I recently bought a new camera for a holiday trip I have coming up. It is said to have a 16 megapixel sensor. However, when I shoot in non-RAW mode ( I select the best non-RAW mode available. i.e. large fine JPEG) ) I find that the picture I obtain is actually only 6 megapixels. Is this normal? Is the maximum possible megapixal count only available in RAW?

(I’ve just tried it with my other camera, an Olympus OMD – same thing. It has a 16 megapixel sensor, but when I shoot in anything other than RAW, the best resolution it will give me is 7 megapixels. So it looks like this is normal operation. )

Any info/insights appreciated.

New camera brand, model?

Raw images = higher megs

jpegs = lower megs

Panasonic Lumix DMC FZ 70. Referred to as a “bridge” camera. It has electronic TTL viewfinder and monster zoom, 20mm-1200mm. A bit better than your basic point and shoot but not a proper DSLR.

CrazyNeutrino said:

Raw images = higher megs

jpegs = lower megs

The thing is, many of this type of camera won’t even shoot RAW. Yet they still claim to have a 16 megapixel sensor. I’m confused.

I know little of photography, but a jpeg file is a compressed file and by its nature is always less megs.

The quality is mostly similar, but is a lossy format.

if pixels 89-243 on line 87 are all the same output why would you bother saving repeated data, for example.

Is raw bigger than jpeg

Yes

raw images
Wiki Raw Images

Jpeg images
Wiki Jpeg Images

from memory while drunk raw = 24 meg jpegs = 6

yes Im drunk

the extra pixels are handy for moving images.

movies…..

Aspect ratio will also affect file size.

Have a look, I bet there are a number of different aspect ratio settings.

But ultimately it’s the compression algorithm that dictates the non-raw file size.

pesce.del.giorno said:

I recently bought a new camera for a holiday trip I have coming up. It is said to have a 16 megapixel sensor. However, when I shoot in non-RAW mode ( I select the best non-RAW mode available. i.e. large fine JPEG) ) I find that the picture I obtain is actually only 6 megapixels. Is this normal? Is the maximum possible megapixal count only available in RAW?

(I’ve just tried it with my other camera, an Olympus OMD – same thing. It has a 16 megapixel sensor, but when I shoot in anything other than RAW, the best resolution it will give me is 7 megapixels. So it looks like this is normal operation. )

Any info/insights appreciated.

The whole point of JPEG is that it compresses (lossy – which means you never get the detail back that you’re throwing away in the compression).

CrazyNeutrino said:

Is raw bigger than jpeg

Yes

raw images
Wiki Raw Images

Jpeg images
Wiki Jpeg Images

from memory while drunk raw = 24 meg jpegs = 6

yes Im drunk

You might be drunk and Crazy, but those are good quality links and I think the answers to my questions lie therein. Thanks for that. I think the camera is functioning normally. As usual, operator incompetence.

Dropbear said:

pesce.del.giorno said:

I recently bought a new camera for a holiday trip I have coming up. It is said to have a 16 megapixel sensor. However, when I shoot in non-RAW mode ( I select the best non-RAW mode available. i.e. large fine JPEG) ) I find that the picture I obtain is actually only 6 megapixels. Is this normal? Is the maximum possible megapixal count only available in RAW?

(I’ve just tried it with my other camera, an Olympus OMD – same thing. It has a 16 megapixel sensor, but when I shoot in anything other than RAW, the best resolution it will give me is 7 megapixels. So it looks like this is normal operation. )

Any info/insights appreciated.

The whole point of JPEG is that it compresses (lossy – which means you never get the detail back that you’re throwing away in the compression).

Which is why you really want raw

to play with

some cameras save both raw and jpeg together

Dropbear said:

pesce.del.giorno said:

I recently bought a new camera for a holiday trip I have coming up. It is said to have a 16 megapixel sensor. However, when I shoot in non-RAW mode ( I select the best non-RAW mode available. i.e. large fine JPEG) ) I find that the picture I obtain is actually only 6 megapixels. Is this normal? Is the maximum possible megapixal count only available in RAW?

(I’ve just tried it with my other camera, an Olympus OMD – same thing. It has a 16 megapixel sensor, but when I shoot in anything other than RAW, the best resolution it will give me is 7 megapixels. So it looks like this is normal operation. )

Any info/insights appreciated.

The whole point of JPEG is that it compresses (lossy – which means you never get the detail back that you’re throwing away in the compression).

Thanks Dropbear. But why do some cameras boast 16-18 mp when they don’t have RAW, and hence no way of accessing all those pixels?

>The whole point of JPEG is that it compresses (lossy – which means you never get the detail back that you’re throwing away in the compression).

True but maybe what needs explaining is the idea of redundancy, that if a continuous area in the image is all green say, fairly much the same green and brightness, then code is provided that just says repeat for such such lines in the matrix.

or between such and such points, lines such and such.

pesce.del.giorno said:

Dropbear said:

pesce.del.giorno said:

I recently bought a new camera for a holiday trip I have coming up. It is said to have a 16 megapixel sensor. However, when I shoot in non-RAW mode ( I select the best non-RAW mode available. i.e. large fine JPEG) ) I find that the picture I obtain is actually only 6 megapixels. Is this normal? Is the maximum possible megapixal count only available in RAW?

(I’ve just tried it with my other camera, an Olympus OMD – same thing. It has a 16 megapixel sensor, but when I shoot in anything other than RAW, the best resolution it will give me is 7 megapixels. So it looks like this is normal operation. )

Any info/insights appreciated.

The whole point of JPEG is that it compresses (lossy – which means you never get the detail back that you’re throwing away in the compression).

Thanks Dropbear. But why do some cameras boast 16-18 mp when they don’t have RAW, and hence no way of accessing all those pixels?

A better starting point for the compression.

More pixels doesn’t always = a better photo! but it’s a decent guide up to about 16Mp depending on sensor side.

pesce.del.giorno said:

Dropbear said:

pesce.del.giorno said:

I recently bought a new camera for a holiday trip I have coming up. It is said to have a 16 megapixel sensor. However, when I shoot in non-RAW mode ( I select the best non-RAW mode available. i.e. large fine JPEG) ) I find that the picture I obtain is actually only 6 megapixels. Is this normal? Is the maximum possible megapixal count only available in RAW?

(I’ve just tried it with my other camera, an Olympus OMD – same thing. It has a 16 megapixel sensor, but when I shoot in anything other than RAW, the best resolution it will give me is 7 megapixels. So it looks like this is normal operation. )

Any info/insights appreciated.

The whole point of JPEG is that it compresses (lossy – which means you never get the detail back that you’re throwing away in the compression).

Thanks Dropbear. But why do some cameras boast 16-18 mp when they don’t have RAW, and hence no way of accessing all those pixels?

The number of pixels doesn’t necessarily dictate file size

CrazyNeutrino said:

Dropbear said:

pesce.del.giorno said:

I recently bought a new camera for a holiday trip I have coming up. It is said to have a 16 megapixel sensor. However, when I shoot in non-RAW mode ( I select the best non-RAW mode available. i.e. large fine JPEG) ) I find that the picture I obtain is actually only 6 megapixels. Is this normal? Is the maximum possible megapixal count only available in RAW?

(I’ve just tried it with my other camera, an Olympus OMD – same thing. It has a 16 megapixel sensor, but when I shoot in anything other than RAW, the best resolution it will give me is 7 megapixels. So it looks like this is normal operation. )

Any info/insights appreciated.

The whole point of JPEG is that it compresses (lossy – which means you never get the detail back that you’re throwing away in the compression).

Which is why you really want raw

to play with

some cameras save both raw and jpeg together

It depends on the use. If I was taking pics of the family at a BBQ I wouldn’t bother with RAW.mif I was shooting landscapes then I would.

Dropbear said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Dropbear said:

The whole point of JPEG is that it compresses (lossy – which means you never get the detail back that you’re throwing away in the compression).

Which is why you really want raw

to play with

some cameras save both raw and jpeg together

It depends on the use. If I was taking pics of the family at a BBQ I wouldn’t bother with RAW.mif I was shooting landscapes then I would.

RAW.milf at the BBQ you say…

diddly-squat said:

Dropbear said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Which is why you really want raw

to play with

some cameras save both raw and jpeg together

It depends on the use. If I was taking pics of the family at a BBQ I wouldn’t bother with RAW.mif I was shooting landscapes then I would.

RAW.milf at the BBQ you say…

Lol…put another milf on the barbie

Dropbear said:

diddly-squat said:

Dropbear said:

It depends on the use. If I was taking pics of the family at a BBQ I wouldn’t bother with RAW.mif I was shooting landscapes then I would.

RAW.milf at the BBQ you say…

Lol…put another milf on the barbie

or just what yourself by the brazzer.. that’s how you spell it right??

Dropbear said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Dropbear said:

The whole point of JPEG is that it compresses (lossy – which means you never get the detail back that you’re throwing away in the compression).

Which is why you really want raw

to play with

some cameras save both raw and jpeg together

It depends on the use. If I was taking pics of the family at a BBQ I wouldn’t bother with RAW.mif I was shooting landscapes then I would.

Yes, Landscapes can be demanding

but family portraits can be too, if for say magazines or fine print

hmmm landscapes

diddly-squat said:

Dropbear said:

diddly-squat said:

RAW.milf at the BBQ you say…

Lol…put another milf on the barbie

or just what yourself by the brazzer.. that’s how you spell it right??

that should read “warm yourself”

Porn?

oh lighting is important

and composition

which most get wrong

CrazyNeutrino said:

Dropbear said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Which is why you really want raw

to play with

some cameras save both raw and jpeg together

It depends on the use. If I was taking pics of the family at a BBQ I wouldn’t bother with RAW.mif I was shooting landscapes then I would.

Yes, Landscapes can be demanding

but family portraits can be too, if for say magazines or fine print

hmmm landscapes

I dont often submit my family BBQ pics to magazine..

except for People Chick of the Week or whatever it is these days

http://www.scribd.com/doc/17291575/Digital-Image-Processing

“The main reason to support the use of image reduction and compression tech-niques is that digital images typically are large two-dimensional matrices of intensity values, and that these matrices often contain redundant data. The goalis to reduce the capacity required in terms of space for storage, manipulation andtransmission of digital images….

Redundancy in digital images consists of three main categories:

coding redun- dancy, interpixel redundancy, and psychovisual redundancy…. “

transition said:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/17291575/Digital-Image-Processing

“The main reason to support the use of image reduction and compression tech-niques is that digital images typically are large two-dimensional matrices of intensity values, and that these matrices often contain redundant data. The goalis to reduce the capacity required in terms of space for storage, manipulation andtransmission of digital images….

Redundancy in digital images consists of three main categories:

coding redun- dancy, interpixel redundancy, and psychovisual redundancy…. “

Lossy compression is lossy compression. You never get it back.

A lot of modern sensors ate 10 or even 12 bit. JPEG typically only uses 8 bits ..

yeah I was only responding to what I saw of the question in the OP, bear.

note too the extra pixels might be good for shooting movies.

Dropbear said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Dropbear said:

It depends on the use. If I was taking pics of the family at a BBQ I wouldn’t bother with RAW.mif I was shooting landscapes then I would.

Yes, Landscapes can be demanding

but family portraits can be too, if for say magazines or fine print

hmmm landscapes

I dont often submit my family BBQ pics to magazine..

except for People Chick of the Week or whatever it is these days

usually too much brushing

takes out the detail

wrong

leave the detail

much better

At the end of the day JPEG is always a compromise… But it’s good enough for a lot (date I say most) uses.

The main thing you need to realise with JPEG is that once the camera decides on a white balance, picture style, sharpness value etc, you’re stuck with it.

With RAW processing you make those details yourself later on the computer

There’s a bit of confusion going on here.

If you select the largest best quality jpeg on a 16 MP camera, you should get a 16 MP photo.

Are you sure that you’re not getting a 6 megabyte image? That would be about the right size for a 16 megapixel image saved as a jpeg.

Depending on your computer, you should be able to look at the properties of the image which will tell you the pixel dimensions of the image. Multiply the two pixel dimensions together and you should get about 16 million.

pommiejohn said:

There’s a bit of confusion going on here.

If you select the largest best quality jpeg on a 16 MP camera, you should get a 16 MP photo.

Are you sure that you’re not getting a 6 megabyte image? That would be about the right size for a 16 megapixel image saved as a jpeg.

Depending on your computer, you should be able to look at the properties of the image which will tell you the pixel dimensions of the image. Multiply the two pixel dimensions together and you should get about 16 million.

I disagree with that PJ. You won’t necc get 16MP jpegs

Dropbear said:

pommiejohn said:

There’s a bit of confusion going on here.

If you select the largest best quality jpeg on a 16 MP camera, you should get a 16 MP photo.

Are you sure that you’re not getting a 6 megabyte image? That would be about the right size for a 16 megapixel image saved as a jpeg.

Depending on your computer, you should be able to look at the properties of the image which will tell you the pixel dimensions of the image. Multiply the two pixel dimensions together and you should get about 16 million.

I disagree with that PJ. You won’t necc get 16MP jpegs

Eh? What kind of 16MP camera doesn’t give you 16MP shots?

pommiejohn said:

Dropbear said:

pommiejohn said:

There’s a bit of confusion going on here.

If you select the largest best quality jpeg on a 16 MP camera, you should get a 16 MP photo.

Are you sure that you’re not getting a 6 megabyte image? That would be about the right size for a 16 megapixel image saved as a jpeg.

Depending on your computer, you should be able to look at the properties of the image which will tell you the pixel dimensions of the image. Multiply the two pixel dimensions together and you should get about 16 million.

I disagree with that PJ. You won’t necc get 16MP jpegs

Eh? What kind of 16MP camera doesn’t give you 16MP shots?

That’s the sensor size, not the image size. The image size off a JPEG will depend on how much compression happens and will vary from shot to shot.

Raw files will more closely approximate sensor size with much less variation

Dropbear said:

pommiejohn said:

Dropbear said:

I disagree with that PJ. You won’t necc get 16MP jpegs

Eh? What kind of 16MP camera doesn’t give you 16MP shots?

That’s the sensor size, not the image size. The image size off a JPEG will depend on how much compression happens and will vary from shot to shot.

Raw files will more closely approximate sensor size with much less variation

News to me. My 5D mk2 shoots a jpeg at 22 MP. When it’s compressed the file size is compressed but not th enumber of pixels.

DP review reckons the Lumix can shoot RAW

http://www.dpreview.com/products/panasonic/compacts/panasonic_dmcfz70/specifications

Sorry yes I’m an idiot

Sigh

You can get 16MP images, not 16 megabyte images

Lol
Oops

Dropbear said:

pommiejohn said:

Dropbear said:

I disagree with that PJ. You won’t necc get 16MP jpegs

Eh? What kind of 16MP camera doesn’t give you 16MP shots?

That’s the sensor size, not the image size. The image size off a JPEG will depend on how much compression happens and will vary from shot to shot.

Raw files will more closely approximate sensor size with much less variation

I will commonly take between 6-700 photos over a couple of days, from those you can safely write off 15-20% as being out of focus etc, but that still leaves you with around 500 photos to work on in the RAW image, which can be a very time consuming task and unless you really must have particular shot, not worth the effort.

PermeateFree said:

I will commonly take between 6-700 photos over a couple of days,

Get a film camera and you’ll learn to be more economic :)

pommiejohn said:

PermeateFree said:

I will commonly take between 6-700 photos over a couple of days,

Get a film camera and you’ll learn to be more economic :)

No I need them as they are botany photographs of a number of species, each taken from various angles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixel

“In some contexts (such as descriptions of camera sensors), the term pixel is used to refer to a single scalar element of a multi-component representation (more precisely called a photosite in the camera sensor context, although the neologism sensel is sometimes used to describe the elements of a digital camera’s sensor), while in others the term may refer to the entire set of such component intensities for a spatial position. In color systems that use chroma subsampling, the multi-component concept of a pixel can become difficult to apply, since the intensity measures for the different color components correspond to different spatial areas in such a representation”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_camera

“The resolution of a digital camera is often limited by the image sensor that turns light into discrete signals. The brighter the image at a given point on the sensor, the larger the value that is read for that pixel. Depending on the physical structure of the sensor, a color filter array may be used, which requires demosaicing to recreate a full-color image. The number of pixels in the sensor determines the camera’s “pixel count”. In a typical sensor, the pixel count is the product of the number of rows and the number of columns. For example, a 1,000 by 1,000 pixel sensor would have 1,000,000 pixels, or 1 megapixel.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG

“JPEG uses a lossy form of compression based on the discrete cosine transform (DCT). This mathematical operation converts each frame/field of the video source from the spatial (2D) domain into the frequency domain (aka transform domain.) A perceptual model based loosely on the human psychovisual system discards high-frequency information, i.e. sharp transitions in intensity, and color hue. In the transform domain, the process of reducing information is called quantization. In simpler terms, quantization is a method for optimally reducing a large number scale (with different occurrences of each number) into a smaller one, and the transform-domain is a convenient representation of the image because the high-frequency coefficients, which contribute less to the over picture than other coefficients, are characteristically small-values with high compressibility. The quantized coefficients are then sequenced and losslessly packed into the output bitstream. Nearly all software implementations of JPEG permit user control over the compression-ratio (as well as other optional parameters), allowing the user to trade off picture-quality for smaller file size. In embedded applications (such as miniDV, which uses a similar DCT-compression scheme), the parameters are pre-selected and fixed for the application.

The compression method is usually lossy, meaning that some original image information is lost and cannot be restored, possibly affecting image quality. There is an optional lossless mode defined in the JPEG standard. However, this mode is not widely supported in products.

There is also an interlaced “Progressive JPEG” format, in which data is compressed in multiple passes of progressively higher detail. This is ideal for large images that will be displayed while downloading over a slow connection, allowing a reasonable preview after receiving only a portion of the data. However, support for progressive JPEGs is not universal. When progressive JPEGs are received by programs that do not support them (such as versions of Internet Explorer before Windows 7) the software only displays the image after it has been completely downloaded.

There are also many medical imaging and traffic systems that create and process 12-bit JPEG images, normally grayscale images. The 12-bit JPEG format has been part of the JPEG specification for some time, but this format is not as widely supported”

Possibly there is always noise or incongruent output from (some) sensor pixels, given there’s generally something often moving/changing, plus exposure/shutter times, the camera can’t know which way whatever part was trending at the time, so processing following might deal with those incongruent elements and reduce what otherwise would be raw noise. Some of these elements may register close to zero output or something not like that nearest, so the processing might deal with them, so to be accurate the element pixel count outputs used maybe lower. Not all elements of the array may produce output useful to producing fidelity, so if nearer front-end processing dealt with them it may not be accurate to indicate image quality as derived from every element. Some of it (the resolving) is the product of dealing with any ‘noise’.

+ noise in the CCD (or whatever) and the electronics + transitional or threshold states that have to be tidied up.

Maybe there is additive flicker(random scatter) type noise too in light reflected from objects, which is not noticable by humans visual system but maybe is caught by cameras.

All the above talk about jpeg being lossy and having less megs has no relevance to the original question whatsoever. Jpeg will have fewer megabytes, sure, but the exact same number of megapixels. Some people above can’t tell the difference between a byte and a pixel.

In order for a camera to claim 16 megapixels it certainly ought to have 16 megapixels in both raw and jpeg modes.

Panasonic Lumix FZ70 / FZ72 has a claimed 16 megapixels and maximum still image size of 4,608 * 3,456 pixels.
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ200 has claimed 12 megapixels and maximum still image size 4,000 * 3,000 pixels.
Sony Cybershot DSC-HX200V is similar with a claimed 18 megapixels and maximum still image size 4,896 * 3,672 pixels.

Are you absolutely sure that in jpeg mode you’re not still getting the full 16.1 megapixels?

If not, take the camera back and complain. The only two reasons I can see for decreasing the resolution in going from raw to jpeg (if that is indeed what they do) are that either they’ve skimped on the memory card size and want to fit in more images, or their sensor is crap and they need to reduce the resolution in order to smooth out the errors.

probably just to do with aspect ratio.

“All the above talk about jpeg being lossy and having less megs has no relevance to the original question whatsoever. Jpeg will have fewer megabytes, sure, but the exact same number of megapixels. Some people above can’t tell the difference between a byte and a pixel.”

Some people have already apologised for that and have stated that they made that error.. so some other people should pull their fucking head in.

I assumed the OP was mistaking pix with data, which haven’t seen that clarified, but may have been. Then later saw someone mentioned aspect ratio, which may be the answer if pix and data weren’t confused.

pommiejohn said:

There’s a bit of confusion going on here.

If you select the largest best quality jpeg on a 16 MP camera, you should get a 16 MP photo.

Are you sure that you’re not getting a 6 megabyte image? That would be about the right size for a 16 megapixel image saved as a jpeg.

Depending on your computer, you should be able to look at the properties of the image which will tell you the pixel dimensions of the image. Multiply the two pixel dimensions together and you should get about 16 million.

Thanks Pommiejohn. You have nailed the problem. I had the camera set on 16 megapixels, largest, finest jpeg, and was dismayed to see my dowloaded images as 6 mb. I took that to be 6 megapixels. OTOH when I take a RAW, the image size is 19 mb. I presume a 16 megapixel RAW file is ~3 times the size of a 16 megapixel jpeg. So all is well. Thanks.

Thanks for all who have contributed to this thread. I’ve gained a lot of good information. (SSFF never fails.)