File sizes and cameras

JumboBeef

JumboBeef

Suspended / Banned
Messages
978
Edit My Images
Yes
Hello all,

I've been drumming up some business and I have a question about file sizes.

What file sizes do certain Canon cameras (from 400D upwards) give? One possible client has requested file sizes at 50Mb (unless I heard him wrong....15Mb?). I know my 400D gives about 12Mb in RAW and 4Mb in JPEG but what sizes do other cameras give?

Thanks.
 
It's all to do with the size of a resultant .tiff file you export to and the resolution used when exporting the image. I'm sure someone will be along with a detailed response in a mo though :)
 
most online libraries like Alamy require 50mb, are they requiring JPG at this size or TIFF ? most can be interpolated up to 50MB either using Photoshop or other utilities just takes some time and patience or the files look nasty
 
Thanks for the replies.

IanC_UK said:
JPG at this size or TIFF ?
Click to expand...

I forgot to ask:bonk:

IanC_UK said:
most can be interpolated up to 50MB either using Photoshop or other utilities just takes some time and patience or the files look nasty
Click to expand...

Why would they want to file sizes increased? Wouldn't RAW be best, whatever size that ends up at?
 
....so would a 400D/450D be able to give a file size of 50Mb?
 
As foodpoison says, a RAW file is not an image file. The best way to think of it is like an undeveloped negative.

When agencies request file sizes of so many megabytes, they are almost certainly requesting uncompressed TIFFs. These use 3 bytes to describe each pixel, so you can easily determine the file size that you'd get with one of your images and the image size that you'd need to satisfy their requirements.

So for example the maximum image size from a 400D is 3888 x 2592 pixels, so that will give you a TIFF which is 3888 x 2592 x 3 bytes = 30.2 megabytes. To reach 50 megabytes, the total number of bytes needs to increase by a factor of 50 / 30.2 = 1.654, so each dimension needs to be increased by the square root of this which is 1.286, i.e. a 28.6% enlargement. That will give you a final image size which is (3888 x 1.286) x (2592 x 1.286), or 5,000 x 3,333 pixels.

(If you want to be pedantic, you should ask them whether they think a megabyte is (a) one million bytes, (b) one thousand kilobytes = 1,024,000 bytes, or (c) 1024 kilobytes = 1,048,576 bytes. I've assumed (a), but all three definitions are possible. If the answer is different then you can easily adjust the calculations.)
 
StewartR said:
So for example the maximum image size from a 400D is 3888 x 2592 pixels, so that will give you a TIFF which is 3888 x 2592 x 3 bytes = 30.2 megabytes.
Click to expand...

So that would be roughtly the same for the 40D? What about the 450D, at 12.2Mp?

Thanks.
 
IanC_UK said:
450D produces images at 4272 x 2848 so would be about 36.5mb

1DS MK3 produces 5616 x 3744 which is 63mb (and only costs 5k ;))
Click to expand...

Thanks.

So, a 1Ds is the only Canon to jump up to 50Mb or above? No point looking at the 40D or the 5D?

(I need live view too).
 
Yes the 1DS is the only camera that will produce an image of that resolution with no manipulation, but thousands of people use software to upscale their images for photo libraries, no reason to not use that method instead of blowing 5k on a camera. If you need live view look at a 40D and just use software to increase the file size.
 
Thanks,

So a 450D and the 'Genuine Fractals 5' software will give photographs good enough (as long as the photographer is good enough!) for major users.........?
 
I've read this with interest and the only bit I'm not sure about is why they need 50mb files? :thinking:
It would appear that if you're not careful you could lose some quality by upscaling the image so surely they would be better asking for an uncompressed TIFF of the shot rather than a file size. Or have I got this all wrong:bang:
 
Pardon my ignorance, but why do they require a file to be of certain size? I would think the smaller the better provided sufficient amount of image data is in the file.
Shouldn't the resolution, colour depth and so on be of more importance than sheer file size, which doesn't really indicate all that much, just that there's a lot of data?

EDIT: I should type faster next time :P
 
maddog.mark said:
I've read this with interest and the only bit I'm not sure about is why they need 50mb files? :thinking:
It would appear that if you're not careful you could lose some quality by upscaling the image ...
Click to expand...
Slapo said:
Pardon my ignorance, but why do they require a file to be of certain size? I would think the smaller the better provided sufficient amount of image data is in the file.
Click to expand...
I think you might be in danger of assuming that the people who are requesting 50 Mb files have a vague clue about the subject matter. :bonk:
 
maddog.mark said:
I've read this with interest and the only bit I'm not sure about is why they need 50mb files? :thinking:
It would appear that if you're not careful you could lose some quality by upscaling the image so surely they would be better asking for an uncompressed TIFF of the shot rather than a file size. Or have I got this all wrong:bang:
Click to expand...

I was thinking exactly the same as above :shrug:
 
I just saved an un-compressed RAW D200 file as a 16bit tiff and it came out at 57mb.
It wasn't a very detailed photo, so it can be done without interploration.
 
I've just done a convert and save in Dpp of a 400d raw as a 16bit tif and it weighs in at 57.7 mb.
 
StewartR said:
I think you might be in danger of assuming that the people who are requesting 50 Mb files have a vague clue about the subject matter. :bonk:
Click to expand...

Always a dangerous thing to do I know:D, glad I'm not the only one confused by such a requirement.

joxby said:
I just saved an un-compressed RAW D200 file as a 16bit tiff and it came out at 57mb.
It wasn't a very detailed photo, so it can be done without interploration.
Click to expand...

How much difference in printed image quality would you see between 16 and 8 bit Tiffs? Or am I on the wrong track again. The whole image size / resolution thing is something I've yet to get my head round:shrug:
 
I think what they are asking for is uncompressed and unmanipulated files so they know they are best possible quality - potentially that is - so they can be used for large graphics. But that doesn't mean the pictures themselves aren't crap :-)
 
turbotoes said:
I've just done a convert and save in Dpp of a 400d raw as a 16bit tif and it weighs in at 57.7 mb.
Click to expand...

joxby said:
I just saved an un-compressed RAW D200 file as a 16bit tiff and it came out at 57mb.
It wasn't a very detailed photo, so it can be done without interploration.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately online libraries want 8 bit TIFFS not 16bit.
 
Strikes me that they would need a hell of a lot of bandwidth, or is it web space to receive such large files all the time, or am i missing something :thinking:
 
As I started this thread, I should explain more.

I am (hopefully) going to be getting (quite a lot) of business from a major company. I'm not going to say who they are, but everyone here will have heard of them. They are a national company who require top quality location photographs and it was their own in-house photography department (who haven't long gone over to digital) who stated their own spec was for file sizes to be 50Mb (or there abouts).

For the record, the reason I am going for the 450D over the 40D or even the 1Ds (apart from the price) is weight:

450D 475g
40D 740g
1Ds 1210g.

The 450D is about one third the weight of the 1Ds, which is very important when it is sixty foot above your head.........
 
JumboBeef said:
For the record, the reason I am going for the 450D over the 40D or even the 1Ds (apart from the price) is weight:

450D 475g
40D 740g
1Ds 1210g.

The 450D is about one third the weight of the 1Ds, which is very important when it is sixty foot above your head.........
Click to expand...

There are more questions than answers....

450D from 60ft is still gonna hurt.....a lot.
but not the wallet:shrug:
 
joxby said:
There are more questions than answers....

450D from 60ft is still gonna hurt.....a lot.
but not the wallet:shrug:
Click to expand...

It's not so much as the thing falling (together with the remote head) than the wind. I have a complex chart of head-weights/wind speed/height: the winder it is, and the greater the head-weight, the lower the maximum height is. So, a 450D can go higher on a blustery day than a 1Ds can.

(and yes cost does come in to it!)
 
turbotoes said:
I've just done a convert and save in Dpp of a 400d raw as a 16bit tif and it weighs in at 57.7 mb.
Click to expand...

How did you do that please? I just opened a 400D RAW (18Mb) and then saved it using PS E6 and it was only 28.8Mb............
 
OK, just opened it as 16 bit and then saved it at 57Mb.

Is the 57Mb TIFF really going to be better than the 18Mb RAW? What is the difference between 8 and 16 bit?

Thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top