Timeline for Why does the RAW file format take up so much more space than JPEG?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 9, 2011 at 17:31 | comment | added | ysap | @dwarfland - the RAW file does not contain 12-bit per color per pixel. The information is stored pre-demosaicing, so each pixel is monochromatic. If this is indeed what you meant, I'd suggest making it clearer. | |
| May 9, 2011 at 6:59 | comment | added | nitro2k01 | @Matt Grum: dwarfland did indeed mean to say that JPEGs are lossy. The grammatically correct adverb form of the adjective "lossy" would have been "lossily", however. | |
| May 9, 2011 at 2:19 | comment | added | Fake Name | @Matt Grum - I think you want losslessly, though I would just phrase it differently - "compressing the data using lossless/lossy compression". | |
| May 8, 2011 at 21:56 | comment | added | Evan Krall | It's not just noise, either -- it's fine detail. Distinguishing between the two is next to impossible, which is why noise reduction algorithms tend to destroy fine detail. | |
| May 8, 2011 at 20:07 | comment | added | Jukka Suomela | The key point is that if you take so many bits per pixel, the lowest-order bits will necessarily contain a lot of noise. And if you use a lossless compression algorithm, you cannot compress the noise. Therefore raw files are necessarily large. (Whether it makes sense to actually store all that noise is another question. But the very definition of a raw file is that everything that the camera read from the sensor chip is stored in the file, whether it is useful or not.) | |
| May 8, 2011 at 16:07 | comment | added | Matt Grum | is the word lossy-ly, or losslesslessy? | |
| May 8, 2011 at 15:46 | history | answered | dwarfland | CC BY-SA 3.0 |