| Moderated by: chrisbet, | Page:   1 2 3 4 5 6 7   |
|
|||||||
| D800 File Size? - Page 2 | |
| Rate Topic |
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted: Sat Jun 9th, 2012 11:09 |
|
11th Post |
TomOC
|
jk wrote:Tom in answer to your question. JK- With the xp1 RAF files, which come in at 19mb, I wind up with a 91mb PSD file. Does Nikon do something radical to make their file expand at a smaller per centage? Tom
____________________ Tom O'Connell -Lots of people talk to animals.... Not very many listen, though.... That's the problem. Benjamin Hoff, The Tao of Pooh |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Sat Jun 9th, 2012 12:08 |
|
12th Post |
jk
|
Tom, A 26.3MB XP1 RAF file from my XP1 grows to only 45.7MB Doc file in Photoshop CS6. Therefore the 16MP camera is producing an approximate x3 equivalence when loaded in CS6 which is similar to the 36MP Nikon producing a 103MB. (I know I am mixing MP with MB but I am also not accounting for the 3 channels of colour data and interpolations).
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Sat Jun 9th, 2012 17:47 |
|
13th Post |
TomOC
|
JK- You are right... I was trying to think before my morning coffee... Thanks, Tom
____________________ Tom O'Connell -Lots of people talk to animals.... Not very many listen, though.... That's the problem. Benjamin Hoff, The Tao of Pooh |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Sun Jun 10th, 2012 01:57 |
|
14th Post |
richw
|
Robert wrote:What Mac are you running now Tom? I'd do one in Lightroom the synch settings, whih doesn't put much load on it, might work much the same way in ACR.
|
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Sun Jun 10th, 2012 03:37 |
|
15th Post |
Robert
|
Rich, My whole point of mentioning this was to illustrate that huge file sizes are not imposing unmanageable loads on the computer. This was on a base model 2009 Mac mini with 4 GB RAM and a 160Gb 5400 rpm (slow) HD. I have no Idea what the limit might be, or where it starts to have an impact on performance but honestly, 1,800 D200 NEF's did not slow that Mac mini down. The only 'slow' bit was exporting to JPEG, which was probably reasonable considering the numbers involved. The reason I tried it was because I had to visit every page to slightly adjust the crop position and to check for highlights and the very occasional blemish. Loading them all together made it a seamless experience, it took me a whole day to go through every page, probably 17Hrs plus breaks but I got stuck in and it flowed. I used an early version of Sofortbilt to capture the images directly to a 'G' Technologies (Hitachi) RAID 0 Firewire 800 drive. I am still using that drive and it still performs well. Hence my suggestion to Tom. I have four more similar drives and they are all of a similar age. If an HD does eventually go down I will simply replace the disk. The enclosures are really well built, all aluminium with no plastic in sight. I use the RAID drive as my main drive and simply plug it into whichever computer I am using that day, desktop or MBP. I don't keep any significant data on a computer internal drive, If I capture some images while away, such as the recent Little Tern images, I store them on the MBP until I get home then plug the RAID drive in and lift them off the computer drive. For the most part my computer drives run very light. Normally I have Time Machine back up my Main Drive (the RAID) and my current desktop to one of two backup drives which I switch over every couple of weeks to an external location away from home. I also have a stack of bare drives and a SATA dock which I use to make occasional backups of whole drives and to archive. I use Super Duper and CCC, Carbon Copy Cloner. The main message here for Tom is that if he get's a good fast Firewire drive, he will probably improve the performance of his existing computers and have consistent data available to both of his Macs without clogging them with data. They will respond well to that. I suspect Tom is using USB external drives for backup, Firewire is much faster and more suitable. My G drives USB speed is Write, 38Mb / Sec - Read, 39Mb / Sec. The RAID Firewire 800 is Write, 64Mb / Sec - Read, 82Mb / Sec. I won't even quote the internal drives  (they were even slower).Download and run this Tom, see what it says about your disk speeds... http://www.xbench.com I just ran X Bench on my i7 Mac mini. The RAID times are a bit down on last time but still respectable Perhaps there is some fragmentation now? I append the results of the main standard internal drive, the G Tech RAID drive and a G Tech USB drive. Attachment: Mac Mini i7 HD Benchmarks June 12.jpg (Downloaded 44 times)
____________________ Robert. |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Sun Jun 10th, 2012 07:12 |
|
16th Post |
jk
|
Yes Macs do very well with outboard drives especially when they are Firewire attached. I have just got a new Drobo S unit which seems very good but I want to get some new drives for it but I will probably stick at 1TB drives rather than go to 2 or 3TB units. The larger the disk the more 'fragile' they can be.
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Sun Jun 10th, 2012 07:29 |
|
17th Post |
Robert
|
jk wrote:The larger the disk the more 'fragile' they can be. I don't completely buy that... I have seen greater reliability of drives over recent years, together with a doubling and quadrupling of capacity. Eric gave me a couple of redundant 160Gb drives some time ago, one of them went bad on me last week, I think it was made 2004, so that isn't bad? I do agree that all eggs in one basket is a bad strategy. My largest drives are 1TB but I have my data backed up onto several smaller drives and more than once.
____________________ Robert. |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Sun Jun 10th, 2012 09:11 |
|
18th Post |
jk
|
I currently have about 15-20 drives that are in my various machines. For some reason my supplier only seems able to source Seagate drives. In the last year I have had 3 drive failures. The age of these drives is no more than 2-3 years. I seem to consistently 'lose' 1-2 drives per year. This is an expense I have to swallow as it is very difficult to get them replaced under warranty even though in reality they should last 3-5 years no problem. Here in Spain the AC supply is variable (180-290volts) and with outages and surges so it also shortens drive life. I dont absolutely trust the higher capacity drives as the higher capacity is achieved by having a higher density of data packing rather than more platters.
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Sun Jun 10th, 2012 10:08 |
|
19th Post |
Constable
|
Touching wood and crossing fingers, I have had no problem with 2TB drives. My primary RAID has 8 2TB drives. Ed
|
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Sun Jun 10th, 2012 11:08 |
|
20th Post |
Robert
|
Kiss of death there Ed!  All my purchasing of HD's has been restricted to WD Black drives or the G Technologies (Hitachi) drives. Seagate don't have a good reputation from what I have read. Your experience seems to bear that out?
____________________ Robert. |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| This is topic ID = 211 Current time is 06:20 | Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | |
| Nikon DSLR Forums > Camera and Lens Forums > Cameras > D800 File Size? | Top | |
Users viewing this topic |
||
Current theme is Modern editor
| A small amount of member data is captured and held in an attempt to reduce spammers and to manage users. This site also uses cookies to ensure ease of use. In order to comply with new DPR regulations you are required to agree/disagree with this process. If you do not agree then please email the Admins using info@nikondslr.uk Thank you. |
Hosted by Octarine Services
UltraBB 1.173 Copyright © 2008-2025 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.0498 seconds (67% database + 33% PHP). 83 queries executed.
UltraBB 1.173 Copyright © 2008-2025 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.0498 seconds (67% database + 33% PHP). 83 queries executed.