Olympus OMD_EMI MKIII pixel sizes

Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
1,211
Location
Harwich, MA USA
Real Name
Marc Sitkin
Looking for a hopefully quick answer. I've just rented an EM1-MKIII body for an upcoming trip, and in reviewing the test shots, I noticed that the pixel dimensions between ORF and JPEG files differs slightly.
I'm seeing 5184x3888 for JPEG, and 5240x3912 for ORF. Camera settings for capture LSF and RAW. Anyone know why the ORF files are slightly larger? Firmware is version 1.0. I'm using darktable to view files.
 

RAH

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Dec 1, 2013
Messages
1,980
Location
New Hampshire
Real Name
Rich
I don't know the reason, but I think that this is often (always?) the case with cameras - the RAW image file will be slightly larger in pixels than the jpg. No doubt part of the reason is that any jpg you get from the camera is heavily edited (in camera), and it is probably cropped slightly during this processing.
 

L0n3Gr3yW0lf

Dad Pun Joke Master Over Nine Thousand Meme Lord
Joined
Jul 31, 2013
Messages
1,322
Location
UK
Real Name
Ovidiu
Looking for a hopefully quick answer. I've just rented an EM1-MKIII body for an upcoming trip, and in reviewing the test shots, I noticed that the pixel dimensions between ORF and JPEG files differs slightly.
I'm seeing 5184x3888 for JPEG, and 5240x3912 for ORF. Camera settings for capture LSF and RAW. Anyone know why the ORF files are slightly larger? Firmware is version 1.0. I'm using darktable to view files.
Just made an image in RAW + JPEG and I can confirm that they have slight different dimensions:
1627052320098.png
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

I think the difference between them is for lens corrections and possibly a bit more room for the IBIS to correct itself.

PS. Just remembered that the sensor pixel quantity is not exactly 20 MP:
Number of effective pixels: Approx. 20.4 million pixels
Total number of pixels: Approx. 21.8 million pixels

In JPEG it might try to maintain the marketing specification while the RAW file is a bit more loose on the pixel quantity.
 
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
1,211
Location
Harwich, MA USA
Real Name
Marc Sitkin
Just made an image in RAW + JPEG and I can confirm that they have slight different dimensions:
View attachment 899956
I think the difference between them is for lens corrections and possibly a bit more room for the IBIS to correct itself.

PS. Just remembered that the sensor pixel quantity is not exactly 20 MP:
Number of effective pixels: Approx. 20.4 million pixels
Total number of pixels: Approx. 21.8 million pixels

In JPEG it might try to maintain the marketing specification while the RAW file is a bit more loose on the pixel quantity.
Thanks for the confirmation. I so rarely import JPEGS that I was surprised.
 
Joined
Jul 28, 2016
Messages
117
Location
California
The raw file is indeed 5240x3912, but when you open it in Adobe's software it is automatically reduced to 5184x3888.
Which software are you using where you see the full size (5240x3912) for ORF? All post-processing software should automatically crop to reject low-quality parts.
 
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
1,211
Location
Harwich, MA USA
Real Name
Marc Sitkin
The raw file is indeed 5240x3912, but when you open it in Adobe's software it is automatically reduced to 5184x3888.
Which software are you using where you see the full size (5240x3912) for ORF? All post-processing software should automatically crop to reject low-quality parts.
I'm using darktable 3.6.0
 

PakkyT

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jun 20, 2015
Messages
4,577
Location
Massachusetts, USA
I'm using darktable 3.6.0
You can probably test the lens correction theory by opening in darktable then exporting a JPG image. Then turn on the lens correction in darktable and output a second JPG. Do the two JOG numbers match the ORF and camera generated JPG numbers?


All post-processing software should automatically crop to reject low-quality parts.
Errrrr, what?
 
Joined
Jul 28, 2016
Messages
117
Location
California

Growltiger

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Mar 26, 2014
Messages
2,196
Location
UK
The actual explanation is very simple. The aspect ratio of the sensor is 1.3855
The aspect ratio of a jpg is chosen by the user and varies. If the user sets the camera to an aspect ratio of 4:3 then it is cropped to an aspect ratio of 1.3333
If you look at the numbers above you will see this is the case.

(A note to anyone who thinks that the cameras are called 4/3 because they have a 4/3 aspect ratio. This is an incorrect assumption that is widely repeated. They were named that because the very first 4/3 camera sensors were based on video sensors with a standard diagonal of 1.33 inches.)
 
Last edited:

Latest threads

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Forum GIFs powered by GIPHY: https://giphy.com/
Copyright © Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom