Is there any way to get the raw image data from a Nikon Coolpix S8200 P&S camera?

I have a Nikon Coolpix S8200 P&S camera. When I upload the images, they
come in as jpgs. Is there any way to get the raw (unprocessed) image
data from this camera? I searched the user's manual, but couldn't find
anything.

In article , Jennifer
Murphy wrote:

I have a Nikon Coolpix S8200 P&S camera. When I upload the images, they
come in as jpgs. Is there any way to get the raw (unprocessed) image
data from this camera? I searched the user's manual, but couldn't find
anything.

no.

On Tue, 09 Apr 2013 15:41:54 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote:

On Tue, 09 Apr 2013 11:51:03 -0700, Jennifer Murphy
wrote:

I have a Nikon Coolpix S8200 P&S camera. When I upload the images, they
come in as jpgs. Is there any way to get the raw (unprocessed) image
data from this camera? I searched the user's manual, but couldn't find
anything.

No. The camera does not have RAW shooting capabilities.

Bummer. That's what I was afraid of.

The camera claims to have 16 megapixels, but I wonder about that. The
highest setting, which they call "16M*" claims to have 4608 x 3456
pixels, but then they say it has a compression ratio of approximately
1:4. Does this mean that it's only 4mp or effectively 64mp or something
else?

How many actual physical pixels are there inside the camera?

I don't believe I've ever gotten a file from this camera that was more
than about 6MB even on the highest resolution setting.

In article , Jennifer
Murphy wrote:

The camera claims to have 16 megapixels, but I wonder about that. The
highest setting, which they call "16M*" claims to have 4608 x 3456
pixels, but then they say it has a compression ratio of approximately
1:4. Does this mean that it's only 4mp or effectively 64mp or something
else?

it's 16 megapixels which is then jpeg compressed at a 4:1 ratio.

when you look at it on screen or print it, it's uncompressed back to
the full 16 megapixels.

however, jpeg is lossy compressed, which means some data is discarded
to get that level of compression. jpeg removes stuff you can't normally
see, so when it's uncompressed, it looks like the original, but it's
not exactly the same.

on the other hand, if you pick the lowest quality setting (highest
compression ratio & smallest file size), you will likely see artifacts
because the compression removed a lot of data to get the higher
compression level.

since that camera doesn't have raw, the best you can do is set it to
the highest quality jpeg setting.

How many actual physical pixels are there inside the camera?

there are 4608 x 3456 = 15,925,248 pixels for the image, which rounded
off is 16 megapixels.

there are actually some additional pixels around the edge of the sensor
that the camera uses internally, but they're not part of the image.
it's not a significant difference, but some cameras do list the total
number of pixels and the effective pixels that are used for the image.

I don't believe I've ever gotten a file from this camera that was more
than about 6MB even on the highest resolution setting.

file size is different, especially with compression. the actual file on
disk (or on the card) can range in size by quite a bit, for the exact
same image, depending on the type of compression and the quality.
uncompress it and it will always be 4608 x 3456 pixels (unless you
change that too, which is a separate setting).

On 09/04/2013 21:27, Jennifer Murphy wrote:
On Tue, 09 Apr 2013 15:41:54 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote:

On Tue, 09 Apr 2013 11:51:03 -0700, Jennifer Murphy
wrote:

I have a Nikon Coolpix S8200 P&S camera. When I upload the images, they
come in as jpgs. Is there any way to get the raw (unprocessed) image
data from this camera? I searched the user's manual, but couldn't find
anything.

No. The camera does not have RAW shooting capabilities.

Bummer. That's what I was afraid of.

The camera claims to have 16 megapixels, but I wonder about that. The
highest setting, which they call "16M*" claims to have 4608 x 3456
pixels, but then they say it has a compression ratio of approximately
1:4. Does this mean that it's only 4mp or effectively 64mp or something
else?

It means it saves the image with an IJG quality approx Q=91 which is a
bit lower than most high end cameras. Anything with Q 95 tends to be
wasting space digitising noise without adding more useful detail.

Nikon use their own quantisation tables so the Q value isn't exact.

How many actual physical pixels are there inside the camera?

Slightly more than 4608x3456 ~16M sites on the sensor but each one has a
filter and is R,G,R,G or G,B,G,B on alternate lines.

I don't believe I've ever gotten a file from this camera that was more
than about 6MB even on the highest resolution setting.

Part of that might be your technique and camera shake. If there isn't
enough high frequency detail in the original image then JPEG will be
able to compress it a lot more effectively. Most high end cameras the
highest quality JPEG file save on the right target is closer to the
number of pixels with a Q~98. Sort your directory by size to check.

You should find the largest files are trees and shrubs in bright
sunlight covering most of the field of view. Close enough that every
leaf is distinct - even better with blue sky or darkness behind them.

What is the problem that you are trying to resolve?

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Tue, 09 Apr 2013 17:01:28 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Jennifer
Murphy wrote:

The camera claims to have 16 megapixels, but I wonder about that. The
highest setting, which they call "16M*" claims to have 4608 x 3456
pixels, but then they say it has a compression ratio of approximately
1:4. Does this mean that it's only 4mp or effectively 64mp or something
else?

it's 16 megapixels which is then jpeg compressed at a 4:1 ratio.

when you look at it on screen or print it, it's uncompressed back to
the full 16 megapixels.

however, jpeg is lossy compressed, which means some data is discarded
to get that level of compression. jpeg removes stuff you can't normally
see, so when it's uncompressed, it looks like the original, but it's
not exactly the same.

OK, thanks

On Tue, 09 Apr 2013 22:20:53 +0100, Martin Brown
wrote:

On 09/04/2013 21:27, Jennifer Murphy wrote:
On Tue, 09 Apr 2013 15:41:54 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote:

On Tue, 09 Apr 2013 11:51:03 -0700, Jennifer Murphy
wrote:

I have a Nikon Coolpix S8200 P&S camera. When I upload the images, they
come in as jpgs. Is there any way to get the raw (unprocessed) image
data from this camera? I searched the user's manual, but couldn't find
anything.

No. The camera does not have RAW shooting capabilities.

Bummer. That's what I was afraid of.

The camera claims to have 16 megapixels, but I wonder about that. The
highest setting, which they call "16M*" claims to have 4608 x 3456
pixels, but then they say it has a compression ratio of approximately
1:4. Does this mean that it's only 4mp or effectively 64mp or something
else?

It means it saves the image with an IJG quality approx Q=91 which is a
bit lower than most high end cameras. Anything with Q 95 tends to be
wasting space digitising noise without adding more useful detail.

Nikon use their own quantisation tables so the Q value isn't exact.

How many actual physical pixels are there inside the camera?

Slightly more than 4608x3456 ~16M sites on the sensor but each one has a
filter and is R,G,R,G or G,B,G,B on alternate lines.

I don't believe I've ever gotten a file from this camera that was more
than about 6MB even on the highest resolution setting.

Part of that might be your technique and camera shake. If there isn't
enough high frequency detail in the original image then JPEG will be
able to compress it a lot more effectively. Most high end cameras the
highest quality JPEG file save on the right target is closer to the
number of pixels with a Q~98. Sort your directory by size to check.

You should find the largest files are trees and shrubs in bright
sunlight covering most of the field of view. Close enough that every
leaf is distinct - even better with blue sky or darkness behind them.

OK. I went outside and took 9 different scenes filled with bushes. Some
were all green, some mosrly yellow, some a mix, and some had flowers. I
took each scene with 5 different settings: 16M*, 16M, 12M, 8M, and 5M.
According to the user's manual, all but the 16M* are compressed 1:8, The
16M* is compressed 1:4.

These are the average sizes,

16M* 5,728
16M 3,244
12M 2,463
8M 1,564
5M 962

What is the problem that you are trying to resolve?

I'm just trying to understand how the danged thing works. I took some
photos of a painting with my Nikon Coolpix S8200 P&S with 16MP. A friend
took some with her Nikon D700 with 12MP that looks a lot better,
especially blown way up. That's why I thought the 16MP might by funny
pixels, like Monopoly money. ;-)

On 10/04/2013 07:56, Jennifer Murphy wrote:
[]
I'm just trying to understand how the danged thing works. I took some
photos of a painting with my Nikon Coolpix S8200 P&S with 16MP. A friend
took some with her Nikon D700 with 12MP that looks a lot better,
especially blown way up. That's why I thought the 16MP might by funny
pixels, like Monopoly money. ;-)

The 16 Mpix are genuine, but each pixel is of lower quality than that in
the DSLR because it is physically smaller and captures less light.
Advantage, smaller and lighter camera and lenses, disadvantage can't
blow up the image as much, and will not work as well in very low light.
If you're making very large prints, DSLR, if you're making for smaller
prints (e.g. 6 x 4 inches, perhaps A4 size ~11 x 8 inches) or for
Twitter or Facebook viewing the compact camera is a very tempting buy.
I have both!
--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 08:08:42 +0100, David Taylor
wrote:

On 10/04/2013 07:56, Jennifer Murphy wrote:
[]
I'm just trying to understand how the danged thing works. I took some
photos of a painting with my Nikon Coolpix S8200 P&S with 16MP. A friend
took some with her Nikon D700 with 12MP that looks a lot better,
especially blown way up. That's why I thought the 16MP might by funny
pixels, like Monopoly money. ;-)

The 16 Mpix are genuine, but each pixel is of lower quality than that in
the DSLR because it is physically smaller and captures less light.
Advantage, smaller and lighter camera and lenses, disadvantage can't
blow up the image as much, and will not work as well in very low light.
If you're making very large prints, DSLR, if you're making for smaller
prints (e.g. 6 x 4 inches, perhaps A4 size ~11 x 8 inches) or for
Twitter or Facebook viewing the compact camera is a very tempting buy.
I have both!

And what exactly is a pixel? Does it store a numeric value or 3 numeric
RGB values or is it analog that is then converted into digital (numeric)
values? Is each pixel something like 24 bits of data -- 3 8-bit numbers
for 256 values for each of 3 colors?

On 2013-04-10 08:04:40 -0700, Jennifer Murphy said:

On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 08:08:42 +0100, David Taylor
wrote:

On 10/04/2013 07:56, Jennifer Murphy wrote:
[]
I'm just trying to understand how the danged thing works. I took some
photos of a painting with my Nikon Coolpix S8200 P&S with 16MP. A friend
took some with her Nikon D700 with 12MP that looks a lot better,
especially blown way up. That's why I thought the 16MP might by funny
pixels, like Monopoly money. ;-)

The 16 Mpix are genuine, but each pixel is of lower quality than that in
the DSLR because it is physically smaller and captures less light.
Advantage, smaller and lighter camera and lenses, disadvantage can't
blow up the image as much, and will not work as well in very low light.
If you're making very large prints, DSLR, if you're making for smaller
prints (e.g. 6 x 4 inches, perhaps A4 size ~11 x 8 inches) or for
Twitter or Facebook viewing the compact camera is a very tempting buy.
I have both!

And what exactly is a pixel? Does it store a numeric value or 3 numeric
RGB values or is it analog that is then converted into digital (numeric)
values? Is each pixel something like 24 bits of data -- 3 8-bit numbers
for 256 values for each of 3 colors?

A pixel is different things to different folks:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixel


--
Regards,

Savageduck