raw files are HUGE

"C J Campbell" <christophercampbell@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2007031007495627544-christophercampbell@hotmailcom...
> On 2007-03-03 18:16:40 -0800, "Sameer" <sameerxahuja@gmail.com> 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.
>
> --
> Waddling Eagle
> World Famous Flight Instructor
>
Why would you want to compress a RAW file anyway? The idea is to have an
uncompressed image. If you want it smaller, just convert it to a JPEG.
Rob

"Folkert Rienstra" <folkertdashrienstra@wanadoo.nl> writes:

>> You're right about performance going up w/ the square root of capacity...

>Platter capacity.

That's the most correct answer, but you can't tell the platter capacity
from the outside of the drive, just the overall capacity.

On the other hand, as long as you compare drives of the same physical
size, which are the highest capacity in their "family", the number of
platters remains about the same, and so platter capacity is roughly
proportional to drive capacity.

On the other hand, if you compare today's 80 MB drive to an 80 MB drive
from 5 years ago, the latter probably has 3 or 4X as many surfaces as
the former.

Dave

Dave Martindale wrote:

> "Folkert Rienstra" <folkertdashrienstra@wanadoo.nl> writes:
>
>
>>>You're right about performance going up w/ the square root of capacity...
>
>
>>Platter capacity.
>
>
> That's the most correct answer, but you can't tell the platter capacity
> from the outside of the drive, just the overall capacity.
>
> On the other hand, as long as you compare drives of the same physical
> size, which are the highest capacity in their "family", the number of
> platters remains about the same, and so platter capacity is roughly
> proportional to drive capacity.
>
> On the other hand, if you compare today's 80 MB drive to an 80 MB drive
> from 5 years ago, the latter probably has 3 or 4X as many surfaces as
> the former.
>
> Dave

I doubt you can find an example of "today's 80 MB drive" to compare with.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.

On 3ÔÂ4ÈÕ, ÉÏÎç10ʱ16·Ö, "Sameer" <sameerxah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I tried winzip and winrar but they cant compress them much. Is there
> anything else which works?

Good!
http://fy4.net/ad.html

Scubabix wrote:

> Why would you want to compress a RAW file anyway?

To save space.


> The idea is to have an
> uncompressed image. If you want it smaller, just convert it to a JPEG.


HUH? The idea is to have an image that is an exact representation of
what the camera saw. Compression is good if it is reversible. The Canon
CR2 format clearly is compressed quite a bit and works well. You would
EXPECT most camera's raw format to compress well, if for no other reason than
it is 12 bit, which leaves 4 unused bits in each word. Not to mention that
the vast majority of picture are going to have quite of bit of area
that is sky, or painted wall, or a closeup of somebody's (hopefully nice
clear complexion) face, and all of these should compress well if done
right.

Doug McDonald

On Mar 10, 8:49 pm, C J Campbell <christophercampb...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> On 2007-03-03 18:16:40 -0800, "Sameer" <sameerxah...@gmail.com> 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.

On Mar 10, 3:49 pm, C J Campbell <christophercampb...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
[snip]
> Besides, you really don't want to do anything
> that might modify an original RAW file.

Why not? (Please don't say something silly about "your digital
negative"!)

Lots of things modify original raw files, typically by changing
metadata within them.

What matters is preserving the raw image data - NOT the raw file.

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/photography/

"Dave Martindale" <davem@cs.ubc.ca> wrote in message news:esvmq7$oel$1@swain.cs.ubc.ca
> "Folkert Rienstra" <folkertxxxxrienstra@wanadoo.nl> writes:

You are posting the Reply-to address instead of the From address.

>
> > > You're right about performance going up w/ the square root of capacity...
>
> > Platter capacity.

> That's the most correct answer,

On rethink, that should have read 'surface capacity'.
The smallest drive in the range may even use only one
surface or even only a partial surface.

> but you can't tell the platter capacity from the
> outside of the drive, just the overall capacity.

Which is no reason for making a wrong statement.
And I think that the square root means that a capacity increase is derived
from equal sector and track density increase. That may not be true either.

>
> On the other hand, as long as you compare drives of the same physical
> size, which are the highest capacity in their "family",

That sentence makes absolutely no sense. Presumably you mean
"same physical make-up", like same number of platters, heads, rpm etc.

> the number of platters remains about the same, and so platter capacity
> is roughly proportional to drive capacity.

Until you change to Perpendicular Recording and all bets are off again.

>
> On the other hand, if you compare today's 80 MB drive to an 80 MB drive
> from 5 years ago, the latter probably has 3 or 4X as many surfaces as
> the former.
>
> Dave

On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 00:24:41 +0100, "Folkert Rienstra"
<see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote:

>"Dave Martindale" <davem@cs.ubc.ca> wrote in message news:esvmq7$oel$1@swain.cs.ubc.ca
>> "Folkert Rienstra" <folkertxxxxrienstra@wanadoo.nl> writes:
<snip>

>
>Until you change to Perpendicular Recording and all bets are off again.

Any of the new drives now on the market not perpendicular?

>
>>
>> On the other hand, if you compare today's 80 MB drive to an 80 MB drive
>> from 5 years ago, the latter probably has 3 or 4X as many surfaces as
>> the former.
>>
>> Dave
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 02:11:21 -0400, Roger <GetValidAddress@my.com> wrote:


>On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 00:24:41 +0100, "Folkert Rienstra"
><see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote:

>>"Dave Martindale" <davem@cs.ubc.ca> wrote in message news:esvmq7$oel$1@swain.cs.ubc.ca
>>> "Folkert Rienstra" <folkertxxxxrienstra@wanadoo.nl> writes:
><snip>

>>
>>Until you change to Perpendicular Recording and all bets are off again.

>Any of the new drives now on the market not perpendicular?

Most of them.
There's only one that advertises perpendicular magnetic orientation and
that the seagate 750gb.