Jump to content

X-T1 RAF file dimension


fotoism

Recommended Posts

I noticed my X-T1 RAF file dimensions is shown as 1920x1280 (32.2 MB) under "Properties|Details" in Windows. However, the 100% jpeg output from Capture one shows 4896x3264 (20.0 MB), and in Lightroom the same 100% jpeg export is shown as 4406x2937 (5.62 MB). Setting in the camera is "L 3:2", which is as RAW as you can get. Shouldn't the RAF file be 4896x3264 as indicated in page 126 in the X-T1 manual under image size?

Or did I mess up some settings?

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Thanks for your reply. That's what I thought must be the case, although I clicked on the .RAF file to look for its property and not asking for its embedded JPEG property, apparently Windows 10 cannot do that. I have no problem displaying the image thumbnails in Windows explorer, once again that would be the embedded JPEG I am looking at.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • Because the sensor assembly is moved electrmagnetically. When there is no power it is essentially free moving.
    • Ahoy ye hearties! Hoist ye yon Jolly Roger and Cascade away. NGC 1502 The Jolly Roger Cluster:

      Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

      Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

      This is the equivalent of 43 minutes, 40 seconds of exposure. NGC 1502 is a neat little cluster located in the Camelopardalis Constellation. This region of space was thought to be fairly empty by early astronomers, but as you can see, there is a lot there. Kemble's Cascade (a.k.a. Kemble 1) is named for Father Lucian Kemble, a Canadian Franciscan friar who wrote about it to Walter Scott Houston, an author for the Sky And Telescope magazine. Houston named the asterism for Fr. Kemble and the name "stuck". NGC 1501 is the Oyster Nebula. A longer focal length telescope is needed to bring this one into good viewing range, but it is well worth the effort. NGC 1502: https://skyandtelescope.org/online-gallery/ngc-1502/ Camelopardalis Constellation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camelopardalis Kemble's Cascade (and NGC 1501: The Oyster Nebula): https://www.constellation-guide.com/kembles-cascade/ Arrrrrr Matey.
    • Looking for input; there are some decent deals and might want to take advantage to expand my lenses for my 100s already own: 110/2 32-64 35-70 100-200 + TC   Shooting mostly family shots, bringing my kit to capture family outings indoors and out. Tracking the 63/43 effective FLs on the two, but has anybody used both? Would the 55 (covered by two zooms right now) be redundant? Would the 80 be too similar in character to my 110 for portraiture?
    • See what I mean? Two instantaneous ads. Worthless.   
×
×
  • Create New...