surfmanjoe Posted September 29, 2017 Share #1 Posted September 29, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) I don't have M240, but from couple of DNG files downloaded from internet, mostly of M240 DNG file are around 24-25M, while Q that has same 24-megapixel offers DNG file in around 42M. does any know why big difference? thanks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 29, 2017 Posted September 29, 2017 Hi surfmanjoe, Take a look here DNG size from Q vs M240. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
matlep Posted September 29, 2017 Share #2 Posted September 29, 2017 M240 can deliver compressed DNG files, the Q can´t. (And that is a shame.) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted October 9, 2017 Share #3 Posted October 9, 2017 6000x4000 on both DNG uncompressed files. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/277373-dng-size-from-q-vs-m240/?do=findComment&comment=3372848'>More sharing options...
etk Posted October 9, 2017 Share #4 Posted October 9, 2017 M240 can deliver compressed DNG files, the Q can´t. (And that is a shame.) It's a double-edged sword though - if you have the uncompressed files from the Q you can get Lightroom to compress them for you and they will shrink down to a similar size to the M240. BUT, when I tried this LR ran noticeably slower. With storage being so cheap I'm happier to have larger files which I can process/skip through more quickly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted October 10, 2017 Share #5 Posted October 10, 2017 I compress nothing. Memory is cheap and perhaps someday most algorithms will change and compression could hurt future processing with new algorithms. Even Jeff Schewe alluded to this a few years back when compression versus non-compression discussions arose and he has the inside track. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted October 10, 2017 Share #6 Posted October 10, 2017 I compress nothing. Memory is cheap and perhaps someday most algorithms will change and compression could hurt future processing with new algorithms. Even Jeff Schewe alluded to this a few years back when compression versus non-compression discussions arose and he has the inside track. Not valid. The compression is lossless which means that the original file is uncompromised. Not one bit of data is lost. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted October 10, 2017 Share #7 Posted October 10, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) It's a double-edged sword though - if you have the uncompressed files from the Q you can get Lightroom to compress them for you and they will shrink down to a similar size to the M240. BUT, when I tried this LR ran noticeably slower. With storage being so cheap I'm happier to have larger files which I can process/skip through more quickly. This only means you need more RAM. Using an SSD as scratch disk helps as well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmschuh Posted October 12, 2017 Share #8 Posted October 12, 2017 Most cameras can shoot more photos in continuous mode when they are compressed. Modern processors can compress an image faster than a fast UHS-I-SD-Cards can write data. So it takes longer to fill the camera internal buffer, when the SD-Card writes two images instead of one in the same time. And, as jaapv mentioned, the RAW compression is lossless. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.