| Joined: | Wed Apr 18th, 2012 |
| Location: | United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 4186 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
I got this from Iliah Borg of RAWTherapee fame.
What we have from Nikon:
"Seamlessly switch between RAW sizes of Large (45.7 MP), Medium (25.6 MP) and Small (11.4 MP)"
This translates to:
Nikon specs:
L: 8,256 x 5,504 pixels
M: 6,192 x 4,128 pixels
S: 4,128 x 2,752 pixels
Reality:
L: 8,288 x 5,520 pixels
M: 7,104 x 4,728 pixels
S: 6,216 x 4,136 pixels
How it happens:
- first, the raw data for M and S is resampled in the camera, to get 7,104 x 4,728 and 6,216 x 4,136 from 8,288 x 5,520;
- next, it is resampled in raw converter software, to get 6,192 x 4,128 from 7,104 x 4,728, and 4,128 x 2,752 from 6,216 x 4,136.
M and S formats contain bayer pattern, not YCC data, as it was with previous sRAW format.
PS. This is not the first time Nikon are underreporting the number of pixels, same happened with D1x (and in a way, with D1 and D1h too).
Not sure I understand?
Is he saying that the downsized files sizes are NOT 25.6 and 11.4mp but 33.5 and 25.7mp resp? And you need to use Adobe raw to get the rest?
You could confirm that my taking some shots at those settings?
I suppose the $64000 question is .....what's the quality difference between Nikon's resampling and merely cropping the 45mp image to the same dimensions?
Unless you have no intention of post processing or have limited space on your SD cards, I don't see the point in shoooting at these lesser standards......unless the IQ is better resampling than cropping?
Last edited on Sun Nov 19th, 2017 13:03 by Eric
____________________
Eric