Better ISO performance with sRAW

[brian_schiel]

<p>I have not heard Canon make this claim so maybe I'm barking up a tree that does not exist. Would shooting in small RAW give me better high ISO performance VS full RAW with my 1DM3? My theory is fewer pixals over the same sensor....less noise. <br>

Thoughts?</p>

 

[jnicholson]

<p>Pixel size remains the same regardless of how many are actually processed and stored. So, no your argument doesn't work for me.</p>

[josephbraun]

<p>There is better highlight and shadow recovery in RAW mode b/c there is more data to work with.</p>

[brian_schiel]

<p>That makes sense. I did not take pixal SIZE in to consideration. Yet, another example of size mattering.</p>

[andre_mcnichols]

<p>I wouldn't call that better performance if you lose half your resolution... At best it would be like downsizing the full image, you'll lose noise together with the small details. You should try it but you can probably get a cleaner image by running some noise reduction software on your full image before you downsize it.</p>

[PuppyDigs]

<p>If you need to make large prints noise will be even more apparent with a smaller file. If you want a small file, shoot full size and down size later. You can use additional NR if needed.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>sRAW, sRGB, huge LCD screens, and a few other "advances" are things that I just don't understand. I feel these are things to stay away from unless you actually know some reason to use them. If you don't already know that reason, you can't "afford" them. Just MHO.<br>

What could possibly be better about throwing away data? If you save RAW, you can always shrink it later, can't you?</p>

[matthijs]

<p>I have read somewhere that sRAW is better because your sensor does not need Bayer Interpolation at that size. (Using 4 pixels per pixel so to speak. One for each color.))</p>

<p>Whether it's true or not I cannot tell but after a lot of reactions that tell you differently I had to mention it.</p>

<p>Regards, Matthijs.</p>

[matthijs]

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Sharpness of smaller image sizes</strong> <br>

Bravo! As hoped, lower resolution files get sharper because Bayer Interpolation is no longer needed.<br>

Unlike Nikons, which don't get any sharper at 100% when set to smaller resolution files, M and L files form the 5D mark II are super, duper sharp. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Uhm... I read it at Ken Rockwell's site which makes it slightly suspect but possibly true.</p>

<p>For those who don't believe in Ken:<br>

http://www.bahneman.com/liem/blog/article.php?story=Ken_Rockwell_Facts</p>

<p>(-: Matthijs.<br /> </p>

 

[dave_trayers]

<p>If the noise isn't the same size as a pixel (and it usually isn't), downsizing won't reduce noise much:<br>

<a href="http://blog.dpreview.com/editorial/2008/11/downsampling-to.html">http://blog.dpreview.com/editorial/2008/11/downsampling-to.html</a> </p>

[tien_pham]

<p>I think "no Bayer interpolation" is wrong! Think about it. The sensor is PHYSICALLY made with the Bayer pattern. With the Bayer pattern, interpolation will be used, whether it can be a lot, or less, it's a different story.</p>

<p>With more resolution, there are more points to do averaging (interpolation,) therefore sharpness becomes less, but higher accuracy because there are more points.</p>

<p>You will gain something for paying a price of another.</p>

<p>About Canon and its sRAW files, I really don't understand why they do put some efforts to design this feature. They (Canon) should put their efforts into thinking of designing 2 CF slots in the 1D series camera, instead of 1 CF and 1 SD. As far as storing a file into either card, it's a non-issue. For the serious/pro shooters, they have more CFs than SDs. For beginners, they don't know which type of card they should choose, so 1 CF and 1 SD make more sense. For continuous shooting (without interuption) means that the serious/pro shooters need to stock the SDs.</p>

[joergen geerds photography]

<p>I think you are talking about pixel binning, combining the data from 4 beyer sites to calculate one super pixel... unfortunately, none of the big ones do that yet, so your sraw is just a smaller version of the regular raw.</p>