Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2013/05/07

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Warning: Tech Stuff and Questions
From: rgacpa at gmail.com (Bob Adler)
Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 19:50:41 -0700
References: <E9886B64-65FB-4390-A1DB-5C1219D2C6A1@acm.org>

Way beyond my pay grade!

Sent from my iPad

On May 7, 2013, at 4:46 PM, Herbert Kanner <kanner at acm.org> wrote:

> Wanting an inexpensive camera for places/activities that could be risky 
> for my M9, I jumped at the offer of a used Lumix DMC-LX5d on the LUG. 
> After a dozen hours of learning how to cope quickly with the complex array 
> of menus and doing some experemts with RAW, I come up with with some 
> puzzlements for the techies among you,
> 
> First, for comparison, here is how the M9 files are. Not using Leica's 
> compression, the DNG files right out of the camera are exactly 36,4 MB. 
> After going into Lightroom (LR4) the DMG files that LR stored from a set 
> of twenty or thirty shots ranged in size from 19.2 to 22.2 MB. Clearly LR 
> is doing some lossless compression--this started, I think, with LR3; LR2 
> didn't do it. Interesting fact--note this later as you read--is that a Mac 
> application called "Just Looking" will display images from RAW files and 
> displays both the original and compressed versions equally.
> 
> Next, here is the story on the Lumix RAW files. The files right out of the 
> camera have ranged in size, again from a moderate set of shots, from 11.8 
> to 11.9 MB. That they are not identical in size is puzzling. Are they 
> using some lossy compression from a sensor that puts out larger files? 
> Also, I'd like to make a comment on the file size of RAW from this 10 
> megapixel camera. It would indicate that the data from each pixel is one 
> byte. Well that is exactly the data size from an M9 if one uses Leica's 
> lossy compression, which several LUGers have said is not visually 
> detectable. I'm sort of ready to go along with this observation; human 
> response to stimuli--all kinds--is logarithmic. That is each time you 
> multiply the intensity of a stimulus by a constant factor, e.g., doubling 
> it, the human thinks of that as uniform steps (think decibel!). So, the 
> Leica 36MB minus whatever the EXIF data consumes is gross overkill!. 
> 
> Now a funny thing happens when LR turns those files into DNGs. The RAW 
> files right out of the camera can be displayed by "Just Looking". But the 
> DNG files produced from these by LR cannot. The files produced by LR are a 
> bit more varied in size than the originals, ranging from 10.3 to 14.8 MB.
> 
> Can the techies among you shed any light?
> 
> Herb
> 
> 
> 
> Herbert Kanner
> kanner at acm.org
> 650-326-8204
> 
> Question authority and the authorities will question you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information


Replies: Reply from douglas.sharp at gmx.de (Douglas Sharp) ([Leica] Warning: Tech Stuff and Questions)
Reply from photo at frozenlight.eu (Nathan Wajsman) ([Leica] Warning: Tech Stuff and Questions)
In reply to: Message from kanner at acm.org (Herbert Kanner) ([Leica] Warning: Tech Stuff and Questions)