Any way to 'shrink' RAW files in post (ie Raw to sRAW1)?

eoren1

As a preface, I am eagerly awaiting delivery of my 50D (and moving up from a 350D). I have been trying to decide on shooting in RAW vs sRAW1 and was wondering if there are any programs out there that will allow this to be done in post. Can the Canon software or Adobe's (via DNG) decrease the dimensions of a RAW file? I would rather not save as tiff or some other non-RAW format as I feel I would lose the option of redoing edits in the future when software might improve. Though I realize storage is cheap/getting cheaper, I'm still concerned at the potential size of these files; especially as my files from the 350D have all been adequate in size for all my printing needs (a yearly blurb.com book for each kid; few 11x14 prints; one 20x30 on canvas).
Thanks in advance,
E

arodney

eoren1 wrote:

As a preface, I am eagerly awaiting delivery of my 50D (and moving up from a 350D). I have been trying to decide on shooting in RAW vs sRAW1 and was wondering if there are any programs out there that will allow this to be done in post. Can the Canon software or Adobe's (via DNG) decrease the dimensions of a RAW file?
E

DNG can save storage space (assuming you don't embed the original Raw plus DNG in the container). It doesn't alter, nor should it, pixel dimensions. I don't know of any other product that can do this and in fact, doubt its a reality considering these are proprietary file formats that someone (Adobe in the case of DNG) has to backwards decode. I doubt anyone would spend the enormous time to do this for each format to shave some space or to toss away pixels. Stick with DNG!

http://www.ppmag.com/reviews/200709_adobedng.pdf

eoren1

Thanks for the post and the link!
I think I'm going to explore RAW and DNG file sizes as well as RAW vs sRAW1 when printed at 11x14 or so.

jfriend

I strongly suggest you rethink the strategy of throwing away pixels. There are many ways that keeping all your pixels could improve your options when processing your photos. The sRAW1 seems to only save you about 30% in file size too, while dropping the resolution in half.

Besides, you can buy a 1TB hard drive for $109. If 50D full RAW files are 20MB, that means you can store 50,000 photos on this drive. That's about $2 per thousand photos or $0.002 per photo. And, by the time you fill up this drive, hard drives will be even cheaper. $/GB has been dropping 20-30% per year.

If you think about this expense in relation to what you spend on photo equipment to capture your images, it seems a small price to pay to preserve your access to the full resolution of your images.

arodney

jfriend wrote:

I strongly suggest you rethink the strategy of throwing away pixels. There are many ways that keeping all your pixels could improve your options when processing your photos. The sRAW1 seems to only save you about 30% in file size too, while dropping the resolution in half.

I agree. This idea of a small Raw seems rather silly to me.

ziggy53

IMO the sRAW files were created for a professional workflow when only candids are required. Candids almost never require large prints so it might make sense in "some" situations.

That said, I have never bothered with sRAW myself and I certainly wouldn't consider it for an 11" x 14".

eoren1

Alright, I give up...RAW it is!
I just got the camera today and had a chance to explore the files a bit. Saw some but not much benefit at iso 1600 in the sRAW1 files. The size of files seems to be about half (17-21 megs for the RAW; 9-11 for the sRAW1).
I did happen to just increase my macbook internal drive to 320 gigs and a friend is sending me his NAS tomorrow for his offsite backup. I'll be able to use that drive for redundant backup/overflow storage.
So now that that is settled, I'm off to explore some more functions of this camera.
Thanks everyone,
E