"The huge 36 megapixel sensor generating a file that opens in Photoshop at 206 megabites."
I think there must be an end to this madness. I usually bring back at least 500-1000
shots from a good day in a good location. Bridge will collapse with 200MP files.
As much as I like high resolution files, it's becoming really hard to justify practically.
alundeb wrote:
You dont have to convert to TIFF with full resolution, do you?
Sorry, don't understand. What do you do with your files? I open them in PS,
that's what the size of the file is. If you touch your file and save them in PS format,
you'll get 206MB, I assume 16-bit.
Yeah, the raw files are around 77MB, so many of us may need to add computer upgrades into the cost of the camera. Granted, there are compressed raw modes.
snowboarder wrote:
Sorry, don't understand. What do you do with your files? I open them in PS,
that's what the size of the file is. If you touch your file and save them in PS format,
you'll get 206MB, I assume 16-bit.
We use different workflows, This is mine:
CaptureOne RAW conversion, export to 16 bit TIFF or into CS5. I can set the resolution in C1 at the stage of RAW conversion.
When you open the file in PS, you go through a step of RAW conversion, don't you have the possibility to set the resolution there before the file is converted to 16 bit RGB?
douglasf13 wrote:
Yeah, the raw files are around 77MB, so many of us may need to add computer upgrades into the cost of the camera. Granted, there are compressed raw modes.
Yes, but it's cheap. 1TB of storage costs about $100 - $130.
Lotusm50 wrote:
Yes, but it's cheap. 1TB of storage costs about $100 - $130.
It's not storage, it's memory mostly. I just upgraded my laptop to 16GB of RAM
and it finally made it really smooth for PS work. Moving to 200MB files will be
a step backward again. Scanning through a library of 2000 images in Bridge
will take much longer regardless your storage. I use a modern SSD and it still takes time...
I think technology is a bit behind today to work smoothly with such large files.
There is no way today to have more than 16GB of RAM in a laptop for example.
So you simply can't improve it, no matter what.
But the main question is - does it make sense for you practically?
If you print big posters daily - probably yes. Otherwise, not really...
snowboarder wrote:
It's not storage, it's memory mostly. I just upgraded my laptop to 16GB of RAM
and it finally made it really smooth for PS work. Moving to 200MB files will be
a step backward again. Scanning through a library of 2000 images in Bridge
will take much longer regardless your storage. I use a modern SSD and it still takes time...
I think technology is a bit behind today to work smoothly with such large files.
There is no way today to have more than 16GB of RAM in a laptop for example.
So you simply can't improve it, no matter what.
But the main question is - does it make sense for you practically?
If you print big posters daily - probably yes. Otherwise, not really......Show more →
Until late last year I was editing 100-400 megapixel (up to 15 gigabyte PSBs) images on a 2005 desktop with 4 gigs of ram and 5200rpm hard drives. It was slow, but doable. Editing smaller files was a breeze, and chewing through 5D2 files was no hassle at all. I see no reason why a laptop with 16 gigs of RAM and an SSD will have any problems with 36 megapixel raw files or 200-500 megabyte layered PSDs.
Yet, in the D800E full size samples, the same kimono shows no moire. So, did they remove it from the sample in the raw converter perhaps?
Also, can someone explain - Joakim/TheSuede perhaps - why NIkon left the complete optical filter pack in place with the D800E but simply used them to alter the light rays differently versus an AA filter INSTEAD of just completely removing them entirely? What's the benefit of breaking the incoming light rays into two and then reassembling them into one if no moire reducing occurs in the D800E filter pack? Would it not have been "cleaner" to just completely remove the optical filters (besides the IR) in the D800E?
Here you can see the re-worked optical filter at the bottom of the page with this remark:
"We don't know why Nikon elected to rework the low-pass filter in the D800E rather than remove it completely or replace it with something else."
How does 36mp appeal to you?
This is 50% - 100% more resolution than 5D2 that I currently have. With 5D2 there isn't enough resolution for 13x19" and some cropping, so the extra resolution would be welcome. With 36MP, the diffraction will start to deteriorate the image quality at f/7 - f8, if my calculation is correct.
How does to possibility of buying without an AA filter appeal to you?
I already have a camera without AA filter and would buy it again. Moire does not seem to be a problem. Besides, the new Lightroom seems to have some tools to fix it. So most likely no need to open the image in PS, convert to Lab etc.
Will available lenses provide resolution equal to the 36mp sensor?
Most lenses were just fine when we doubled the resolution from 12MP to 21/24MP, so I think most of those that are fine for 21/24MP will be just fine when used with 36MP, which is around 100lp/mm.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Also, can someone explain - Joakim/TheSuede perhaps - why NIkon left the complete optical filter pack in place with the D800E but simply used them to alter the light rays differently versus an AA filter INSTEAD of just completely removing them entirely? What's the benefit of breaking the incoming light rays into two and then reassembling them into one if no moire reducing occurs in the D800E filter pack? Would it not have been "cleaner" to just completely remove the optical filters (besides the IR) in the D800E?
I'm neither of them, but doing what they did is a clever way to keep the optical paths between the two cameras identical in every respect except for the AA behavior. At a minimum they would probably have had to replace the AA filter with a piece of glass of very similar optical characteristics or changed the sensor distance. As they've done it now from a manufacturing perspective the cameras are identical with a single part substitution and all the same calibration equipment can be used.
Anyway, I too am idly curious as to exactly why they chose this approach over others.
obik wrote:
Until late last year I was editing 100-400 megapixel (up to 15 gigabyte PSBs) images on a 2005 desktop with 4 gigs of ram and 5200rpm hard drives. It was slow, but doable. Editing smaller files was a breeze, and chewing through 5D2 files was no hassle at all. I see no reason why a laptop with 16 gigs of RAM and an SSD will have any problems with 36 megapixel raw files or 200-500 megabyte layered PSDs.
I agree. I worked with 2GB images on an old Dual Processor G4 Mac for a while as well. A modern processor, 8-16GB's of ram and 64bit software should have no issue with 36MP (206mb, 16bit images).
kwalsh wrote:
I'm neither of them, but doing what they did is a clever way to keep the optical paths between the two cameras identical in every respect except for the AA behavior. At a minimum they would probably have had to replace the AA filter with a piece of glass of very similar optical characteristics or changed the sensor distance. As they've done it now from a manufacturing perspective the cameras are identical with a single part substitution and all the same calibration equipment can be used.
Anyway, I too am idly curious as to exactly why they chose this approach over others.
snowboarder wrote:
It's not storage, it's memory mostly. I just upgraded my laptop to 16GB of RAM
and it finally made it really smooth for PS work. Moving to 200MB files will be
a step backward again. Scanning through a library of 2000 images in Bridge
will take much longer regardless your storage. I use a modern SSD and it still takes time...
I think technology is a bit behind today to work smoothly with such large files.
There is no way today to have more than 16GB of RAM in a laptop for example.
So you simply can't improve it, no matter what.
But the main question is - does it make sense for you practically?
If you print big posters daily - probably yes. Otherwise, not really......Show more →
It's still cheap. You can 16GB of RAM for as little as $80 (4 sticks of 4GB). It is really unlikely you'll need more than 16GB -- 8GB is really enough. Also, I wouldn't be using a laptop for processing images -- other issues beyond just memory.
Mirek Elsner wrote:
This is 50% - 100% more resolution than 5D2 that I currently have. With 5D2 there isn't enough resolution for 13x19" and some cropping, so the extra resolution would be welcome. With 36MP, the diffraction will start to deteriorate the image quality at f/7 - f8, if my calculation is correct.
I already have a camera without AA filter and would buy it again. Moire does not seem to be a problem. Besides, the new Lightroom seems to have some tools to fix it. So most likely no need to open the image in PS, convert to Lab etc.
Most lenses were just fine when we doubled the resolution from 12MP to 21/24MP, so I think most of those that are fine for 21/24MP will be just fine when used with 36MP, which is around 100lp/mm....Show more →
The resolution increase is really not that much is it? Maybe 20%? Remember you must quadruple MP's to double resolution.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Yes, I ordered one of each just to cover my bases on Amazon (I'm sure I will cancel one of them, probably the non-E version).
It's very early, but a few things I noticed per the official NIkon samples. The D800E images show no moire at all in areas I would normally expect to see it such as the Geisha Girl fabric and the snow capped fine tree branches. I'm not completely sold on the per pixel image quality of even the "E" version. Nikon samples are generally good (these are raw converted to jpeg) and these look a little so-so to me, certainly not as nice as the D3X samples. Even with sharpening applied, I think the per pixel sharpness is less than the D3x or Sony A900 at 100%. Perhaps this is due to the lenses used or early raw software versions - I don't know - but something even beyond detail seems off with these. They lack a certain richness and subtlety and seem to have more of a chunky, harsh "digital" look to me as compared to 24MP D3X and Sony A900 images. Just an initial impression but I'm curious if anyone else sees this lack of subtlety/ depth/ tonality to the images....Show more →
I think that once we see some examples shot with top primes rather than zooms we might see some more shine.
I've had 12MP APS-C files printed at 1000mm longside and I've been very happy with them. I think the benefits of such a sensor lie outside sheer resolution count, although that undoubtedly makes printing large easier
Tariq Gibran wrote:
It's very early, but a few things I noticed per the official NIkon samples. The D800E images show no moire at all in areas I would normally expect to see it such as the Geisha Girl fabric and the snow capped fine tree branches. I'm not completely sold on the per pixel image quality of even the "E" version. Nikon samples are generally good (these are raw converted to jpeg) and these look a little so-so to me, certainly not as nice as the D3X samples. Even with sharpening applied, I think the per pixel sharpness is less than the D3x or Sony A900 at 100%. Perhaps this is due to the lenses used or early raw software versions - I don't know - but something even beyond detail seems off with these. They lack a certain richness and subtlety and seem to have more of a chunky, harsh "digital" look to me as compared to 24MP D3X and Sony A900 images. Just an initial impression but I'm curious if anyone else sees this lack of subtlety/ depth/ tonality to the images....Show more →
I see Nikon / Sony APS-C 16 MP files as we have known them for a couple of years, but expanded to a larger image. That is good enough for me.
Beni wrote:
I think that once we see some examples shot with top primes rather than zooms we might see some more shine.
That's probably it. All but two of the samples were shot with zooms and the one of the kimono/ Geisha, which looks really great, was shot with a prime. Conversely, many of the D3X samples were shot with primes.
