Are long exposure RAW files larger?

[Helen B]

I've already posted file sizes for compressed and uncompressed Raw files , detail-less vs detailed images, and explained why they are different. Was that the waste of time it appears to have been? Why bother discussing things with people who don't want to make any effort?

 

[enzodm]

I've already posted file sizes for compressed and uncompressed Raw files , detail-less vs detailed images, and explained why they are different. Was that the waste of time it appears to have been? Why bother discussing things with people who don't want to make any effort?

please don't loose your well known patience, this is more or less the norm.
[However, my experience with Canon RAW is that there is some lossless compression that gives up to 50% compression in detail-less images (in my last folder I have 15.1MB for a overexposed image vs. 31.9 for the largest one, well detailed). But I know where it comes from ]

 

[Helen B]

The examples I gave show the same as your example: the sizes of losslessly compressed Raw files do vary, and we both understand the reason. There may, of course, be a difference between what Canon and Nikon call 'lossless', particularly for highlight values - Nikon do offer a slightly lossy Raw format that simplifies the higher values but enables greater compression.

 

[Dao]

OP, try this.

- Take a photo that require 30 sec exposure on tripod.
- Then take another photo for the same scene for 40 sec. But cover the lens with lens cap for the first 10 sec.
- Compare the end result.

 

[analog.universe]

OP, try this.

- Take a photo that require 30 sec exposure on tripod.
- Then take another photo for the same scene for 40 sec. But cover the lens with lens cap for the first 10 sec.
- Compare the end result.

Technically the second photo would accumulate more thermal noise in that 10 seconds, making it slightly harder to compress, possibly creating a slightly bigger file. Keyword slight...