raw at less than max pixel count??

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by ray, Jan 26, 2012.

  1. ray

    ray Guest

    Strange question, I know, but I was just wondering if any cameras support
    saving a raw file at less than the full resolution? Reason: I don't
    14mpixel raw images - 4 or so would be fine.
     
    ray, Jan 26, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. ray

    eatmorepies Guest

    "ray" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Strange question, I know, but I was just wondering if any cameras support
    > saving a raw file at less than the full resolution? Reason: I don't
    > 14mpixel raw images - 4 or so would be fine.
    >


    Canon 50D, 5D2 and 1D mkIV all do it.

    But why do you want to do it? Cards are fairly cheap and you may need a big
    file one day. If you're using RAW you're presumably keen on quality - why
    throw data away? Do tell.

    John
     
    eatmorepies, Jan 26, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. "eatmorepies" <> writes:

    > "ray" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Strange question, I know, but I was just wondering if any cameras support
    >> saving a raw file at less than the full resolution? Reason: I don't
    >> 14mpixel raw images - 4 or so would be fine.
    >>

    >
    > Canon 50D, 5D2 and 1D mkIV all do it.
    >
    > But why do you want to do it? Cards are fairly cheap and you may need a big
    > file one day. If you're using RAW you're presumably keen on quality - why
    > throw data away? Do tell.


    I've rarely done it, and always regretted it when I did.

    However, I use RAW not for ultimate quality, but for the ability to
    recover from mistakes. Thus, while I use it all the time, I do much
    more drastic adjustments in shots from fast-moving events than I do from
    studio work where I can control the pacing and the lighting.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Jan 26, 2012
    #3
  4. ray

    ray Guest

    On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 21:28:54 +0000, eatmorepies wrote:

    > "ray" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Strange question, I know, but I was just wondering if any cameras
    >> support saving a raw file at less than the full resolution? Reason: I
    >> don't 14mpixel raw images - 4 or so would be fine.
    >>
    >>

    > Canon 50D, 5D2 and 1D mkIV all do it.
    >
    > But why do you want to do it? Cards are fairly cheap and you may need a
    > big file one day. If you're using RAW you're presumably keen on quality
    > - why throw data away? Do tell.
    >
    > John


    One thought that comes to mind is processing power. If I'm on a trip and
    only have the netbook along, it's not going to be feasible to work on
    14mp images - 4 or 5 would be a lot more practical. Fact is, about the
    only thing we do with our pictures is look at them on the computer or
    print - rarely larger than 4x6 and never more than 8x10. You don't need
    14mp for an 8x10 photo.
     
    ray, Jan 27, 2012
    #4
  5. ray

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 15:17:38 +1300, Eric Stevens <>
    wrote:
    : On 27 Jan 2012 01:30:11 GMT, ray <> wrote:
    :
    : >On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 21:28:54 +0000, eatmorepies wrote:
    : >
    : >> "ray" <> wrote in message
    : >> news:...
    : >>> Strange question, I know, but I was just wondering if any cameras
    : >>> support saving a raw file at less than the full resolution? Reason:
    : >>> I don't 14mpixel raw images - 4 or so would be fine.
    : >>>
    : >>>
    : >> Canon 50D, 5D2 and 1D mkIV all do it.
    : >>
    : >> But why do you want to do it? Cards are fairly cheap and you may
    : >> need a big file one day. If you're using RAW you're presumably keen
    : >> on quality - why throw data away? Do tell.
    : >>
    : >> John
    : >
    : >One thought that comes to mind is processing power. If I'm on a trip
    : >and only have the netbook along, it's not going to be feasible to work
    : >on 14mp images - 4 or 5 would be a lot more practical. Fact is, about
    : >the only thing we do with our pictures is look at them on the computer
    : >or print - rarely larger than 4x6 and never more than 8x10. You don't
    : >need 14mp for an 8x10 photo.
    :
    : Why then do you want to save your photographs as RAW? Wouldn't JPG
    : serve equally as well?

    Depends, to some extent, on your post-processing software. Canon's DPP, for
    example, does a very decent job on RAW files, much less so (as far as I've
    been able to tell) on JPEGs.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jan 27, 2012
    #5
  6. ray

    ray Guest

    On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 15:17:38 +1300, Eric Stevens wrote:

    > On 27 Jan 2012 01:30:11 GMT, ray <> wrote:
    >
    >>On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 21:28:54 +0000, eatmorepies wrote:
    >>
    >>> "ray" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:...
    >>>> Strange question, I know, but I was just wondering if any cameras
    >>>> support saving a raw file at less than the full resolution? Reason: I
    >>>> don't 14mpixel raw images - 4 or so would be fine.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>> Canon 50D, 5D2 and 1D mkIV all do it.
    >>>
    >>> But why do you want to do it? Cards are fairly cheap and you may need
    >>> a big file one day. If you're using RAW you're presumably keen on
    >>> quality - why throw data away? Do tell.
    >>>
    >>> John

    >>
    >>One thought that comes to mind is processing power. If I'm on a trip and
    >>only have the netbook along, it's not going to be feasible to work on
    >>14mp images - 4 or 5 would be a lot more practical. Fact is, about the
    >>only thing we do with our pictures is look at them on the computer or
    >>print - rarely larger than 4x6 and never more than 8x10. You don't need
    >>14mp for an 8x10 photo.

    >
    > Why then do you want to save your photographs as RAW? Wouldn't JPG serve
    > equally as well?
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    > Eric Stevens


    raw adds flexibility. Point is I don't NEED 14mp - but all the newer
    cameras seems to be caught up in the pixel count race.
     
    ray, Jan 27, 2012
    #6
  7. ray

    RichA Guest

    On Jan 27, 10:57 am, ray <> wrote:
    > On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 15:17:38 +1300, Eric Stevens wrote:
    > > On 27 Jan 2012 01:30:11 GMT, ray <> wrote:

    >
    > >>On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 21:28:54 +0000, eatmorepies wrote:

    >
    > >>> "ray" <> wrote in message
    > >>>news:...
    > >>>> Strange question, I know, but I was just wondering if any cameras
    > >>>> support saving a raw file at less than the full resolution? Reason: I
    > >>>> don't 14mpixel raw images - 4 or so would be fine.

    >
    > >>> Canon 50D, 5D2 and 1D mkIV all do it.

    >
    > >>> But why do you want to do it? Cards are fairly cheap and you may need
    > >>> a big file one day. If you're using RAW you're presumably keen on
    > >>> quality - why throw data away? Do tell.

    >
    > >>> John

    >
    > >>One thought that comes to mind is processing power. If I'm on a trip and
    > >>only have the netbook along, it's not going to be feasible to work on
    > >>14mp images - 4 or 5 would be a lot more practical. Fact is, about the
    > >>only thing we do with our pictures is look at them on the computer or
    > >>print - rarely larger than 4x6 and never more than 8x10. You don't need
    > >>14mp for an 8x10 photo.

    >
    > > Why then do you want to save your photographs as RAW? Wouldn't JPG serve
    > > equally as well?

    >
    > > Regards,

    >
    > > Eric Stevens

    >
    > raw adds flexibility. Point is I don't NEED 14mp - but all the newer
    > cameras seems to be caught up in the pixel count race.


    Then why not just use the centre 60% of the field of view and crop the
    images?
     
    RichA, Jan 27, 2012
    #7
  8. ray

    me Guest

    On 26 Jan 2012 20:53:35 GMT, ray <> wrote:

    >Strange question, I know, but I was just wondering if any cameras support
    >saving a raw file at less than the full resolution? Reason: I don't
    >14mpixel raw images - 4 or so would be fine.



    Another somewhat useful option might be to use a raw converter which
    allows you to specify the pixel count of the process image. Yes, it
    still requires you to start with what you have.
     
    me, Jan 27, 2012
    #8
  9. ray

    ray Guest

    On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 09:25:53 -0800, RichA wrote:

    > On Jan 27, 10:57 am, ray <> wrote:
    >> On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 15:17:38 +1300, Eric Stevens wrote:
    >> > On 27 Jan 2012 01:30:11 GMT, ray <> wrote:

    >>
    >> >>On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 21:28:54 +0000, eatmorepies wrote:

    >>
    >> >>> "ray" <> wrote in message
    >> >>>news:...
    >> >>>> Strange question, I know, but I was just wondering if any cameras
    >> >>>> support saving a raw file at less than the full resolution?
    >> >>>> Reason: I don't 14mpixel raw images - 4 or so would be fine.

    >>
    >> >>> Canon 50D, 5D2 and 1D mkIV all do it.

    >>
    >> >>> But why do you want to do it? Cards are fairly cheap and you may
    >> >>> need a big file one day. If you're using RAW you're presumably keen
    >> >>> on quality - why throw data away? Do tell.

    >>
    >> >>> John

    >>
    >> >>One thought that comes to mind is processing power. If I'm on a trip
    >> >>and only have the netbook along, it's not going to be feasible to
    >> >>work on 14mp images - 4 or 5 would be a lot more practical. Fact is,
    >> >>about the only thing we do with our pictures is look at them on the
    >> >>computer or print - rarely larger than 4x6 and never more than 8x10.
    >> >>You don't need 14mp for an 8x10 photo.

    >>
    >> > Why then do you want to save your photographs as RAW? Wouldn't JPG
    >> > serve equally as well?

    >>
    >> > Regards,

    >>
    >> > Eric Stevens

    >>
    >> raw adds flexibility. Point is I don't NEED 14mp - but all the newer
    >> cameras seems to be caught up in the pixel count race.

    >
    > Then why not just use the centre 60% of the field of view and crop the
    > images?


    Ya still gotta unpack the whole damned mess.
     
    ray, Jan 28, 2012
    #9
    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. Al Dykes
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,258
    Tony Spadaro
    Dec 29, 2003
  2. JohnR
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    607
    Dave Herzstein
    Oct 19, 2004
  3. Mike

    How Do I Reduce Pixel Count

    Mike, Oct 21, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    34
    Views:
    2,056
    Paul Heslop
    Nov 9, 2006
  4. Alfred Molon

    Why is the pixel count growing so slowly?

    Alfred Molon, May 13, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    135
    Views:
    2,067
    Roger (K8RI)
    Jul 8, 2007
  5. One4All

    How Can I Convert Raw Pixel Count to File Size?

    One4All, Sep 6, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    1,572
    One4All
    Sep 9, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page