Nikon D70 - Difference between RAW and Jpeg

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by NightStar, May 15, 2004.

  1. NightStar

    NightStar Guest

    While I roughly know the difference, as I am just starting out I was
    wondering the major loss when saving as a Jpeg as opposed to RAW
    files. On a 1GB card, how may RAW files can you save (are you able to
    choose the resolution, or only on Jpegs?) Or how many Jpegs can you
    save (Max resolution)

    I wonder if there is a reason why Nikon didn't allow TIFF files?

    Tony.
    NightStar, May 15, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. NightStar

    bmoag Guest

    You should save identical images in raw and jpeg and see if you note any
    significant differences. Unless you are strict about color management I
    doubt you will see any differences. You will see a difference in how long it
    takes the camera to write a raw file instead of a jpeg. RAW files take up
    less space than tif files so the question should be why do some cameras
    allow you to store both types.
    bmoag, May 15, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. NightStar

    Guy Scharf Guest

    NightStar <Im.not@home> wrote:

    > While I roughly know the difference, as I am just starting out I
    > was wondering the major loss when saving as a Jpeg as opposed to
    > RAW files. On a 1GB card, how may RAW files can you save (are you
    > able to choose the resolution, or only on Jpegs?) Or how many
    > Jpegs can you save (Max resolution)


    I can save slightly more than 20 NEF (raw) files on a 128 MB card. I
    expect close to 200 on a 1 Gb card (I don't have one yet). The D70
    writes compressed NEF files, around 5 to 6 MB in size. For strange
    reasons, the "shots remaining" display on the D70 is calculated for
    uncompressed NEF files, and is thus usually about half the number of
    shots you can actually save on the card.

    JPEGs in "basic" quality but max resolution are about 700KB.

    NEF has only one resolution -- the maximum. The number of JPEG files
    you can save will vary with the resolution and with the level of
    compression (quality). With a 1GB card, low resolution, and low
    quality, the number of pics can get astronomical.

    According to the manual, a 256MB card will hold 21 NEF files, 73 JPEG
    high res & high quality files, 950 low res and low quality, etc. The
    NEF estimate is about half the actual capacity in my experience, since
    I can fit that many on a 128 MB card. I suspect the JPEG estimates are
    accurate.

    Guy
    Guy Scharf, May 15, 2004
    #3
  4. In article <5Dtpc.49136$>,
    "bmoag" <> wrote:

    > You should save identical images in raw and jpeg and see if you note any
    > significant differences. Unless you are strict about color management I
    > doubt you will see any differences. You will see a difference in how long it
    > takes the camera to write a raw file instead of a jpeg. RAW files take up
    > less space than tif files so the question should be why do some cameras
    > allow you to store both types.
    >
    >


    If you have to ask,.....well.

    Raw is not tiff its an instruction to make a tiff image which is then decoded
    by software into a final image.

    Once converted it will produce a large enough file to get a 16x 20
    or bigger from.

    Realistically the 6 mega pixel designation is false. The camera
    shoots a 5 megapixel image in Raw mode. Its only 6 mega pixels if you shoot
    both raw and fine jpeg at the same time. Fine jpeg images are about 3 megapixels
    straight from the camera or a 17 megabyte file.

    More data is good especially if your going large for your print or yikes maybe even
    publication. I still love film for this purpose, but am really starting to like my D70.
    Any Moose Poster, May 15, 2004
    #4
  5. NightStar

    Lung Fish Guest

    Any Moose Poster <Bullwinks@bullwinkle&rockie.net> wrote in
    news::

    > Realistically the 6 mega pixel designation is false. The camera
    > shoots a 5 megapixel image in Raw mode. Its only 6 mega pixels if you
    > shoot both raw and fine jpeg at the same time. Fine jpeg images are
    > about 3 megapixels straight from the camera or a 17 megabyte file.


    ???????!
    Lung Fish, May 15, 2004
    #5
  6. NightStar

    B.A.S. Guest

    bmoag wrote:
    > You should save identical images in raw and jpeg and see if you note any
    > significant differences. Unless you are strict about color management I
    > doubt you will see any differences. You will see a difference in how long it
    > takes the camera to write a raw file instead of a jpeg.


    Unlike many earlier sub $2K DLSR's, there's no difference in speed
    writing NEF (RAW) images to the CF card on a D70, versus jpeg, unless
    you are in continuous mode and shoot more than about 4 consecutive shots
    (shutter button held down non-stop), at which point the buffer is full
    and things slow down a tad. As I never shoot more than 4 shots in a row
    even shooting sports, the camera is always ready for that next shot,
    even shooting NEF.

    This, combined with almost no shutter lag, speedy autofocus, and the
    under $1K price tag, is why I finally abandoned 35mm film and jumped to
    the D70. The images are spectacular, and resample very well up to
    13"x19", the biggest I can print.
    B.A.S., May 16, 2004
    #6
  7. NightStar

    B.A.S. Guest

    Any Moose Poster wrote:

    > In article <5Dtpc.49136$>,
    > "bmoag" <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>You should save identical images in raw and jpeg and see if you note any
    >>significant differences. Unless you are strict about color management I
    >>doubt you will see any differences. You will see a difference in how long it
    >>takes the camera to write a raw file instead of a jpeg. RAW files take up
    >>less space than tif files so the question should be why do some cameras
    >>allow you to store both types.
    >>
    >>

    >
    >
    > If you have to ask,.....well.
    >
    > Raw is not tiff its an instruction to make a tiff image which is then decoded
    > by software into a final image.
    >
    > Once converted it will produce a large enough file to get a 16x 20
    > or bigger from.
    >
    > Realistically the 6 mega pixel designation is false. The camera
    > shoots a 5 megapixel image in Raw mode.


    I think you're confusing megapixels (pixels representing in an image)
    with megabytes (file size). The D70 produces a 3008 x 2000 pixel image
    in NEF/RAW mode (along with a fairly low-quality jpeg file with the same
    number of pixels for indexing/review). This is 6 megapixel image.

    How many megabytes the resulting file takes up depends upon whether it
    is compressed or not, and whether it is stored at a bit depth of 8 bits
    or 16 bits. An uncompressed 6 Megapixel image takes up 18 Megabytes at 8
    bit depth, 36 Megabytes at 16 bits.

    The NEF image's bit depth is somewhere between 8 and 16 bits (Nikon says
    12 bits, others say it's more like an effective 9 or 10 bits), so using
    NEF format allows you to manipulate images in Photoshop or elsewhere in
    16 bit mode, and maintain cleaner files throughout. On the D70, NEF
    files are compressed using "non-lossy" compression (some debate whether
    it is lossy or not), and the files typically take up 5 to 6 Megabytes,
    depending upon the image content.

    Jpeg files have a bit depth of 8 bits, and use lossy compression, so
    they are less amenable to Photoshop manipulation without losing image
    data and reducing quality.

    If you're not going to do any post-processing of this sort, using Fine
    Jpeg mode should result in excellent quality images, indistinguishable
    from NEF'S in most any case.
    B.A.S., May 16, 2004
    #7
  8. NightStar

    B.A.S. Guest

    NightStar wrote:

    > While I roughly know the difference, as I am just starting out I was
    > wondering the major loss when saving as a Jpeg as opposed to RAW
    > files. On a 1GB card, how may RAW files can you save (are you able to
    > choose the resolution, or only on Jpegs?) Or how many Jpegs can you
    > save (Max resolution)


    Around 160 RAW/NEF's, OR about twice that many Fine jpegs, on a 1GB card.

    >
    > I wonder if there is a reason why Nikon didn't allow TIFF files?


    They're huge.
    B.A.S., May 16, 2004
    #8
  9. NightStar

    NightStar Guest

    On Sat, 15 May 2004 20:28:03 GMT, Any Moose Poster
    <Bullwinks@bullwinkle&rockie.net> wrote:

    >In article <5Dtpc.49136$>,
    > "bmoag" <> wrote:
    >
    >> You should save identical images in raw and jpeg and see if you note any
    >> significant differences. Unless you are strict about color management I
    >> doubt you will see any differences. You will see a difference in how long it
    >> takes the camera to write a raw file instead of a jpeg. RAW files take up
    >> less space than tif files so the question should be why do some cameras
    >> allow you to store both types.
    >>
    >>

    >
    >If you have to ask,.....well.
    >
    >Raw is not tiff its an instruction to make a tiff image which is then decoded
    >by software into a final image.
    >
    > Once converted it will produce a large enough file to get a 16x 20
    >or bigger from.
    >
    >Realistically the 6 mega pixel designation is false. The camera
    >shoots a 5 megapixel image in Raw mode. Its only 6 mega pixels if you shoot
    >both raw and fine jpeg at the same time. Fine jpeg images are about 3 megapixels
    >straight from the camera or a 17 megabyte file.
    >
    >More data is good especially if your going large for your print or yikes maybe even
    >publication. I still love film for this purpose, but am really starting to like my D70.


    Actually, I wasn't going after that detailed an answer, but I'm glad
    you gave it! :) Thanks - I appreciate the response.

    Tony.
    NightStar, May 16, 2004
    #9
  10. NightStar

    B.A.S. Guest

    NightStar wrote:

    > On Sat, 15 May 2004 20:28:03 GMT, Any Moose Poster
    > <Bullwinks@bullwinkle&rockie.net> wrote:
    >>In article <5Dtpc.49136$>,
    >>"bmoag" <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>You should save identical images in raw and jpeg and see if you note any
    >>>significant differences. Unless you are strict about color management I
    >>>doubt you will see any differences. You will see a difference in how long it
    >>>takes the camera to write a raw file instead of a jpeg. RAW files take up
    >>>less space than tif files so the question should be why do some cameras
    >>>allow you to store both types.
    >>>

    >>
    >>If you have to ask,.....well.
    >>
    >>Raw is not tiff its an instruction to make a tiff image which is then decoded
    >>by software into a final image.
    >>
    >>Once converted it will produce a large enough file to get a 16x 20
    >>or bigger from.
    >>
    >>Realistically the 6 mega pixel designation is false. The camera
    >>shoots a 5 megapixel image in Raw mode. Its only 6 mega pixels if you shoot
    >>both raw and fine jpeg at the same time. Fine jpeg images are about 3 megapixels
    >>straight from the camera or a 17 megabyte file.
    >>
    >>More data is good especially if your going large for your print or yikes maybe even
    >>publication. I still love film for this purpose, but am really starting to like my D70.

    >
    >
    > Actually, I wasn't going after that detailed an answer, but I'm glad
    > you gave it! :) Thanks - I appreciate the response.
    >
    > Tony.


    Even if the info's bogus (see my previous response to it)?
    B.A.S., May 16, 2004
    #10
  11. NightStar

    NightStar Guest

    On Sun, 16 May 2004 00:38:40 GMT, "B.A.S."
    <> wrote:

    >NightStar wrote:
    >
    >> While I roughly know the difference, as I am just starting out I was
    >> wondering the major loss when saving as a Jpeg as opposed to RAW
    >> files. On a 1GB card, how may RAW files can you save (are you able to
    >> choose the resolution, or only on Jpegs?) Or how many Jpegs can you
    >> save (Max resolution)

    >
    >Around 160 RAW/NEF's, OR about twice that many Fine jpegs, on a 1GB card.
    >
    >>
    >> I wonder if there is a reason why Nikon didn't allow TIFF files?

    >
    >They're huge.


    Excellent - (Sorry, getting too excited about files sizes there!)

    For some shots I *might* be editing, but I'll wait until I actually
    know what I am doing! - I'll probably save the NEF's for portraits.
    (If you wonder *why* I want a D70 when I am such an amateur, I really
    have this thing against point-and-shoot cameras... I'm not that good
    at photography, but have always chosen SLR's over pocket-jobbies! -
    More control I suppose?)

    However, as I'll have a PC nearby I might just shoot all in NEF's for
    the time being and see if I need them or not - I can save them each
    day to the PC, so I think 160 should be more than enough!

    Again, I give my thanks to the very helpful people in this group.

    Tony
    NightStar, May 16, 2004
    #11
  12. NightStar

    Guest

    Hi

    I own a D70 and a 1Gb Micro-Drive - I can only store 99 NEF (raw)
    files on this card. Yet you state 200??

    Is this the camera being very conservative about it's storage? or do I
    have a problem??


    Thanks


    On Sat, 15 May 2004 19:25:21 -0000, Guy Scharf <>
    wrote:

    >NightStar <Im.not@home> wrote:
    >
    >> While I roughly know the difference, as I am just starting out I
    >> was wondering the major loss when saving as a Jpeg as opposed to
    >> RAW files. On a 1GB card, how may RAW files can you save (are you
    >> able to choose the resolution, or only on Jpegs?) Or how many
    >> Jpegs can you save (Max resolution)

    >
    >I can save slightly more than 20 NEF (raw) files on a 128 MB card. I
    >expect close to 200 on a 1 Gb card (I don't have one yet). The D70
    >writes compressed NEF files, around 5 to 6 MB in size. For strange
    >reasons, the "shots remaining" display on the D70 is calculated for
    >uncompressed NEF files, and is thus usually about half the number of
    >shots you can actually save on the card.
    >
    >JPEGs in "basic" quality but max resolution are about 700KB.
    >
    >NEF has only one resolution -- the maximum. The number of JPEG files
    >you can save will vary with the resolution and with the level of
    >compression (quality). With a 1GB card, low resolution, and low
    >quality, the number of pics can get astronomical.
    >
    >According to the manual, a 256MB card will hold 21 NEF files, 73 JPEG
    >high res & high quality files, 950 low res and low quality, etc. The
    >NEF estimate is about half the actual capacity in my experience, since
    >I can fit that many on a 128 MB card. I suspect the JPEG estimates are
    >accurate.
    >
    >Guy
    , May 16, 2004
    #12
  13. In article <IvJpc.26148$>,
    "B.A.S." <> wrote:

    > Even if the info's bogus (see my previous response to it)?


    If your previous info is correct why does the D70 manual
    state that on page 45 the NEF files are 5mb, fine jpeg are 2.9
    at the large setting and only the NEF is combined
    with Jpeg basic does the combination yield a 5.8
    mb file.

    What your stating is a 5mb raw compressed file is actually 6 megapixels of data?

    Plus you now are disputing all that I stated in favor of your own response?
    Any Moose Poster, May 17, 2004
    #13
  14. NightStar

    Guy Scharf Guest

    wrote:

    > I own a D70 and a 1Gb Micro-Drive - I can only store 99 NEF (raw)
    > files on this card. Yet you state 200??


    Others are quoting 160+ on a 1Gb card. I multiplied the 20+ I get on a
    128Mb card by 10; I should have multiplied by 8. I can confirm that my
    NEF files range in size from 4.5 MB to 6.3MB, with an average of about
    5.7 MB.

    I don't know why your Microdrive should be limited to 99.

    > Is this the camera being very conservative about it's storage? or
    > do I have a problem??


    The camera is stating remaining storage in terms of uncompressed NEF
    files. Perhaps it does that because the amount of compression in
    future shots is not predictable. I don't know.

    Guy
    Guy Scharf, May 17, 2004
    #14
  15. NightStar

    B.A.S. Guest

    Any Moose Poster wrote:

    > In article <IvJpc.26148$>,
    > "B.A.S." <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Even if the info's bogus (see my previous response to it)?

    >
    >
    > If your previous info is correct why does the D70 manual
    > state that on page 45 the NEF files are 5mb, fine jpeg are 2.9
    > at the large setting and only the NEF is combined
    > with Jpeg basic does the combination yield a 5.8
    > mb file.
    >
    > What your stating is a 5mb raw compressed file is actually 6 megapixels of data?
    >


    Yes. And sorry I was so blunt in my previous response.

    If you load a NEF file (representing 6 megapixels) into Photoshop, it
    shows it as taking up 18 megabytes of RAM as an 8-bit deep image (3
    bytes per pixel - one each for Red, Green, and Blue), or 36 megabytes if
    brought in as a 16-bit deep image (6 bytes per pixel).

    That's what compression is all about. For example, a simple, 'non-lossy'
    compression technique takes a string of identical bytes (for example a
    row of pixels representing, say, part of a background wall of uniform
    color in an image) and encodes them using only a couple of bytes - one
    to say how many bytes are to follow, and the other to give the value of
    the byte being 'compacted'. This is done when the image is written to a
    file. Then when the file is read back into an application, the file is
    uncompressed and expanded back to its original size.

    For example, if there is a string of 20 identical bytes (value=decimal
    42) in an image file, you could represent them with two bytes: decimal
    20, decimal 42. There's a bit more to even such a simple compression
    scheme as this, but that's the basic idea (Google "Run Length Encoding"
    for a more complete description).

    Modern compression techniques are considerably more complex, but the
    principal is the same. The end result is you can represent somewhere
    between 18 to 36 megabytes of image data in a compressed 5 megabyte NEF
    file.
    B.A.S., May 17, 2004
    #15
  16. In article <DWVpc.42629$>,
    "B.A.S." <> wrote:

    > Yes. And sorry I was so blunt in my previous response.
    >
    > If you load a NEF file (representing 6 megapixels) into Photoshop, it
    > shows it as taking up 18 megabytes of RAM as an 8-bit deep image (3
    > bytes per pixel - one each for Red, Green, and Blue), or 36 megabytes if
    > brought in as a 16-bit deep image (6 bytes per pixel).
    >
    > That's what compression is all about. For example, a simple, 'non-lossy'
    > compression technique takes a string of identical bytes (for example a
    > row of pixels representing, say, part of a background wall of uniform
    > color in an image) and encodes them using only a couple of bytes - one
    > to say how many bytes are to follow, and the other to give the value of
    > the byte being 'compacted'. This is done when the image is written to a
    > file. Then when the file is read back into an application, the file is
    > uncompressed and expanded back to its original size.
    >
    > For example, if there is a string of 20 identical bytes (value=decimal
    > 42) in an image file, you could represent them with two bytes: decimal
    > 20, decimal 42. There's a bit more to even such a simple compression
    > scheme as this, but that's the basic idea (Google "Run Length Encoding"
    > for a more complete description).
    >
    > Modern compression techniques are considerably more complex, but the
    > principal is the same. The end result is you can represent somewhere
    > between 18 to 36 megabytes of image data in a compressed 5 megabyte NEF
    > file.


    Pretty cool, basically what your saying if I interpret correctly is that its all
    about encoding methodology versus how large the compressed image size
    reads on the CF card or prior to being translated by the given program.

    I'll save the post for future reference as I am still admittedly on the learning curve
    of image capture.
    Any Moose Poster, May 17, 2004
    #16
  17. On Sun, 16 May 2004 20:04:43 +0100, wrote:

    >Hi
    >
    >I own a D70 and a 1Gb Micro-Drive - I can only store 99 NEF (raw)
    >files on this card. Yet you state 200??


    I only get 88.

    Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
    (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
    www.rogerhalstead.com
    >
    >Is this the camera being very conservative about it's storage? or do I
    >have a problem??
    >
    >
    Roger Halstead, May 17, 2004
    #17
  18. NightStar

    gsum Guest

    That's correct - the camera re-estimates the number of files
    it can fit onto the card after each shot. The most extreme example
    of this is a jpg shot of a lens cap i.e. complete blackness. This
    produces a jpeg of 128 bytes in highest quality mode. The file
    contains the exif data, a byte count and a byte description specifying
    black.

    Graham


    "Guy Scharf" <> wrote in message >
    > The camera is stating remaining storage in terms of uncompressed NEF
    > files. Perhaps it does that because the amount of compression in
    > future shots is not predictable. I don't know.
    >
    > Guy
    >
    gsum, May 17, 2004
    #18
  19. NightStar

    adm Guest

    "Roger Halstead" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Sun, 16 May 2004 20:04:43 +0100, wrote:
    >
    > >Hi
    > >
    > >I own a D70 and a 1Gb Micro-Drive - I can only store 99 NEF (raw)
    > >files on this card. Yet you state 200??

    >
    > I only get 88.


    Mine says "99" when the microdrive is empty, but it ends up holding almost
    200 shots. Basically, for evey 2 shots you take, the "shots remaining"
    counter goes down by 1. I believe this is due to the camera only being able
    to determine how many UNCOMPRESSED NEFS the card can hold, however in real
    life, the compressed files are much smaller - however the camera cannot
    guess how big the file is until it has already compressed it.

    Bottom line is that I normally take the remaining shots number and multiply
    it by about 1.75 x to get the real number remaining.


    >
    > Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
    > (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
    > www.rogerhalstead.com
    > >
    > >Is this the camera being very conservative about it's storage? or do I
    > >have a problem??
    > >
    > >

    >
    adm, May 17, 2004
    #19
  20. NightStar

    NightStar Guest

    On Sun, 16 May 2004 12:54:18 GMT, NightStar <Im.not@home> wrote:

    >On Sun, 16 May 2004 00:38:40 GMT, "B.A.S."
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >>NightStar wrote:
    >>
    >>> While I roughly know the difference, as I am just starting out I was
    >>> wondering the major loss when saving as a Jpeg as opposed to RAW
    >>> files. On a 1GB card, how may RAW files can you save (are you able to
    >>> choose the resolution, or only on Jpegs?) Or how many Jpegs can you
    >>> save (Max resolution)

    >>
    >>Around 160 RAW/NEF's, OR about twice that many Fine jpegs, on a 1GB card.
    >>
    >>>
    >>> I wonder if there is a reason why Nikon didn't allow TIFF files?

    >>
    >>They're huge.

    >
    >Excellent - (Sorry, getting too excited about files sizes there!)
    >
    >For some shots I *might* be editing, but I'll wait until I actually
    >know what I am doing! - I'll probably save the NEF's for portraits.
    >(If you wonder *why* I want a D70 when I am such an amateur, I really
    >have this thing against point-and-shoot cameras... I'm not that good
    >at photography, but have always chosen SLR's over pocket-jobbies! -
    >More control I suppose?)
    >
    >However, as I'll have a PC nearby I might just shoot all in NEF's for
    >the time being and see if I need them or not - I can save them each
    >day to the PC, so I think 160 should be more than enough!
    >
    >Again, I give my thanks to the very helpful people in this group.
    >
    > Tony


    Got the D70 yesterday and have the numbers as follows (For anyone else
    interested) on a clean 1GB CF Card:

    NEF: 94?
    Fine Jpeg (L): 291
    Fine Jpeg (M): 519
    Fine Jpeg (S): 1100 (Not going to bother with this!)

    As people have said, I presume that the figure goes up!? Will have to
    test this out.

    The (L)arge files are good, as are the (M)edium - I'll test this all
    out before I go on holiday, but (As I am but a lowly amateur) I think
    I might stick with the Fine/M combination.

    Tony.
    NightStar, May 19, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. jamie

    the difference between raw and tiff format

    jamie, Nov 11, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    464
    sid derra
    Nov 12, 2004
  2. -=Rob

    Difference between TIFF and RAW

    -=Rob, Jan 5, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    436
  3. frederick

    D70 raw vs jpeg

    frederick, Jul 25, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    569
    frederick
    Jul 26, 2005
  4. Amit
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,239
    Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!)
    Mar 17, 2006
  5. Trellis Management
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    463
    Wallace D.
    Oct 1, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page