Nikon D70s image size

In article , Bill wrote:

Greetings...

I was playing with my friend's D70s yesterday, and we noticed something
when we shot in RAW format - the image size was 3038x2012, yet JPG size
is 3008x2000 pixels. Nikon's specifications state 3008x2000 in every
document I've read, including the owners manual, and all online sources
say the same.

My Canon produces the same size RAW and JPG files.

Does anyone know why the Nikon RAW image is reporting slightly larger?
Is the camera merely cropping to 3008x2000 when converting to JPG?

That is very interesting and may answer a question of mine. Nikon calls
the D70 a 6.1 MP camera, but 3008 x 2000 is only 6.018 MP, so I could not
understand why they advertised the camera 6.1 MP.

However, 3038x2012 is 6.092 MP, which rounds to 6.1 MP.

It does indeed look like the JPEG processing crops the image size.

Merritt

Today Merritt Mullen commented courteously on the subject at
hand

That is very interesting and may answer a question of mine.
Nikon calls the D70 a 6.1 MP camera, but 3008 x 2000 is
only 6.018 MP, so I could not understand why they
advertised the camera 6.1 MP.

However, 3038x2012 is 6.092 MP, which rounds to 6.1 MP.

My calculator says that 3038x2012=6,112,456=5.8292 MP. You need
to divide by divide by 1,048,,576 (1024x1024) to convert normal
number to mega anything. What easy thing am I missing here,
other than Nikon obviously wants to advertise 6 MP and not a
tweak under, unlike retailers who price things $9.99 rather than
$10.00 for the opposite reason.

--
ATM, aka Jerry

"Whether You Think You CAN Or CAN'T, You're Right." – Henry Ford

All Things Mopar wrote:
You need to divide by divide by 1,048,,576 (1024x1024) to convert
normal number to mega anything.

No you don't. That only applies to megabytes.

-Mike

All Things Mopar wrote:

My calculator says that 3038x2012=6,112,456=5.8292 MP. You need
to divide by divide by 1,048,,576 (1024x1024) to convert normal
number to mega anything.

That's bytes, not pixels. With pixels, "megapixel" means one million.

--
Jeremy |

In article ,
All Things Mopar wrote:

Today Merritt Mullen commented courteously on the subject at
hand

That is very interesting and may answer a question of mine.
Nikon calls the D70 a 6.1 MP camera, but 3008 x 2000 is
only 6.018 MP, so I could not understand why they
advertised the camera 6.1 MP.

However, 3038x2012 is 6.092 MP, which rounds to 6.1 MP.

My calculator says that 3038x2012=6,112,456=5.8292 MP. You need
to divide by divide by 1,048,,576 (1024x1024) to convert normal
number to mega anything.
'
You are correct that 3028x2012 = 6,112,456 or 6.1 million pixels. You are
not correct about dividing by that binary factor since we are not counting
bits here but simply pixels in an array.

What easy thing am I missing here,
other than Nikon obviously wants to advertise 6 MP and not a
tweak under

Except the point is that Nikon does NOT advertise 6 MP, they advertise
(and spec) 6.1 MP. And indeed, in picture element (pixel) count, the full
RAW image does indeed consist of 6.1 MP (million pixels).

Merritt

Today Mike Warren commented courteously on the subject at
hand

All Things Mopar wrote:
You need to divide by divide by 1,048,,576 (1024x1024) to
convert normal number to mega anything.

No you don't. That only applies to megabytes.

Mathematicians created terms like mega, giga, terra, and they
are all based on powers of two. So why are mega /pixels/ exempt?

--
ATM, aka Jerry

"Whether You Think You CAN Or CAN'T, You're Right." – Henry Ford

Today Merritt Mullen commented courteously on the subject at
hand

In article ,
All Things Mopar wrote:

Today Merritt Mullen commented courteously on the subject
at hand

That is very interesting and may answer a question of
mine.
Nikon calls the D70 a 6.1 MP camera, but 3008 x 2000 is
only 6.018 MP, so I could not understand why they
advertised the camera 6.1 MP.

However, 3038x2012 is 6.092 MP, which rounds to 6.1 MP.

My calculator says that 3038x2012=6,112,456=5.8292 MP. You
need to divide by divide by 1,048,,576 (1024x1024) to
convert normal number to mega anything.
'
You are correct that 3028x2012 = 6,112,456 or 6.1 million
pixels. You are not correct about dividing by that binary
factor since we are not counting bits here but simply
pixels in an array.

What easy thing am I missing here, other than Nikon
obviously wants to advertise 6 MP and not a tweak under

Except the point is that Nikon does NOT advertise 6 MP,
they advertise (and spec) 6.1 MP. And indeed, in picture
element (pixel) count, the full RAW image does indeed
consist of 6.1 MP (million pixels).

Whatever floats you people's boats. The laws of mathematics
have no specific excepts for counting pixels mega is mega is
mega. A /real/ example of linear mathematics is the small
weight used in medicine the mg or milligram, with is really
1/1,000th of a gram and not 1.1024th.

--
ATM, aka Jerry

"Whether You Think You CAN Or CAN'T, You're Right." – Henry
Ford

All Things Mopar wrote:
Today Mike Warren commented courteously on the subject at
hand

All Things Mopar wrote:
You need to divide by divide by 1,048,,576 (1024x1024) to
convert normal number to mega anything.

No you don't. That only applies to megabytes.

Mathematicians created terms like mega, giga, terra, and they
are all based on powers of two. So why are mega /pixels/ exempt?

They are based on factors of 10.

Kilo=1000 x
Mega=1000000 x
Giga=1000000000 x

Only when talking about binary is the power of 2 system used.
And that's just for convenience. I think different words should
have been used to avoid the confusion.

-Mike

All Things Mopar wrote:
Today Merritt Mullen commented courteously on the subject at
hand

That is very interesting and may answer a question of mine.
Nikon calls the D70 a 6.1 MP camera, but 3008 x 2000 is
only 6.018 MP, so I could not understand why they
advertised the camera 6.1 MP.

However, 3038x2012 is 6.092 MP, which rounds to 6.1 MP.


Unlike MB = 1024 * 8 bits

a MP = 1000000 pixels.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

Mike Warren wrote:

Only when talking about binary is the power of 2 system used.
And that's just for convenience. I think different words should
have been used to avoid the confusion.


Yes, the problem started in electical engineering by calling 1024 byte a
kilo-byte. Close enough for government and computer work but the rest of
science considers kilo to mean a factor of 1000.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1