1. Reminder: Please user our affiliate links to get to your favorite stores for holiday shopping!

Raw format E-M5

Discussion in 'Olympus Cameras' started by metalbernd, Aug 8, 2012.

  1. metalbernd

    metalbernd Mu-43 Regular

    45
    Aug 1, 2012
    Holland
    I have a question, maybe I now the answer already, but there is one Raw format on the Om-D? there is not a Mraw or Sraw? I want to be sure.
     
  2. rfortson

    rfortson Mu-43 Veteran

    Correct, just one raw format.
     
  3. metalbernd

    metalbernd Mu-43 Regular

    45
    Aug 1, 2012
    Holland
    Thanks for the quick reply.
     
  4. mattia

    mattia Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 3, 2012
    The Netherlands
    I've never really seen the point of smaller RAW files - most third party software provides full support for the full RAW files, but not for the reduced resolution ones. Besides, you either want maximum quality (and that includes resolution in my book) or you don't, why throw away pixels?
     
  5. dhazeghi

    dhazeghi Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 6, 2010
    San Jose, CA
    Dara
    Suppose you've got a camera with a 40MP sensor. Wouldn't it be nice to have a 10MP RAW option with just as low noise when you're shooting sports in poor lighting?

    Actually I can think of a lot of uses for reduced size RAW files, even with just a 16MP sensor, assuming they use pixel binning, not demosaicking and interpolation as the Canon ones do (since those harm sharpness and don't really help much with noise). There are plenty of occasions when you want good quality images, that aren't large. Relying on JPEGs as the only option is a great way to sacrifice quality.

    DH
     
  6. mattia

    mattia Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 3, 2012
    The Netherlands
    in short: nope, still don't see it as an advantage. Suppose you get that one FANTASTIC capture of a unique moment, and you've thrown away half your resolution for what? To save a few megabytes? If you decide you want smaller, lower noise files you can always post-process with various degrees of automation.

    Storage space is cheap. Big memory cards are increasingly inexpensive (I 'only' have one 16 gig card for the E-M5 right now, but I have 124 gigs worth of cards for the 5DII), and I don't think processing power is/time saved is a good argument if you're shooting RAW anyway (and you pretty much should have a PC capable of handling the full res image; if not, upgrade that before buying more glass).
     
  7. metalbernd

    metalbernd Mu-43 Regular

    45
    Aug 1, 2012
    Holland
    Thanks for you answers, sometimes I want to use this format for snapshots.
    But you are right, storage is not so expensive any more.
     
  8. With_Eyes_Unclouded

    With_Eyes_Unclouded Mu-43 All-Pro

    Apr 17, 2012
    Vassilios
    The main (practical) reason to use smaller RAW files is for interval shooting, for use in time-lapse videos.
     
  9. dwkdnvr

    dwkdnvr Mu-43 Regular

    77
    Aug 8, 2012
    Denver
    Interval shooting is something I'm really eager to try with my PM1, but unless my math is off I'm not even sure this is a problem. PM1 raw files are ~14MB, so even a 16G card is good for 1000+ images. Lower on a higher res sensor obviously, but if the camera can handle a 32 or 64G card, I can't see space being the primary limitation. I think you may run out of battery before you run out of storage.
    Now, one of the ideas that intrigues me is time-lapse along with auto-bracketing so you can apply some HDR techniques, and at this point you may be running into some problems. In my case I'm thinking of this for sunsets, storms rolling in etc so you increase your chances of getting 'THE' shot and so the sequences will be shorter, but if you're intending to recompose a long time-lapse into a video after HDR then storage may ultimately become a bit of a problem. A pretty extreme edge case, though.
     
  10. With_Eyes_Unclouded

    With_Eyes_Unclouded Mu-43 All-Pro

    Apr 17, 2012
    Vassilios
    You are right about battery life. This is not the point though. You don't need the highest quality files for video. In fact, if you set your aspect ratio to 16:9 the files would be smaller (cropped) in any :43: camera anyway (except the GH2 with the multi aspect sensor).

    Keep in mind that you also have to process the files, and the added burden of moving/processing unnecessary large files. Perhaps I should be more presice: smaller size files make sense when you need to take/store more files without need for the highest quality. This was the concept behind half-frame cameras such as the original Pen. It just seems that, today, one of the very few conditions (can't really thing of anything else TBH) this is relevant, is time-lapses.
     
  11. bobofgold

    bobofgold New to Mu-43

    6
    Aug 6, 2012
    Jinju-si, South Korea
    Daniel Lloyd
    Whenever I'm doing time lapses (and I've only done a few thus far on my E-P1) I've always thought of the end result being a video. Perhaps I should be future proofing and spitting out 4k video but for now I'm more than happy with 1080p. I have a custom settings saved specifially for this where I just get 1080p JPEGs. I've always been happy enough with the job the camera does at making the JPEGs for time lapse purposes and post-processing 1000 RAW files would take a lot of time on top sorting out the time lapse itself.