RAW vs MRAW vs SRAW

[SnappingShark]

I shoot with a Canon 5DS - It has 50mpx, and so, the original RAW file is pretty large.

Now, the MRAW is only 28mpx and the SRAW even smaller.

My question to any of you know-it-alls (I'm looking at you), besides my ability to crop in closer, will I lose any detail by shooting in MRAW vs RAW? And because I am shooting MRAW, will I gain back some low light performance due to the size of the end-result RAW file being smaller?

 

[Light Guru]

Memory cards are cheep there is no reason NOT to shoot in the highest quality possible.

 

[SnappingShark]

True, but that doesn't answer my question

Also it effects my workflow if the images are too large so I was curious of the effects of MRAW vs RAW

 

[Light Guru]

True, but that doesn't answer my question

Also it effects my workflow if the images are too large so I was curious of the effects of MRAW vs RAW

And Im saying the question is rather pointless. If you are going to shoot raw there is NO reason not to shoot the highest quality possible.

The only reasons you wouldn't are if you need quick turn around in the images. And then you would shoot jpeg.

 

[SnappingShark]

Then why do Canon and many other companies in their newest cameras give you the option of multiple sizes? I get for screen / print - but my question was about quality lost and low light performance - not whether I should or not.

 

[Braineack]

a gimmick?

the concept of a lossy raw file just to save some memory space just doesnt make sense to me.

sRAW and mRAW are solutions to a problem that doesn't exist.

 

[table1349]

sRAW Format Explained

 

[ronlane]

Jamie,

I don't think I am going to answer the question you have asked but I will look at it like this and ask you a question (or two). If you have a 50mp RAW image, what is the MRAW file size? the SRAW file size? If these files are bigger than the 5D mk iii's RAW image (24 MP??), then I would think that they would be as good or of a better IQ, so you would be fine.

I can totally see where 1,000's of 50mp RAW images would be taxing on the work flow. But if the MRAW and or SRAW produce better IQ than the 5D mk III, then use them. (I would expect the IQ of any of the files of the 5Ds to be better than the comparable 5D mk III image)

 

[SnappingShark]

Yeah, there's 50mpx (RAW), 28mpx (MRAW) and I think 18mpx for SRAW ... I guess it's more of a curious technical question

 

[Dave442]

What I read suggests that sRaw is an option for fast turnaround where a JPEG would be the other option, but you need the ability to adjust WB in post.

I think it is a worthwhile camera feature for those of us that have a workflow that processes a Raw file, or a file that will process similarly, and have the occasions where the final image is for the web or other uses. I think as the sensors MP keeps going up the need for this will increase and its probably good that they are start working out the issues now for when it is really needed.

I don't think I would use it as I always forget to change these things later on.

 

[Light Guru]

What I read suggests that sRaw is an option for fast turnaround where a JPEG would be the other option, but you need the ability to adjust WB in post.

Except you wouldn't get faster turnaround time because you still have to make it he WB adjustments in post.

If you need fast a turnaround there is no post. You shoot and deliver that's it.

 

[bobbybabaletskos]

What I read suggests that sRaw is an option for fast turnaround where a JPEG would be the other option, but you need the ability to adjust WB in post.

Except you wouldn't get faster turnaround time because you still have to make it he WB adjustments in post.

If you need fast a turnaround there is no post. You shoot and deliver that's it.

Yes but turnaround would be limited not because of the filesize itself alone. Turnaround would be slow for limited computer processing power. It would take sRAW less time to process a wb in a post processing software, hence the less turnaround time

Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk

 

[Light Guru]

Yes but turnaround would be limited not because of the filesize itself alone. Turnaround would be slow for limited computer processing power. It would take sRAW less time to process a wb in a post processing software, hence the less turnaround time

Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk

That processing time would be so minimal in in the turn around time. Unless you are using a archaic computer.

 

[AJPhotographic]

From what I can find, other than a lower pixel count, mRAW and sRAW are still RAW images with the same flexibility and detail as a full size RAW file. I wish my camera had this option as it would reduce shutter lag when shooting timelapse with a short interval between shots. For example, if I want to shoot with a 1 second interval and observe the 180 rule, with a shutter speed of 0.5-0.6 seconds, after about 25 shots the camera will miss an interval as the internal buffer is full. Switching to jpeg does not fix this problem, as although the file size is smaller, the camera then needs to process the jpeg internally and after about 35 shots will also miss an interval. I think it is a very useful feature to have even though it would only get used on occasion, it would still be nice to have as an option.

 

[kalgra]

I think the most interesting question in the OP has been overlooked. "Because I am shooting MRAW, will I gain back some low light". Or maybe I'm just dumb.

My guess is no that it doesn't work that way but it is an interesting thought. With mraw or sraw do multiple smaller pixels start to act as one larger pixel thereby improving iso performance?

Since I have seen the 5ds and 5dsr knocked for poor iso performance many times for obvious reasons I would assume I would have read if mraw or sraw was an alternative workaround to that problem.