Currently Being ModeratedJun 8, 2012 7:06 PM (in response to switch1234)
I think you are mistakening the size of memory needed when the JPEG is decompressed and opened, with the actual file size from the camera. The 7 MB is typical of the size of the Fine JPEG from the D200 while still compressed as a JPEG file. In Aperture, that JPEG from the camera becomes the Master, and will never be altered to become the size required for the memory to contain the decompressed image.
I went back and checked such images from my D200 that never were imported into any version of Aperture. Those files in fact were norminally 7 MB, and when opened in say Graphic Converter or Photoshop would then need 28 MB of memory to contain them.
Currently Being ModeratedJun 8, 2012 7:10 PM (in response to switch1234)
Ernie answered while I was typing negating the need for my response. I'd delete it if I could. Ernie is right BTW.
Message was edited by: Thomas Emmerich
Currently Being ModeratedJun 8, 2012 9:18 PM (in response to switch1234)
28MB is what you would expect as TIFF format for a 10 MP image. Are you sure you had not set your camera to TIFF earlier?
Those files in fact were norminally 7 MB, and when opened in say Graphic Converter or Photoshop would then need 28 MB of memory to contain them.
exactly, because Aperture will send those images as TIFF and not as JPEG.
Currently Being ModeratedJun 9, 2012 2:41 AM (in response to léonie)
The D200 doesn't have the option to output TIFF files. The OP simply has to have noted the memory size of the files when decompressed to conclude that the setting was to produce 28 MB files. But you will see that regardless of whether ever converted to TIFF.
Page 196 of the User Manual for the D200 states that the file size for JPEG Fine large image will be approximately 4.8 MB, but if set to Optimal Quality vs Size Priority, can be larger.
Currently Being ModeratedJun 9, 2012 2:45 AM (in response to Ernie Stamper)
Thanks, Ernie - that explains it.
The D200 doesn't have the option to output TIFF files.
Really? I never had a camera that could not produce TIFF, sorry for the confusion
Currently Being ModeratedJun 9, 2012 2:58 AM (in response to léonie)
While the D200 has the option to provide RAW (NEF) files, it did not have TIFF. I am under the impression that is a more recent development with DSLRs, and maybe some point and shoots? Since I by preference nearly always shoot in RAW, I have NOT looked for that feature across camera offerings.
My D300 can produce TIFF, but I have never once used it, opting for RAW.
Currently Being ModeratedJun 9, 2012 3:06 AM (in response to Ernie Stamper)
And for some of my cameras Aperture has never had raw support, so I am very partial to tiff
Currently Being ModeratedJun 10, 2012 3:39 AM (in response to léonie)
As a long time user of the D200 I can confirm that the file sizes of the original jpgs are about 4 - 6 MB. The RAW files (NEF) have about 17 MB with the option to save them 'compressed' in the D200. Then they only need about 9 MB of disk space.
This is an option I can only recommend for those using this wonderful camera. I tried the 'compressed' vs. the 'original' NEFs in a couple of RAW converters (including Aperture) and would dare to say that there is only a theoretical difference but nothing you can really see in the images.
I miss this option in my holiday and everyday camera P7100. If I want to take advantage of the RAW capabilities with that 10,2MP camera (same resolution as the D200) I gather "heavy weight" 17 MB for each file.
Currently Being ModeratedJun 10, 2012 3:46 AM (in response to d-light)
I tried the 'compressed' vs. the 'original' NEFs in a couple of RAW converters (including Aperture) and would dare to say that there is only a theoretical difference but nothing you can really see in the images.
and do you still notice no difference after making adjustments that require a high photometric resolution, like contrast enhancement or color adjustments?
Do you know if the compression is a lossless compression?
Currently Being ModeratedJun 10, 2012 4:31 AM (in response to léonie)
honestly speaking, I have done most of my image adjustments since 2006 (when I bought the D200) in various image processing applications (e.g. Capture One, Bibble 5 - now turned to AfterShot Pro by Corel, Lightroom at a friend's PC). I also tried Nikon's Capture NX but never liked it. Speaking of images that have been worth while keeping and working with as a RAW file I never saw any difference. As far as I can say with respect to Aperture 3 I come to the the same result as I did with the other software.
People may say that with the disk space being so cheap now it is not worth while thinking about that. But there is one other aspect that can be of advantage in certain situations: The compressed RAWs are transferred faster to and from the the card than the uncompressed files. Also, the time for decompression in applications seems to be shorter than that saved while reading the smaller files.
Before I started to use the compression feature (which in fact should be not lossless in the case of D200) I studied some reviews on that, of course.
Citing one of them one could say
"I tried to make duplicate shots to compare. I gave up. The mechanical exposure repeatability of my camera and nature itself aren't stable enough to let me make two captures close enough to see any possible difference between compressed and uncompressed raw.
People do see differences. They are seeing fluctuations in their technique shot-to-shot, not any differences due to the compression."
by Ken Rockwell
If you are interested, here is the original article by Ken Rockwell.
Another very elaborate investigation can be found here.
Again, a quote from the controversal discussion on that comparison:
"The ‘lossy’ NEF compression is really a clever use of information theory to save space by eliminating redundant raw levels. The noise which is unavoidably present in light effectively dithers tonal transitions so that the compression is *perceptually lossless*."
by a poster named emil
As far as I have read elsewhere, newer cameras as the D300 even have really "lossless" compression algorithms.
Currently Being ModeratedJun 10, 2012 4:40 AM (in response to d-light)
That is very helpful. I frequently use compressed image formats, if I am sure i will not need to make elaborate tonal adjustments and *perceptually lossless* is sufficient. Disk space on a MBP is very limited.
But if I know the image I am going to take will be very important to me and I probably will have to do a lot of image processing, I opt for a lossless format, even if a single image will need 30MB.
Currently Being ModeratedJun 10, 2012 7:12 AM (in response to léonie)
Although the later D300 (which I also have) has a choice between Lossless compression and simply compression of NEF file along with no compression, the D200 did not expressly cite Lossless compression. All the manual says about the compression is: "NEF images are compressed by about 40–50% with little drop in quality. Recording time is reduced."
I agree that it is hard to discern differences in such things. With my D300 and now D800 I use 14-bit lossless compression for the RAW NEF files. Nikon says the lossless compression is completely reversibile by algorithm. Nothing along those lines is stated about compression in the D200 (which I still own, but have on more or less permanent loan to one of my daughters). I think I generally opted to use the uncompressed RAW as memory serves.