Pentax RAW file size

Hey all... getting closer to purchasing a *istDS, but I'm a bit troubled by a
design choice of Pentaxs'. It would appear that the RAW file size is *HUGE* by
comparison to other brands. I've heard rumors that they both pad the 12-bits off the
A/D to 16 bits, AND don't do compression. It would seem like a silly thing to not do
a lossless compression on the RAW files unless computational power was an issue. Can
anyone confirm or deny such a thing? I've been scouring the 'net looking for a sample
RAW .PEF file to look through, but haven't had any luck with that either.

If it is too difficult to compress on-the-fly at the time of the shot, at
least a "pack photos" option or something would be a very good upgrade to the
firmware. One could let the camera chew on the already taken pictures and crunch them
down to 50% of their original size to fit 100 pics on a 512MB card, rather than 45.

Anyone care to comment?

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 17:18:46 +0000 (UTC),
wrote:

Hey all... getting closer to purchasing a *istDS, but I'm a bit troubled by a
design choice of Pentaxs'. It would appear that the RAW file size is *HUGE* by
comparison to other brands. I've heard rumors that they both pad the 12-bits off the
A/D to 16 bits, AND don't do compression. It would seem like a silly thing to not do
a lossless compression on the RAW files unless computational power was an issue. Can
anyone confirm or deny such a thing? I've been scouring the 'net looking for a sample
RAW .PEF file to look through, but haven't had any luck with that either.

If it is too difficult to compress on-the-fly at the time of the shot, at
least a "pack photos" option or something would be a very good upgrade to the
firmware. One could let the camera chew on the already taken pictures and crunch them
down to 50% of their original size to fit 100 pics on a 512MB card, rather than 45.

The DS file is about 10MB, about 3MB smaller than the D.

Both include full resolution JPEGs within them along with VGA and thumbnail
sizes. Plus the sensor dump of course.

--
John Bean

Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That will teach you to keep
your mouth shut (Ernest Hemingway)

John Bean wrote:
: The DS file is about 10MB, about 3MB smaller than the D.

: Both include full resolution JPEGs within them along with VGA and thumbnail
: sizes. Plus the sensor dump of course.

They've got *full-resolution* JPEGs in them? That's pretty significant
then.... seems like that should be an option, not enabled all the time. Hrm... no
accounting for taste, I guess.

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

John Bean wrote:
: The DS file is about 10MB, about 3MB smaller than the D.

: Both include full resolution JPEGs within them along with VGA and thumbnail
: sizes. Plus the sensor dump of course.

They've got *full-resolution* JPEGs in them? That's pretty significant
then.... seems like that should be an option, not enabled all the time. Hrm... no
accounting for taste, I guess.

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 18:56:29 +0000 (UTC),
wrote:

John Bean wrote:
: The DS file is about 10MB, about 3MB smaller than the D.

: Both include full resolution JPEGs within them along with VGA and thumbnail
: sizes. Plus the sensor dump of course.

They've got *full-resolution* JPEGs in them? That's pretty significant
then.... seems like that should be an option, not enabled all the time. Hrm... no
accounting for taste, I guess.

Nothing to do with taste, it's a good design feature. It's used for quick
high-resolution reviewing and scrolling of the image on camera without
having to reprocess the raw data every time.

--
John Bean

Great spirits often meet violent opposition with mediocre minds (Albert
Einstein)

John Bean wrote:
: Nothing to do with taste, it's a good design feature. It's used for quick
: high-resolution reviewing and scrolling of the image on camera without
: having to reprocess the raw data every time.

I don't disagree that's it's a nice feature to have, I just don't agree that
it should be mandatory. I managed to find a couple of sample PEF files online and did
a little hexdumping. I found the three sizes within the PEF file of size 10000kB

160x120: 8kB
640x480: 40kB
3008x2000: 912kB

That's 10% worth of overhead on every shot. It's a fairly compressed JPEG too, so
it's probably not the same one you'd get if you shot in JPEG. I think it'd be better
to have an option to include big JPEG or not and have it be the same high-quality one
as if shot JPEG.

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

John Bean wrote:
: Nothing to do with taste, it's a good design feature. It's used for quick
: high-resolution reviewing and scrolling of the image on camera without
: having to reprocess the raw data every time.

I don't disagree that's it's a nice feature to have, I just don't agree that
it should be mandatory. I managed to find a couple of sample PEF files online and did
a little hexdumping. I found the three sizes within the PEF file of size 10000kB

160x120: 8kB
640x480: 40kB
3008x2000: 912kB

That's 10% worth of overhead on every shot. It's a fairly compressed JPEG too, so
it's probably not the same one you'd get if you shot in JPEG. I think it'd be better
to have an option to include big JPEG or not and have it be the same high-quality one
as if shot JPEG.

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 20:33:31 +0000 (UTC),
wrote:

John Bean wrote:
: Nothing to do with taste, it's a good design feature. It's used for quick
: high-resolution reviewing and scrolling of the image on camera without
: having to reprocess the raw data every time.

I don't disagree that's it's a nice feature to have, I just don't agree that
it should be mandatory. I managed to find a couple of sample PEF files online and did
a little hexdumping. I found the three sizes within the PEF file of size 10000kB

160x120: 8kB
640x480: 40kB
3008x2000: 912kB

Yes, that's what I told you initially though I didn't bother quoting the
number chapter and verse, but thank you for confirming my facts.

If you don't like the way it works tell Pentax, not me. Personally, I like
it the way it is. Memory is cheap, convenience is worth more.

--
John Bean

I think computer viruses should count as life. I think it says something
about human nature that the only form of life we have created so far is
purely destructive. We've created life in our own image (Stephen Hawking)

On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 20:33:31 +0000 (UTC),
wrote:

John Bean wrote:
: Nothing to do with taste, it's a good design feature. It's used for quick
: high-resolution reviewing and scrolling of the image on camera without
: having to reprocess the raw data every time.

I don't disagree that's it's a nice feature to have, I just don't agree that
it should be mandatory. I managed to find a couple of sample PEF files online and did
a little hexdumping. I found the three sizes within the PEF file of size 10000kB

160x120: 8kB
640x480: 40kB
3008x2000: 912kB

Yes, that's what I told you initially though I didn't bother quoting the
number chapter and verse, but thank you for confirming my facts.

If you don't like the way it works tell Pentax, not me. Personally, I like
it the way it is. Memory is cheap, convenience is worth more.

--
John Bean

I think computer viruses should count as life. I think it says something
about human nature that the only form of life we have created so far is
purely destructive. We've created life in our own image (Stephen Hawking)

"John Bean" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 20:33:31 +0000 (UTC),
wrote:

John Bean wrote:
: Nothing to do with taste, it's a good design feature. It's used for
quick
: high-resolution reviewing and scrolling of the image on camera without
: having to reprocess the raw data every time.

I don't disagree that's it's a nice feature to have, I just don't agree
that
it should be mandatory. I managed to find a couple of sample PEF files
online and did
a little hexdumping. I found the three sizes within the PEF file of
size 10000kB

160x120: 8kB
640x480: 40kB
3008x2000: 912kB

Yes, that's what I told you initially though I didn't bother quoting the
number chapter and verse, but thank you for confirming my facts.

If you don't like the way it works tell Pentax, not me. Personally, I like
it the way it is. Memory is cheap, convenience is worth more.

Maybe disabling the embedded jpeg will be in the next firmware, or perhaps
in the next Pentax dSLR.