RX1 RAW File Size

Discussion in 'Sony RX1 Forum' started by rx1noob, Jun 18, 2013.

  1. rx1noob

    rx1noob New to SC

    4
    Jun 18, 2013
    RAW files size on the RX1 is around 24mb but my X100S RAWs are around 30mb. There is no doubt the IQ on the RX1 is better but why is the file size much less, especially when RX1 is 24MP and the X100S is 'only' 16MP.
     
  2. Luckypenguin

    Luckypenguin SC Hall of Famer

    Dec 24, 2010
    Brisbane, Australia
    Nic
    Could have something to do with the ability of the hardware and software of each camera to apply compression to raw files and write them to disk in a timely manner. As another example, the first of the 20MP APS-C Samsungs would write raw files that were close to 50Mb, but using the Adobe DNG Concerter on a computer you can reduce them to around 20Mb.
     
  3. rogerc

    rogerc SC Regular

    57
    May 16, 2013
    The Hexagonal.
    All camera brands use one way or another to compress their RAW files.

    When I had my 5D2s, files were very variable in size. Some would be 20mb, some 32mb, and so on.
    When I got my NEX 7, I saw that every file was 24mb give or take some kb.
    Of course, I got curious how could a 24mp camera yield exactly 24mb EVERY FILE whereas a 21mp camera yielded different size files every time.

    So I researched this and came up with the following among other things:

    Sony RX1 RAW file issue? An investigative report...: Sony Cyber-shot Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

    diglloyd blog - Sony NEX-7 — RAW Only 8 Bits?

    RAW vs. cRAW - Dyxum forums - Page 3

    Sony is compressing the files more than other manufacturers do, but in a very clever way. This way is so good that, like written in the digilloyd page, it would be indistinguishable vs an uncompressed version of the file. So, the differences may only be mathematical.

    My NEX files were comparable to my former 5D2s files. Dynamic range was also comparably good (at ISOs lower than 800, they were much better)
    If you jump to DPReview's image comparison tool and choose RAW and compare RX1 to, say, D600, you will see that the files are so close that the difference has to do with the imaging processor representation of the recorded image on the sensor. If you download the RAW files from each camera and push their shadows and bring their highlights down, you will find the same response to post processing on each.

    At the height of the X-Trans sensor RAW file support screaming, people began to wonder why are companies not just using .DNG for their RAW files, seeing that some people had to buy new versions of Photoshop, for example, to support their newly acquired cameras (when their Photoshop versions would not have supported those RAW files) Maybe it was one of the guys above, I don't remember, but someone said that all RAWs (be it NEF, CR2, ARW, ORF) are 95% the same. That 5% is what manufacturers cling on for almost no good real reason. He mentioned that .DNGs are as good as any NEF, CR2, ARW out there but the 5% made each file non-readable by the competition's RAW processing engine (say DPP or IDC) and that was a marketing stronghold more than a practical one.

    In summary, Sony does compress their RAWs but in a very clever way.
    The rest, from anyone, may just be marketing.