Quick... How many pictures in RAW format will fit in a 256MB CF card?

[Antoneo]

From let's say a Canon S400, a four megapixel camera, how many pictures will fit into a 256MB CompactFlash card?

Is this the correct way to go about calculating it?
(2272 x 1704 x 12) / 8 = 5807232 Bytes
(pixels x bits) / bits per byte = Image size?

So I guess about 44 pictures?

 

[Shawn]

sure... i guess.

 

[RyanM]

Originally posted by: Antoneo
From let's say a Canon S400, a four megapixel camera, how many pictures will fit into a 256MB CompactFlash card?

Is this the correct way to go about calculating it?
(2272 x 1704 x 12) / 8 = 5807232 Bytes
(pixels x bits) / bits per byte = Image size?

So I guess about 44 pictures?

Your images are 24 bit, aren't they?

2272x 1704 x 24 / 8
2272 x 1704 x 3
(4,000,000) x 3 <----Simplified to 4 million pixels, not exact
12,000,000 bytes
12 megabytes <-----Assuming 1,000,000 bytes per megabyte

 

[NuclearFusi0n]

62

 

[NuclearFusi0n]

I dont think the S400 shoots RAW, so i checked the S45 and it can do 31 images in 128 megs

 

[HappyCracker]

I have a G2 with a 256 MB CF card. It says 87.

 

[Eug]

Some random points.

1) The S400 does not have a RAW mode.

2) The number of pix per 128 MB is on the various review sites.

3) RAW files are not full 24-bit colour for reach pixel. Remember that consumer cameras count ALL pixels in the overall number. So each "pixel" is only 1/3rd of a combination pixel. eg. 1 red pixel plus 1 blue pixel plus 1 green pixel is 3 pixel on a camera. In contrast, on an LCD screen, that'd be only 1 pixel. Each camera pixel is often more than 8-bits, often 10-12 bits. Thus, each camera "pixel" is only about 10-12 bits and RAW files record that info exactly. So the original calculation would have been almost right - RAW files are MUCH smaller than 24-bit TIFF files and but actually hold truer information to the original data. But again, see #1.

4) I never use my RAW setting on my G2. Too much work to get a usable picture. Remember that RAW does not add any post-editing by the camera. So all the extra camera adjustments are lost. You have to jump through hoops to get a final picture as good as what the camera "interprets" for you. If you work hard enough, you can get a superior picture, but it's a lot of tweaking. I would only really consider doing this if I had something like a Canon D60 pro camera or something. I just use the lowest JPEG compression setting. Works well.

 

[RyanM]

Originally posted by: Eug
Some random points.

1) The S400 does not have a RAW mode.

2) The number of pix per 128 MB is on the various review sites.

3) RAW files are not full 24-bit colour for reach pixel. Remember that consumer cameras count ALL pixels in the overall number. So each "pixel" is only 1/3rd of a combination pixel. eg. 1 red pixel plus 1 blue pixel plus 1 green pixel is 3 pixel on a camera. In contrast, on an LCD screen, that'd be only 1 pixel. Each camera pixel is often more than 8-bits, often 10-12 bits. Thus, each camera "pixel" is only about 10-12 bits and RAW files record that info exactly. So the original calculation would have been almost right - RAW files are MUCH smaller than 24-bit TIFF files and but actually hold truer information to the original data. But again, see #1.

4) I never use my RAW setting on my G2. Too much work to get a usable picture. Remember that RAW does not add any post-editing by the camera. So all the extra camera adjustments are lost. You have to jump through hoops to get a final picture as good as what the camera "interprets" for you. If you work hard enough, you can get a superior picture, but it's a lot of tweaking. I would only really consider doing this if I had something like a Canon D60 pro camera or something. I just use the lowest JPEG compression setting. Works well.

Sounds like RAW mode is t3h dumb.

Why the hell don't more cameras offer TIFF mode for us nutjobs that can't stand artifacting on untextured, slow gradient surfaces?

 

[yoyo25]

also, all pictures are not the same size. If you take a picture of something that has a lot of detail like something geometric like a fence or crowd of a stadium those pics are huge.

 

[Eug]

Originally posted by: MachFive

Sounds like RAW mode is t3h dumb.

Why the hell don't more cameras offer TIFF mode for us nutjobs that can't stand artifacting on untextured, slow gradient surfaces?

Actually RAW mode is the closest thing you can get to a film negative.

I had a TIFF mode on one of my cameras, but the pictures didn't come out much better. I think part of the problem with gradients is the camera CCD. You don't get this problem I'm told even with JPEGs, if you use a Canon EOS 10D CMOS camera (if you use the lowest JPEG compression setting). But those are $$$$. One interesting feature of this camera by the way is the ability to take save RAW and JPEG at the same time.

Plus TIFF mode ate way too much memory. On a 3 MP camera, each image was 9 MB. A 128 MB card held something like 13-14 pictures. I wouldn't complain if a camera added this feature, but I'd probably rarely use it.

 

[Antoneo]

Originally posted by: Eug
Some random points.

1) The S400 does not have a RAW mode.

2) The number of pix per 128 MB is on the various review sites.

3) RAW files are not full 24-bit colour for reach pixel. Remember that consumer cameras count ALL pixels in the overall number. So each "pixel" is only 1/3rd of a combination pixel. eg. 1 red pixel plus 1 blue pixel plus 1 green pixel is 3 pixel on a camera. In contrast, on an LCD screen, that'd be only 1 pixel. Each camera pixel is often more than 8-bits, often 10-12 bits. Thus, each camera "pixel" is only about 10-12 bits and RAW files record that info exactly. So the original calculation would have been almost right - RAW files are MUCH smaller than 24-bit TIFF files and but actually hold truer information to the original data. But again, see #1.

4) I never use my RAW setting on my G2. Too much work to get a usable picture. Remember that RAW does not add any post-editing by the camera. So all the extra camera adjustments are lost. You have to jump through hoops to get a final picture as good as what the camera "interprets" for you. If you work hard enough, you can get a superior picture, but it's a lot of tweaking. I would only really consider doing this if I had something like a Canon D60 pro camera or something. I just use the lowest JPEG compression setting. Works well.

Thanks for the enlightenment, Eug .

 

[dolph]

Large / SuperFine, 2,002 kb, 2,272 x 1,704, gives 123 pics on a 256 card. from canon's website.

http://www.powershot.com/powershot2/s400/specs.html

 

[Koing]

Why the hell don't more cameras offer TIFF mode for us nutjobs that can't stand artifacting on untextured, slow gradient surfaces?

The processing algorithms are geared towards processing jpegs. The TIFF and RAW images take much much longer on anything but pro cameras. About 15-30seconds at best so not really worth it unless you have the image set and don't need to shoot for another minute.

 

[LordMorpheus]

We fit about 200 on a 1 gb card, so about 50 sounds right for 256 mb.

 

[DCFife]

50+ sounds about right. I have an EOS 10D and I can get about 30 RAW's with a large/fine JPEG embedded on a 256MB card.

D