Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Canon vs Kodak jpg file size very different

Reply
Thread Tools

Canon vs Kodak jpg file size very different

 
 
Dave Martindale
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-27-2005
Ron Hunter <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

>As for raw mode, be prepared to WAIT between shots, as
>long as 30 extra seconds, as the raw file gets written to the flash
>media. It's a great feature, but only on a camera that has a very large
>ram buffer, or a very fast flash card, and card interface.


What camera takes 30 seconds to write a raw file?

My old Canon G2, using an older standard-grade (not fast) CF card, takes
a few seconds to write a raw image. It's longer than a JPEG image,
certainly, but it's on the order of 5 seconds not 30.

Dave
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Larry
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-27-2005
In article <d27a95$4s$(E-Mail Removed)>, http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) says...
> What camera takes 30 seconds to write a raw file?
>
> My old Canon G2, using an older standard-grade (not fast) CF card, takes
> a few seconds to write a raw image. It's longer than a JPEG image,
> certainly, but it's on the order of 5 seconds not 30.
>
> Dave
>
>


The longest wait in the industry (I think) is the Sony F 828 with a 12 to 13
second delay while writing a RAW file (It seems like MUCH longer, but it
isnt).


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Ron Hunter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-28-2005
Dave Martindale wrote:
> Ron Hunter <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>
>
>>As for raw mode, be prepared to WAIT between shots, as
>>long as 30 extra seconds, as the raw file gets written to the flash
>>media. It's a great feature, but only on a camera that has a very large
>>ram buffer, or a very fast flash card, and card interface.

>
>
> What camera takes 30 seconds to write a raw file?
>
> My old Canon G2, using an older standard-grade (not fast) CF card, takes
> a few seconds to write a raw image. It's longer than a JPEG image,
> certainly, but it's on the order of 5 seconds not 30.
>
> Dave

And that is how may megapixels?


--
Ron Hunter (E-Mail Removed)
 
Reply With Quote
 
Louise
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-28-2005
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed)
says...
> On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 07:52:28 GMT, Louise wrote:
>
> > Thanks everybody - it's very clear now. I'm glad I have the Canon and
> > not the Kodak. And the next time I purchase a camera, I'll make sure it
> > has a raw mode as well.

>
> Louise, I'm not familiar with your Canon S400, but with several
> cameras that I've used (Canons and Fujis), the highest resolution
> settings had multiple jpg compression levels available. Two for the
> Fujis and three for the Canons. The S400 may only have one
> compression level, but if you aren't completely sure, just check the
> manual. The camera's menu may not make it obvious.
>
> Also, before selecting a new camera based on whether it has a RAW
> mode, make sure it's not going to be impractical to use. My Fuji,
> for example, requires lots of PC processing before you can see or
> use any of its raw images. And using a 500MB card that can hold
> either 268 or 532 of the highest resolution images (depending on the
> compression that was selected), if raw mode is used the card would
> only be able to hold 61 images. Some cameras may also not be able
> to take successive pictures rapidly when shooting in raw mode.
>
>

Oh - 61 images isn't very much. I guess I will consider that when I
think about wanting RAW.

Louise
 
Reply With Quote
 
Ron Hunter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-28-2005
Louise wrote:
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed)
> says...
>
>>On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 07:52:28 GMT, Louise wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Thanks everybody - it's very clear now. I'm glad I have the Canon and
>>>not the Kodak. And the next time I purchase a camera, I'll make sure it
>>>has a raw mode as well.

>>
>> Louise, I'm not familiar with your Canon S400, but with several
>>cameras that I've used (Canons and Fujis), the highest resolution
>>settings had multiple jpg compression levels available. Two for the
>>Fujis and three for the Canons. The S400 may only have one
>>compression level, but if you aren't completely sure, just check the
>>manual. The camera's menu may not make it obvious.
>>
>> Also, before selecting a new camera based on whether it has a RAW
>>mode, make sure it's not going to be impractical to use. My Fuji,
>>for example, requires lots of PC processing before you can see or
>>use any of its raw images. And using a 500MB card that can hold
>>either 268 or 532 of the highest resolution images (depending on the
>>compression that was selected), if raw mode is used the card would
>>only be able to hold 61 images. Some cameras may also not be able
>>to take successive pictures rapidly when shooting in raw mode.
>>
>>

>
> Oh - 61 images isn't very much. I guess I will consider that when I
> think about wanting RAW.
>
> Louise


Don't worry too much as large capacity cards keep getting cheaper (and
we hope faster).


--
Ron Hunter (E-Mail Removed)
 
Reply With Quote
 
Dave Martindale
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-28-2005
Ron Hunter <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

>> My old Canon G2, using an older standard-grade (not fast) CF card, takes
>> a few seconds to write a raw image. It's longer than a JPEG image,
>> certainly, but it's on the order of 5 seconds not 30.


>And that is how may megapixels?


It's 4 MP.

If you assume that 8 MP cameras have no faster interface to the CF card,
you might extrapolate that 8 MP would take 10 seconds for a P&S camera.
Some DSLRs have more pixels than this, but they also have faster card
interfaces and larger RAM buffers making this less of a problem.

Now, how about an example of a camera that takes anywhere near 30
seconds to write a RAW image of any size? Actually, you said "30 extra
seconds", not "30 seconds", so you must believe that there is some
camera that takes 30 seconds longer for RAW than for JPEG, and thus more
than 30 seconds total.

Dave
 
Reply With Quote
 
ASAAR
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-28-2005
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 08:10:41 -0600, Ron Hunter wrote:

>>> Also, before selecting a new camera based on whether it has a RAW
>>>mode, make sure it's not going to be impractical to use.

>>
>> Oh - 61 images isn't very much. I guess I will consider that when I
>> think about wanting RAW.
>>
>> Louise

>
> Don't worry too much as large capacity cards keep getting cheaper
> (and we hope faster).


Hmm. Why am I not surprised at who has given contrarian advice?
There's no reason to worry, but my recommendation still holds,
even if it's used 10 years from now. If making a purchase based on
the fact that a camera has RAW mode, even far in the future, make
sure that it's not going to be impractical to use. Yes, cards will
be larger. But sensors and image sizes will also be larger,
somewhat canceling the advantage of larger cards. And if the camera
will often be used for action photography, RAW pictures may (or may
not) slow the camera down. Again, try to know exactly what you're
getting. It's better for the blood pressure to get the facts
before, not after the purchase.

Returning to a familiar topic, who knows but that in several years
cameras might be able to take 500 pictures using a single AA
battery. In support of this contention, Sony makes minidisc
recorders (that use very small magneto-optical discs), that can
store up to 45 hours of stereo audio on a single disc with very high
quality, easily comparable to FM stereo at the highest compression
levels. I believe this to be higher than 20:1, much more than the
compression used in cameras. Even with this high compression that
adds to battery consumption, these MDs can play up to about 24 hours
- and this is from a single alkaline AA battery. While you can't
get as many hours when recording, writing to the disc probably
requires more current than writing to a flash card since the disc's
surface must be heated for recording to occur. Even then, a single
alkaline battery can last up to 9 hours when recording. Think of
how many pictures a camera could take in only one hour of operation.
Mine can continuously shoot 1.6 frames per second. But allowing for
frequent pauses to select different subjects the average could be
reduced to 1 frame per second. That's still enough to take well
over 3000 shots, far more pictures than you or I take in a year!
Even if AF and zooming had to be replaced with manual focus and
zooming (which I'd prefer, actually) to get so many pictures from a
single battery, it would be quite an achievement, and not as
improbable as 'common sense' would have us believe.


Maybe Sony should consider putting a minidisc in their cameras.
That's not entirely unreasonable, as there's at least one MD
recorder they make that's extremely thin, probably taking up 1/3 or
1/4 the volume of a moderately small camera such as Canon's A80.
And 1GB minidiscs are far cheaper than the smallest, most
inexpensive CF or SD card.

But no, I don't think Sony will consider doing anything this
radical. It would be nice if they did though. Optical discs are
much more rugged, and supposedly have much longer archival life than
CDs.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Ron Hunter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-29-2005
Dave Martindale wrote:
> Ron Hunter <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>
>
>>>My old Canon G2, using an older standard-grade (not fast) CF card, takes
>>>a few seconds to write a raw image. It's longer than a JPEG image,
>>>certainly, but it's on the order of 5 seconds not 30.

>
>
>>And that is how may megapixels?

>
>
> It's 4 MP.
>
> If you assume that 8 MP cameras have no faster interface to the CF card,
> you might extrapolate that 8 MP would take 10 seconds for a P&S camera.
> Some DSLRs have more pixels than this, but they also have faster card
> interfaces and larger RAM buffers making this less of a problem.
>
> Now, how about an example of a camera that takes anywhere near 30
> seconds to write a RAW image of any size? Actually, you said "30 extra
> seconds", not "30 seconds", so you must believe that there is some
> camera that takes 30 seconds longer for RAW than for JPEG, and thus more
> than 30 seconds total.
>
> Dave


You make many assumptions, many of which aren't true in general.

It takes my camera about 25 seconds to write 6 jpg pictures to the flash
card. The files are about 1 meg each. Given a write speed in that
range, you figure out how long it would take to write a RAW file from a
camera with 8 MP. If you snap pictures until you fill the camera's
buffer, it will probably take at least that 30 seconds before it has
emptied the buffer to the card, UNLESS you have a very fast camera, and
a very fast card. So the warning is well-founded.


--
Ron Hunter (E-Mail Removed)
 
Reply With Quote
 
Ron Hunter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-29-2005
ASAAR wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 08:10:41 -0600, Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>
>>>> Also, before selecting a new camera based on whether it has a RAW
>>>>mode, make sure it's not going to be impractical to use.
>>>
>>>Oh - 61 images isn't very much. I guess I will consider that when I
>>>think about wanting RAW.
>>>
>>>Louise

>>
>>Don't worry too much as large capacity cards keep getting cheaper
>>(and we hope faster).

>
>
> Hmm. Why am I not surprised at who has given contrarian advice?
> There's no reason to worry, but my recommendation still holds,
> even if it's used 10 years from now. If making a purchase based on
> the fact that a camera has RAW mode, even far in the future, make
> sure that it's not going to be impractical to use. Yes, cards will
> be larger. But sensors and image sizes will also be larger,
> somewhat canceling the advantage of larger cards. And if the camera
> will often be used for action photography, RAW pictures may (or may
> not) slow the camera down. Again, try to know exactly what you're
> getting. It's better for the blood pressure to get the facts
> before, not after the purchase.
>
> Returning to a familiar topic, who knows but that in several years
> cameras might be able to take 500 pictures using a single AA
> battery. In support of this contention, Sony makes minidisc
> recorders (that use very small magneto-optical discs), that can
> store up to 45 hours of stereo audio on a single disc with very high
> quality, easily comparable to FM stereo at the highest compression
> levels. I believe this to be higher than 20:1, much more than the
> compression used in cameras. Even with this high compression that
> adds to battery consumption, these MDs can play up to about 24 hours
> - and this is from a single alkaline AA battery. While you can't
> get as many hours when recording, writing to the disc probably
> requires more current than writing to a flash card since the disc's
> surface must be heated for recording to occur. Even then, a single
> alkaline battery can last up to 9 hours when recording. Think of
> how many pictures a camera could take in only one hour of operation.
> Mine can continuously shoot 1.6 frames per second. But allowing for
> frequent pauses to select different subjects the average could be
> reduced to 1 frame per second. That's still enough to take well
> over 3000 shots, far more pictures than you or I take in a year!
> Even if AF and zooming had to be replaced with manual focus and
> zooming (which I'd prefer, actually) to get so many pictures from a
> single battery, it would be quite an achievement, and not as
> improbable as 'common sense' would have us believe.
>
>
> Maybe Sony should consider putting a minidisc in their cameras.
> That's not entirely unreasonable, as there's at least one MD
> recorder they make that's extremely thin, probably taking up 1/3 or
> 1/4 the volume of a moderately small camera such as Canon's A80.
> And 1GB minidiscs are far cheaper than the smallest, most
> inexpensive CF or SD card.
>
> But no, I don't think Sony will consider doing anything this
> radical. It would be nice if they did though. Optical discs are
> much more rugged, and supposedly have much longer archival life than
> CDs.
>


I have been expecting to see minidiscs in high end cameras way before
now. Surely by the end of this year. Other than that, I think you are
way out there on your speculations.


--
Ron Hunter (E-Mail Removed)
 
Reply With Quote
 
ASAAR
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-29-2005
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 19:29:17 -0600, Ron Hunter wrote:

> I have been expecting to see minidiscs in high end cameras way before
> now. Surely by the end of this year. Other than that, I think you are
> way out there on your speculations.


Well of course. I didn't say you'd see anything like such an
efficient camera anytime this year. Or within five, if ever. But
it's doable today. Might even have been done already by one of our
"skunk works" if there was a need for it. There are other toys
that'll keep our attention diverted. Someone, probably Canon will
soon have a very small camera with a very big 3" LCD, including
built-in wifi, so you can immediately upload shots to a website,
etc. Now that's one camera I'm sure won't be used with alkalines.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

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 On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Kodak DX6340 jpg size very small at max res. aussieworker Digital Photography 6 01-03-2005 07:54 PM
Question re jpg file format, trying to add jpg comments Chris Digital Photography 0 10-21-2004 02:10 PM
Wrong image size of JPG after TIFF to JPG conversion with JAI Roland Java 0 05-12-2004 03:52 PM
jpg file size ---> print size problem mark heinemann Digital Photography 5 04-29-2004 12:48 AM
Quick Book file access very very very slow Thomas Reed Computer Support 7 04-09-2004 08:09 PM



Advertisments