So, how big a file does 10MP yield?

Well, my 14mp Kodak DSLR produces 37mb 8 bit tif files, from 17mb raw files. I would guess that a 10mp camera (such as the new Leica) would produce about 24-28mb 8 bit tif files from (oh say,) a 12-14mb raw file. It kinda depends on if the Leica raw files are compressed in any way before they are written to the card in the camera.
 
The Nikon D200 is in the same ball park for sensor size. With it a normal JPG = about 3.5 Meg. RAW = about 10.5 Meg. The M8 will probably be similar. YMMV;)
 
Ted Witcher said:
I'm working with 18MB scans generally and can easily scale that up. Digitally, what exactly do I get for my 10 mega-pixels?
Click to expand...
Going from the DMR specs, 29MB 8bit TIFF and 59MB 16bit TIFF. The M8 sensor is a bit different and there is a new firmware provider, so those numbers may change. At this point it isn't sure that the 16 bit TIFF will still be included.
The basic idea is 10MP @ 3bits/pixel = 30MB with 8 bit depth and twice that for 16bit depth for 60MB....uncompressed file size. If your 18MB scans are 8bit depth, then the image size is 6MP and you probably scanned a 35mm frame at 2000dpi for a file size of 2000 X 3000;)
Bob
 
You know, I don't even know the bit depth of my scans (I have them done). This is a new workflow for me. But on the M8, do we not yet have specs on bit depth? Is 12 or 16 bit (I may be a neophyte, but I presume more is better) still a possibility?
 
Ted Witcher said:
You know, I don't even know the bit depth of my scans (I have them done). This is a new workflow for me. But on the M8, do we not yet have specs on bit depth? Is 12 or 16 bit (I may be a neophyte, but I presume more is better) still a possibility?
Click to expand...

No specs yet, but there is not reason to think the M8 would not be up to the DMR standard of 16-bit capture.

Jpegs will always be 8-bit, regardless of how much the camera captured to begin with. It's inherent in the format.

RAW files will contain up to 16 bits of data, but how many bits you get on conversion to a picture is a user-selectable option in one's RAW convertor software.

Roughly speaking - one gets a tiny bit under a megabyte of data for each megapixel of image area in 8 bit capture, and double that in 16-bit capture.

(1 megapixel = 1,000,000 pixels : 1 megabyte = 1,048,000 bytes ; 1 byte = 8 bits)

So a 10.5 megapixel camera will produce 8-bit color files of about 30-31 megabytes and 16-bit color pictures of about 60 megabytes +/-.

Jpegs may be rather variable and significantly smaller due to the inherent compression. A 30-megabyte image compressed as a jpeg file may be only 6-7 megabytes.
 
Excellent. I was under the impression that you can make super hi-res scans -- in the range you've just mentioned -- and that was a significant advantage film still has over digital. This, of course, was from a film die-hard... you know, the idea that a dig capture is finite, but you can always re-scan the neg for more information. True, I suppose, superficially. But for a print of 8x10 or 11x14 or even 16x20 60mb is plenty sufficient, which you say the camera is capable of. And I'm relieved to hear it. So the advantage now really just seems to be about the "look" and which look you prefer. The objective, measurable characteristics appear to be about even.
 
ted - a couple of points to clarify:

1. 16-bit files contain twice as much data as 8-bit files, but not more pixels. The extra data is expressed as finer tonal and color distinctions (65,000+ "levels" between black and white vs. 256 "levels") rather than finer detail.

2. File size is only roughly equated to image quality - a scanner with enough resolution could easily produce a 50-megabyte file from a 110 negative (remember 110 film?) - but it would mostly be a photo-micrograph of grain, and certainly not contain as much detail as a 10-megabyte scan from a 35mm negative.

By the same token, a scan (or digital image) made out-of-focus or with a poor lens will be a fuzzy image, regardless of whether it is 10 or 100 megabytes of data.

Which is why many DMR users who used to shoot Canon say they get better results from 10 megapixels behind a Leica lens (with no blurring anti-alias filter) than 16.6 megapixels behind a Canon lens (and an AA filter).

I.E. it's one of those "all things being equal" questions - and all things are NEVER equal.

8^)
 
10mp = big.

i'm shooting with a 4.15mp 1D, and i've printed plenty of 8x10's with it that are wonderful to look at. With the M8 having no (or a verrrrrrrry thin) AA filter, it will be remarkably sharp just like the DMR i'm sure.
 
Victor, you'll get used to it if you work in prepress some time :)

But I can make that easyer:

At huge sizes you mostly print 224dpi, so from a 10MPixel Canon 400d with 3888x2592 pixels you get roughly 17x11 inches without tricks.

With some work in prepress I doubt anybody will see a difference when you enlarge to 20x16.
 
AndyPiper said:
ted - a couple of points to clarify:



2. File size is only roughly equated to image quality - a scanner with enough resolution could easily produce a 50-megabyte file from a 110 negative (remember 110 film?) - but it would mostly be a photo-micrograph of grain, and certainly not contain as much detail as a 10-megabyte scan from a 35mm negative.
Click to expand...


Exactly, I was going to make the same point. As art directors at magazines have come to realize, file size (per se) is not the definitive quality measurement for files made with digital capture.

Cheers,

Sean
 
I have a DMR and it is 16 bit capture. I use *DNG files processed through CS CameraRaw. Each *dng file is 20 Mb and I will get 99 or 100 Raw files on each 2 Mb SD card depedning on the manufacturer.

Don't let the pixel count decieve you. In terms of image quality, a 20 Mb shot from a DMR has (more or less) the "quality" and "loolK" of a scanned 6X7 film image. My MF scans are usually in the 40-80 Mb size so I try to squeeze everyting I can out of film. IMO a DMR image is far far better than anything that I ahve gotten out of my M6 and M7.

Can't wait for the M8.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom