Gigapixel Images and File Sizes
-
@scottalanmiller said in Gigapixel Images and File Sizes:
@dafyre said in Gigapixel Images and File Sizes:
Found a site that gives a formula and steps on how they calculate file sizes...
https://4nsi.com/faq/how-do-i-calculate-the-file-size-for-a-digital-image
It's hard to know if it's accurate, but he math makes sense.
Except it is completely wrong so the math making sense doesn't matter, since it's absolutely wrong. That's for calculating a bitmap file type, which no one uses.
that's now how raw images are stored? Can you enlighten me?
-
@Dashrender said in Gigapixel Images and File Sizes:
@scottalanmiller said in Gigapixel Images and File Sizes:
@dafyre said in Gigapixel Images and File Sizes:
Found a site that gives a formula and steps on how they calculate file sizes...
https://4nsi.com/faq/how-do-i-calculate-the-file-size-for-a-digital-image
It's hard to know if it's accurate, but he math makes sense.
Except it is completely wrong so the math making sense doesn't matter, since it's absolutely wrong. That's for calculating a bitmap file type, which no one uses.
that's now how raw images are stored? Can you enlighten me?
Why would you talk about raw? That's not how you store images unless you are a nutter. Can you intentionally make storage a problem? Yes. But you can find ways to make it even bigger than that.
You compress images, this isn't the dark ages. That's why we have "image formats".
-
@Dashrender said in Gigapixel Images and File Sizes:
Can you enlighten me?
Because uncompressed files are huge for no reason. Compressed files are small and practical. And essentially automatic, cameras will compress right in the camera when taking the picture. Have for decades. Using bitmaps directly is like a Windows 3.11 era problem back when lossless image compression was not public domain and standardized.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Gigapixel Images and File Sizes:
@Dashrender said in Gigapixel Images and File Sizes:
Can you enlighten me?
Because uncompressed files are huge for no reason. Compressed files are small and practical. And essentially automatic, cameras will compress right in the camera when taking the picture. Have for decades. Using bitmaps directly is like a Windows 3.11 era problem back when lossless image compression was not public domain and standardized.
so all those out there that capture in raw and make changes in raw before converting to jpg, etc are nutters.. ok.
I'm not a photographer, I barely play one on vacation.
-
@Dashrender said in Gigapixel Images and File Sizes:
@scottalanmiller said in Gigapixel Images and File Sizes:
@Dashrender said in Gigapixel Images and File Sizes:
Can you enlighten me?
Because uncompressed files are huge for no reason. Compressed files are small and practical. And essentially automatic, cameras will compress right in the camera when taking the picture. Have for decades. Using bitmaps directly is like a Windows 3.11 era problem back when lossless image compression was not public domain and standardized.
so all those out there that capture in raw and make changes in raw before converting to jpg, etc.
Raw isn't unrealistic for photo studios, it's just a nature of the beast. The problem is that you keep raw only until you can compress and make whatever you need out of the raw.
If a client pays for a photoshoot, they are paying for time and raw photos, any editing etc is all done on compressed photos and the client would never get a raw of that.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Gigapixel Images and File Sizes:
Raw isn't unrealistic for photo studios, it's just a nature of the beast. The problem is that you keep raw only until you can compress and make whatever you need out of the raw.
Right, MAYBE just in an initial transfer, but not storage.
-
OK I'll give you that.. local storage from the camera to the editing device needs to worry about RAW storage, but archival storage never does. I can dig it.
-
@Dashrender said in Gigapixel Images and File Sizes:
so all those out there that capture in raw and make changes in raw before converting to jpg, etc are nutters.. ok.
They COMPRESS their raw, so yes, nutters if they go to uncompressed raw like you are describe. You are using raw to imply uncompressed.
The issue here is that you are not clear on what raw is and using it to mean something different. Yes, having raw files might make sense. Having uncompressed ones (why I said bitmap) does not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_image_format
"A camera raw image file contains minimally processed data from the image sensor of either a digital camera, a motion picture film scanner, or other image scanner.[1][2] Raw files are named so because they are not yet processed and therefore are not ready to be printed or edited with a bitmap graphics editor."
-
@Dashrender said in Gigapixel Images and File Sizes:
OK I'll give you that.. local storage from the camera to the editing device needs to worry about RAW storage, but archival storage never does. I can dig it.
But even that is compressed. Raw and compressed is the standard, not raw uncompressed.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Gigapixel Images and File Sizes:
@dafyre said in Gigapixel Images and File Sizes:
Found a site that gives a formula and steps on how they calculate file sizes...
https://4nsi.com/faq/how-do-i-calculate-the-file-size-for-a-digital-image
It's hard to know if it's accurate, but he math makes sense.
Except it is completely wrong so the math making sense doesn't matter, since it's absolutely wrong. That's for calculating a bitmap file type, which no one uses.
You are right about nobody using bitmap files any more. I'm not looking for exact measurements -- or even conservative ones. Just an educated guess as to how big a gigapixel file could be.
By using raw data, rather than worrying about how good of compression the chosen file type gets, I can simply estimate high on the amount of storage we'd need.
