How big are your Raw Files?

[Ukwildlifeo]

I was discussing RAW Files with someone the other day and when I stated my .PEF files were only 15MB the chap I was talking too was very surprised as his Canon files were much bigger. This got me wonderingwhy trhe size difference: could it simply be the amount of Mega Pixels or are different brands using different (loss less) compressions? If so why Pentax saving space compared to Canon? Are Canon speeding up write speed by compressing less?

To help sort this out (and just out of curiosity ) I thought it would be interesting to compare the different makes and models and maximum quality RAW + JPEG file size + Max Frames Per Second on RAW mode like so:

Pentax K20D, 14MP, RAW: about 15MB, JPEG: about 10MB max FPS:3

IM rather curious how the different brands compare

[DrNickBurton]

Hi,

It depends on the compression, like you say. I just took some identical pictures (of my garden fence) with a Nikon D300 (12.3 Mp). There are six RAW file modes on the D300, here are the file sizes for each:

12.7 MB - 12 bit lossless compressed
11.2 MB - 12 bit compressed
19.1 MB - 12 bit uncompressed

14.7 MB - 14 bit lossless compressed
13.4 MB - 14 bit compressed
25.1 MB - 14 bit uncompressed

The size varies alot between the different modes - even for the same shot, same camera. Also, for the compressed files, the actual size will vary depending on the shot itself. Some scenes are more compressable than others.

Because of all this, I think it's difficult to compare apples with apples (or Pentaxs with Canons ).

Most D300 users use the 12 bit lossless compressed mode, because 14 the bit modes introduce an annoying shutter lag, and the size difference between "normal" compressed and lossless compressed is only marginal. On the other hand, the non-compressed files are significantly larger.

[DirkS]

could it simply be the amount of Mega Pixels

It's not only the MPs but also the bits per pixel, compression and the size / quality of the embedded preview that determines the size in Megabytes.

Gr.
Dirk.

[Jason Green]

Afternoon Neil,

I use a Fuji Finepix S5600 prosumer taking 5mp JPG images at 2.5mb at max quality. My RAW extension is .RAF and each are 10Mb at around 3648x2736 pixels. When saved as .TIF they become about 30Mb.

It takes the camera some 5 seconds to capture/process each .RAF in the field, though!

Take care,

Jason

[Geoff F]

Well to be honest, since I got more storage capacity I haven't been keeping an eye on file size. So I have just had a look.

Canon 40D RAW + small Jpeg - 13/14 Mb in camera.

Converted to 16 bit Tiff, edited and saved as 32 bit Tiff (uncompressed) - 30 to 40 Mb. Saved as 24 bit Tiff - 20 to 30 Mb.

Is it worth saving as 32 bit Tiff? I don't really know, but it probably doesn't make that much difference to the average photographer.

Canon also do small RAW which works out around 8 or 9 Mb.

My old 10D, with a smaller sensor, is rated around 6.5 Mb for RAW + small Jpeg but the strange thing is that the older version of RAW takes much longer to download and convert than the larger file size 40D RAW. The two versions do have a different prefix; but I am getting beyond my knowledge limits now!

Does this help?

[Jason Green]

Originally Posted by Geoff F

Is it worth saving as 32 bit Tiff? I don't really know, but it probably doesn't make that much difference to the average photographer.

...if you ever consider submitting your work to a stock agency, they may ask that you only submit work in excess of 30Mb each - in which case 32-bit is best