How to downsample with a D800

<p>I pretty much shoot JPEG. To downsample with my D800, do I simply change the file size setting from L (large) to M (medium) or does downsample refer to something else?</p>

<p>Why do you want to downsample your images? What are you hoping to achieve?</p>

<p>If it is to increase the efficiency of your workflow, then switching to smaller JPGs in the camera would certainly work, but then the baby would be lost with the bathwater ... namely the great dynamic range of the D800 (and possibly a part of the resolution depending on which options you set).</p>

<p>If you want to do it to improve high ISO SNR then a noise reduction software would do a better job than downsampling since the downsampling is blind to the underlying content whereas a noise reduction software bases its operations on the underlying content i.e. is it a smooth area such as a young face or detailed area such as forest trees. These software are optimized to maintain as much of the detail and smooth even areas in such a way as to create a visually pleasing end result. Of course, the best algorithms in terms of outcome are also the most time consuming to use. ;-)</p>

<p>You want to shoot at the highest resolution possible in the camera, and then use software like Photoshop or equivalent to downsample. To downsample, you simply resize the file (the method varies depending on the software being used.) What software are you using?</p>

<p>Depending on your print size , downsampling can off a noticeable increase in IQ.</p>

<p>If you do a Google search on D800 Downsampling, you will find a lot of information on the topic.</p>

<p>Alan, The L to M refers to the size of the image taken in-camera. Down sampling refers to reducing the size of the image during processing. If you don't ever need a higher resolution image, by all means, use the in-camera setting that most reduces the size of the image. The only times I ever do this is if it's a whole bunch of shots (portraits, products) that will be reduced anyway.</p>

<p>As mentioned above, you can downsize the image in PhotoShop or Light Room if you like. If it is an image you care about, you should really be using the native Nikon NEF format (RAW), and downsize from this file. It is best to make a copy of the original, so you don't over-write it. Then reduce the size of it (in full 16 bit). As mentioned, this will reduce the image quality a bit, probably requiring sharpening and increasing the contrast a bit.</p>

<p>On the D800 (and pretty much all Nikon DSLRs) you can set the "Image Size" to Large, Medium, or Small and the JPEG compression to Fine, Normal, or Basic. There are also various crops like the 1.2X and DX (1.5X) crops as well as a 5:4 mode. All of these will reduce the file sizes but you're losing image quality and ability to post process but since you're already shooting JPEG you may not care.</p>

<p>Large/Medium/Small is basically downsampling in camera. The full sensor area is still used but Large gives the normal 36MP, Medium is 20MP, and Small is 9MP.</p>

<p>Most people on this forum will say you're wasting the potential of your camera and I agree but you bought it with your money so do whatever you want.</p>

 

<p>Doing this in Photoshop after the fact is the only way that makes sense to me. Doing it in camera turns your expensive, pro-level D800 into something like a D40.</p>

<p>Craig, I have a D40 and really like it, but a downsampled 36mp in-camera image from a D800 should have better overall IQ over a 6mp D40 image unless you are making small prints.</p>

<p>Definitely keep the largest file you can make in the camera, and downsize it (always keeping the original) as wanted in post. Otherwise, a P&S will produce low-res images that are just fine.</p>

<p>I could not see any important difference in low-res (say, 700x500 pixels) images regardless of what size they started out as.</p>

<p>I think that shooting Medium sized jpegs with the D800 for many uses will be more than fine. As a D700/D300 shooter (and this is my living), going from 12MP to 20MP will be the best of both worlds. More resolution and a nice workflow.</p>

<p>Of course, I'll shoot full res when needed, but if you're not making large prints, how many times do you require 36 MP?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>how many times do you require 36 MP?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>By Finagle's Law and its various corollaries, you will need it precisely when you don't have it.</p>

 

<ul>

<li>On the same principle as "measure twice and cut once" - you can always down-sample a large image, but you can hardly ever make it work to get a large image out of a small one.</li>

<li>Storage is so cheap, why skimp on storing?</li>

<li>Why buy a 36MP camera if you don't use it?</li>

</ul>

<p>Why only quote part of a sentence? My thought was, "If you're not making large prints, how many times do you need 36 MP?" Answer: hardly ever.</p>

<p>Actually, I was hoping the D800 would be 20-24 MP. Having the 36 MP available is a bonus of course, especially at it's price point. Don't get me wrong, I'm excited that they're there. But 20 MP will be what I normally shoot at because it will be more resolution than most of my clients and myself will need. I compose very carefully and hardly ever crop.</p>

<p>What you say makes sense for most, but as individuals, we all have different needs. </p>

<p>If 12.3 MP was good enough for a national magazine cover, 20 MP will more than do. </p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Why only quote part of a sentence?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Because how do you know that you NEVER will want a large print? -- that's the point.</p>

<p>If I'm on holiday somwhere and taking social shots for facebook etc or at a family party. I'd not need 36mp . Having said that I'd not use a D800 for that purpose (if I owned one) unless it was the only camera I had at the time.<br>

The Canon 5DMk2&3 can shoot in smaller RAW file if required which is a more sensible solution. I was reading an old test on a Canon 5D2 and the same argument about huge 21mp RAW files and lens quality was being said in 2009.<br>

Now with multi terrabite hard drives I agree storage is not such an issue.</p>

 

<p>Seems to me Canon has the right idea with its sRAW option. Wish Nikon would follow</p>

<p>William</p>

<p>If one doesn’t need large files then downsampling in-camera should produce superior results to downsampling large JPEGs off camera. Mind that the camera downsamples from raw data.<br>

It also saves time if you know you’re not going to need the larger size. Why not have the camera do it for you from raw data if you know upfront you’re not going to go ballistic about postprocessing some shots?<br>

It is by no means downgrading the camera. FF will always produce superior images to APS-C.<br>

In addition, some posters may have forgotten that hardly any lens will resolve 36MP anyway… Check DxOMark, see for yourself.</p>

 

<p>I think it's worthwhile to shoot raw with a D800. Shoot lower res JPG and you're only taking up 5MB of disk space instead of 40MB, but hard drives are cheap and what was the point in buying a D800 if you don't want a crapload of image data?</p>

<p>A lot of people bought a D800 because Nikon brought out the D800 before the D600. The D800 is over the top in resolution for most purposes. The same could be said for the D600; but if the D600 came out first I would have been shooting FF Nikon now.<br>

As it happens I went down the Canon 5d route last year. I have never found 21mp limiting in any way and I have metre wide prints shot with Fuji DSLRs and Nikon DX which most people who view them are amazed that they were shot with 6-12mp cameras.<br>

The vast majority of my output is never seen on anything more than a 27" monitor with 3.6mp resolution and much of it is viewed publicly on the web at no more than 800x 600 resolution. Shooting a party for facebook at 21+mp is a bit silly; but I do this out of habit not necessity.<br>

The real advantage for me about having a higher mp camera is to be able to crop. Even a 60% crop will give a good image for print<br>

I do have the option of shoot SRAW with the Canon but I never do so; preferring to downsample the RAW files to keep best quality.<br>

A couple of weeks ago I went out shooting a D200 having lent my 5D2 to a colleague. Could I see any difference or major deficiencies on the NEF images shot in normal conditions? I have to say that for screen, web or print, there would be no way of telling (unless I was shooting above 800ISO) <br /><br /></p>