raw files are HUGE

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Sameer, Apr 8, 2007.

  1. Sameer

    Sameer Guest

    On Mar 11, 8:04 am, "Sameer" <> wrote:
    > On Mar 10, 8:49 pm, C J Campbell <>
    > wrote:
    >
    > > On 2007-03-03 18:16:40 -0800, "Sameer" <> said:

    >
    > > > I tried winzip and winrar but they cant compress them much. Is there
    > > > anything else which works?

    >
    > > They can't be compressed much. Nikon offers a 'compressed' RAW format
    > > in-camera. I can't tell the difference from the non-compressed one.
    > > They are the same size. Besides, you really don't want to do anything
    > > that might modify an original RAW file.

    >
    > That is why I decided not to use DNG files just to save space.


    I was talking to a friend about this and he said that most cameras use
    very weak compression due to speed and better algorithms can do
    better, upto even 40%.

    I hope some company releases a tool which can do this.
     
    Sameer, Apr 8, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Sameer

    ben brugman Guest

    "Sameer" <> schreef in bericht
    news:...
    >
    > On Mar 11, 8:04 am, "Sameer" <> wrote:
    >> On Mar 10, 8:49 pm, C J Campbell <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >> > On 2007-03-03 18:16:40 -0800, "Sameer" <> said:

    >>
    >> > > I tried winzip and winrar but they cant compress them much. Is there
    >> > > anything else which works?

    >>
    >> > They can't be compressed much. Nikon offers a 'compressed' RAW format
    >> > in-camera. I can't tell the difference from the non-compressed one.
    >> > They are the same size. Besides, you really don't want to do anything
    >> > that might modify an original RAW file.

    >>
    >> That is why I decided not to use DNG files just to save space.

    >
    > I was talking to a friend about this and he said that most cameras use
    > very weak compression due to speed and better algorithms can do
    > better, upto even 40%.


    There are probably better algorithms, but using the in camera processor
    and given that you want the battery to last and have a fast camera, there
    are limitations with the algorithm.
    It's fantastic what they can do in a camera, but it's not unlikely that a
    PC processor, which is not 'limited' in power consumption and size can
    do better, specially when given the time for the compression.

    Compression can be better, but not within the given constraints of the
    camera. But as I am surprised what the in camera processor can deliver
    now. I'll probably will be surprised again in a few years time.

    ben



    >
    > I hope some company releases a tool which can do this.
    >
     
    ben brugman, Apr 8, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Sameer

    The Bobert Guest

    In article <>,
    "Sameer" <> wrote:


    > > On Mar 10, 8:49 pm, C J Campbell <>
    > > wrote:
    > >
    > > > On 2007-03-03 18:16:40 -0800, "Sameer" <> said:

    > >
    > > > > I tried winzip and winrar but they cant compress them much. Is there
    > > > > anything else which works?

    > >
    > > > They can't be compressed much. Nikon offers a 'compressed' RAW format
    > > > in-camera. I can't tell the difference from the non-compressed one.
    > > > They are the same size. Besides, you really don't want to do anything
    > > > that might modify an original RAW file.

    > >
    > > That is why I decided not to use DNG files just to save space.


    The most common solution is to get an external firewire drive to store your
    photos. Avoid USB due to the slower transfer rate. Once you compress the
    picture you can not get the pixels back. Once you work on a RAW picture you
    can not recover any data unless you "start over" Store your RAW files on
    your ext drive and put them on a DVD or CD too. You can never (well almost
    never) have to many backups. If you want another layer of backup, give a
    copy to a friend to hold for you. This is called "off-site storage". You
    might think about a reciprocal agreement to hold his-her backups.
    --
    Grow old disgracefully and enjoy yourself

    Bob
    Central CA
     
    The Bobert, Apr 8, 2007
    #3
  4. Sameer

    Alfred Molon Guest

    In article <>,
    ow says...

    > The most common solution is to get an external firewire drive to store your
    > photos. Avoid USB due to the slower transfer rate.


    How much faster is a Firewire drive compared to a USB2 drive?

    > Once you compress the
    > picture you can not get the pixels back.


    What do you mean by this? We are talking about lossless compression.

    > Once you work on a RAW picture you
    > can not recover any data unless you "start over"


    If you keep the RAW in a separate file, you can always open a RAW file
    and at least get automatically to the same point after RAW conversion.
    What you lose are all operations which you do after RAW conversion,
    because these are not stored in the settings file.

    > Store your RAW files on
    > your ext drive and put them on a DVD or CD too. You can never (well almost
    > never) have to many backups. If you want another layer of backup, give a
    > copy to a friend to hold for you. This is called "off-site storage". You
    > might think about a reciprocal agreement to hold his-her backups.


    Yes. Personally I keep three or four copies of the same file on
    different media.
    --

    Alfred Molon
    ------------------------------
    Olympus 50X0, 7070, 8080, E300, E330, E400 and E500 forum at
    http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
    http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
     
    Alfred Molon, Apr 8, 2007
    #4
  5. Sameer

    ray Guest

    On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 20:53:50 +0000, The Bobert wrote:

    > In article <>,
    > "Sameer" <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >> > On Mar 10, 8:49 pm, C J Campbell <>
    >> > wrote:
    >> >
    >> > > On 2007-03-03 18:16:40 -0800, "Sameer" <> said:
    >> >
    >> > > > I tried winzip and winrar but they cant compress them much. Is there
    >> > > > anything else which works?
    >> >
    >> > > They can't be compressed much. Nikon offers a 'compressed' RAW format
    >> > > in-camera. I can't tell the difference from the non-compressed one.
    >> > > They are the same size. Besides, you really don't want to do anything
    >> > > that might modify an original RAW file.
    >> >
    >> > That is why I decided not to use DNG files just to save space.

    >
    > The most common solution is to get an external firewire drive to store your
    > photos. Avoid USB due to the slower transfer rate. Once you compress the
    > picture you can not get the pixels back.


    That is not quite true. There is 'lossless' compression and there is
    'lossy' compression. If a file is compress using a lossless algorithm then
    decompression will return you the EXACT same file you started with - not a
    bit will have changed. You may have difficulty with the concept - let me
    use a simple example fro run lenght encoding - if you have a string of 500
    bytes which are identical you don't loose anything by storing two or three
    bytes of information which essentially say "we've go 500 bytes of
    0x01100110".

    > Once you work on a RAW picture
    > you can not recover any data unless you "start over"


    I'm not aware of any, but there is no reason in the world that image
    processing could not implement a 'journal' of changes which would allow
    the orignal image to be retrieved - but, in practice, I guess you're right.

    > Store your RAW
    > files on your ext drive and put them on a DVD or CD too. You can never
    > (well almost never) have to many backups. If you want another layer of
    > backup, give a copy to a friend to hold for you. This is called
    > "off-site storage". You might think about a reciprocal agreement to
    > hold his-her backups.
     
    ray, Apr 8, 2007
    #5
  6. Sameer

    =\(8\) Guest

    "Sameer" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > On Mar 11, 8:04 am, "Sameer" <> wrote:
    >> On Mar 10, 8:49 pm, C J Campbell <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >> > On 2007-03-03 18:16:40 -0800, "Sameer" <> said:

    >>
    >> > > I tried winzip and winrar but they cant compress them much. Is there
    >> > > anything else which works?

    >>
    >> > They can't be compressed much. Nikon offers a 'compressed' RAW format
    >> > in-camera. I can't tell the difference from the non-compressed one.
    >> > They are the same size. Besides, you really don't want to do anything
    >> > that might modify an original RAW file.

    >>
    >> That is why I decided not to use DNG files just to save space.

    >
    > I was talking to a friend about this and he said that most cameras use
    > very weak compression due to speed and better algorithms can do
    > better, upto even 40%.
    >
    > I hope some company releases a tool which can do this.
    >



    With my Pentax K10D it doesn't compress the DNG files. If I run them through
    Adobe's DNG converter I can cut the file size in half. I can get a 25%
    increase by converting the PEF Raw files to DNG with compression. I would
    imagine with the exception of JPG which should be quite fast as it is lossy
    that lossless compression can be very resource hungry and slow as well.
    Though RAW files are worth every K.

    =(8)
     
    =\(8\), Apr 9, 2007
    #6
  7. Sameer

    timeOday Guest

    Alfred Molon wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > ow says...
    >
    >> The most common solution is to get an external firewire drive to store your
    >> photos. Avoid USB due to the slower transfer rate.

    >
    > How much faster is a Firewire drive compared to a USB2 drive?
    >


    I would avoid firewire because it's not as widely supported and the most
    common firewire spec is only something like 15-20% faster IIRC.
     
    timeOday, Apr 9, 2007
    #7
  8. Sameer

    Sameer Guest

    On Apr 8, 12:55 pm, "ben brugman" <> wrote:
    > "Sameer" <> schreef in berichtnews:...
    >
    > > On Mar 11, 8:04 am, "Sameer" <> wrote:
    > >> On Mar 10, 8:49 pm, C J Campbell <>
    > >> wrote:

    >
    > >> > On 2007-03-03 18:16:40 -0800, "Sameer" <> said:

    >
    > >> > > I tried winzip and winrar but they cant compress them much. Is there
    > >> > > anything else which works?

    >
    > >> > They can't be compressed much. Nikon offers a 'compressed' RAW format
    > >> > in-camera. I can't tell the difference from the non-compressed one.
    > >> > They are the same size. Besides, you really don't want to do anything
    > >> > that might modify an original RAW file.

    >
    > >> That is why I decided not to use DNG files just to save space.

    >
    > > I was talking to a friend about this and he said that most cameras use
    > > very weak compression due to speed and better algorithms can do
    > > better, upto even 40%.

    >
    > There are probably better algorithms, but using the in camera processor
    > and given that you want the battery to last and have a fast camera, there
    > are limitations with the algorithm.
    > It's fantastic what they can do in a camera, but it's not unlikely that a
    > PC processor, which is not 'limited' in power consumption and size can
    > do better, specially when given the time for the compression.
    >
    > Compression can be better, but not within the given constraints of the
    > camera. But as I am surprised what the in camera processor can deliver
    > now. I'll probably will be surprised again in a few years time.


    In camera limitations are understandable, but if a desktop tool can do
    better I will happily shell out 20-30 bucks for another 30-40%
    compression.

    I hope I am not the only one willing to pay for this.
     
    Sameer, Apr 9, 2007
    #8
  9. Sameer

    Sameer Guest

    On Apr 8, 8:11 pm, "=\(8\)" <> wrote:
    > "Sameer" <> wrote in message
    >
    > news:...
    >
    > > On Mar 11, 8:04 am, "Sameer" <> wrote:
    > >> On Mar 10, 8:49 pm, C J Campbell <>
    > >> wrote:

    >
    > >> > On 2007-03-03 18:16:40 -0800, "Sameer" <> said:

    >
    > >> > > I tried winzip and winrar but they cant compress them much. Is there
    > >> > > anything else which works?

    >
    > >> > They can't be compressed much. Nikon offers a 'compressed' RAW format
    > >> > in-camera. I can't tell the difference from the non-compressed one.
    > >> > They are the same size. Besides, you really don't want to do anything
    > >> > that might modify an original RAW file.

    >
    > >> That is why I decided not to use DNG files just to save space.

    >
    > > I was talking to a friend about this and he said that most cameras use
    > > very weak compression due to speed and better algorithms can do
    > > better, upto even 40%.

    >
    > > I hope some company releases a tool which can do this.

    >
    > With my Pentax K10D it doesn't compress the DNG files. If I run them through
    > Adobe's DNG converter I can cut the file size in half.


    I tried DNG, it saves around 10% for me but I can't convert back to
    original file. I was worried about lost data.

    > I can get a 25%
    > increase by converting the PEF Raw files to DNG with compression.


    You mean they become bigger?
     
    Sameer, Apr 9, 2007
    #9
  10. On Apr 8, 11:07 pm, ray <> wrote:
    > On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 20:53:50 +0000, The Bobert wrote:

    [snip]
    > > Once you work on a RAW picture
    > > you can not recover any data unless you "start over"

    >
    > I'm not aware of any, but there is no reason in the world that image
    > processing could not implement a 'journal' of changes which would allow
    > the orignal image to be retrieved - but, in practice, I guess you're right.

    [snip]

    What is the problem here? Non-destructive editing of raw files is
    normal - it is normally easy enough to go back to the raw converter
    and make just a few changes to the raw converter editing already done.

    With care, the new conversion can then replace the previous one in
    (say) Photoshop processing to avoid redoing everything. Either the raw
    file can be a smart object, or you can just copy the new version
    across as an image layer and existing adjustment layers will work. Or
    if you use smart filters, having copied the new image layer across,
    you can transfer the previous filter settings to the new image layer.

    --
    Barry Pearson
    http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/photography/
     
    Barry Pearson, Apr 9, 2007
    #10
  11. Sameer

    =\(8\) Guest

    "Sameer" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > On Apr 8, 8:11 pm, "=\(8\)" <> wrote:
    >> "Sameer" <> wrote in message
    >>
    >> news:...
    >>
    >> > On Mar 11, 8:04 am, "Sameer" <> wrote:
    >> >> On Mar 10, 8:49 pm, C J Campbell <>
    >> >> wrote:

    >>
    >> >> > On 2007-03-03 18:16:40 -0800, "Sameer" <>
    >> >> > said:

    >>
    >> >> > > I tried winzip and winrar but they cant compress them much. Is
    >> >> > > there
    >> >> > > anything else which works?

    >>
    >> >> > They can't be compressed much. Nikon offers a 'compressed' RAW
    >> >> > format
    >> >> > in-camera. I can't tell the difference from the non-compressed one.
    >> >> > They are the same size. Besides, you really don't want to do
    >> >> > anything
    >> >> > that might modify an original RAW file.

    >>
    >> >> That is why I decided not to use DNG files just to save space.

    >>
    >> > I was talking to a friend about this and he said that most cameras use
    >> > very weak compression due to speed and better algorithms can do
    >> > better, upto even 40%.

    >>
    >> > I hope some company releases a tool which can do this.

    >>
    >> With my Pentax K10D it doesn't compress the DNG files. If I run them
    >> through
    >> Adobe's DNG converter I can cut the file size in half.

    >
    > I tried DNG, it saves around 10% for me but I can't convert back to
    > original file. I was worried about lost data.
    >
    >> I can get a 25%
    >> increase by converting the PEF Raw files to DNG with compression.

    >
    > You mean they become bigger?
    >


    Adobe has said there is a possibility of lost data (basically anything the
    maker encrypts) however, it is few an far between and has become even more
    so of late. However, it sounds like your camera is already doing a pretty
    good job of compression if the conversion to DNG only saves you 10%. BTW you
    can of course also embed the original RAW file in with the converted DNG
    however, you then loose any file size savings as I don't think the saved
    original RAW file is then compression just the DNG portion with the original
    RAW residing on top of that uncompressed or however much compression it had
    from the cameras in camera compression.

    As for other formats there is nothing that compresses and still gives you a
    RAW file.

    =(8)
     
    =\(8\), Apr 10, 2007
    #11
  12. On Apr 10, 3:35 am, "=\(8\)" <> wrote:
    [snip]
    > Adobe has said there is a possibility of lost data (basically anything the
    > maker encrypts) however, it is few an far between and has become even more
    > so of late.

    [snip]

    The DNG Converter doesn't lose encrypted data in Makernotes - it
    copies it across to the DNG file without modification. The format used
    is here:
    http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/specification.htm#dngprivatedata

    --
    Barry Pearson
    http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/photography/
     
    Barry Pearson, Apr 10, 2007
    #12
  13. Sameer

    =\(8\) Guest

    "Barry Pearson" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Apr 10, 3:35 am, "=\(8\)" <> wrote:
    > [snip]
    >> Adobe has said there is a possibility of lost data (basically anything
    >> the
    >> maker encrypts) however, it is few an far between and has become even
    >> more
    >> so of late.

    > [snip]
    >
    > The DNG Converter doesn't lose encrypted data in Makernotes - it
    > copies it across to the DNG file without modification. The format used
    > is here:
    > http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/specification.htm#dngprivatedata
    >
    > --
    > Barry Pearson
    > http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/photography/
    >


    Well according to Adobe they can't do anything with any data that is
    encrypted. That means copy it over. This has been covered on Adobes forums
    by Mr. Knoll and Mr. Cox.

    =(8)
     
    =\(8\), Apr 10, 2007
    #13
  14. Sameer

    John Bean Guest

    On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 01:21:14 -0700, "=\(8\)"
    <> wrote:

    >"Barry Pearson" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> On Apr 10, 3:35 am, "=\(8\)" <> wrote:
    >> [snip]
    >>> Adobe has said there is a possibility of lost data (basically anything
    >>> the
    >>> maker encrypts) however, it is few an far between and has become even
    >>> more
    >>> so of late.

    >> [snip]
    >>
    >> The DNG Converter doesn't lose encrypted data in Makernotes - it
    >> copies it across to the DNG file without modification. The format used
    >> is here:
    >> http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/specification.htm#dngprivatedata
    >>
    >> --
    >> Barry Pearson
    >> http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/photography/
    >>

    >
    >Well according to Adobe they can't do anything with any data that is
    >encrypted. That means copy it over. This has been covered on Adobes forums
    >by Mr. Knoll and Mr. Cox.


    You said "lost data" implying it's no longer available,
    which is not the same as copying it even if you "can't do
    anything with it". The point Barry makes is important
    because early versions of the DNG converter *did* lose data
    it couldn't use whereas the current version saves it in a
    known place.

    --
    John Bean
     
    John Bean, Apr 10, 2007
    #14
  15. On Apr 10, 9:21 am, "=\(8\)" <> wrote:
    > "Barry Pearson" <> wrote in message

    [snip]
    > > The DNG Converter doesn't lose encrypted data in Makernotes - it
    > > copies it across to the DNG file without modification. The format used
    > > is here:
    > >http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/specification.htm#dngpriva...

    [snip]
    > Well according to Adobe they can't do anything with any data that is
    > encrypted. That means copy it over. This has been covered on Adobes forums
    > by Mr. Knoll and Mr. Cox.


    I don't believe they have said they don't copy it. Perhaps you would
    like to search for their statements? Rather than search the Adobe
    forums directly, I prefer to use this, because it has a more complete
    set of threads:
    http://adobe.groupbrowser.com/

    But it is irrelevant what they said - I've just had a look inside a
    D2X NEF and the DNG converted from it using the 3.1 DNG Converter that
    couldn't handle the WB properly. (It was 3.2 before Adobe used the
    mini-SDK from Nikon to handle it). The D2X has 47 entries in its
    Makernote, which is where the WB is held. And 47 entries are copied
    across into the DNG.

    Adobe don't even know what all the entries in Makernotes mean - how
    can they know which ones are encrypted and then deliberately avoid
    copying them across?

    --
    Barry Pearson
    http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/photography/
     
    Barry Pearson, Apr 10, 2007
    #15
  16. Sameer

    Alfred Molon Guest

    Alfred Molon, Apr 10, 2007
    #16
  17. Sameer

    Sameer Guest

    On Apr 9, 7:35 pm, "=\(8\)" <> wrote:
    > "Sameer" <> wrote in message
    >
    > news:...
    >
    > > On Apr 8, 8:11 pm, "=\(8\)" <> wrote:
    > >> "Sameer" <> wrote in message

    >
    > >>news:...

    >
    > >> > On Mar 11, 8:04 am, "Sameer" <> wrote:
    > >> >> On Mar 10, 8:49 pm, C J Campbell <>
    > >> >> wrote:

    >
    > >> >> > On 2007-03-03 18:16:40 -0800, "Sameer" <>
    > >> >> > said:

    >
    > >> >> > > I tried winzip and winrar but they cant compress them much. Is
    > >> >> > > there
    > >> >> > > anything else which works?

    >
    > >> >> > They can't be compressed much. Nikon offers a 'compressed' RAW
    > >> >> > format
    > >> >> > in-camera. I can't tell the difference from the non-compressed one.
    > >> >> > They are the same size. Besides, you really don't want to do
    > >> >> > anything
    > >> >> > that might modify an original RAW file.

    >
    > >> >> That is why I decided not to use DNG files just to save space.

    >
    > >> > I was talking to a friend about this and he said that most cameras use
    > >> > very weak compression due to speed and better algorithms can do
    > >> > better, upto even 40%.

    >
    > >> > I hope some company releases a tool which can do this.

    >
    > >> With my Pentax K10D it doesn't compress the DNG files. If I run them
    > >> through
    > >> Adobe's DNG converter I can cut the file size in half.

    >
    > > I tried DNG, it saves around 10% for me but I can't convert back to
    > > original file. I was worried about lost data.

    >
    > >> I can get a 25%
    > >> increase by converting the PEF Raw files to DNG with compression.

    >
    > > You mean they become bigger?

    >
    > Adobe has said there is a possibility of lost data (basically anything the
    > maker encrypts) however, it is few an far between and has become even more
    > so of late. However, it sounds like your camera is already doing a pretty
    > good job of compression if the conversion to DNG only saves you 10%. BTW you
    > can of course also embed the original RAW file in with the converted DNG
    > however, you then loose any file size savings as I don't think the saved
    > original RAW file is then compression just the DNG portion with the original
    > RAW residing on top of that uncompressed or however much compression it had
    > from the cameras in camera compression.
    >
    > As for other formats there is nothing that compresses and still gives you a
    > RAW file.


    Yes, there is nothing available. DNG doesn't helps here.

    But it should be possible for someone like Adobe to release such a
    tool. If it can give good compression and recreate the original file
    like winzip, why will anyone not want to use it.
     
    Sameer, Apr 10, 2007
    #17
  18. Sameer

    J. Clarke Guest

    Sameer wrote:
    > On Apr 9, 7:35 pm, "=\(8\)" <> wrote:
    >> "Sameer" <> wrote in message
    >>
    >> news:...
    >>
    >>> On Apr 8, 8:11 pm, "=\(8\)" <> wrote:
    >>>> "Sameer" <> wrote in message

    >>
    >>>> news:...

    >>
    >>>>> On Mar 11, 8:04 am, "Sameer" <> wrote:
    >>>>>> On Mar 10, 8:49 pm, C J Campbell
    >>>>>> <> wrote:

    >>
    >>>>>>> On 2007-03-03 18:16:40 -0800, "Sameer" <>
    >>>>>>> said:

    >>
    >>>>>>>> I tried winzip and winrar but they cant compress them much. Is
    >>>>>>>> there
    >>>>>>>> anything else which works?

    >>
    >>>>>>> They can't be compressed much. Nikon offers a 'compressed' RAW
    >>>>>>> format
    >>>>>>> in-camera. I can't tell the difference from the non-compressed
    >>>>>>> one. They are the same size. Besides, you really don't want to
    >>>>>>> do anything
    >>>>>>> that might modify an original RAW file.

    >>
    >>>>>> That is why I decided not to use DNG files just to save space.

    >>
    >>>>> I was talking to a friend about this and he said that most
    >>>>> cameras use very weak compression due to speed and better
    >>>>> algorithms can do better, upto even 40%.

    >>
    >>>>> I hope some company releases a tool which can do this.

    >>
    >>>> With my Pentax K10D it doesn't compress the DNG files. If I run
    >>>> them through
    >>>> Adobe's DNG converter I can cut the file size in half.

    >>
    >>> I tried DNG, it saves around 10% for me but I can't convert back to
    >>> original file. I was worried about lost data.

    >>
    >>>> I can get a 25%
    >>>> increase by converting the PEF Raw files to DNG with compression.

    >>
    >>> You mean they become bigger?

    >>
    >> Adobe has said there is a possibility of lost data (basically
    >> anything the maker encrypts) however, it is few an far between and
    >> has become even more so of late. However, it sounds like your camera
    >> is already doing a pretty good job of compression if the conversion
    >> to DNG only saves you 10%. BTW you can of course also embed the
    >> original RAW file in with the converted DNG however, you then loose
    >> any file size savings as I don't think the saved original RAW file
    >> is then compression just the DNG portion with the original RAW
    >> residing on top of that uncompressed or however much compression it
    >> had from the cameras in camera compression.
    >>
    >> As for other formats there is nothing that compresses and still
    >> gives you a RAW file.

    >
    > Yes, there is nothing available. DNG doesn't helps here.
    >
    > But it should be possible for someone like Adobe to release such a
    > tool. If it can give good compression and recreate the original file
    > like winzip, why will anyone not want to use it.


    Have you ever tried WinZip on a RAW file? You'll find that it doesn't
    do a whole heck of a lot for them--you may get 50 percent sometimes but
    you're not going to take down to a tenth its original size.

    --
    --
    --John
    to email, dial "usenet" and validate
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
     
    J. Clarke, Apr 10, 2007
    #18
  19. Sameer

    Sameer Guest

    On Apr 10, 2:49 pm, "J. Clarke" <> wrote:
    > Sameer wrote:
    > > On Apr 9, 7:35 pm, "=\(8\)" <> wrote:
    > >> "Sameer" <> wrote in message

    >
    > >>news:...

    >
    > >>> On Apr 8, 8:11 pm, "=\(8\)" <> wrote:
    > >>>> "Sameer" <> wrote in message

    >
    > >>>>news:...

    >
    > >>>>> On Mar 11, 8:04 am, "Sameer" <> wrote:
    > >>>>>> On Mar 10, 8:49 pm, C J Campbell
    > >>>>>> <> wrote:

    >
    > >>>>>>> On 2007-03-03 18:16:40 -0800, "Sameer" <>
    > >>>>>>> said:

    >
    > >>>>>>>> I tried winzip and winrar but they cant compress them much. Is
    > >>>>>>>> there
    > >>>>>>>> anything else which works?

    >
    > >>>>>>> They can't be compressed much. Nikon offers a 'compressed' RAW
    > >>>>>>> format
    > >>>>>>> in-camera. I can't tell the difference from the non-compressed
    > >>>>>>> one. They are the same size. Besides, you really don't want to
    > >>>>>>> do anything
    > >>>>>>> that might modify an original RAW file.

    >
    > >>>>>> That is why I decided not to use DNG files just to save space.

    >
    > >>>>> I was talking to a friend about this and he said that most
    > >>>>> cameras use very weak compression due to speed and better
    > >>>>> algorithms can do better, upto even 40%.

    >
    > >>>>> I hope some company releases a tool which can do this.

    >
    > >>>> With my Pentax K10D it doesn't compress the DNG files. If I run
    > >>>> them through
    > >>>> Adobe's DNG converter I can cut the file size in half.

    >
    > >>> I tried DNG, it saves around 10% for me but I can't convert back to
    > >>> original file. I was worried about lost data.

    >
    > >>>> I can get a 25%
    > >>>> increase by converting the PEF Raw files to DNG with compression.

    >
    > >>> You mean they become bigger?

    >
    > >> Adobe has said there is a possibility of lost data (basically
    > >> anything the maker encrypts) however, it is few an far between and
    > >> has become even more so of late. However, it sounds like your camera
    > >> is already doing a pretty good job of compression if the conversion
    > >> to DNG only saves you 10%. BTW you can of course also embed the
    > >> original RAW file in with the converted DNG however, you then loose
    > >> any file size savings as I don't think the saved original RAW file
    > >> is then compression just the DNG portion with the original RAW
    > >> residing on top of that uncompressed or however much compression it
    > >> had from the cameras in camera compression.

    >
    > >> As for other formats there is nothing that compresses and still
    > >> gives you a RAW file.

    >
    > > Yes, there is nothing available. DNG doesn't helps here.

    >
    > > But it should be possible for someone like Adobe to release such a
    > > tool. If it can give good compression and recreate the original file
    > > like winzip, why will anyone not want to use it.

    >
    > Have you ever tried WinZip on a RAW file? You'll find that it doesn't
    > do a whole heck of a lot for them--you may get 50 percent sometimes but
    > you're not going to take down to a tenth its original size.


    I tried winzip and winrar, got only around 5% compression.
     
    Sameer, Apr 10, 2007
    #19
  20. Sameer

    Ron Recer Guest

    "J. Clarke" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Sameer wrote:
    >> On Apr 9, 7:35 pm, "=\(8\)" <> wrote:
    >>> "Sameer" <> wrote in message
    >>>
    >>> news:...
    >>>
    >>>> On Apr 8, 8:11 pm, "=\(8\)" <> wrote:
    >>>>> "Sameer" <> wrote in message
    >>>
    >>>>> news:...
    >>>
    >>>>>> On Mar 11, 8:04 am, "Sameer" <> wrote:
    >>>>>>> On Mar 10, 8:49 pm, C J Campbell
    >>>>>>> <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>>>>> On 2007-03-03 18:16:40 -0800, "Sameer" <>
    >>>>>>>> said:
    >>>
    >>>>>>>>> I tried winzip and winrar but they cant compress them much. Is
    >>>>>>>>> there
    >>>>>>>>> anything else which works?
    >>>
    >>>>>>>> They can't be compressed much. Nikon offers a 'compressed' RAW
    >>>>>>>> format
    >>>>>>>> in-camera. I can't tell the difference from the non-compressed
    >>>>>>>> one. They are the same size. Besides, you really don't want to
    >>>>>>>> do anything
    >>>>>>>> that might modify an original RAW file.
    >>>
    >>>>>>> That is why I decided not to use DNG files just to save space.
    >>>
    >>>>>> I was talking to a friend about this and he said that most
    >>>>>> cameras use very weak compression due to speed and better
    >>>>>> algorithms can do better, upto even 40%.
    >>>
    >>>>>> I hope some company releases a tool which can do this.
    >>>
    >>>>> With my Pentax K10D it doesn't compress the DNG files. If I run
    >>>>> them through
    >>>>> Adobe's DNG converter I can cut the file size in half.
    >>>
    >>>> I tried DNG, it saves around 10% for me but I can't convert back to
    >>>> original file. I was worried about lost data.
    >>>
    >>>>> I can get a 25%
    >>>>> increase by converting the PEF Raw files to DNG with compression.
    >>>
    >>>> You mean they become bigger?
    >>>
    >>> Adobe has said there is a possibility of lost data (basically
    >>> anything the maker encrypts) however, it is few an far between and
    >>> has become even more so of late. However, it sounds like your camera
    >>> is already doing a pretty good job of compression if the conversion
    >>> to DNG only saves you 10%. BTW you can of course also embed the
    >>> original RAW file in with the converted DNG however, you then loose
    >>> any file size savings as I don't think the saved original RAW file
    >>> is then compression just the DNG portion with the original RAW
    >>> residing on top of that uncompressed or however much compression it
    >>> had from the cameras in camera compression.
    >>>
    >>> As for other formats there is nothing that compresses and still
    >>> gives you a RAW file.

    >>
    >> Yes, there is nothing available. DNG doesn't helps here.
    >>
    >> But it should be possible for someone like Adobe to release such a
    >> tool. If it can give good compression and recreate the original file
    >> like winzip, why will anyone not want to use it.

    >
    > Have you ever tried WinZip on a RAW file? You'll find that it doesn't
    > do a whole heck of a lot for them--you may get 50 percent sometimes but
    > you're not going to take down to a tenth its original size.
    >
    > --John


    Why worry about using WinZip or any other lossless compression, they only
    add an extra step and processing time. The price of external USB2/FireWire
    hard drives are down to about 40 cents a GB and still dropping. Blank DVDs
    and DVD burners are cheap.

    Ron
     
    Ron Recer, Apr 10, 2007
    #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. James Burden

    huge files no bandwidth

    James Burden, May 2, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    440
    -= Hawk =-
    May 2, 2004
  2. nemo
    Replies:
    33
    Views:
    5,797
    samuel
    Mar 22, 2005
  3. kl
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    940
    Martin Brown
    Nov 12, 2003
  4. Georges Preddivous

    Re: Huge 'Pixels' on TV monitor from still files

    Georges Preddivous, Jul 21, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    418
  5. Sameer

    raw files are HUGE

    Sameer, Mar 4, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    51
    Views:
    1,583
    J. Clarke
    Mar 18, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page