more), right?



Edvinas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 18, 2006, 6:48 PM   #49
Senior Member
 
oreo57's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 152
Default

Where to start w/ that rant. " Unconditional defending (doesn't matter if the critique is correct or not)" What as did you pull that statement out of....Maybe I just misunderstood it....at least I hope so, otherwise it's just plain stupid.
Compression is a non-issue for some, like me. I don't shoot 100's of RAW's in one sitting. So should I champion compressed RAW? What the [email protected] for?? To support YOUR problem??? Maybe if you send me a lens I'll be your spin doctor Other than that we both have a RIGHT to disagree. When the D was released there was an uproar at the file size, just like now. Pentax didn't strip the padding off the 12 bit (?) RAW and left all 16bits. Unnecessary waste of space. didn't care then, don't care now. Neither does anyone who owns a D as far as I can tell. Heck if it bothered them maybe they just bought a DS.
Major point is I do resent someone screaming "the sky is falling" for a camera that 1)isn't released yet. 2)May or may not compress RAW or DNG or both. BTW: Could give a rats as about DNG. Also a non-issue....yet there are people whom this is VERY important.Fine let it be THEIR issue, not mine. I don't join groups well.......:lol:, really not a herd person........... Want to know what really bugs me about the new k series? A crappy AA filter allowing a lot more moire to be present. Should I blame you or the "masses" that screamed resolution is too low for a 6mp camera". Certainly not Pentax's fault for listening is it... So it gives me a choice, see if its OK for me or not OK but I certainly wouldn't say "this is why a strong AA is needed, Pentax is a moron". Or maybe I should....Seems if I did it would draw a crowd......
Compressed RAW would not change my life in any shape or form whatsoever. Do worry about the "practically lossless" comments at the Nikon forums. I will accept no loss, thank you. Can you prove to me that the proceedure Pentax uses is COMPLETELY lossless? Of course you can't, nobody knows what they are doing.
Compression just give manufacturers another avenue to screw things up. KISS works...............





Edvinas wrote:
Quote:
I must say it is amazing.

It seems that some of you will try to find excuses for anything Pentax makes.
You say, memory's cheap, compressed RAW doesn't make your life better and so on.

Sorry, but that's complete bullshit and just unconditional defending of Pentax (and doesn't matter if critique is correct or not). Basically, you say, that you are very happy when you're forced to buy double size SD cards, double size HDD and so on? come on. I'd rather have Pentax RAW files compressed and instead of spending additional $200 or $300 on storage I'd spend them on some nice Pentax lense. That would definately would make my life better.

And for those who think that saving a few hundred bucks doesn't make their life better, I ask another question: would compressed 10MB Pentax RAW files make your life worse?

Why are you trying to deny feature which would save your money and defend feature which forces you to spend your money? Following your logic, it is a very bad thing that Pentax developed sensor stabilisation system (and saved you a lot of money), you'd rather have them producing stabilised lenses (and forcing you to pay more), right?


oreo57 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 18, 2006, 7:31 PM   #50
Senior Member
 
nadnerb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Bath, UK
Posts: 319
Default

There's a thread over at dpreview about how the RAW format is infact compressed.
PEF is compressed DNG isn't.

This is all of course on a PRE-production model which is not running retail firmware so who knows what the final product will be like...

*edit*
Thanks oreo!
nadnerb 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 4:02 AM.