\"Machine Time\" here was my own typical processing script running unmanned on a Mac pro with 8 cores running at 2.66GHz and fitted with 12GB of RAM. So that\'s just the time the machine takes. The script is normally interactive so that I can make decisions at every important step. The interactive time will likely be close to the same across all sizes and different for every file so this \"Machine Time\" is just the time you spend waiting for a processes to finish up (ie. 11 hours of waiting vs 4 hours of waiting when processing 100 files at 36mp and 14mp respectively). I don\'t normally use any kind of app that imports and then generates previews but if I did that time would also be dramatically affected. Probably it would take three times as long to import and make previews for 36mp files as it would for 12mp files.
So yeah, while storage is getting cheaper and cheaper it\'s not really getting much faster. HDDs today are about the same speed they were 5 or 6 years ago. And also I guess this cameras is still using USB v2 right? So there\'s another 3x on previous times. Storage capacity is only really a concern when you\'re doing something consumer-ish like backing up to DVD. 12mp files is already a bit unmanageable for DVD backup and indexing. 36mp images is only going to be three times the headache.
So all I see here is slow slow and headache headache! And for what? Printing without cropping won\'t matter. Print-size is mostly based on viewing distance and 8mp is already big enough to print the entire width and height of the Empire State building. Web an screen resolution? Nope! Not better than 16mp! So all you get is the ability to crop smaller. Hmmm
Like I said 36mp is WAY too big! 22 or 24 is already too big IMO. Somewhere between 8mp and 16mp is about right IMO. Computing power and resources on typical PCs just isn\'t ready for 36mp unless you\'re mega-rich and install a blade server in your house!
zhangyue wrote:
Why throw away information with Storage are so cheap these day. I agree Canon\'s small raw feature are nice to have. But it will not be a decision factor for me.
I would prefer to have something in 18M-24M range for FF. But again more pix here doesn\'t hurt other than processing power and file size, which anyway going to update very quickly based on current trend. This is a really sexy camera.
Bifurcator wrote:
Way too many pixels!
I think they scaling the specs to exclude kind of a few too many common people.
What would be the RAW file size on that? About 50 megs? And what is the resulting continuous drive hindered to? 4FPS with a 4 or 5 shot buffer? I didn\'t see those specs in my quick skim...
\"Machine Time\" here was my own typical processing script running unmanned on a Mac pro with 8 cores running at 2.66GHz and fitted with 12GB of RAM. So that\'s just the time the machine takes. The script is normally interactive so that I can make decisions at every important step. The interactive time will likely be close to the same across all sizes and different for every file so this \"Machine Time\" is just the time you spend waiting for a processes to finish up (ie. 11 hours of waiting vs 4 hours of waiting when processing 100 files at 36mp and 14mp respectively). I don\'t normally use any kind of app that imports and then generates previews but if I did that time would also be dramatically affected. Probably it would take three times as long to import and make previews for 36mp files as it would for 12mp files.
So yeah, while storage is getting cheaper and cheaper it\'s not really getting much faster. HDDs today are about the same speed they were 5 or 6 years ago. And also I guess this cameras is still using USB v2 right? So there\'s another 3x on previous times. Storage capacity is only really a concern when you\'re doing something consumer-ish like backing up to DVD. 12mp files is already a bit unmanageable for DVD backup and indexing. 36mp images is only going to be three times the headache.
So all I see here is slow slow and headache headache! And for what? Printing without cropping won\'t matter. Print-size is mostly based on viewing distance and 8mp is already big enough to print the entire width and height of the Empire State building. Web an screen resolution? Nope! Not better than 16mp! So all you get is the ability to crop smaller. Hmmm
zhangyue wrote:
Why throw away information with Storage are so cheap these day. I agree Canon\'s small raw feature are nice to have. But it will not be a decision factor for me.
I would prefer to have something in 18M-24M range for FF. But again more pix here doesn\'t hurt other than processing power and file size, which anyway going to update very quickly based on current trend. This is a really sexy camera.
Bifurcator wrote:
Way too many pixels!
I think they scaling the specs to exclude kind of a few too many common people.
What would be the RAW file size on that? About 50 megs? And what is the resulting continuous drive hindered to? 4FPS with a 4 or 5 shot buffer? I didn\'t see those specs in my quick skim...
76.5M per DPREVIEW.
Feb 07, 2012 at 01:54 PM
Previous versions of Bifurcator's message #10319989 « Nikon D800 announced »
