Jump to content

Jonathan Kingston

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Jonathan Kingston

  1. Well yes. That's what everyone reports. But the mathematics would suggest that uncompressed raw files should be 2x - 3x bigger at about 130MB. I'm just curious as to why they're not.
  2. Just bought an X-T30 and am new to the wonderful world or shooting RAW. I have (what is I suspect) a naive question. Why aren't uncompressed RAW files larger than we see them? My logic is this: X-T30 shoots in 14 bits per channel. 3 colour channels. So 42 bits (or 5 1/4 bytes) per pixel. Images are 6,240 pixels wide, 4,160 pixels high. 25,948,400 pixels total. So I'd expect an uncompressed RAW file to be about 25,948,400 * 5 1/4 bytes big. Or about 130MB. But the uncompressed .RAF files come out around 56MB Which bit of my assumptions or logic have I got wrong?
  • Create New...