5DII sRaw

<p>Can anyone explain the advantages/disadvantages of using sRaw?</p>

<p>It is still a very large file, and I've read that it is not real Raw, but somehow interpolated and including noise reduction.</p>

<p>Any authoritative comments?</p>

<p>I have a 40D with sRAW. I don't know what anyone would mean by it not being a real RAW file. It behaves like a real RAW file from what I can see, it's just a smaller file. However I only use Canon's DPP for post processing. I've seen a review on someones site who downplayed the sRAW, but he doesn't like RAW and would rather shoot film anyways, so I take it with a grain of salt.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>The sRAW IS an interpolated RAW file - the camera 'scales the full-size RAW image' down to whatever size is chosen. Like any scaling process, IQ is lost from the full size RAW file.<br /> <br /> Also, since there is no "standard" sRAW file, you run risks of having limited support from software applications in the conversion to some other file format. Canon will likely support sRAW in DPP, but if your preferred software is from another mfr, it's only speculation whether or not it will be supported.</p>

<p>i have a 5DII. sRAW decreases apparent hi-ISO noise significantly. the files open fine in Photoshop CS4. i'm not saying it's the best choice for counterfeiting hundred dollar bills. but, for available light shooting in low light, sRAW definitely helps. </p>

<p>i have a 5DII. sRAW decreases apparent hi-ISO noise significantly. the files open fine in Photoshop CS4. i'm not saying it's the best choice for counterfeiting hundred dollar bills. but, for available light shooting in low light, sRAW definitely helps. </p><div></div>

<p>There have been so many threads on the advantages of shooting in RAW that I have lost count. I won't shoot any other way... However one of my partners shoots JPEG and he is very good about his exposures and never off by more that .5 stop... His work is excellent.</p>

<p>Ed R, RAW...yes, clearly superior. sRAW...the case isn't quite so clear.</p>

<p>>>> The sRAW IS an interpolated RAW file - the camera 'scales the full-size RAW image' down to whatever size is chosen. </p>

<p>No, not interpolation. The sRaw image file is the result of down-sampling through decimation; the result of which yields processing gain (at the expense of resolution) which reduces noise.</p>

<p>When I shoot "sRAW" I shoot large, fine JPGs in camera instead. Huge waste of time to ever use sRAW. In other words, shooting Large JPG is what I do in situations I don't want to hassle with the Raw. sRAW is another of those stupid, piXel wasting marketing gimmicks crammed into the camera's software.</p>

<p>"sRAW is another of those stupid, piXel wasting marketing gimmicks crammed into the camera's software."<br>

OK, but can you explain how?<br>

Brad, what exactly is going on in the "down-sampling through decimation"?<br>

Would it just be better to shoot RAW and then downsize in DPP or ACR in order to reduce noise? Would that maintain better detail?</p>

<p>I'm trying to figure out the point of it, and whether it is the equivalent of shooting Raw with a 10MP camera, or whether it is inferior.</p>

<p>The only point of sRAW is to save storage space. If you don't need to save storage space, use RAW, not sRAW.</p>

<p>sRAW does give you the option of post exposure change of settings like white balance, picture style and allows the usual RAW exposure compensation, aberration corrections etc. in DPP. With a JPEG, you don't get those options.</p>

<p>Robert C - regardless of what the scaling down process is called, the image quality is lower with sRAW.<br /><br />A couple of posters have mentioned the decreased noise in sRAW. It's true, there is decreased noise. But in this case, since it's not two different sensors but the SAME sensor producing both RAW and sRAW, decreased noise = decreased detail (since "noise" is an image detail) = decreased IQ. Of course, if you don't consider image "detail" to be a component of IQ, then it's possible to compare RAW to sRAW favorably.<br /><br />I have a lot more confidence in the software and dual quad-processors in my MacPro Desktops than in the relatively modest chips of the 5D2 in scaling images.</p>

<p>I agree that using the largest file size is optimal "all things considered". But there are tradeoffs. Take my situation, I usually process my images at home on a 2 year old 20" iMac using either Lightroom 2 or PS CS3. Processing images from my 8megpixel 20D or my 12megpixel XSi is no problem. With the 5DmkII files the machine starts to get slow.<br>

<br />now when I travel and try to process my 5DmkII raw files on my 8 year old Apple Powerbook G4 using these programs the machine literally crawls, but the files from my 20D and XSi are still manageble on the laptop.<br>

<br />I know the answer is get a new laptop, but this "continual upgrading" is starting to get expensive. I don't want to spend another $3000 for another computer at this time.<br />If I use sRaw files from the 5DmkII, then it is looking like a 10megpixel camera to the computer with great high ISO capability. Lets face it 10 megapixel images are usually adequate for most purposes. 21 megapixel is really overkill. I would have been happy with a lower resolution camera which had all of the other "bells and whistles" that the new 5D has to offer.<br>

Yes it is a tradeoff but that's what this hobby is all about....</p>

<p>i have ample memory-card capacity and plenty of unused HDD space. i have no need to sacrifice IQ just for the sake of saving space. <br>

but, i've recently used sRAW2 on my 5DII at two dimly lit social events to reduce noise at ISO 12,800. as a result, i wound up with far less noisy images than i used to get at ISO 3200 with my 5D, yet the files were of similar size. <br>

is it the case that i could reduce noise just as successfully by opening a RAW file in Photoshop and resetting the default image resolution of 240 ppi to a lower number?</p>

 

<p>Just a thought, would sRAW allow you to shoot a longer burst than RAW?</p>