Can Canon 5D files be >8MB out of the camera?

jfriend

I read in a posting on another site that a user was having trouble with Smugmug because his Canon 5D JPEGs could be >8MB right out of the camera and he couldn't upload them to a standard Smugmug account because of the image size limit. Is it true that JPEGs right out of the camera can be larger than 8MB? Or is this really only happening when someone saves a quality 12 JPEG in Photoshop? The sensor in the 5D is 4368 x 2912.

ivar

jfriend wrote:

I read in a posting on another site that a user was having trouble with Smugmug because his Canon 5D JPEGs could be >8MB right out of the camera and he couldn't upload them to a standard Smugmug account because of the image size limit. Is it true that JPEGs right out of the camera can be larger than 8MB? Or is this really only happening when someone saves a quality 12 JPEG in Photoshop? The sensor in the 5D is 4368 x 2912.

Hi John, I think we should wait for Andy, or another knowledgeable person with regards to the 5d for a definite answer, but I seem to remember a discussion which we had internally about this. I think the conclusion was that it would technically be possible to get JPG's >8Mb, but only in very rare, and very few situations (almost never) But i could be wrong.

Andy

I haven't been able to make one. But I suppose, with certain picture styles, that one could make one. If you see someone who has, holler at at the help desk maybe with some info, or ask them to write me, I'd love to see it. We discussed this internally about a month ago, wondering if we needed to beef up the 8mb or not.

Thanks John

jfriend

Misguided soles attracted to a 10 or 12MB limit

Andy wrote:

I haven't been able to make one. But I suppose, with certain picture styles, that one could make one. If you see someone who has, holler at at the help desk maybe with some info, or ask them to write me, I'd love to see it. We discussed this internally about a month ago, wondering if we needed to beef up the 8mb or not.

Thanks John

I've inquired whether the >8MB is really straight out of the camera vs. JPEG level 12 save in PS, but the thread has gone silent. For mis-guided people who want to upload JPEG level 12 files, it appears that some of the higher megapixel cameras are running up against 8MB and some competing services (e.g. Zenfolio) have higher per-image limits for their inexpensive subscription so that's leading some folks to another service.

You and I know that the right answer is to just save at level 8-10 and not have a problem with the 8MB boundary, but the misguided soles don't know that and some of them seem to be attracted to services with a 10 or 12MB limit.

mkress65

Does it really matter if its straight out of the camera vs. being saved as an 11 or 12 in PS (or other packages?) Is this really a technical question or just a business one? As camera manufacturers push the philosophy that "More megapixels = better pictures" aren't more and more unsophisticated (in terms of photo editing software usage) consumers going to want to upload larger files?

If SmugMug doesn't provide the service, and if the service is important to them, won't they just go someplace that gives them want they want? I view Zenfolio as reacting to the market and providing a service to the user base they want to attract (or retain.) I don't know if you were speaking tongue-in-cheek or not John, but I don't view them as misguided -- probably a lot of them don't have any guidance at all. They get the nifty new camera (I'm sure the new XTi will generate JPGs that, after being edited in PS will exceed 8MB), they take their pictures, then process them in PS or PSE or PSPX or any of the myriad tools and go to save the picture -- if they even look at the option to change the quality/ compression settings, my guess would be that they want the best picture possible so they go w/ highest quality settings. (Yes, I have several friends in this category.)

I guess the question is -- does SmugMug want to attract/ retain folks who generate JPEG files > 8 MB w/ forcing them to do additional work that they don't want to do or is that market segment small enough that the hit to revenue won't matter?

I'm probably preaching to the choir, but the conversation seemed to be about the technical aspects and educating users on how to save their files so that it is most convenient/ efficient for SmugMug -- should the market react to SmugMug or should SmugMug react to the market?

jfriend

We agree

mkress65 wrote:

Does it really matter if its straight out of the camera vs. being saved as an 11 or 12 in PS (or other packages?) Is this really a technical question or just a business one? As camera manufacturers push the philosophy that "More megapixels = better pictures" aren't more and more unsophisticated (in terms of photo editing software usage) consumers going to want to upload larger files?

If SmugMug doesn't provide the service, and if the service is important to them, won't they just go someplace that gives them want they want? I view Zenfolio as reacting to the market and providing a service to the user base they want to attract (or retain.) I don't know if you were speaking tongue-in-cheek or not John, but I don't view them as misguided -- probably a lot of them don't have any guidance at all. They get the nifty new camera (I'm sure the new XTi will generate JPGs that, after being edited in PS will exceed 8MB), they take their pictures, then process them in PS or PSE or PSPX or any of the myriad tools and go to save the picture -- if they even look at the option to change the quality/ compression settings, my guess would be that they want the best picture possible so they go w/ highest quality settings. (Yes, I have several friends in this category.)

I guess the question is -- does SmugMug want to attract/ retain folks who generate JPEG files > 8 MB w/ forcing them to do additional work that they don't want to do or is that market segment small enough that the hit to revenue won't matter?

I'm probably preaching to the choir, but the conversation seemed to be about the technical aspects and educating users on how to save their files so that it is most convenient/ efficient for SmugMug -- should the market react to SmugMug or should SmugMug react to the market?

I think we're pretty much in total agreement. It's Smugmug's business decision whether they want to attract users with 8-12 megapixel cameras who save at JPEG level 12. It does make a small bit of a difference if they come out of the camera >8MB because then I think it's a no brainer for Smugmug, not even debatable. If there's a work-around (don't save at 12 after PP), then they just have to decide if they want to attract and retain the users who don't know they can save at level 10. I was definitely talking to a user who will go with Zenfolio for that reason. The downside of taking these customers I guess is that they're using 3x the storage they need to and thus cost more.

mkress65

I saw that same post earlier today -- I'm assuming the one on DPReview? Just revisited it and, if I read what he wrote correctly, he is saying that, on occassion he has generated a 9+MB file from his camera.

Yeah, we agree John -- I was just seeing all the technical stuff that, while I enjoy it, I've watched too many organizations focus on that rather than running the business/ minding the customers. It absolutely comes down to a cost/ benefit analysis for SmugMug for their storage costs vs. revenue stream from an unknown number of customers w/ an unkown storage habit. Personally, I think its inevitable as the camera manufacturers cram more megapixels further down their camera lines -- but what do I know.

Of course, right now, I see other folks worrying more about upload SNAFUs more than the 8MB limit... but that's being covered in at least one other thread, I'm sure.

winnjewett

10.8 MB file in camera
I just made a 10.8 MB jpeg in camera with a 5D. The subject matter was designed specifically to maximize file size, so it is definitely artificial. But, people were asking if it was possible, so there it is.

Here is the source file: I brought this up on my screen, and shot the screen with the 5D.
http://brilliantphoton.smugmug.com/gallery/2021950/1/103600144

Here is the 5D image, straight from the camera with no processing.
http://brilliantphoton.smugmug.com/gallery/2021950/1/103599943

-winn

Andy

Hi John, and everyone - thanks for making this post. It's a good one. A little while back we discuss this, and I wasn't sure if a 5D could make one over 8mb. I haven't been able to do it. Anyhow let me get up with the team and see what we can do about it

cmason

I have managed to make a JPG from my XT that is just over 8mb, just barely. enough to cause me no end of frustration trying to figure out why it didnt transfer. Not sure what was special, or wrong with the JPG that made it 8MB, but it can be done.

guess the issue here is whether they are common with the 5D. If so, wouldn't you have run into this with the 1Ds?

DavidTO

cmason wrote:

I have managed to make a JPG from my XT that is just over 8mb, just barely.

Was it straight from the camera?

cmason

DavidTO wrote:

Was it straight from the camera?

No, RAW conversion...guess that makes a difference?

DavidTO

cmason wrote:

No, RAW conversion...guess that makes a difference?

There's a lot that you can do in RAW conversion to make a file much larger than it would have been out of camera, that's all.

Stustaff

I had a file taht wasa larger than 8mb from my rebel xt!

turns out it was actually a corrupt image and wouldnt open in asnything|!

Was very annoying as it obviously stopped the upload and I never thought to check for images from an XT over 8mb.

Cameron

cmason wrote:

No, RAW conversion...guess that makes a difference?

Yes, especially since you can convert and save with the lowest possible compression and it'll be much larger than the highest quality JPEG images directly from the camera. This will vary, of course, with the RAW converter..

Andy

cmason wrote:

No, RAW conversion...guess that makes a difference?

OK so to be clear, we're talking about out-of-camera jpgs here. There's no doubt that one can take a file, from most cameras today, and convert it from RAW, or even if it were a straight jpg, and make it over 8mb, saving at photoshop 12.

We're still investigating thanks!

chrisdg

Andy wrote:

OK so to be clear, we're talking about out-of-camera jpgs here. There's no doubt that one can take a file, from most cameras today, and convert it from RAW, or even if it were a straight jpg, and make it over 8mb, saving at photoshop 12.

We're still investigating thanks!

I am taking my 50D RAW files within Lightroom and doing an export-to-smugmug using the plugin, and it keeps coming back stating that the filesize exceeds the limitations. So I keep dropping the jpeg quality slider until it finally succeeds.

I suppose most will say that 80% or 90% quality (or lower) is fine...but I am printing 8x12 metallic and larger (as well as larger fotoflots), and would simply prefer not to have any more compression than absolutely necessary. I have had printers tell me that repetitive jpeg compression is one of the most commons fault of print degradation. So, perhaps its mostly a psychological thing, but I would be happy if smugmug would increase the file size limit...especially when the 5dII images start proliferating.

oh, btw, i'd even consider upgrading my account to the next level in order to get higher file size limits if that's the only feasible solution from a smugmug business perspective (to counter storage costs).

Andy

chrisdg wrote:

I am taking my 50D RAW files within Lightroom and doing an export-to-smugmug using the plugin, and it keeps coming back stating that the filesize exceeds the limitations. So I keep dropping the jpeg quality slider until it finally succeeds.

Bigger than 12megabytes? That's the max now for Standard and Power customers. 24mb for pros.

http://www.smugmug.com/help/upload-photos

chrisdg

Andy wrote:

Bigger than 12megabytes? That's the max now for Standard and Power customers. 24mb for pros.

http://www.smugmug.com/help/upload-photos

Yes, my 50D lightroom RAW files when exported as JPEGS start at a little over 14MB. I dropped down to about 85%-90% quality and then they met the 12MB minimum.

So, i think 5dII (and equivalent) users will need to increase the compression levels much more significantly, or get pro accounts.

I'm standard now, would be willing to upgrade to Power, but that still does not get me past the 12MB limit. Too bad Power doesn't have a limit somewhere in between Standard and Pro, like 18MB. Pro is more than I need featurewise and not worth the $110 difference for my purposes.

*** apologies for resurrecting this old thread instead of starting anew...i mistakenly read the original post as oct 2008, not oct 2006. Oops. ***

mike.strock

chrisdg wrote:

Yes, my 50D lightroom RAW files when exported as JPEGS start at a little over 14MB. I dropped down to about 85%-90% quality and then they met the 12MB minimum.

Chris - I'm curious what is the size of the RAW file out of the camera? My XTi JPGs out of Lightroom (at 100) are between 5-8 meg. I'm going to bump down to 80 in Lightroom I think to save upload time.

But I'm curious what the size of the RAW file from your 50D is, for my XTi, they average between 8-10 meg.

Mike.

chrisdg

mike.strock wrote:

Chris - I'm curious what is the size of the RAW file out of the camera? My XTi JPGs out of Lightroom (at 100) are between 5-8 meg. I'm going to bump down to 80 in Lightroom I think to save upload time.

But I'm curious what the size of the RAW file from your 50D is, for my XTi, they average between 8-10 meg.

Mike.

Looking at the first 600+ RAW images that came directly out of my new 50D, the RAW files appear to average around 20MB...i have some as high as 26MB. I shot a batch in the lower sRAW1 option, and they appear to be around 8-9MB.

mike.strock

chrisdg wrote:

Looking at the first 600+ RAW images that came directly out of my new 50D, the RAW files appear to average around 20MB...i have some as high as 26MB. I shot a batch in the lower sRAW1 option, and they appear to be around 8-9MB.

Wow. Thanks Chris.

Mike.

Andy

chrisdg wrote:

Yes, my 50D lightroom RAW files when exported as JPEGS start at a little over 14MB. I dropped down to about 85%-90% quality and then they met the 12MB minimum.

So, i think 5dII (and equivalent) users will need to increase the compression levels much more significantly, or get pro accounts.

I'm standard now, would be willing to upgrade to Power, but that still does not get me past the 12MB limit. Too bad Power doesn't have a limit somewhere in between Standard and Pro, like 18MB. Pro is more than I need featurewise and not worth the $110 difference for my purposes.

*** apologies for resurrecting this old thread instead of starting anew...i mistakenly read the original post as oct 2008, not oct 2006. Oops. ***

I'm not sure about that. Even my 1Ds Mark III files when exported were under 12mb.

Send me a raw file and the exact things you are doing to them in Lightroom please. Send it here:

http://dropbox.yousendit.com/SmugMug

put attn: Andy in the subject and link to this thread.

Thanks!

chrisdg

Andy wrote:

I'm not sure about that. Even my 1Ds Mark III files when exported were under 12mb.

Send me a raw file and the exact things you are doing to them in Lightroom please. Send it here:

http://dropbox.yousendit.com/SmugMug

put attn: Andy in the subject and link to this thread.

Thanks!

Andy - OK, I have just sent you the file...it's called "sierras-9313.CR2".
- Straight from the 50D the raw file is 21,249KB
- Imported into Lightroom with zero changes made and exported as 100% quality JPEG, the size is 14,635KB.

I was working on a whole series of images like this one (for a class project on "juxtaposition", and my first shoot with the 50D), and they all exhibit similar large export sizes. However, in sampling a couple different images from the 50D, some export much smaller, like 6MB at 100% jpeg. So, I'm not sure what's in this image (and others like it) to exhibit such large export sizes.

Here is the same image, with noise reduction and exposure changes applied, exported from LR to smugmug at 90% quality if I recall...in order to get me just under the 12MB limit.



So, hopefully this is a rare exception, but I am a bit worried that I'll need to be compressing at or beyond 90% in the future in order to upload them to smugmug and get them printed, particularly when I add the megapixel-hungry 5DII to my arsenal.

Andy

chrisdg wrote:

Andy - OK, I have just sent you the file...it's called "sierras-9313.CR2".

Have to update my LR2 but, DPP opens and convert and save, it's 10.7mb



NO compression.

chrisdg

Andy wrote:

Have to update my LR2 but, DPP opens and convert and save, it's 10.7mb

NO compression.

Confirmed. Using DPP on my PC, the jpeg conversion results in a 10,988KB file. Unfortunately, Lightroom 2.1 RC1 does the same conversion and results in 14,635KB. I did not compare the results visually. Unfortunately, I much prefer Lightroom's workflow.

Thanks for your effort Andy.

Andy

chrisdg wrote:

Confirmed. Using DPP on my PC, the jpeg conversion results in a 10,988KB file. Unfortunately, Lightroom 2.1 RC1 does the same conversion and results in 14,635KB. I did not compare the results visually. Unfortunately, I much prefer Lightroom's workflow.

Thanks for your effort Andy.

Very strange, I have 1Ds Mark III files that come out of LR much smaller (always less than 12mb) than my sampling of 50D files (I have a 50D).

We'll discuss it internally. Thanks for bringing it up.

In the meantime, don't sweat using 90 vs 100. I've never, ever seen a difference in print.