DSLRUsers.com

Now I must be pretty damn stupid but I've been using Rawshooter for quiet some time now, as my easy batch processer from Raw to JPEG, and I didn't notice till Doug (Potatis) pointed it out that it actually makes my Jpegs a fe pixels bigger, rather then being 3008x2000 they end up 3036x2010 anyone else noticed this, or is it just me and some stupid setting ?

I never used Nikon Capture, but does that do the same thing with RAW files? I've noticed that with rawshooter my image sizes are like this as well.

Never noticed before!! The TIFFs are 3036*2010 as well

It's funny because I also twigged when I was printing some of my shots, and Chris at the photolab told my they weren't in 3x2 ratio... I said it was only like 8 pixels off, but he said it was more.. I didn't think about it again till Doug brought it up... strange huh...

I use Nikon Capture and PSCS - both leave my image size unchanged (as they should). Another argument against RSE IMHO

stubbsy wrote:I use Nikon Capture and PSCS - both leave my image size unchanged (as they should). Another argument against RSE IMHO

I agree Stubbsy, and am moving further away from using it... but it is still so far (until I master CS2) the easiest way to just batch convert a cards worth of NEFs=>Jpg, unless I start shooting RAW+Basic, which is the other posibility now I have more memory to play with.

There are more pixels on the sensor than 3008x2000, RSE probably just lets us see a few extra than NC or PS.

pippin88 wrote:There are more pixels on the sensor than 3008x2000, RSE probably just lets us see a few extra than NC or PS.

While that is one possible explanation, I find it very hard to believe it to be true. It makes no sense that a 3rd Party program could access the same file, and yet somehow find extra data, and the 1st Party programs ignore or can not see. But perhaps I'm just a little close minded on the subject, it has however triggered my interest to find the definitive answer, if one exists.

Why?

RSE is not going to be making up pixels.

Alpha_7 wrote:

stubbsy wrote:I use Nikon Capture and PSCS - both leave my image size unchanged (as they should). Another argument against RSE IMHO

I agree Stubbsy, and am moving further away from using it... but it is still so far (until I master CS2) the easiest way to just batch convert a cards worth of NEFs=>Jpg, unless I start shooting RAW+Basic, which is the other posibility now I have more memory to play with.

Craig - if all you want to do is convert from NEF to jpeg then the free to download Nikon View (not to be confused with the crappy Picture Project) does this - plus it let's you specify output size and compression ratios etc. iMatch does this too and is sweeeet (see this post for more evangelism on that product)

pippin88 wrote:Why?

RSE is not going to be making up pixels.

Maybe it's just screwing up the EXIF info in the file.

I disagree with Peter. Just because RSE pulls up a greater number of total pixels in the raw conversion is no reason not to use it.

Keep in mind the D70 has 6.3 megapixel sensor, of those, 6.1 are 'effective' - that's not just advertising speak. There is nothing to say that 3008x2000 is the 'correct' size output for D70 raw files. it just so happens to be what Nikon's officially supported Capture converter outputs its files to. Remember what raw is - it's data pulled off the sensor, it is not an image. The converter takes that data and assembles it in accordance to a bayer filtering pattern, among other things, to create an image.

If you wanted even greater image dimensions than that delivered by Rawshooter, try Rawmagick (/Lite). Another converter, still in beta at this stage (has been for years), not only does it output larger image dimensions, it offers the greatest image acuity (sharpness without sharpening) as well as the most true to life colours - when compared to a string of other NEF converters: Bible, Capture One, Nikon Capture, ACR 3.x, RSE 2005, etc.

Those 'extra' pixels have always been a part of the NEF, it's just been hidden from you all the while you're using NCapture and/or ACR.

pippin88 wrote:Why?

RSE is not going to be making up pixels.

Why would all Nikon documentation and software show the files as 3008x2000 ? Anyways... just debating the point


Stubbsy, I have Nikon View, and use it to browse my NEFs and pick which I open in CS2 to convert (when I do it the long and painful method), I'll have to have a play to find where I can get Nikon View to do the conversion for me.... thanks for the suggestion.

Alpha_7 wrote:

pippin88 wrote:Why?

RSE is not going to be making up pixels.

Why would all Nikon documentation and software show the files as 3008x2000 ? Anyways... just debating the point


Stubbsy, I have Nikon View, and use it to browse my NEFs and pick which I open in CS2 to convert (when I do it the long and painful method), I'll have to have a play to find where I can get Nikon View to do the conversion for me.... thanks for the suggestion.

Craig - Tools/Copy and resize as jpegs

Chi - fair point, knew that RSE did that but had forgotten. I have a licence for RML and have had some difficulty getting a handle on it (so it's in my too hard basket ATM).

Thanks Stubbsy and Chi for sorting that out for me... It was well worth asking the question, has it was confusing me....


and Pippin, I stand corrected you were right!

Alpha_7 wrote:Thanks Stubbsy and Chi for sorting that out for me... It was well worth asking the question, has it was confusing me....


and Pippin, I stand corrected you were right!

which is consistent with the adage that there is no such thing as a stupid question

Just used Nikon View to convert to Jpeg... and I'm very happy with the results....

And your right... I've asked plenty of ... obvious questions, but if I get an answer that helps me and I can improve...then it wasn't a stupid question

Well if I may ask a "stupid question" Why shoot in RAW? The answwer is obviously quality. But with all the work to be done on the computer afterward to give a pic for printing or saving, why not shoot in JPG to start with? Like, is the quality of a pic that has been converted from RAW to JPG that much better? What's the JPG file size once converted?
And if Fine and L is doing a good enough job, what other benefits are there in shooting RAW?

I am basicly looking for reasons to shoot raw but just don't know.
Adam.

RAW is flexible, JPG is not.

With RAW you can adjust the exposure and so on very easily, with JPG it is very hard.

When I moved from JPG to RAW, my keeper rate shot up. No longer is being underexposed by 1/3 a stop a problem.

Adam, shooting RAW gives you one huge advantage, you get the most accurate image possible. In addition to what Pippin said above, you can also adjust White Balance to get it perfect.

I read something on the extra pixels before and from memory
because some of the algarithems used to work out all you colors from the basic red, green and blue sensors use "closest neighbor" to do their calculations and the edge pixels don't have neighbors on one side they create funny problems at the very edge of you shots, so they are cropped off by the camera software even though they are still recored in the raw file

or something like that

Thanks firsty, the next neighbour explaination makes a lot of sense, and I can see why Nikon might not count them all in that case!

Craig, i still use Nikon Capture to convert all my RAW files although lately with the D2X i have been shooting jpeg, me snap happy. But i have always used to convert my pics to jpeg and would batch like 300 or so pics at a time, i like it and does ok no changes to file sizes, then i use Nikon View to batch the resize for my website, does the trick for me.
Cheers
John

tasadam wrote:Well if I may ask a "stupid question" Why shoot in RAW? The answwer is obviously quality. But with all the work to be done on the computer afterward to give a pic for printing or saving, why not shoot in JPG to start with?

Hi Adam,
I guess my answer to this question is I begin with the end in mind. Understanding the PP required afterwardS when shooting RAW, I try to avoid it as much as possible. Depending on what I'm shooting and why, I vary between one of 3 modes:
> RAW - important shots
> JPG Large/Fine - not as important however quality & size is an issue.
> JPG Medium/Fine - shots that I don't think will ever be printed larger than 5x7" e.g. going to the beach with the family.

The two compression modes of JPG (normal & basic) I believe are a waste. The quality is reduced so much that the images created in these modes are worthless.

Hope this helps.

The D70 NEF file contains 3040x2014 12bit pixel uninterpolated bayer image. As pointed out earlier, most RAW converters don't generate interpolated pixels for the edges due to the potential for inaccurate colour. Nikon picked 3008x2000 as the final size for their D70 images, other raw converters may pick a different size. Dcraw (& friends) output a full 3040x2014 image - you can always crop if you don't like the edges.

myarhidia wrote:

tasadam wrote:Well if I may ask a "stupid question" Why shoot in RAW? The answwer is obviously quality. But with all the work to be done on the computer afterward to give a pic for printing or saving, why not shoot in JPG to start with?

Hi Adam,
I guess my answer to this question is I begin with the end in mind. Understanding the PP required afterwardS when shooting RAW, I try to avoid it as much as possible. Depending on what I'm shooting and why, I vary between one of 3 modes:
> RAW - important shots
> JPG Large/Fine - not as important however quality & size is an issue.
> JPG Medium/Fine - shots that I don't think will ever be printed larger than 5x7" e.g. going to the beach with the family.

The two compression modes of JPG (normal & basic) I believe are a waste. The quality is reduced so much that the images created in these modes are worthless.

Hope this helps.

I really don't understand why people do this. What if you take the perfect image of your family? Why sacrifice any image quality when storage is so cheap?

Using RAW doesn't mean you have to post process every image, nor is it slow. Either batch to JPG unchanged or use Preview extractor if you don't want to PP. Though IMO PP is half the advantage of digital. I can produce multiple very different images from one negative in seconds with no cost.

So now I've got to stop being lazy, learn to use PS CS2, and install Nikon Capture software and learn how to do batch processing.
Think I better upgrade this slow dog of a computer of mine.
I agree with

The two compression modes of JPG (normal & basic) I believe are a waste.

Thanks to those for the answers. Time to play.

One problem I found shooting with RAW is that it takes forever to transfer and open the pics in the software - such as Photoshop CS, Nikon Capture etc.

At the moment i'm running an Intel Pentium Centrino 1.6GHz with 512mb RAM in my laptop, it struggling to edit any RAW photo

Technik wrote:i'm running an Intel Pentium Centrino 1.6GHz with 512mb RAM in my laptop

There's your problem

It's preferable to have 1Gb, preferably 2Gb to use the newer releases of Photoshop... Shooting in RAW is not your problem - you just need a beefier PC... I'm running a 2.5GHz Pentium 4 with 1Gb and RAW images load in less than a couple of seconds...

Technik, as leek mentioned - your 512Mb of RAM is a little small for image manipulation software. Photoshop grew astronomically bloaty with the latest CS2 generation, and Nikon Capture has always been a resource/memory hog.

Your 1.6 Pentium-M however is more than adequate processing power. Drop in another 512Mb of RAM for a total of 1Gb and I'll bet you'll notice an instant improvement.

I run a Pentium III 866 Mhz with 392Mb ram.
And I can't GET broadband where I live.

HOW SAD

Time to upgrade the PC for sure. Maybe a dual processor job with 2Gb RAM.

Just did a little more research on my laptop -its actually an

Intel® Pentium® M Processor 725 1.60GHz, 400MHz, 2MB L2 Cache.

DDR266 SODIMM, 2x SO-DIMM socket expandable to 1GB*

So there you have it, time to upgrade some RAM in my notebook to 1GB!

Technik wrote:Just did a little more research on my laptop -its actually an

Intel® Pentium® M Processor 725 1.60GHz, 400MHz, 2MB L2 Cache.

DDR266 SODIMM, 2x SO-DIMM socket expandable to 1GB*

So there you have it, time to upgrade some RAM in my notebook to 1GB!

This doesn't quite look right to me.

The older M 725 did not support 400MHz front-side bus and certainly didn't have 2MB L2 cache. Both of these features came with the 2nd generation of M processors (Sonoma, using the 915 chipset and ending in a 0, like 730, 740, etc). Also 1.6GHz doesn't sound like a Sonoma clock speed, the closest one would be 1.67.

The 266MHz RAM is suitable for an M 725 (I think they went up to 333MHz).

You might want to question the source of those specs...

That said, yes, put 2GB RAM into the thing. RAM upgrade is always the best upgrade (for performance).

Cheers
Steffen.

Steffen wrote:
This doesn't quite look right to me.

The older M 725 did not support 400MHz front-side bus and certainly didn't have 2MB L2 cache. Both of these features came with the 2nd generation of M processors (Sonoma, using the 915 chipset and ending in a 0, like 730, 740, etc). Also 1.6GHz doesn't sound like a Sonoma clock speed, the closest one would be 1.67.

The 266MHz RAM is suitable for an M 725 (I think they went up to 333MHz).

You might want to question the source of those specs...

That said, yes, put 2GB RAM into the thing. RAM upgrade is always the best upgrade (for performance).

Cheers
Steffen.

My laptop is actually - ASUS A3N, I found these specs from their website:

http://www.asus.com/products4.aspx?modelmenu=2&model=25&l1=5&l2=24&l3=131

I also did some research on the web, a 1GB DDR RAM for laptop should cost around $150.00 which is quite reasonable.

Technik wrote:I also did some research on the web, a 1GB DDR RAM for laptop should cost around $150.00 which is quite reasonable.

$150 for 1GB - is that a single module and where? I have been hunting for reasonable priced 1GB modules. The going rate seems to be around $250 - $500 depending on brand.

Cheers

Matt

Technik wrote:My laptop is actually - ASUS A3N, I found these specs from their website:

http://www.asus.com/products4.aspx?modelmenu=2&model=25&l1=5&l2=24&l3=131

It looks you're right. I just had a look at Intel's website, and all the 7*5 CPU's are 2MB L2 cache and 400MHz FSB now (apart from the 705). Intel must have beefed up the line recenly. The CPU's are 90nm now, too. They still use the 855 chipset, though.

Cheers
Steffen.