Are any digital cameras producing tiffs?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Ray Murphy, Nov 25, 2003.

  1. Ray Murphy

    Ray Murphy Guest

    ----------
    RM: Wow!
    It sounds a bit like the early powerful Agfa digital camera which
    needed a Mac attached to it to get it to take a photo.
    Do you have any idea how long Photoshop takes to convert a RAW image
    (4256 x 2848) into TIFF, and if there is a difference in the actual
    pixel colours after the conversion is done?
    The reason I ask is - I cannot imagine that the camera could posibly
    do the same conversion in a few seconds - in between shots if it was
    working in TIFF mode.

    Ray
     
    Ray Murphy, Nov 25, 2003
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. Ray Murphy

    Todd Walker Guest

    No they don't George. Not without interpolation. Stop lying.

    --
    __________________________________
    Todd Walker
    http://www.toddwalker.net
    Canon 10D page:
    http://www.toddwalker.net/canon10d
    __________________________________
     
    Todd Walker, Nov 25, 2003
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. Ray Murphy

    Steve Guest

    days.

    Hi

    That is nonsense.

    2268*1512 = 3429216
    * 3 = 10287648
    * 2 ( 2 bytes per pixel for 16 bit) = 20575296

    Therefore, the absolute maximum raw uninterpolated TIFF file you could
    possibly extract from the SD9 sensor is 19.62MB

    Steve
     
    Steve, Nov 25, 2003
    #23
  4. Isn't it more fair to compare the factor QUALITY / FILESIZE ?


    Morgan O.
     
    Morgan Ohlson, Nov 25, 2003
    #24
  5. Ray Murphy

    Ray Murphy Guest

    ----------
    RM: From what I've learned on this thread today, it has become quite
    obvious that if the RAW format is available, then *that* is what is
    most important if anyone is interested in obtaining the best quality,
    and file size is not an issue.
    It all depends upon what one is focussing upon. In my case it was
    quality.

    I had heard of the RAW format previously, but had no idea it was used
    in digital cameras; in fact I didn't know if TIFFs were being produced
    yet- hence the title I gave the thread.

    Ray
     
    Ray Murphy, Nov 25, 2003
    #25
  6. Look for RAW images -- smaller, and more commonly supported.

    My Fuji S2 will produce both RAW format and TIFF format. The TIFFs,
    however, are inconveniently large (36MB or some such).
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Nov 25, 2003
    #26
  7. Ray Murphy

    Ray Murphy Guest

    ----------
    RM: Thanks everyone for the large amount of information you have
    provided to the original question.
    Keep 'em coming if there's more that we can all share :))

    Ray
    [Sold on RAW]
     
    Ray Murphy, Nov 25, 2003
    #27
  8. Ray Murphy

    Larry Lynch Guest

    Sony Cyberview 717 can save as .tif or .jpg (full
    resolution .tif files are about 14mb)
     
    Larry Lynch, Nov 25, 2003
    #28
  9. My reaction was based on that most people, probably bother about hq (like
    you) but also, in most cases are limited by the memory (64-256Mb) sizest
    most used.

    In real life most (not all) can't really know when that "shot-of-a-lifetime"
    occures. Not much meaning to fiddle between compresion from shot to shot....

    Just as the question about size or compression (other thread) has been
    penetrated it is interesting to know which formats produce best quality
    compared to it's memory demands.

    The criticism towards jpeg is naturally motivated, but in some perspective
    also shooting far above most family photographers heads.

    Se new subject above: "Quality file formats on normal budgets"


    Morgan O.
     
    Morgan Ohlson, Nov 26, 2003
    #29
  10. That isn't the maximum resolution. The SD9 can output interpolated
    (optionally) too.
     
    George Preddy, Nov 26, 2003
    #30
  11. And producing a 6.3MP Bayer image from 1.58M RGB sets is "magic."
     
    George Preddy, Nov 26, 2003
    #31
  12. Ray Murphy

    Al Dykes Guest

    I have a question about in-camera processing of RAW files. On my Canon
    300D I can set RAW mode and then dial in settings for direct sun, shade,
    tungsten light, etc. "none" is not a choice. How does this relate to
    the idea that RAW files are not processed in-camera. ?
     
    Al Dykes, Nov 26, 2003
    #32
  13. Ray Murphy

    Al Dykes Guest

    The 300D manual says a medium-resolution JPG is imbedded in the RAW
    file. I assume this is used in the review screen.
     
    Al Dykes, Nov 26, 2003
    #33
  14. Ray Murphy

    Chris Brown Guest

    The raw file contains an embedded JPEG, which is used to the the image you
    see on the camera's LCD. These settings affect that JPEG, and are also
    presented as defaults in your raw conversion software. They don't actually
    have any effect on the raw image data stored, however, and you can change
    them, in the raw convertor to anything you like.
     
    Chris Brown, Nov 26, 2003
    #34
  15. Ray Murphy

    Steve Guest

    What is your point? Anything can be interpolated!

    You could get a 100 megapixel image out of a VGA webcam with interpolation.
    What does that prove?
     
    Steve, Nov 26, 2003
    #35
  16. Hi Ray,

    I don't use Photoshop to do the RAW to TIFF conversions. The supplied Fuji
    software does that. Speed of conversion on your PC depends on how powerful
    your PC is and the available system resources at the time. I use a P4
    2.4GHz CPU with a Gigabyte GA-8PE667 Ultra 2 mobo fitted with 512M SDRAM -
    no problems and pretty fast enough for me. A little slower on my Asus
    notebook with a P4 2.4GHz mobile processor.

    The S2 pro can shoot off up to 7 frames before the buffer becomes full. In
    camera processing is a few seconds even for a high resolution (4256 x 2848)
    TIFF image to view it on the internal LCD.

    From RAW preview mode (using the supplied Fuji Viewer) to converted TIFF
    images there appears to be a very slight colour shift. This seems more
    pronounced with 3rd party conversion software like Bibble, but this may
    because I have only just started using Bibble and may not have it set up
    correctly yet.

    You can find out more about the Fuji S2 Pro at
    http://www2.fujifilm.co.uk/digital/cameras/s2pro/?lpage=/digital/cameras/range.php

    I have a few shots taken with this camera using a Nikon 12~24mm F4 ED lens
    at http://members.iinet.net.au/~rutlidge/photos/main.html

    Cheers,
    Alan
     
    Alan Rutlidge, Nov 26, 2003
    #36
  17. Believe me I know that. All Bayer images, for example, are interpolated.
    Bayer counts 1/3rd color sensors when assessing MP rating, not full color.
    They have to be combined to make a full color pixel. They are scaled up by
    default.
     
    George Preddy, Nov 26, 2003
    #37
  18. [snip]
    ....
    Fujifilm's Finepix S602Zoom produces TIFF uncompressed images at 2832 x 2128
    (6 Mpixels interpolated approx 18 Mbytes per picture). It's last year's
    technology and only 3 real Mpixels, but it's picture quality is said to be
    better than of the latest competitors' and you can find it on the net for as
    little as $ 630 new or even $ 420 for a factory refurbished one, with
    warranty too!
    Some infos here...
    http://www.steves-digicams.com/2002_reviews/fuji_s602z_pg2.html
    and here...
    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujis602z/

    As a comparison this year's Finepix S5000 and S7000, come with RAW file
    capability only (only at 6 and 12 Mpixels interpolated respectively) with
    less options for compression levels at given resolutions and quite more
    aggressive JPEG algorithms (especially for the S5000) leading to somewhat
    lesser picture quality.
    Anyway both cameras have great features on their own and various
    improvements over last year's S602Zoom, like the 10X zoom lens and the
    low-light focusing illuminator on the S5000 or the true 6 Mpixels 4th
    generation SuperCCD, Usb 2.0 interface, double media slot (CF I/II and XD)
    and built-in battery discharger for the S7000, just to mention some...
    (roughly $ 300-350 and $ 600-650)
    Some more informations here...
    http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/fuji_s5000.html#specs
    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilms5000/
    http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/S7000.html#specs

    Sorry for the long rant and NO I'm not a Fujifilm dealer (honest!), only
    thing is I spent so much time reading reviews about these cameras on the net
    before I bought mine, that I just couldn't resist throwing in my two cents.
    Hope it helps...

    Greetings
    FK
     
    Fedman Kassad, Nov 27, 2003
    #38
  19. Ray Murphy

    Samuel Paik Guest

    Many review sites will list output formats. Digital Photography
    Review does.

    Of the digital cameras I've owned, one had TIFF (Olympus E-100RS),
    one had the Canon raw format but no TIFF (Canon PowerShot A50), and
    the other two were JPEG only (Kodak DC240, Kodak DC280).

    Sam
     
    Samuel Paik, Nov 27, 2003
    #39
  20. Ray Murphy

    Ray Murphy Guest

    ----------
    [SNIPPED GOOD STUFF]
    RM: This has turned out to be a great thread. Thanks for typing that
    out for us :))

    Ray
     
    Ray Murphy, Nov 27, 2003
    #40
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.