PDA

View Full Version : R-D1 file size


neilsphoto
03-01-2005, 14:12
I downloaded the ERF files posted on the site. This is the first time I've had any kind of RAW file to look at and use the CS RAW convertor. Most of the controls make sense but I have a question on file sizes from R-D1s.

The RAW file should be as big as the camera can shoot right? So the files as downloaded are for an 8x12 print at 240dpi. Is this as big as they get? At the bottom of the CS RAW window are different resolutions. I forget the numbers of the ERF files but can you just pick a bigger size and or change the print dpi to 300 or 360?

They are also 8 bit. I though they would be 16 bit.

I was just surpised that the RAW file was so small. From my scans of 35mm film with a 5400 Minolta a 16 bit image for printing at 360dpi is much larger. 12x18s are @170megs . How could you do this with the R-D1 or could you expect to?

I'm green when it comes to digital files as they come direct from cameras and I want to know more.

Thanks

Neil

krimple
03-01-2005, 14:30
Ok, I can see where you're going here. You have made several assumptions that are somewhat incorrect...

1. RAW files are stored in 16-bit resolution (well, 12 bits of data, but 16 bits for each 'entry'). The Adobe Camera RAW plugin basically lets you set 8 or 16 bit, but the RAW file is 16 bit.

2. A RAW file is simply the image data of the sensors, with other meta-data along for the ride (EXIF shooting data, etc). The RAW file can be stored with compression, but it must be lossless compression, so the RAW file is generally larger than any JPEG file the camera puts out. But if the camera delivered TIFF files (which it doesn't) they would probably be the largest. The 12x18" 200dpi image you have scanned is probably stored as a 16-bit TIFF file, which would explain the size.

3. Up-ressing or setting the size larger does NOT increase resolution. The default size (3kpix x 2kpix or so) is the largest size for resolution, but you can size it larger if you want to 'up-res' or increase the total image size to match the paper dimensions. Usually you don't get a ton of benefit from this, although there are those out there who would disagree...

4. The R-D1 is not a camera for large prints. I'd say 11x14" on most printers is what you'll get a good quality print from. This from someone who was a big fan of the Mamiya 6--I LOVED that camera for its' big prints. I traded it for the R-D1 which is more convenient for me. Someday if an 8 or 10 megapixel version comes I'll jump at the chance. The '6 had HUGE scan size options as it had 6x6 negatives. Even a 35mm slide has more resolution in it than a 6 megapixel image, but if you target 8x12" prints as your base you'll be happy. One final note: you COULD print a 16x20" image of a R-D1 image, as I have several 16x20" prints from my EOS D60 and 10D, which were both 6 MPix DSLRs. As I scanned the Mamiya 6 images, the 16x20" prints from the DSLRs paled in resolution... Just don't try to compare the two side-by-side.

I hope this clears some of your questions up. For ultimate image size -- choose a medium format camera and film scanner -- but you're paying $$$. Next step down: a 8 megapixel DSLR. After that, the 6 megapixel DSLRs and R-D1. However, the R-D1 is a wonderful instrument and will give you very nice prints at the sizes it is suited for.

Ken




I downloaded the ERF files posted on the site. This is the first time I've had any kind of RAW file to look at and use the CS RAW convertor. Most of the controls make sense but I have a question on file sizes from R-D1s.

The RAW file should be as big as the camera can shoot right? So the files as downloaded are for an 8x12 print at 240dpi. Is this as big as they get? At the bottom of the CS RAW window are different resolutions. I forget the numbers of the ERF files but can you just pick a bigger size and or change the print dpi to 300 or 360?

They are also 8 bit. I though they would be 16 bit.

I was just surpised that the RAW file was so small. From my scans of 35mm film with a 5400 Minolta a 16 bit image for printing at 360dpi is much larger. 12x18s are @170megs . How could you do this with the R-D1 or could you expect to?

I'm green when it comes to digital files as they come direct from cameras and I want to know more.

Thanks

Neil

neilsphoto
03-01-2005, 14:44
So the 3008x2000 at 240dpi is what you get right from the camera as the ERF files show. So to get an 11x14 print you'd have to up-res the image. Is it better to do it in the RAW window or do it in Image size in CS? Does it matter?

As I said the small file size surprised me but then I had only scanned film to compare it to.

Ed Schwartzreic
03-01-2005, 15:24
Thanks for this timely information. I was just a hour ago comparing the file output size of the Epson Photo-Raw converter versus Photoshop CS's raw converter for the R-D1 and was puzzled by the differences. The up-res choices in the latter explain the differences I was getting.

Ed

neilsphoto
03-01-2005, 16:37
Ed

They were different sizes? Why would that be? What size were the files in the Epson convertor?

Neil

krimple
03-01-2005, 16:46
He was setting the file size in Adobe RAW to the larger sizes. Therefore there are more (redundant) pixels than the 6mpix image he started with.

fotografz
03-02-2005, 01:01
Actually, I've found that setting the largest 16 bit file size @ 300 dpi in the PSCS RAW converter, working on the image at that size including an initial small amount of unsharp mask, then reducing to print size before final sharpening produces the best larger print. But you need some healthy RAM and processor speeds.

For anything over 12 X18 I recommend a separate interpolation program. Fred Mirand's SI Pro is pretty good, and the Genuine Fractals resolution independent program is very good.

neilsphoto
03-02-2005, 01:53
Marc

I did just what you suggest in RAW (came out to 11x17) and then looked at the result in CS. Didn't seem to fall apart but tonight I'll make an 8x12 and an 11x17 and see what I see.

krimple
03-02-2005, 17:03
What does interpolation really do for the quality of a larger image? Just avoid stair-stepping on angles? I'm ignorant of it because mostly I've shot 8.5x11" luster prints with the R-D1, and the 11x14" prints I did were with the medium format gear I had.

Ken