Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/09/21

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

Subject: [Leica] new 1ds mark II
From: abridge at (Adam Bridge)
Date: Tue Sep 21 18:59:19 2004
References: <000001c49fe3$c52f23d0$6401a8c0@dorysrusp4> <1095788943.8786.68.camel@failsafe> <> <1095817933.4798.8.camel@failsafe>

I estimate the size of the RAW files to match the number of pixels in
the sensor. The 10D is a 6.1 or so Mpixel camera and that's how big
the RAW files are. When you save the raw file, however, as a 16 bit
image then it gets a lot bigger. So your estimate of 50 MB is probalby
pretty close for the camera's JPEG image. But it's a long way from a
4000dpi scan of 35mm film.


On 21 Sep 2004 18:52:13 -0700, Feli di Giorgio <> 
> On Tue, 2004-09-21 at 18:12, Adam Bridge wrote:
> > But this isn't out of line for scanned film at all! In fact a full
> > frame scan of 35mm in 16-bit color is going to be on the neighborhood
> > of 120MB/image.
> The 1DsII is 12-bit (4992 x 3328).
> > But where are you getting a full-frame image of 50MB?
> That's what I read. Seemed to make sense to me since my Nikon SC 5000 ED
> puts out a 60ish MB file @ 4000dpi/16bit color (3,946 x 5,959).
> > The RAW file for the camera is going to match the pixel-count or
> > roughly 17 MB/image. They'll expland a lot after you process them in
> > your RAW converter and move them into 16-bit space for real work.
> > I think it's not as bad as your back-of-the-envelop computations suggest.
> > Adam
> So, how big do you estimate them to be? Do I need a new pencil?
> Feli
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See for more information

In reply to: Message from dorysrus at (Don Dory) (Digital M/Digital Rebel was Re: [Leica] Lost Faith in Leica)
Message from feli at (Feli di Giorgio) ([Leica] new 1ds mark II)
Message from abridge at (Adam Bridge) ([Leica] new 1ds mark II)
Message from feli at (Feli di Giorgio) ([Leica] new 1ds mark II)