dcheung Posted August 21, 2007 Share Posted August 21, 2007 I don't see a point in it from personal perspective. I mean, sure it take up less space and still carries all the post process capabilities of full sized RAW's, but I just don't see where I can put it to good use. I can't think of one circumstance where I would switch from either RAW to sRAW or fine L JPEG to sRAW....but then again, I never shoot anything other than full resolution. Can anyone give examples where they've actually put sRAW to good use in their real shooting circumstances? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tommyinca Posted August 21, 2007 Share Posted August 21, 2007 A compressed raw file (ie:sRAW) could be a super time (aka: money) saver when one have to transfer 1000+ photos either from the shoot to the computer or from the computer to an archieve medium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcheung Posted August 21, 2007 Author Share Posted August 21, 2007 Tommy >> So for shoots, you're okay with shooting not full resolution images? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kahkityoong Posted August 21, 2007 Share Posted August 21, 2007 sRAW sounds like a gimick. Who would splurge $8000 on a 21MP camera to get small files at 6MP? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob_osullivan Posted August 21, 2007 Share Posted August 21, 2007 Only when youre running low on card space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobatkins Posted August 21, 2007 Share Posted August 21, 2007 I think I'd switch from RAW to JPEG before sRAW under most circumstances (and generate even smaller files). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtwhite Posted August 21, 2007 Share Posted August 21, 2007 The only thing I can think is for newspapers, where ultra-high resolution isn't required, but the layout folks need to be able to tweak the photo more than jpeg might allow, and the reporter wants to not max out the camera's buffer. Of course, the only paper I've ever worked at was a small-town weekly (and I wasn't even a reporter) so I could be completely wrong about the needs of a big daily. Maybe it's part of Digic 3, intended for digicams with raw capability and small buffers. The problem with this theory that I've just pulled out of my posterior is that as far as I know, the G9 is the only raw-capable digicam with Digic 3, and I can't find any info that says the G9 even supports sraw. Aside from that, I can't imagine what it would be used for. It still sounds like a bizarre feature to throw in to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason_hall4 Posted August 21, 2007 Share Posted August 21, 2007 I want it because I like the flexiblity of RAW with white balance and the like but I don't need large images. Such as I had two shoots this past weekend. One was for a personal trainer wanting photos for her web site and later that day I shot a 6 month old for her parents. The sRAW would have been nice for the web shots. Sure I could shoot it in JPEG but I like RAW, period. Some of the shots may be used on a buisness card. All IMHO. Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason_hall4 Posted August 21, 2007 Share Posted August 21, 2007 Of course I would shoot full size RAW for the portraits of the baby! Just realize how that sounded Thanks Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brad_w Posted August 21, 2007 Share Posted August 21, 2007 Seemed to me Canon had daily PJ's in mind for sRAW. Shooting a few hundred images a day of full RAW would be a drain on most any system and we often work in wonky lighting so getting decent colors can be a headache. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mawz Posted August 21, 2007 Share Posted August 21, 2007 Dunno why it's on the 1DsIII, but I can see the use for the 1DIII and 40D, when I don't need the resolution (shooting for web or newspaper) but need the extra card space. sRAW would be perfect for Airshow use for me (I normally shoot JPEG for airshows, to save card space) since I'm shooting for Web and 2.5MP is enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonas_gustavsson Posted August 21, 2007 Share Posted August 21, 2007 Well, if it uses 2x2 binning rather than just discarding 3/4 of the sensor data, this could be the answer to the prayers of people who like to complain about how megapixels are for amateurs with some kind of self-confidence issues and real photographers just want more DR and S/N... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinsouthern Posted August 21, 2007 Share Posted August 21, 2007 It's there simply as an option - and being there it extends the usefullness of the camera to a wider group of people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcheung Posted August 21, 2007 Author Share Posted August 21, 2007 Jonas >> sRAW uses pixel binnning? Then does that mean it can effectively have a higher ISO with the noise of a lower ISO? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcheung Posted August 21, 2007 Author Share Posted August 21, 2007 "It's there simply as an option - and being there it extends the usefullness of the camera to a wider group of people." I semi-agree with that being a good thing. So far, only one person came up with a decent situation for shooting sRAW (for website images), where as most people don't have a purpose for it. I wonder how often there'll be slip ups when you wanted to select RAW and you actually selected sRAW without knowing and shot a bunch of pictures like that. I bet that can get really annoying. As for the web images, I'd still shoot in full resolution and have the flexibility to sell prints to the client later on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keith_lubow Posted August 21, 2007 Share Posted August 21, 2007 I would use it if I wanted less resolution, but still wanted to work with a RAW file. Is is great to have the option to use a small file size, yet still shoot raw. Just 'cause your car can go 160 doesn't mean you drive it that way most of the time. Keith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason_hall4 Posted August 21, 2007 Share Posted August 21, 2007 To be honest with myself I think I would use it for stuff like the web photos, but in real practice I may find it is a mistake and simply go back to useing normal RAW files. But I would like to give it a try. Personally, If I could print a good 8X10 from it I think I would use it for alot of my "every day snap shots" of the kids and stuff. Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tapani Posted August 21, 2007 Share Posted August 21, 2007 "sRAW uses pixel binnning? Then does that mean it can effectively have a higher ISO with the noise of a lower ISO?" My thoughts exactly. I haven't seen that documented anywhere, though, but it would seem an obvious possibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_steeper Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 I shoot some golf tournaments every year where we need to provide 200-300 people with 8x10 prints and web images at the end of the day. Speed of work flow is very important when you only have two hours to meet your deadline. An extra time to copy files, extra time to browse and select images and extra time to process would just cause more stress and no benefit. A 21MP file will generally slow down production without providing any benefit in this situation. I think sRAW would ideal for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonas_gustavsson Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 Here is a discussion from dpreview where the potential binning in the 1DIII is discussed. Apparently the Bayer filter could cause some problems. There were no clear answers then, but that was in February... <P> <a href="http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1000&message=22161540&changemode=1">DPReview 1DIII binning</A> <P> Personally, I think it is very pessimistic to think that we would be at a level where 2x2 binning would essentially not result in a lack of information - we don't have 1x1 um sensors and ISO 12800 yet. Maybe in a compact camera close to you soon? :-) Hence - sRaw only makes sense for people with large quantity/quality requirement ratio.<p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonas_gustavsson Posted August 24, 2007 Share Posted August 24, 2007 It may also be possible to infer something from the <a href="http://www.robgalbraith.com/public_files/Canon_EOS-1D_Mark_III_White_Paper.pdf">1D Mark III White Paper</a> about sRAW - particularily from the table on p. 30. Interestingly, the approx file size for sRaw is 7.6 MB vs. 13 MB for Raw dispite only storing a quarter of the number of pixels. (I don't get how 10.1 MP x 14-bit workes out to just 13 MB, but that is another story - lossless compression?) This must suggest that some "improved interpolation" is done to derive unknown color information compared to what is done at full resolution. Since each 2x2 sensor block conatins 1R, 2G and 1B-filtered sensor, though not exactly in the same location, interpolation may be unnecessary. I'm not sure how you can do binning on a Bayer sensor - binning the colors one by one may mean even more loss in resolution.<P> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now