Kosas writes:
Kostas Papakotas hi all!
this I noticed soem time ago in my Pentax K10D.....
took a scene in 10MB and 6MB.....pxel count was
10Mp - Raw - 12359 KB
06Mp - Raw - 11479 KB
10Mp - JPG - 3069 KB
06Mp - JPG - 1707 KB
**********************************
Kostas, I believe the pixel count for the 10Mp is 3872 x 2592 (10.0 MP) -
that is the total number of sensors on the array, the number of squares in
the grid that makes up the image. ten million squares.
Each pixel/square/grid element is made up of 3 bytes of data for a 24 bit
colour image (which is 8 bits, or 256 shades per colour, 3 colours = 24) ,
so there really should be 10 million pixels x 3 bytes per pixel = 30 million
bytes of data (26Mb)
But there isn't 24 bit colour off the sensor, it's only 1 byte as each
sensor is actually monochromatic with a filter on top of it..
So REALLY there's 10.0Mp x 1 byte = 10Mb (actually it's 9.57 megabytes of
data)
Actually to be honest, before image capture there's just a bunch of analogue
values at each photoreceptor site.. when these go through the
analogue>digital converter that's when we get data.
RAW is kind of proprietry and adds some of the information the camera thinks
is important - basically it's a data grab of the mosaic of monochrome values
BUT they're also tagged for the colour filter that sits on top of the
photosite - so that's more data added to the monochrome values. Being RAW
it should grab *all* the information the sensor is capable of, so that's the
full frame. No such thing as interpolating down to 6, 3 or 1Mp.. it's just
a full grab. so in theory we should get precisely the same amount of data
(9.57Mb+ other stuff) for each and every shot, irrespective of the subject
When it comes to jpeg, and dont forget jpeg is a compression algorithm like
zip, it is not an image format (however it is exclusively used for 'zipping'
bitmapped images) - the megapixel count you set is taken into account and
data is dumped.
A jpeg, depending on the compression, can allow a lot or a little bit or no
data to be discarded from the bitmap, depending on the image. For example,
a fully overexposed shot should be much smaller in disk size (kb) where it
is basically a whole white image, than say a landscape with many colour
values and location. really it's just saying "one white pixel x 10 million
of them thanks!"
I just made a 4x5 pixel image and saved it to my desktop at 50% and 100%
jpeg quality - they are both 346 bytes in size. I resized them both to
1280x1600 pixels, when opened they form a bitmap taking up 5.68Mb of memory,
but compressed as they are, they only take up 12kb of disk space, both
exactly the same, 50 and 100% quality.
an image of a butterfly I have sized also to 1280x1600 by comparison takes
up 1.33Mb on my drive, but decompressed (inflated to it's bitmap) takes up
5.86 Mb of ram
As you can see, the bitmapped image of a pure white square and a complicated
image are exactly the same when they are open. It *should* be the same for
RAW files.
but each manufacturer choses to implement RAW differently so what data they
include or exclude is pretty mcuh going to remain a mystery, and that's why
you're seeing only a slight difference.
..which is pretty much what Herschel said .. I just made it more complicated
;)
karl