chris_tribble Posted December 5, 2017 Share #1 Posted December 5, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) Interested to note that the DNGS available to download from here: http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/leica_cl_review show up as over 43MB files. This compares with the M10 files which show as around 22MB. I also note that the CL files are 6000x4000 and the M10 files are 5976x3922. Given the APS-C camera's smaller sensor, naively I thought that it would produce a smaller file than the M10 despite having the same nominal resolution. Is anyone able to explain? Having looked at the image quality of the RAW I've taken the plunge and managed to buy the last CL body that Manchester Leica Centre had in stock. I look forward to playing with it over the next few weeks and will post back to the forum. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 5, 2017 Posted December 5, 2017 Hi chris_tribble, Take a look here Leica CL DNG file size. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
thighslapper Posted December 5, 2017 Share #2 Posted December 5, 2017 Sounds like they are the same size as SL files...... which are in a narrow range of 43.5-44.5 Mb. TL2 files vary widely .... 35-60 Mb I assume they are uncompressed ...... or part compressed..... in different ways ....... although why there is so much variation for what are all 24Mpx sensors eludes me as well ...... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tobers Posted December 5, 2017 Share #3 Posted December 5, 2017 You will find a couple more DNGs in the forum here: https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/279062-leica-cl-the-image-thread/?p=3402594 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted December 5, 2017 Share #4 Posted December 5, 2017 (edited) M10 used a lossless compression scheme. SL densely packs 14 bits per raw pixel in order to increase read and write speed on their files, taking the position that storage gets cheaper every day. I can check for you (not right away) but it's logical that the other L cameras would take a similar approach, sharing Maestro hardware and firmware. Edited December 5, 2017 by scott kirkpatrick 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_tribble Posted December 5, 2017 Author Share #5 Posted December 5, 2017 Scott - I'd appreciate. One of the things I actually really like about the lossless compression on the M10 files is how compact they are and how relatively light they are on processing demand. However - still intrigued that the SL (fullframe) outputs files of the same size as the CL. It must be all those zeros and ones in a 24MP file! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted December 5, 2017 Share #6 Posted December 5, 2017 Scott - I'd appreciate. One of the things I actually really like about the lossless compression on the M10 files is how compact they are and how relatively light they are on processing demand. However - still intrigued that the SL (fullframe) outputs files of the same size as the CL. It must be all those zeros and ones in a 24MP file! Right, it's still 14 bits from each pixel, until you get even larger pixels like in Phase One products, that save 16 bits. You can pack 'em tight, saving 2 bits every pixel, and requiring maybe two extra instructions per pixel to unpack them, you can encode them down to something like 8 bits per pixel (as the M10 does, using a standard code, which is spelled out in the DNG files), but them it takes more work to get back to the raw data and you are more likely to see embedded jpegs when you check your files. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanJW Posted December 5, 2017 Share #7 Posted December 5, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) If the SL is 24 MP and the CL is 24 MP, why wouldn't the files sizes be comparable? I'm not a physicist, but if the difference is the size and/or density of the pixels, does that mean larger pixels = larger files? If not, than the files should be similar in size. EDIT: I think Scott just answered, just before i posted. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_tribble Posted December 5, 2017 Author Share #8 Posted December 5, 2017 Right, it's still 14 bits from each pixel, until you get even larger pixels like in Phase One products, that save 16 bits. You can pack 'em tight, saving 2 bits every pixel, and requiring maybe two extra instructions per pixel to unpack them, you can encode them down to something like 8 bits per pixel (as the M10 does, using a standard code, which is spelled out in the DNG files), but them it takes more work to get back to the raw data and you are more likely to see embedded jpegs when you check your files. Scott - really helpful. The world is full of surprises. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted December 11, 2017 Share #9 Posted December 11, 2017 (edited) Sandy McGuffog took a quick look through some CL DNG files and also sees them as like M10 and SL files, with one slight cleanup. The CL files apparently don't contain the lines of XMP metadata intended to be populated by Adobe Photoshop or LightRoom software. His comment is posted at chromasoft.blogspot.com . Edited December 11, 2017 by scott kirkpatrick 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.