Yes this does deal with file sizes, but it doesn't help with noise caused by shoving in more pixels. The 5DII handles noise well, but I can't help but wonder how great it would be at 12-16MP.
BTW: this is slightly off topic. My original post was more about dealing with the file sizes in lightroom.
John
Canon Gear: 5D MkII, 30D, 85 1.2 L, 70-200 2.8 IS L, 17-40mm f4 L, 50 1.4, 580EX, 2x 580EXII, Canon 1.4x TC, 300 f4 IS L, 100mm 2.8 Macro, 100-400 IS L Other Gear: Olympus E-PL1, Pan 20 1.7, Fuji 3D Camera, Lensbaby 2.0, Tamron 28-75 2.8, Alien Bees lighting, CyberSyncs, Domke, HONL, FlipIt.
~ Gear Pictures
Yes this does deal with file sizes, but it doesn't help with noise caused by shoving in more pixels.
Don't be so sure. From my understanding, the down-sampling algorithm reduces noise from the image to the point that it behaves like a less-dense sensor. While I haven't any experimentation with it, yet, from what I've read, the image quality from the sRAWs is amazing. One of these days I'll do some controlled experiments on this subject unless somebody else here beats me to it.
Don't be so sure. From my understanding, the down-sampling algorithm reduces noise from the image to the point that it behaves like a less-dense sensor. While I haven't any experimentation with it, yet, from what I've read, the image quality from the sRAWs is amazing. One of these days I'll do some controlled experiments on this subject unless somebody else here beats me to it.
-joel
That was my understanding, too. If my shooting stand arrives this week as promised, I'll give small raws a try at ISO 25K :-)
Don't be so sure. From my understanding, the down-sampling algorithm reduces noise from the image to the point that it behaves like a less-dense sensor. While I haven't any experimentation with it, yet, from what I've read, the image quality from the sRAWs is amazing. One of these days I'll do some controlled experiments on this subject unless somebody else here beats me to it.
-joel
If this is true then WOW!!! I may dig up the $3K quicker than I planned.
Thanks,
John
Canon Gear: 5D MkII, 30D, 85 1.2 L, 70-200 2.8 IS L, 17-40mm f4 L, 50 1.4, 580EX, 2x 580EXII, Canon 1.4x TC, 300 f4 IS L, 100mm 2.8 Macro, 100-400 IS L Other Gear: Olympus E-PL1, Pan 20 1.7, Fuji 3D Camera, Lensbaby 2.0, Tamron 28-75 2.8, Alien Bees lighting, CyberSyncs, Domke, HONL, FlipIt.
~ Gear Pictures
If this is true then WOW!!! I may dig up the $3K quicker than I planned.
Thanks,
John
Here is a rather old review with a comparison of RAW and sRAW files at high-ISO. I do think that shooting RAW and downsampling later in PS provides better results than sRAW files. sRAW does apparently do "binning" as opposed to "dropping" pixels, it just doesn't seem to be that competent compared to a full computer and software binning.
The Adobe ACR allows you to set smaller resolutions than native upon conversion and import and that's the way I normally handle getting smaller files out of the RAW captures.
I have not personally done any comparisons but all of my images at ISO 3200 have been fine at all resolutions, unless I miss the exposure. ISO 3200 is unforgiving in "any" camera if you underexpose.
Other than tests I have not really done anything at ISO 6400 and beyond. I do think that ISO 6400 is fine for a 5" x "7" of most subjects, and larger sizes for simpler subjects. ISO 6400 does tend to bloat file sizes, just to relate this somewhat with the original question.
ISO 6400 does tend to bloat file sizes, just to relate this somewhat with the original question.
Ziggy, are you referring to jpegs? That would be reasonable since noise and jpeg do not like each other. RAW-wise it should not matter in the least, no?
I have done some brief comparison and thought the noise in sraw vs raw was identical.
“To consult the rules of composition before making a picture is a little like consulting the law of gravitation before going for a walk.”
― Edward Weston
Ziggy, are you referring to jpegs? That would be reasonable since noise and jpeg do not like each other. RAW-wise it should not matter in the least, no?
Canon CR2 RAW files are compressed using lossless compression. Noise will be treated by the compressor as detail and will bloat the files sizes at high ISO. The effect on file sizes is similar to what happens in JPGs, but in JPGs the effect is even more pronounced at low compression/high-quality settings.
Canon RAW files are simply a TIFF dialect/variant, and compressed TIFFs react the same way too.
Canon CR2 RAW files are compressed using lossless compression. Noise will be treated by the compressor as detail and will bloat the files sizes at high ISO. The effect on file sizes is similar to what happens in JPGs, but in JPGs the effect is even more pronounced at low compression/high-quality settings.
Canon RAW files are simply a TIFF dialect/variant, and compressed TIFFs react the same way too.
Here is a rather old review with a comparison of RAW and sRAW files at high-ISO. I do think that shooting RAW and downsampling later in PS provides better results than sRAW files. sRAW does apparently do "binning" as opposed to "dropping" pixels, it just doesn't seem to be that competent compared to a full computer and software binning.
Be that as it may, I don't think that, or the referenced article answer the question. The question is, do downsampled images appear to contain less noise? I believe the answer is yes.
there are some software compatibility limitations to sRAW though, aren't there? I haven't been using sRAW because I recall it being incompatible with Aperture, for example...
Seriously, I mean, you can always buy bigger cards, but Lightroom seems slow with just 12mp images....
I'm coming a little late to the discussion and not to turn this into a debate, but this is supposedly one of the big advantages Aperture has over Lightroom - much faster handling of the images. They both have their pros and cons, but if it were upsetting someone enough to consider a change, I just wanted to point out that that is one of the "pros" of Aperture.
Wade Williams
Nikon D300, 18-135/3.5-5.6, 70-300/4.5-5.6, SB800
I'm coming a little late to the discussion and not to turn this into a debate, but this is supposedly one of the big advantages Aperture has over Lightroom - much faster handling of the images. They both have their pros and cons, but if it were upsetting someone enough to consider a change, I just wanted to point out that that is one of the "pros" of Aperture.
I'm an Aperture user and mine freakin' chugs with 5DII images... In fact, I can process for only about 50 shots at a time before the program begins failing to recognize my file formats as legitimate (I get the dreaded 'red screen'). Then I have to quit and relaunch... Sometimes even using the loupe is torturous - having to guess where I'm moving it to and letting it catch up.
This is likely due to my 'puter; a 20" iMac, 4 years old, 2 GHz, 4 Gb RAM... Not scraping the barrel, but apparently not enough either.
OK, I hooked up my 5D2 on my new Titan stand, tethered it to my primary PC, loaded Canon EOS Utility (latest version), switched it to the Remote Live View shooting mode and took a few snaps..
First of all, my sincere apologies for the model choice. Playmates were indisposed on such a short notice...
Second - Remote Live View shooting is AWESOME! Complete control over EVERYTHING (including focus point - you're not limited to funky diamond anymore!) right under your fingerprints!
Now, what I did...
I took three series of shots of me at my desk, in a very dark corner of the room, all in full manual at f/5.6.
First was with RAW (R0_xx), then with sRaw1 (R1_xx) and finally with sRaw2 (R2_xx). Each series contained one H2=ISO25,600 shot (xx_H2_xx) at 1/200s, one H1=ISO12,800 shot (xx_H1_xx) at 1/100s and one ISO6,400 shot ( xx_H0_xx) at 1/50s.
All RAW files were converted to Jpegs via Image processor, ACR data set to minimize the post-effect (e.g. noise reduction set to 0, curve is linear, etc.)
Since I shot in xRaw+small coarse jpeg mode, I also got series of jpegs, all in Neutral style (all zeroes).
Here are a few samples of worst case scenario, H2 (i.e. ISO 25,600):
#1: Full size RAW
#2: sRaw1 (66% size of full RAW)
#3: sRaw2 (50% size of full RAW)
I also made a 100% crop of the clock face (it was OOF since I was focusing on my own face;-) and brought sRaw2 crop together with Raw crop and also RAW crop free transformed down to 50% (note: no fancy downlsampling) to match sRaw2 100% crop size wise:
All in all is you study 100% images, you will notice that small RAWs show less noise to begin with. However, when you bring the sizes down to match the "visible" representations (as if you were to print each at 4x6), the difference becomes less noticeable.
HTH
This post was made with the assistance of Star*Explorer
Great job, Nik!! So the takeaway is that sRAW indeed has less noise than RAW. To my eye, it also has less noise than "free transform" downsizing. I'm not sure what that is, but I'm assuming it drops pixels rather than binning which is what Ziggy said as well. It may be interesting at some point to test the fancier downsizing techniques to see how they stack up against the in-camera sRAW sizing.
Great job, Nik!! So the takeaway is that sRAW indeed has less noise than RAW. To my eye, it also has less noise than "free transform" downsizing. I'm not sure what that is, but I'm assuming it drops pixels rather than binning which is what Ziggy said as well. It may be interesting at some point to test the fancier downsizing techniques to see how they stack up against the in-camera sRAW sizing.
Thanks for doing this!
Cheers,
-joel
You have full size jpegs in those galleries, go have a ball:-)
Less noise - yes. But smaller resolution - too. sRaw2 is only ~5mp.
“To consult the rules of composition before making a picture is a little like consulting the law of gravitation before going for a walk.”
― Edward Weston
Comments
Yes this does deal with file sizes, but it doesn't help with noise caused by shoving in more pixels. The 5DII handles noise well, but I can't help but wonder how great it would be at 12-16MP.
BTW: this is slightly off topic. My original post was more about dealing with the file sizes in lightroom.
John
Other Gear: Olympus E-PL1, Pan 20 1.7, Fuji 3D Camera, Lensbaby 2.0, Tamron 28-75 2.8, Alien Bees lighting, CyberSyncs, Domke, HONL, FlipIt.
~ Gear Pictures
Don't be so sure. From my understanding, the down-sampling algorithm reduces noise from the image to the point that it behaves like a less-dense sensor. While I haven't any experimentation with it, yet, from what I've read, the image quality from the sRAWs is amazing. One of these days I'll do some controlled experiments on this subject unless somebody else here beats me to it.
-joel
Link to my Smugmug site
That was my understanding, too. If my shooting stand arrives this week as promised, I'll give small raws a try at ISO 25K :-)
If this is true then WOW!!! I may dig up the $3K quicker than I planned.
Thanks,
John
Other Gear: Olympus E-PL1, Pan 20 1.7, Fuji 3D Camera, Lensbaby 2.0, Tamron 28-75 2.8, Alien Bees lighting, CyberSyncs, Domke, HONL, FlipIt.
~ Gear Pictures
Here is a rather old review with a comparison of RAW and sRAW files at high-ISO. I do think that shooting RAW and downsampling later in PS provides better results than sRAW files. sRAW does apparently do "binning" as opposed to "dropping" pixels, it just doesn't seem to be that competent compared to a full computer and software binning.
http://rolandlim.wordpress.com/2008/12/23/canon-eos-5d-mark-ii-review/
The Adobe ACR allows you to set smaller resolutions than native upon conversion and import and that's the way I normally handle getting smaller files out of the RAW captures.
I have not personally done any comparisons but all of my images at ISO 3200 have been fine at all resolutions, unless I miss the exposure. ISO 3200 is unforgiving in "any" camera if you underexpose.
Other than tests I have not really done anything at ISO 6400 and beyond. I do think that ISO 6400 is fine for a 5" x "7" of most subjects, and larger sizes for simpler subjects. ISO 6400 does tend to bloat file sizes, just to relate this somewhat with the original question.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
― Edward Weston
Canon CR2 RAW files are compressed using lossless compression. Noise will be treated by the compressor as detail and will bloat the files sizes at high ISO. The effect on file sizes is similar to what happens in JPGs, but in JPGs the effect is even more pronounced at low compression/high-quality settings.
Canon RAW files are simply a TIFF dialect/variant, and compressed TIFFs react the same way too.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Ah, ok, makes sense, thanks!
I'm gonna try it anyway! :-)
Cheers,
-joel
Link to my Smugmug site
Here's an sRAW at 2000 ISO and no special processing:
Great shot, Chris!
Link to my Smugmug site
(shoot first, then ask questions)
www.cdub.ca | www.cdubphoto.smugmug.com | Twitter | Canon 5DII + Canon 24-105 f/4 L, Canon 580EX II, Gitzo GT1541 + Acratech GV2L
I looked like a freak walking around with it but I liked the look of the shots.
I'm coming a little late to the discussion and not to turn this into a debate, but this is supposedly one of the big advantages Aperture has over Lightroom - much faster handling of the images. They both have their pros and cons, but if it were upsetting someone enough to consider a change, I just wanted to point out that that is one of the "pros" of Aperture.
Nikon D300, 18-135/3.5-5.6, 70-300/4.5-5.6, SB800
I'm an Aperture user and mine freakin' chugs with 5DII images... In fact, I can process for only about 50 shots at a time before the program begins failing to recognize my file formats as legitimate (I get the dreaded 'red screen'). Then I have to quit and relaunch... Sometimes even using the loupe is torturous - having to guess where I'm moving it to and letting it catch up.
This is likely due to my 'puter; a 20" iMac, 4 years old, 2 GHz, 4 Gb RAM... Not scraping the barrel, but apparently not enough either.
(shoot first, then ask questions)
www.cdub.ca | www.cdubphoto.smugmug.com | Twitter | Canon 5DII + Canon 24-105 f/4 L, Canon 580EX II, Gitzo GT1541 + Acratech GV2L
First of all, my sincere apologies for the model choice. Playmates were indisposed on such a short notice...
Second - Remote Live View shooting is AWESOME! Complete control over EVERYTHING (including focus point - you're not limited to funky diamond anymore!) right under your fingerprints!
Now, what I did...
I took three series of shots of me at my desk, in a very dark corner of the room, all in full manual at f/5.6.
First was with RAW (R0_xx), then with sRaw1 (R1_xx) and finally with sRaw2 (R2_xx). Each series contained one H2=ISO25,600 shot (xx_H2_xx) at 1/200s, one H1=ISO12,800 shot (xx_H1_xx) at 1/100s and one ISO6,400 shot ( xx_H0_xx) at 1/50s.
All RAW files were converted to Jpegs via Image processor, ACR data set to minimize the post-effect (e.g. noise reduction set to 0, curve is linear, etc.)
Since I shot in xRaw+small coarse jpeg mode, I also got series of jpegs, all in Neutral style (all zeroes).
All the images are available here, originals enabled: http://nik.smugmug.com/share/ZPneJobrzNhvY
If you need RAW files - let me know.
Here are a few samples of worst case scenario, H2 (i.e. ISO 25,600):
#1: Full size RAW
#2: sRaw1 (66% size of full RAW)
#3: sRaw2 (50% size of full RAW)
I also made a 100% crop of the clock face (it was OOF since I was focusing on my own face;-) and brought sRaw2 crop together with Raw crop and also RAW crop free transformed down to 50% (note: no fancy downlsampling) to match sRaw2 100% crop size wise:
All in all is you study 100% images, you will notice that small RAWs show less noise to begin with. However, when you bring the sizes down to match the "visible" representations (as if you were to print each at 4x6), the difference becomes less noticeable.
HTH
This post was made with the assistance of Star*Explorer
Thanks for doing this!
Cheers,
-joel
Link to my Smugmug site
You have full size jpegs in those galleries, go have a ball:-)
Less noise - yes. But smaller resolution - too. sRaw2 is only ~5mp.
If the file size really has you down on the 5DmkII, I'd be willing to make you a generous offer.
I'll trade you my 5D for your 5DmkII.
I know it sounds crazy, and I have reservations about it, but you seem like a nice guy. I'm just trying to help you out.
I'm lovin it.
― Edward Weston