> Can this be correct? ... a RAW file with greater depth being 1/3 the size > of an equivelent TIFF(?) Not to question you, but how is this possible?
It's the raw data from the chip - thus only one channel per pixel, and it may only be 12 or 14 bit at that. If a proprietary format, some compression tricks may be applied too. When "developed out" to 3 colors per pixel, it becomes 3 times larger (more or less.) Some interesting comparisons of 6MPx sensors- Kodak 760 Raw file c. 7.6MB, 16-bit output tiff 36MB Raw file sizes vary a few tenths of a MB with scene detail so there must be some (hopefully lossless) compression being used. Imacon 3020 1 shot - Raw file 15MB - 16 bit output tiff 36MB 4 shot - Raw file 72MB - 16 bit output tiff 36MB 16shot - Raw file c.300MB - 16 bit output tiff 144MB Interestingly, the 1 shot raw file is 15MB when transferred to disc, but once processed becomes (and stays) about 49MB! > There are however huge advantages to shooting RAW; > depending on camera brand, Not to mention all the grunt work that poor little processor in the camera is going to have to be doing, converting and writing to disc all those 36MB files! Wasting batteries. Generating heat. Given the size and power limitations of the camera processors (no G4s or Pentiums in there!) any in-camera processing is going to have to be really efficient. And efficiency often comes at the expense of quality which might be better achieved by desktop processing. IOW, why would you even want to convert in camera, except maybe to convert to jpeg and discard raw to maximize storage space? Or if you have one of those printers that print direct from card. -- Jay Busse [EMAIL PROTECTED] =============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
