8 megapixel RAW file converted to 16-bit Tiff...

....45 Megs!!! And I thought the RAW file was large.
-Rich

Rich wrote:

...45 Megs!!! And I thought the RAW file was large.
-Rich

Yes, 8 megapixels at six bytes per pixel - each color uses two bytes in
16-bit files - is 48 megabytes, so why the surprise?

You want top quality, you got top quality. Size does matter {:-)

Colin D.

In ,
Rich typed:
...45 Megs!!! And I thought the RAW file was large.
-Rich

Does that mean you've now taken a photograph at long last? ;-)

nv

"Rich" wrote in message
...
...45 Megs!!! And I thought the RAW file was large.

You actually DO take pictures?
I thought all you did around here was assume that nobody ever browsed
anywhere.

Sure!

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm

Colin D wrote:

Rich wrote:

...45 Megs!!! And I thought the RAW file was large.
-Rich

Yes, 8 megapixels at six bytes per pixel - each color uses two bytes in
16-bit files - is 48 megabytes, so why the surprise?

Rich just learned how to multiply.

You want top quality, you got top quality. Size does matter {:-)

Size tends to reflects the inefficiency of the source coder than
anything else. I have a growing suite of programs which do random
things to images. They all use a floating point format internally;
for a full 1DMkII frame, it comes to about a 100MB footprint. The
point isn't quality, but simplicity. I have never pushed one of these
things across a process boundary yet. The day I need to, though, is
the day I start using the OpenEXR:

http://www.openexr.com/

"Rich" wrote in message
...
...45 Megs!!! And I thought the RAW file was large.
-Rich

So ... ?

Even a "low resolution" scan of a 6 x 6 transparency can run well over 80
megabytes!

"RSD99" wrote in message
news:ZS2We.24861$8h6.3988@trnddc09...
"Rich" wrote in message
...
...45 Megs!!! And I thought the RAW file was large.
-Rich

So ... ?

Even a "low resolution" scan of a 6 x 6 transparency can run well over 80
megabytes!






I forgot to add ... that's at 8-bits per color, 24-bits per pixel.

If you want "Quality" ... you have to have big files. Always been that way,
will always be that way.

Thu, 15 Sep 2005 00:04:50 GMT skrev RSD99:
"RSD99" wrote in message
news:ZS2We.24861$8h6.3988@trnddc09...
"Rich" wrote in message
...
...45 Megs!!! And I thought the RAW file was large.
-Rich

So ... ?

Even a "low resolution" scan of a 6 x 6 transparency can run well over 80
megabytes!


I forgot to add ... that's at 8-bits per color, 24-bits per pixel.

If you want "Quality" ... you have to have big files. Always been that way,
will always be that way.

Not necessarily true. Some years ago, that size was considered enormous,
now it is big, in some more years it is small. The human eyes, and hence
the size-requirement will not change, but what is considered big will
change.

--
Mandus - the only mandus around.

"Rich" wrote in message
...
...45 Megs!!! And I thought the RAW file was large.
-Rich

....Which is somewhat smaller than the 202MB Tiff files I'm getting from
scanning 6x4.5 120 film this evening @ 3200 DPI.
Resulting image pixel count is about 33 megapixel!

....Hence I'm saving them as .jpgs now as 3GB storage for every roll of film
I scan is just mad!

Alan.