> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Singh, > Sarbjit (S.) > > Since the RAW file is not compressed like JPEG and it contains > additional exposure information the - RAW file size is 8+MB (the > actual picture information in it being smaller than 8MB) > For advertising everyone wants to use big numbers - like peak horse > power of electric motors - though practically it does not mean much.
Assuming each pixel took one byte to store its' content, then there are 2 MB worth of additional information on top of the 6.2 megapixels of RGB information in each RAW file ? I would not likely think so (personal opinion here only). I don't know how much storage would EXIF or any other related information are in a RAW file, but surely these additional information couldn't take up 2 MB worth?? (coincidentally this would have taken one and half 3.5" floppy diskettes to store, remember those plastic square things?) For comparison, I checked the spec for a number of Canon DSLR, 1D is a 4.1 MP camera and its' RAW file is indicated as "approx. 4.8 MB", EOS D60 is 6.3 MP yielding 7.4 MB file, Digital Rebel is 6.3 MP sensor with 7 MB RAW file, 1Ds is 11.1 MP with 11.4 MB RAW file, the new 1D Mk II is a 8.2 MP camera yielding only 8.3 MB RAW files, it seems the 1 D series DSLR don't need much additional bytes to contain "extra" information in their RAW files. > > It is smart design to have a buffer capacity of more than the max > burst rate - if you take an approximate 2 second burst to take 9 shots > a 25 frame buffer allows you to have another 9 frame burst and still > be able to take a few single shots while everything is being written > to the memory. All big corporations design their stuff not to let you > down in those once in a lifetime situations - if ever you will need to > take pictures at a quick rate. > Imagine if you had a 25 continuous shot mode - after taking a 25 shot > burst you will just have to sit back and watch the camera for a few > seconds while all the action passes you by. > Ah, the Big Brother mentality, what if I WANT to take 25 frames in one sequence? Wouldn't you be royally ticked off if you missed the latter part of an action sequence because the camera decided you "should" only take 9 frames at a time?? I surely would be, if I am the photographer using the camera, I can raise my finger off the shutter, I don't need Canon to arbitrarily dictate when I am not allowed to take more frames. If Canon really had this consumer protection in mind, then they could just put in a function like in the 1D Mk II to allow the photographer to program in the maximum number of continuous frames. I guess I still don't believe the legitimacy of the web site in question. Ken * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
