PDA

View Full Version : Picture size



garethlovering
31st December 2010, 10:22 PM
When I take photos on my GH2 the JPEG pictures are usually around 5,7 or 8MB but never any bigger. It is only when I switch to RAW that the pictures increase in size. Please can somebody tell me if this normal?

Happy New Year to everybody
Gareth

addieleman
31st December 2010, 10:45 PM
8 MB is already large for a jpeg file, undoubtedly due to the 16 MP in it. For me jpeg files of 3 to 5 MB are most common; this depends heavily on the quality settings when generating the jpeg file, either in-camera or in PP.

AndyBeeson
31st December 2010, 11:46 PM
Hi,
Yes its OK. RAW files are bigger in Megabytes size as they hold more information than JPEG. You should be able set the quality and thus file size of the JPEG pictures to get more images on a card but will lose quality in the JPEG size is smaller. RAW is best for quality and JPEG will throw away quality as it compresses the image file and process the image in camera to give a generally acceptable result for printing or viewing on the screen or even to send as an e-mail. RAW images are if you want to extract the best from your camera and need to be processed out of the camera in an imaging program such as Photoshop.
Setting your camera to take RAW and JPEG together gives you the best of both worlds but of course uses more space on your memory card.
Hope that helps.
Happy New Year.
Andrew.

throt
1st January 2011, 10:27 AM
For E1 for example you get RAW 10 MB and JPG 1-2 MB. 8MB JPG is huge. I shoot in RAW (mostly cause of WB) and then convert them into JPG in comp.
If RAW and JPG size difference is under 4x then the JPG compression is pretty much useless.

garethlovering
1st January 2011, 01:26 PM
Thanks for the advice boys.
Happy New Year to everbody.

Alan Clogwyn
1st January 2011, 02:41 PM
I wonder if that means the GH2 has lower JPEG comoression too - GH1 JPEGS are around 5MB, whereas my old E520 was more like 6-7Mb from lower resolution.

Paul
1st January 2011, 09:01 PM
For E1 for example you get RAW 10 MB and JPG 1-2 MB. 8MB JPG is huge. I shoot in RAW (mostly cause of WB) and then convert them into JPG in comp.
If RAW and JPG size difference is under 4x then the JPG compression is pretty much useless.

Actually Throt you are wrong, most raw files are compressed except the early Olympus models.

For example the 12MP E-30 has a raw file size of 12Mb yet the 5MP E-1 has a raw file size of 10Mb . If you were to convert it to a compressed DNG Raw file (as I do with my E-1 files) it will change from 10Mb to 3.2Mb so your E-1 jpeg file is only half the size of the compressed raw file.:)

throt
1st January 2011, 09:57 PM
thnx paul for making a note the days aint the best ones to talk something smart *crazyxmas
Just checked E520 files out of the cam JPG is ca 40% smaller than RAW but when raw is compressed in comp you can lose additional half in high quality and 2/3 in normal. So in normal it would give ca 5 times the compression. So in megs it's 10/6/3/2.

But for topic JPG is made for saving space so the problem will be when it's bigger than RAW. As for compression, there are many algorithms, some are doing better job than others (so bigger file doesnt always mean better quality).