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, 5:24 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 344
Default

First, see the manual about the jpeg and RAW file size: http://www.pentaxforums.com/K10D_Manual.pdf

and also a review by Ken Rockwell on the Nikon D80:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d80.htm

Some facts:
1. a 512MB SD card stores 296 one-star Large 10MP jpeg files on the K10D. Thus, each file is 1.73 MB large;

2. a 512MB SD card stores 29 RAW files in PEF or DNG format for the K10D. Thus, each file is 17.66 MB large;

3. Each Pentax 12-bit RAW file had a large coarse (one-star) jpeg embedded and then the rest of the 12-bit data are packed as 8-bit byte. As such, the actual data size of the RAW data is merely 15.93 MB;

4. A Nikon D80 compressed NEF for "busy scene" (worst case, largest size) is only 9.2MB each.

Now, here comes WHY *compressed* RAW is very important and crucial!:-

1. A large 4GB SDHC card can store only 226 RAW images for the Pentax K10D. For the same card used, the Nikon D80 can hold up to 434 images. Do note that the resolution and number of bits are exactly the same, since both use the same sensor, i.e., 10 MP and 12-bit. The difference in ratio is 434/226 = 1.92 (nearly doubled/halved)!

2. That means that if a Pentax K10D user brings his DSLR for a just longer travelling, he needs to bring double the SD cards for double capacity;

3. Digital photography is all about digital storage. So, harddisk and/or DVD storage are all needed to be doubled! Say, when a 250GB harddisk is adequate, it will becomes 500GB. If two 250GB HDDs are needed, it becomes two 500GB and so on..

4. It is well known that the bottle neck for DSLRs in speed and continuous frame rate is on the memory card writing and reading speed (thus high speed memoery buffer in large size is required). Doubling the file size means doubling the write and read time from and to the SD(HC) card (interface)! If the same timing is to be kept, the speed/buffer size needed to be increased in double!

5. Compressing RAW need time but processor seems to handle this much faster than to read/write from/to memory card now. So, if the file size is very large, the DSLR's buffer must be increased and the memory buffer's speed must be made very high -> but the user benefits nothing for this even the hardware is more powerful, just because of the super large file size. Nikon seems has sucessfully managed to create a very fast DSLR with compressed RAW, i.e., the D80! The K10D is a slow camera in continuous shooting rate but indeed it has very powerful memory buffer: 800MHz DDR SDRAM!

6. From what Pentax insider says in rumours, the K10D will soon have the 16-bit RAW (as an option?). It's both a good news and bad news. The good news is that 16-bit RAW is the first in the world which may have a higher image quality for more number of shades, at least theoretically. The bad news is that the RAW file size of the UNCOMPRESSED Pentax RAW will then be 22.97* MB!! Thus, a 4GB latest SDHC card can store only up to 174 images!!

*22.97MB = 15.93MB / 12bit * 16bit + 1.73 MB

RiceHigh
http://www.geocities.com/ricehigh
RiceHigh is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Oct 17, 2006, 5:36 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
errno_gmm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 518
Default

wow just wow
errno_gmm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 17, 2006, 6:06 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
BenjaminXYZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 788
Default

I agree, I think that the PENTAX ist* DS, DS2, and the K100D models (although 6 mega-pixels as they are) are also having rather huge RAW files. (At least from my understanding)

Memory is always a factor to me.

How about the speed of the RAW performance in the PENTAX dSLR cameras?

BenjaminXYZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 17, 2006, 6:24 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
philneast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hobart Tasmania
Posts: 489
Default

SD cards are relatively cheap so I have several for those long trips, so this not a problem .


Hard Disk space is cheap so are CDs === another no problem.


If I am shooting RAW I may spend a long time setting up a shot, so quality not speed is the issue.

1 Gb cards are cheap, and 2 Gb are getting cheaper, so why bother with 512mb :?





philneast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 17, 2006, 6:26 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
BenjaminXYZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 788
Default

The fact is that the RAW files of the PENTAX dSLR camerasare bigger than they need to be.
BenjaminXYZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 17, 2006, 8:31 AM   #6
Member
 
macshak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 91
Default

It's better than having to change every 36 pictures!
Remember having to do that?

macshak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 17, 2006, 8:36 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,483
Default

Go find yourself a 40 GB image tank for $140 and you won't have to write so much about something that isn't an issue today now that memory is cheap. Back when 1GB memory cardscost $300US it was an issue, but not today.

Everyone wanted more megapixels, now you've got them. DEAL WITH IT!
Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 17, 2006, 8:47 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
BenjaminXYZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 788
Default

Code:
It's better than having to change every 36 pictures!
Remember having to do that?

Sorry, I have never shoot film before, so I don't care! I am the digital man today!

All I care now is that thePentax RAWfiles are big; therefore it is rather limiting in my opinion!

Code:
Go find yourself a 40 GB image tank for $140 and you won't have to write so much about something that isn't an issue today now that memory is cheap. Back when 1GB memory cardscost $300US it was an issue, but not today.

Everyone wanted more megapixels, now you've got them. DEAL WITH IT!

But other manufacturers are BETTER in this aspect!! That is the reason why.

BTW, I wanted LESS mega pixels.

Mega pixels are a THREAT to me!!!




BenjaminXYZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 17, 2006, 8:49 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
oreo57's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 152
Default

I prefer my files uncompressed. Thank you for your concern, but it is a complete non-issue for me now and in the future. Sorry that it is bad for you.... Life goes on.
There are many wonderful camera companies that offer all sorts of compression schemes. Some standard some not so standard (Sony). I have no use for any of them.

A wonderful little discussion on part of this topic here:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=20494491

:|

oreo57 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 17, 2006, 9:03 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
oreo57's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 152
Default

REPLY to BenjaminXYZ

I'm sorry but you must add "better for you" not just better. Better is a relative term.
Personally, I see nothing better, just different. We as individual choose it to mean BETTER or not. There is nothing inherently better in compression, just a different way of doing things. For you it would be better. For me it's a non-issue. Why is this concept so hard for the human race to understand????????????? Compression will not improve my images nor my enjoyment of them. Compression will not make my life better or find me wealth.... It may for YOU.......Sorry don't try to beat ME on the head that it is BETTER...Save it for more crucial debates.......
oreo57 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 11:04 PM.