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. Advertisements

  2. ray

    eatmorepies Guest

    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. Advertisements

  3. 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, Jan 26, 2012
    #3
  4. ray

    ray Guest

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

    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

    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


    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

    Ya still gotta unpack the whole damned mess.
     
    ray, Jan 28, 2012
    #9
    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.