Have lots of money, or just not enough?

[david cago]

the face in the text while talking about a Fuji must be due to some code I unintentionally typed; just ignore it.

[Scott_H]

Using file size as a criteria can be misleading.  Do they have any other criteria listed?

File size will be dependent on the type of file used.  The content of the image can also affect file size in a compressed format is used.

[david cago]

BJL wrote:

Or to be very very cynical,
c) they want to accommodate customers who like huge file sizes, but know that far less is actually needed. I have heard of agencies that require 100MB, and photographers saying that some such agencies have accepted files upsampled from 6MP DSLR's.

--------------------------

Man, you made me laugh really hard. That's absolutely ridiculous! Anyway, my agency wants everything in tiff, of course. Panoramic files can be larger than 48MB, as they have a different ratio. I guess double the ratio of a typical 1:1.5 format would thus result in a 96MB file from a 617 or 1:3 ratio camera.

Anyway, your reply also opened up an entirely new can of worms and that is, as you said, that some customers indeed will want way more than they need or do not res up themselves. So indeed, ha-ha, photographers will just res up and res up. From 6MB to 100MB in 6 seconds! Beam me up Scotty to Resolution Heaven! Hahahaha. Sounds more more like res-#### to me. Just stand far away enough, then even the Coolpix can do a high up huge billboard in Manhattan (yes, this was done, for those who didn't know, although I regretfully did not see it last time I was at Times Square).

Anyway, on the more serious side, I take more pride in my work, and I think even ressing up from 6 to "just" 48 is definitely not kosher.

But I have seen printed advertising on Subways at size likes 3 x 4.5 feet I could examine up close where this obviously must have been the case: very grainy, fuzzy and unfocused looking, no less the result of an underpowered original.


..........6 to 100. Ouch!

[BruceK]

David:

How do you figure a 37Meg file from a 6MP camera? Three colors, R.G.B at 6MP each produces an 18MB tiff file in my book.

You're assuming 8-bits per pixel. The 10D Raw files are, if I recall correctly, at least 12 bits of information per color channel per pixel, and are converted to 16-bit images. My 10D files are around 6-7MB Raw (which uses lossless compression) which CS turns into an almost 37MB TIF file. Without any ressing-up.

     Bruce

[david cago]

It sounded great at first to stand corrected: 12 or 16 bits RAW files, resulting in mucho pixels. Problem resolved!

Not so fast. The agency only wants 8-bit files. What a bummer.

So, back to square one.

[BJL]

From 6MB to 100MB in 6 seconds!

(Edited for 8-bit TIFF instead of 16!)

   As has mostly been explained, 6Mpixel output in 8 bit per channel TIFF is already about 18MBytes. Thus from there to 48MByte TIFF is a linear scaling factor of only about 60%, so you have about 2/3 the linear resolution as if you really had a 48MByte TIFF from the camera.

  Pixel counts are a great way of exagerating resolution differences by squaring all the numbers compared to traditional linear measures of resolution (lp/mm and all that); using bytes instead of pixels makes for even more impressively big numbers.

(6MP gives potentially about 3/4 the linear resolution as 11MP on prints of the same size.)

[david cago]

I do three kinds of photography: stock fine art and panoramic. As far as the stock is concerned: I am with an agency that has the following requirements:

"48 MB minimum. All digital camera images must be captured on a digital camera capable of producing files of 14MB and upwards. Please then interpolate the images to a minimum of 48MB using professional upsizing software."

80% of my shooting is outdoors. Mostly in the genre of nature/landscape/architecture/abstracts/composites/special effects (via Photoshop). Some people, but not much. For panoramcis I use the "poor man's panoramic camera": the Fuji 69 wide (and just crop). I sold my Linhof 617 as I found it too heavy to carry for many hours. The Fuji's lens is so incredibly sharp, you can cut trees with it. Believe it or not, it's much sharper than the Biogon on the SWC camera, which I used to own.

Anyway....my posting here is not about that....

The way I want to continue this photographic venture of mine is by going all digital, via SLR. I have used some digital SLRs, but do not yet own one. So I am familiar with them. I have tried several others in my large hands at stores.

To interpolate from the agency's minimum requirements of 14MB to 48MB is a big step, and I would rather do it from a camera that gets as close to already delivering 48MB as possible!

I have recently sold several of my film cameras and have raised a total of around $7,500. Problem: not really enough to buy a Canon 1Ds outfit. Shall I sell my two remaining film cameras and raise an additional ca. $1,500 and go for the 1Ds now? I would feel a little better with some dough left in the bank, however.

OR: Shall I patiently wait till next year to buy a digital SLR at hopefully lower prices and better technology and keep shooting 35mm and 6x9 film a little while longer? I have no crystal ball to know which new machines are coming out:
Fuji S3? (full frame?)
Nikon modular (rumors only?)
Leica modular? (5MP only, though)
New Canon (to be or not to be?)?
Any other surprises coming?
And when, when, when?

Another option I have is to wait, but in the meanwhile get a temporary or backup camera (new or used) to shoot with, like a Canon Rebel or 10D, Nikon D100, or something like that (below $2k), and then sell it (or not) if I want to and get a better camera in 2004. Two others that are tempting: Sony F828 (self contained 8MP monster) and Sigma SD10 (Foveon chip may be interesting to use for a while with just a few good prime lenses).

Yes, I can hear some say: get the Kodak 14n, excellent for stock; megapixels to spare. I have large hands, and did not find the Kodak 14n a good ergonomic fit. Of course I don’t know what the future will bring I that respect, and I could probably get around this, but the Kodak is too expensive for something that doesn’t always perform well (I know, I know, no camera does really).

Just very curious: what would you do in my situation? Is there something I am overlooking, or not aware of?

My thanks go out to all responders in advance! And happy holidays to all my shootin' buddies!

[Edward]

14megs out of the camera is not really much - the 10D produces a 37 meg tiff.  7,500 would get you a nice system with a 10D, then you could upgrade to the 1Ds later with the same lenses.

[BJL]

I am with an agency that has the following requirements:

"48 MB minimum. All digital camera images must be captured on a digital camera capable of producing files of 14MB and upwards. Please then interpolate the images to a minimum of 48MB using professional upsizing software."

You might well want to ask the agency of course, but it seems to me that the cat is out of the bag when they say 14MB is enough from the camera and accept interpolation beyond that. The extra bytes they want are therefore not for extra resolution; they are probably because
a) they need files of up to a certain high pixel count to cover the variety of customer demands, in conjunction with the often rigid pixel pitch needed by some commercial printing equipment. (I believe that one common high end printer does none of its own interpolation, requiring input files at a fixed 12 pixels/mm, or about 303 ppi. Thus almost all files needs to be rescaled in prep. for it.)
 They want you to do the upsampling so they can avoid the effort themselves, check that it has been done well enough, and then be able to deliver to all customers with just some relatively safe, quick and simple downsampling.

Or to be very very cynical,
c) they want to accomodate customers who like huge file sizes, but know that far less is actually needed. I have heard of agencies that require 100MB, and photograhers saying that some such agencies have accepted files upsampled from 6MP DSLR's.

[david cago]

And Edward wrote:

14megs out of the camera is not really much - the 10D produces a 37 meg tiff.  7,500 would get you a nice system with a 10D, then you could upgrade to the 1Ds later with the same lenses.

------------------------

How do you figure a 37Meg file from a 6MP camera? Three colors, R.G.B at 6MP each produces an 18MB tiff file in my book.

The 1Ds would produce a file size around 36-37MB instead.

[Evan]

Using 16 bits/channel gets you to the larger file size at 6MP.

[boku]

Using 16 bits/channel gets you to the larger file size at 6MP.

Yes indeed - the Canon RAW is 12 bits with lossless compression. This renders files that are about 6-7 MB. They do indeed convert to 37 MB 16-bit TIFFs.

[Jonathan Wienke]

Sounds like a 1Ds is just the ticket...high resolution without the "only usable at low ISO in sunlight" limitations of the 14n. The 1Ds is the only DSLR currently deemed acceptable by Getty...