RAW or TIFF which is better ???

I really really wonder RAW or TIFFF ????* I will buy a digicam

Minolta 7hi or Coolpix 5700 both have TIFF and RAW but Sony DSC 717

do not have RAW and cheaper than others...

 

I really need to know if RAW is that important or not ????

I will mostly use the cam for macro shooting especially jewellery.

 

Nikon 5700 has many features especially in macro it is the

best...But minolta has manymore with a bad macro...Sony has both

good features good facusing and a good macro between Nikon and

Minolta.....What if SONY put a RAW format so everything would be

damn easy to buy a digicam I would certainly buy Sony. (it ischeaper

than both)

 

So it is really really important...Is TIFF enough for taking good

pictures even I take pics under bad conditions can I make make ups

by using Photoshop as in RAW format..As I know RAW is like take

picture and furnish it later :O)))

 

Also is Sony DSC 717 is good enough for making posters like in A2-A1

size?

I have a Canon G2 camera. It won't make .TIF files directly, but does have a RAW mode. It also will do .JPG files with various levels of compression.

 

The highest resolution and least compression (largest file size) .JPG files that it will make are around 2 megabytes per picture. If I take the same picture in RAW mode, the file coming out of the camera is only about 3 megabytes. However, when I use software that came with the camera to expand the RAW file into a .TIF, the result is about 22 megabytes. The .TIF file is completely uncompressed and allows digital editing and adjustments without degradation. By the way, if you edit and resave .JPG files several times, you may notice significant degradation of the image.

 

I'm glad that my camera does not do .TIF files directly, because it would take a long time to write the huge files to the storage card, and it would take a huge storage card to store a day's worth of shooting. I can get about 86 RAW files (or 125 of the highest quality .JPG files) on one 256MB Compact Flash card.

 

My wife might shoot "snapshots" with the camera in .JPG mode, but I always use RAW mode for more serious work. It allows me to change the color balance setting after unloading the files from the camera. It also gives me the best possible digital image to edit later.

I can't say what other manufacturers' raw files are like, but I suspect that it's something similar to the Canon approach. There probably will be other comments here.

Skip-

 

Does your TIFs have layers. On my CP 5000 (Nikon) the tiffs are 12 mb when i convert the JPGs and/or RAW/.NEF (the raw function is only after firmware update 1.7). I don't see how a G2 with 4 mp could result in such a large tiff. It can't be compression because i don't use any type of compression for my files? Thanks

Does anyone know, is it possible to go the other way, convert tiffs into raw? Is there a significant reduction in size, is there no degradation of image, and is it subsequently possible to convert back to tiff, with no ill effects? Or is is this strictly a proprietory, one way process, intitiated in a digital camera?

According to William James (1842-1910) it isn�t possible. He is the one who said, <i>"A chain is no stronger than its weakest link�"</i> Raw files have all of the information about the shot and they can be changed but once it is converted into .tiff, it does not keep that information separate. If you use Photoshop then you know that if you flatten a five layer image and save it, they will be gone if you try to reopen it. Therefore, I�m sure one of those computer programming geniuses (one of which I�m not) could create a program to make a tiff raw but all you will have is a flattened image w/o controls. I hope this helps (and isn�t as mean as it sounds when you read it).

RAW files are smaller because they do not include 3 colour values per pixel. Instead they include only one (of r, g, or b) in a matrix which is then interpolated when expanded into a standard format that saves r, g, and b data for each pixel. Raw files also save the full bit depth for the luminance of each pixel (for canon this is 12 bits not 8). The pixel luminance info may spam bytes to save space.

 

So....

 

the large tiff sizes mentioned above probably are the result of saving r, g abd b data at 16bits (8 bit files are smaller at the same resolution but have much less colour information)

 

also - one would not want to convert from tiff to raw unless that process could accurately be reversed (unlikely) as colour information loss (or at least change) would occur.

Justin, I don't know the inner workings of the files, but what Mike says sounds like it's about right.

<I>Does anyone know, is it possible to go the other way, convert tiffs into raw?</I> <P>There would be no point in it. RAW gives you raw information, but not more resolution. RAW/NEF files have the resoluution of TIFF files but gnerally more color bit depth and they aren't processedto fit the TIFF format.

I understand why raw is smaller than tiff (well I didn�t but I knew it was) but what I didn�t get was why the tiffs were so large.

 

Mike, is what you are talking about similar to LAB color or did I miss the point?

 

Once again: apologies to Mendel. I read it over again and I realized it sounded sort of mean. I assumed you understood the raw system with giving you control.

RAW can give you much more control in theory than any other format. I say theory because it is up to the abilities of the RAW converter to provide the ability to control the process.

 

In Breezebrowser for Canon RAW it allows you to control contrast, saturation, sharpness, and white balance as you would from the camera controls I believe.

I believe the RAW format is a lossless compression format. TIFF files, besides having to store the 3 calculated R,G,B values may be uncompressed. There are some lossless TIFF compresion schemes but I don't know if they are used in digicams.

 

RAW is obviously better, but requires post-processing. You can view a TIFF file directly.

I assume the TIFF files are the 8-bits-per-pixel variety. The nice thing about raw files is they store more than 8 bits per pixel (12 bits on most Canons). This gives you more latitude for adjusting exposure and contrast. Since you mention taking pictures under bad conditions, I would strongly recommend a raw format over 8-bit TIFF.

 

I have a Canon Powershot S40, which does JPEG or RAW. I shot in JPEG early on, but now I use raw exclusively. I also have the Adobe Camera Raw plug-in, which is much better than the Canon software or other software that uses the Canon API (e.g. BreezeBrowser, Yarc plus).

Tif files basically contain every dot one dot at a time jpegs use something like

multiplicaion to compress the file. the best way to describe might be this "one

hundred" (this would be a tif file) "10x10" this would be jpg see how one uses less

space but they are basically the same.

The new Sony F828 due in January 2004 now works with RAW files. The point about reversing these file is not really rquired as they are not over writen when you convert to another format. The reason for RAW files is to be able to get better quality and small files from your camera. RAW in the long run will give better colour and pictures than even TIFF and it does this faster because of the file being smaller. The down side of RAW files is that they cannot be readable until converted. A 9.4 Raw file in size is about 17.3 in TIFF from the camera. This is not exact but only a guide. Going back to the New Sony it will focus down to 2cmm .... very close, you will have to watch your own shadow that close.