raw files are HUGE

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

  1. Sameer

    =\(8\) Guest

    =\(8\), Apr 11, 2007
    #21
    1. Advertising

  2. Sameer

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Sameer <> wrote:
    >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.


    Given that disk storage is now down around $300 per terabyte I suspect
    that you are indeed in the minority.

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Apr 11, 2007
    #22
    1. Advertising

  3. Sameer

    J. Clarke Guest

    Ron Recer wrote:
    > "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.


    The point, since you seem to need it spelled out in ad-nauseum detail,
    was that Winzip doesn't gain you much, not that one should use it to
    compress RAW files.

    As for drives being "down to 40 cents a GB", so what? You can fill any
    drive. If compression means lugging one drive through muck and mire and
    not two then it's worthwhile. As for blank DVDs and DVD burners being
    cheap, perhaps so, but they also have to be carried, and one DVD only
    holds about half a day's shooting.

    --
    --
    --John
    to email, dial "usenet" and validate
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
     
    J. Clarke, Apr 11, 2007
    #23
  4. I don;t know about other cameras but the raw files from my Canon 30D are
    hugely compressed, presumably losslessly. This is not hard ... basically,
    one would first split them up into the three color channels. Then I would
    in effect fill in the gaps in the green channel with the average of the
    four adjacent pixels. Then one JPEG compresses the resulting three
    images (R, G, and B, G being of course much larger), decompresses them,
    and calculates the difference between the original and the decompressed
    jpegs. Then one Huffman encodes the differences (leaving out the data for
    the estimated pixels). The result is lossless and fairly small. Of course,
    the 12 bits or 14 for the latest camera are packed fully in 16 bit words
    without excess zeros.

    Of course, I am describing the "idea", not exactly how it is really
    done.

    Doug McDonald
     
    Doug McDonald, Apr 11, 2007
    #24
  5. Sameer

    John Bean Guest

    On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 10:06:55 -0500, Doug McDonald
    <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote:
    >Of course, I am describing the "idea", not exactly how it is really
    >done.


    Lossless JPEG is the actual method usually employed.

    --
    John Bean
     
    John Bean, Apr 11, 2007
    #25
  6. Sameer

    Sameer Guest

    On Apr 10, 11:23 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
    > Sameer <> wrote:
    > >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.

    >
    > Given that disk storage is now down around $300 per terabyte I suspect
    > that you are indeed in the minority.


    I will be dissapointed if that is the case, maybe others can share
    their opinion. If many feel such a tool can be helpful, hopefully
    someone will build it.
     
    Sameer, Apr 11, 2007
    #26
  7. Sameer

    Ken Lucke Guest

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

    > >
    > > Given that disk storage is now down around $300 per terabyte I suspect
    > > that you are indeed in the minority.

    >
    > I will be dissapointed if that is the case, maybe others can share
    > their opinion. If many feel such a tool can be helpful, hopefully
    > someone will build it.
    >


    I'm sorry, but I agree with the point of view that with the incredible
    cheapness of storage nowadays, there's no reason to compress and
    decompress images all the time - all it does is waste time and CPU
    cycles for little return.

    When I can walk into a Costo and pick up an external 300 GB FireWire
    drive for about $125, come home, plug it in, and have it functioning
    within minutes of walking in the door, thus giving me the ability to
    store 300,000 MORE raw files than I was capable of doing a few minutes
    before (my raw files average around 10 megabytes each), there's zero
    impetus to worry about a 10-15% compression of the files.

    It's just not worth it - IMO, if you're going to be shooting (AND
    keeping, including /keeping/ /track/ /of/) that many files, the slight
    savings in disk space is not really *even* going to be a factor.

    Besides, if they're compressed, you're not going to have a thumbnail
    preview available to quickly look at them in the Finder or the Windows
    browser (all you're going to have is the icon for whatever file type
    they are), so you're going to have to decommpress them /just/ to see
    what they are when trying to find one, if you don't use management
    tools like Aperture or Lightroom - and you /can't/ use them if you are
    using compressed files.

    --
    You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a
    reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating
    the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for
    independence.
    -- Charles A. Beard
     
    Ken Lucke, Apr 11, 2007
    #27
  8. Sameer

    Ken Lucke Guest

    In article <110420071355344370%>, Ken Lucke
    <> wrote:
    > within minutes of walking in the door, thus giving me the ability to
    > store 300,000 MORE raw files than I was capable of doing a few minutes



    Oops, sorry, I think I slipped a couple of decimal points there. Try
    30,000,000 more.

    322,122,547,200 bytes storage (300 GB - [yes I know there's some slight
    overhead lost]) / 10240 byte files (average) == 31,457,280 files

    --
    You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a
    reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating
    the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for
    independence.
    -- Charles A. Beard
     
    Ken Lucke, Apr 11, 2007
    #28
  9. Sameer

    ASAAR Guest

    On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 13:55:34 -0700, Ken Lucke wrote:

    > It's just not worth it - IMO, if you're going to be shooting (AND
    > keeping, including /keeping/ /track/ /of/) that many files, the slight
    > savings in disk space is not really *even* going to be a factor.
    >
    > Besides, if they're compressed, you're not going to have a thumbnail
    > preview available to quickly look at them in the Finder or the Windows
    > browser (all you're going to have is the icon for whatever file type
    > they are), so you're going to have to decommpress them /just/ to see
    > what they are when trying to find one, if you don't use management
    > tools like Aperture or Lightroom - and you /can't/ use them if you are
    > using compressed files.


    You may be right, but couldn't thumbnails be available in
    uncompressed form even though the main image has been compressed?
    There's another reason for using in-camera compression that's only
    indirectly related to saving disk space. I recall discussing here
    several months ago how one manufacturer's DSLR was able to have
    almost double the throughput of another manufacturer's similar DSLR
    when taking long, sustained bursts. The reason was that one saved
    compressed files that were much smaller than the other DSLR's
    uncompressed files, and both cameras had similar speeds writing to
    their flash cards.
     
    ASAAR, Apr 11, 2007
    #29
  10. Sameer

    John Bean Guest

    On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 17:38:08 -0400, ASAAR <>
    wrote:

    >On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 13:55:34 -0700, Ken Lucke wrote:
    >
    >> It's just not worth it - IMO, if you're going to be shooting (AND
    >> keeping, including /keeping/ /track/ /of/) that many files, the slight
    >> savings in disk space is not really *even* going to be a factor.
    >>
    >> Besides, if they're compressed, you're not going to have a thumbnail
    >> preview available to quickly look at them in the Finder or the Windows
    >> browser (all you're going to have is the icon for whatever file type
    >> they are), so you're going to have to decommpress them /just/ to see
    >> what they are when trying to find one, if you don't use management
    >> tools like Aperture or Lightroom - and you /can't/ use them if you are
    >> using compressed files.

    >
    > You may be right, but couldn't thumbnails be available in
    >uncompressed form even though the main image has been compressed?


    The thumnail (and bigger preview) in most raw files is a
    JPEG anyhow, so it's even more compressed than the raw data
    ;-)

    Many raw files are a variant of TIFF, so the compression of
    the image data is independent of the thumbnail(s) stored
    elsewhere in the file. That's why a simple registry patch
    for Windows to tell it that a NEF or a DNG is just a TIFF in
    disguise results in Explorer showing thumbs for those files
    despite having no idea what the raw data inside the file
    actually represents, compressed or not.


    --
    John Bean
     
    John Bean, Apr 11, 2007
    #30
  11. Sameer

    ASAAR Guest

    On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 23:14:45 +0100, John Bean wrote:

    >> You may be right, but couldn't thumbnails be available in
    >> uncompressed form even though the main image has been compressed?

    >
    > The thumnail (and bigger preview) in most raw files is a
    > JPEG anyhow, so it's even more compressed than the raw data
    > ;-)


    Note that I'm didn't state how thumbnails are or aren't stored. I
    just suggested that there shouldn't be a good reason why thumbnails
    *must* be compressed. I'd think that the cameras that store a
    normal jpeg image along with the raw files (some cameras using a
    single file to store both, others saving two separate files) might
    well want to compress the jpegs, but there wouldn't be as good a
    reason to force the compression of the much smaller thumbnails.


    > Many raw files are a variant of TIFF, so the compression of
    > the image data is independent of the thumbnail(s) stored
    > elsewhere in the file. That's why a simple registry patch
    > for Windows to tell it that a NEF or a DNG is just a TIFF in
    > disguise results in Explorer showing thumbs for those files
    > despite having no idea what the raw data inside the file
    > actually represents, compressed or not.


    Correct, Explorer doesn't have a "preview" option for NEF files,
    but does when they're renamed to .TIFF, and then it shows a very
    small thumbnail. That doesn't necessarily indicate that TIFF is in
    any way similar to NEF, ORF or other raw files, just that other
    non-raw components may be stored similarly in TIFF and raw files.
    Don't some cameras create much larger TIFF files than raw files?
    That would indicate that one isn't quite the other in disguise.
     
    ASAAR, Apr 11, 2007
    #31
  12. Sameer

    Ken Lucke Guest

    In article <>, John Bean
    <> wrote:

    > On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 17:38:08 -0400, ASAAR <>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 13:55:34 -0700, Ken Lucke wrote:
    > >
    > >> It's just not worth it - IMO, if you're going to be shooting (AND
    > >> keeping, including /keeping/ /track/ /of/) that many files, the slight
    > >> savings in disk space is not really *even* going to be a factor.
    > >>
    > >> Besides, if they're compressed, you're not going to have a thumbnail
    > >> preview available to quickly look at them in the Finder or the Windows
    > >> browser (all you're going to have is the icon for whatever file type
    > >> they are), so you're going to have to decommpress them /just/ to see
    > >> what they are when trying to find one, if you don't use management
    > >> tools like Aperture or Lightroom - and you /can't/ use them if you are
    > >> using compressed files.

    > >
    > > You may be right, but couldn't thumbnails be available in
    > >uncompressed form even though the main image has been compressed?

    >
    > The thumnail (and bigger preview) in most raw files is a
    > JPEG anyhow, so it's even more compressed than the raw data
    > ;-)
    >
    > Many raw files are a variant of TIFF, so the compression of
    > the image data is independent of the thumbnail(s) stored
    > elsewhere in the file. That's why a simple registry patch
    > for Windows to tell it that a NEF or a DNG is just a TIFF in
    > disguise results in Explorer showing thumbs for those files
    > despite having no idea what the raw data inside the file
    > actually represents, compressed or not.


    I don't think you understand. If you compress ANY file into a .zip,
    ..sit, .rar, .sitx, or whatever, the file then becomes that file type,
    until uncompressed again. Any emmbedded preview, thumbail, or other
    data is all compressed right along with the rest of the data, and thus
    is not accessible to the OS to display. Unless you specifically
    generate (taking the extra time, CPU cycles, and knowledge to do so) a
    custom icon/thumbnail for each and every file, it shows up in the
    operating system as the generic icon for that type of compressed file.

    --
    You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a
    reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating
    the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for
    independence.
    -- Charles A. Beard
     
    Ken Lucke, Apr 12, 2007
    #32
  13. On 2007-04-11, ASAAR <> wrote:
    > Correct, Explorer doesn't have a "preview" option for NEF files,
    > but does when they're renamed to .TIFF, and then it shows a very
    > small thumbnail. That doesn't necessarily indicate that TIFF is in
    > any way similar to NEF, ORF or other raw files, just that other
    > non-raw components may be stored similarly in TIFF and raw files.


    DNG files use the TIFF structure to encode the information. If NEF
    files can be seen as previews when renamed to .TIFF, then they likely
    follow the same kind of structure.

    When converting MRW files to DNG files, the Adobe DNG converter (with
    the default settings) produces TIFF files containing a uncompressed
    thumbnail image, a small JPEG sub-file, along with the actual RAW data
    as another sub-file. A program that knows how to handle JPEG-in-TIFF
    files may even be able to view the embeded picture in addition to the
    thumbnail, but a raw converter would be needed to access the full data.

    > Don't some cameras create much larger TIFF files than raw files?
    > That would indicate that one isn't quite the other in disguise.


    A TIFF image file contains red+green+blue components for each pixel,
    totalling 3 or 6 bytes per pixel (depending on if the data is stored as
    8 or 16 bit data). This data may be compressed with LZW, but that
    wouldn't likely produce more than a 25% reduction in size.

    On the other hand, raw files contain only one of the red, green, or blue
    components per pixel, and is usually packed as 2 values in 3 bytes for
    12-bit sensor data. Adobe DNG files may be further compressed
    losslessly internally with JPEG-LS, which achieves about a further 40%
    size reduction compared to the packed data size.

    FWIW, the compression used internally in DNG files is significnatly more
    effective than any other external compressor I've tried on either my
    original MRW files or uncompressed DNG files, and I've tried a quite few
    (zip, 7zip, rar, rzip, and bzip2).

    --
    Bruce Guenter <> http://untroubled.org/
     
    Bruce Guenter, Apr 12, 2007
    #33
  14. Sameer

    John Bean Guest

    On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 16:01:06 -0700, Ken Lucke
    <> wrote:
    >I don't think you understand. If you compress ANY file into a .zip,
    >.sit, .rar, .sitx, or whatever, [snip]



    Sorry, cross purposes. I thought you were referring to
    compression of the raw image in the file rather than
    external compression of the file itself. I agree with your
    point.

    --
    John Bean
     
    John Bean, Apr 12, 2007
    #34
  15. On Apr 12, 1:08 am, Bruce Guenter <> wrote:
    [snip]
    > DNG files use the TIFF structure to encode the information. If NEF
    > files can be seen as previews when renamed to .TIFF, then they likely
    > follow the same kind of structure.

    [snip]

    Correct. In fact, NEFs and DNGs are so similar that you can do a lot
    of examination of NEFs using the dng_validate.exe tool from the DNG
    SDK.

    --
    Barry Pearson
    http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/photography/
     
    Barry Pearson, Apr 12, 2007
    #35
  16. Sameer

    JC Dill Guest

    On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 14:06:31 -0700, Ken Lucke <>
    wrote:

    >In article <110420071355344370%>, Ken Lucke
    ><> wrote:
    >> within minutes of walking in the door, thus giving me the ability to
    >> store 300,000 MORE raw files than I was capable of doing a few minutes

    >
    >Oops, sorry, I think I slipped a couple of decimal points there. Try
    >30,000,000 more.


    You slipped again, and in the wrong direction.

    >322,122,547,200 bytes storage (300 GB - [yes I know there's some slight
    >overhead lost]) / 10240 byte files (average) == 31,457,280 files


    1024 bytes is 1 KB (Kilobyte) so that calculation is for 10 KB files,
    not 10 MB files.

    A 300 GB disk holds approximately (allowing for overhead etc.):
    300 1 GB files (duh? :)
    3,000 100 MB files
    30,000 10 MB files

    jc

    --

    "The nice thing about a mare is you get to ride a lot
    of different horses without having to own that many."
    ~ Eileen Morgan of The Mare's Nest, PA
     
    JC Dill, Apr 12, 2007
    #36
  17. Sameer

    Ken Lucke Guest

    In article <>, JC Dill
    <> wrote:

    > On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 14:06:31 -0700, Ken Lucke <>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >In article <110420071355344370%>, Ken Lucke
    > ><> wrote:
    > >> within minutes of walking in the door, thus giving me the ability to
    > >> store 300,000 MORE raw files than I was capable of doing a few minutes

    > >
    > >Oops, sorry, I think I slipped a couple of decimal points there. Try
    > >30,000,000 more.

    >
    > You slipped again, and in the wrong direction.
    >
    > >322,122,547,200 bytes storage (300 GB - [yes I know there's some slight
    > >overhead lost]) / 10240 byte files (average) == 31,457,280 files

    >
    > 1024 bytes is 1 KB (Kilobyte) so that calculation is for 10 KB files,
    > not 10 MB files.
    >
    > A 300 GB disk holds approximately (allowing for overhead etc.):
    > 300 1 GB files (duh? :)
    > 3,000 100 MB files
    > 30,000 10 MB files
    >


    Yeah, you're right. I've been having a bad week, my brain is not
    functioning properly (that's what happens when virtually your entire
    life gets wiped out by identity theft).

    --
    You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a
    reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating
    the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for
    independence.
    -- Charles A. Beard
     
    Ken Lucke, Apr 12, 2007
    #37
    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:
    454
    -= Hawk =-
    May 2, 2004
  2. nemo
    Replies:
    33
    Views:
    5,816
    samuel
    Mar 22, 2005
  3. kl
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    966
    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:
    428
  5. Sameer

    raw files are HUGE

    Sameer, Mar 4, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    51
    Views:
    1,600
    J. Clarke
    Mar 18, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page