D3 and Raw Compression

Today we unpacked our new D3 and began to play with
the menus. We formatted a 4G card, set for 14 bit
color depth, and raw files, and looked at the number
of available frames (as shown on the top of the
camera), for different compression settings.
We got:

155 uncompressed
155 lossless compression
229 (lossy) compression

Now I would have expected lossless compression to
be somewhere between the other two.

Does anyone know anything about this?

Thanks for your help.
Mike.

Mike -- Email Ignored wrote:
Today we unpacked our new D3 and began to play with
the menus. We formatted a 4G card, set for 14 bit
color depth, and raw files, and looked at the number
of available frames (as shown on the top of the
camera), for different compression settings.
We got:

155 uncompressed
155 lossless compression
229 (lossy) compression

Now I would have expected lossless compression to
be somewhere between the other two.

Does anyone know anything about this?

It's an ESTIMATE and based upon things like image size, compression,
average image detail, and sensor noise.

--
Ray Fischer

Mike -- Email Ignored wrote:

155 uncompressed
155 lossless compression
229 (lossy) compression

Now I would have expected lossless compression to
be somewhere between the other two.

It is. 155 = 155 = 229 is TRUE.

-Wolfgang

Mike -- Email Ignored wrote:

155 uncompressed
155 lossless compression
229 (lossy) compression

Now I would have expected lossless compression to
be somewhere between the other two.

It's estimating; the actual capacity may vary, and the estimate will become
more accurate as you fill up the card.

--
Jeremy Nixon | address in header is valid
(formerly )

"Jeremy Nixon" ~$!~( )@( )u.defocus.net wrote in message
...
Mike -- Email Ignored wrote:

155 uncompressed
155 lossless compression
229 (lossy) compression

Now I would have expected lossless compression to
be somewhere between the other two.

It's estimating; the actual capacity may vary, and the estimate will
become
more accurate as you fill up the card.

Or it won't, still depends on what you are shooting and it will vary.

Mike -- Email Ignored wrote:
Today we unpacked our new D3 and began to play with
the menus. We formatted a 4G card, set for 14 bit
color depth, and raw files, and looked at the number
of available frames (as shown on the top of the
camera), for different compression settings.
We got:

155 uncompressed
155 lossless compression
229 (lossy) compression

Now I would have expected lossless compression to
be somewhere between the other two.

Does anyone know anything about this?

Thanks for your help.
Mike.

I agree with you - it looks to be in error. Even if it's just an
estimate, as the others have pointed out.

David

"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
...
Mike -- Email Ignored wrote:
Today we unpacked our new D3 and began to play with
the menus. We formatted a 4G card, set for 14 bit
color depth, and raw files, and looked at the number
of available frames (as shown on the top of the
camera), for different compression settings.
We got:

155 uncompressed
155 lossless compression
229 (lossy) compression

Now I would have expected lossless compression to
be somewhere between the other two.

Does anyone know anything about this?

It's an ESTIMATE and based upon things like image size, compression,
average image detail, and sensor noise.


With my D300:
On my 4 GB card it reads 151. Maybe because I have the settings different.
Lossless, 14 bit and Active D-Lightning on.
Yesterday I shot 289 pictures on that card.
Guess it's more like a "worst case" estimate. But it might be usefull if
they changed it to a more accurate figure.
I learned to live with it.


--
Sosumi

"David J Taylor" wrote:
Mike -- Email Ignored wrote:
Today we unpacked our new D3 and began to play with
the menus. We formatted a 4G card, set for 14 bit
color depth, and raw files, and looked at the number
of available frames (as shown on the top of the
camera), for different compression settings.
We got:

155 uncompressed
155 lossless compression
229 (lossy) compression

Now I would have expected lossless compression to
be somewhere between the other two.

Does anyone know anything about this?

Thanks for your help.
Mike.

I agree with you - it looks to be in error. Even if it's just an
estimate, as the others have pointed out.

It is just taking into account that the "lossy" compression
is guaranteed to actually have at least some compression;
but there actually are circumstances where the "lossless"
compression will have very little effect on the file size
compared to uncompressed.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
[]
It is just taking into account that the "lossy" compression
is guaranteed to actually have at least some compression;
but there actually are circumstances where the "lossless"
compression will have very little effect on the file size
compared to uncompressed.

Accepted, Floyd, but as it's an estimate, it might at least look to be a
little more accurate. G I suppose that, in the ideal camera, over time
it would get to know your usage patterns and the actual
uncompressed/lossless/lossy file sizes achieved, and base its estimate on
more realistic data....

Cheers,
David

"Sosumi" wrote in
:


"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
...
Mike -- Email Ignored wrote:
Today we unpacked our new D3 and began to play with
the menus. We formatted a 4G card, set for 14 bit
color depth, and raw files, and looked at the number
of available frames (as shown on the top of the
camera), for different compression settings.
We got:

155 uncompressed
155 lossless compression
229 (lossy) compression

Now I would have expected lossless compression to
be somewhere between the other two.

Does anyone know anything about this?

It's an ESTIMATE and based upon things like image size, compression,
average image detail, and sensor noise.


With my D300:
On my 4 GB card it reads 151. Maybe because I have the settings
different. Lossless, 14 bit and Active D-Lightning on.
Yesterday I shot 289 pictures on that card.
Guess it's more like a "worst case" estimate. But it might be usefull
if they changed it to a more accurate figure.
I learned to live with it.



I don't have recent experience on the Nikons, but on earlier Nikon DSLR
cameras the picture counter was always a "worst case" estimate, and it
was a moving target. As you took more pictures and the remaining number
declined, the remaining number got closer to accurate. I found it to be
useful in a "broad-brush" sort of way - if the camera said I had 80
images, I knew I could count on getting 80 images plus a few more. Once
it said I had 10, I was ready to load my next CF card. I found the
actual final image count to be all over the map, depending on whether I
was using large or small JPG, RAW, whether I was photographing complex
images or monochromatic scenes, etc. ~Ray