Sony R7IV File Size, Processing Power, Storage

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 21 total)
  • Author
    Topic: Sony R7IV File Size, Processing Power, Storage Read 1095 Times
  • Jack Siegel
    Jack Siegel
    Participant
    Posts: 14
    New Article Announcements & Discussions
    on: July 19, 2019 at 10:18 am

    I am happy to see more pixels on the Sonys, but I think photographers are going to stop seeking more pixels going forward.  I own the Fuji GFX 100.  To put things in perspective:  My Olympus OMD-1E files come in at 14mb.  The Fuji files are running 200mb.  I use two Promise raid systems (one as backup offsite) to store photographs.  Those aren’t cheap.  I was coming close to filling mine up, but with the Fuji’s arrival, I got religion.  It is easy to go out and shoot 300 images in a day, rate 10 of them 5 star, and forget about the other 290 when you have what seems like infinite disk space.  You can’t do that with 200mb files unless you own a hard drive company.  I am on a deleting crusade.  After I shoot with the Fuji and review the files, I delete immediately.  And I have been going back and systematically recovering hard drive space.  That will take at least a month of daily deletions.

    As for processing power, I find my basic Mac Pro desktop–the trash can–works fine in terms of moving the sliders in Lightroom or the adjustment layers in Photoshop.  I do see signs of bottlenecks elsewhere.  With the Fuji files, it takes a good 30 to 45 seconds for the file to open in Photoshop when I select “Edit In” in Lightroom.  I have one image that includes 5 Fuji GFX 100 files stitched together.  I can’t get it to transfer from Lightroom to Photoshop.

    I use a Canon Prograf 1000 as my printer.  When I send files to the printer, things move very slowly in terms of moving the file to the print que.

    I had planned to do this long before the Fuji arrived because some of my Photoshop files use a lot of layers:  Today 64GB of RAM arrives.  It will replace my 16GB of RAM.  We will see if that makes a difference.

    The higher pixel count also has other unexpected ramifications.  Last week I posted my first set of GFX 100 issues to my photoblog on Squarespace.  I do so as jpgs and in lower quality.  Yet, SquareSpace’s system rejected them.  Turns out they had to be downsized in terms of the length of the longest side.  I also post images to my portfolio on Photoshelter.  Those I do as high quality jpegs because I view it as an online backup.  I will have to rent more space if I continue that practice, which I will.

    In terms of on-the-road backup.  I never found the Cloud to be viable backup solution when faced with hotel WIFI transfer rates.  I can’t even get one RAW file to transfer, let along 300.  Until 5G is readily available and fully developed in terms of functionality, the largerp Pixel counts will put hotel WIFI further out of reach.

    As for me, I will always be happy to buy better pixels, but in terms of the need, 100 is my upper limit if we are just focused on pixels, and that fact really didn’t drive the Fuji GFX 100 purchase decision.  There are people out there a lot smarter than I am when it comes to the science of sensors, but I don’t perceive increasing the number of pixels as the major factor in improving the quality of pixels.

     

    Kevin Raber
    Kevin Raber
    Keymaster
    Posts: 359
    Re: Sony R7IV File Size, Processing Power, Storage
    Reply #1 on: July 19, 2019 at 11:09 am

    Sometimes you need to get out of the forest to see the trees.  I have been dealing with large megapixels files for a good part of my career, especially shooting Phase One as much as I have.  Over the years I have developed a system that works well for me.  I use Capture one and C1 is fast when it comes to working with larger files.  I shoot into sessions and I am able to move these sessions (folders) easily to new locations.  I do initial edits and move the files I don’t want to use into the trash folder that resides in the session folder.  Jack, you are right as to gaining space.  Many of shoot HDR or do fast frame rate captures.  This all eats up space fast.  Out of all of this, you may need only one or two images.  The hard part is actually trashing images. At times I think of myself as a horder of images.  I know I’ll never need these extra images but I hate to delete images.

    So, to keep it short. If I have done 5 exposure HDRs or fast frame rate captures, I very early on in the process move the unsued or unneeded images off to the trash folder.  Then once I am done all my editing and have the images I want and know for sure I will no longer need these images, I select them and delete them permanently.  It’s hard to do but after a while you get good at it and you’ll feel better as you are saving space.

    I will do a more formal explanation of this sometime in the not so distant future as an article and/or a possible video.

    Kevin Raber
    CEO & Publisher of PhotoPXL.com and Rockhopperworkshops.com

    Kevin Raber
    Kevin Raber
    Keymaster
    Posts: 359
    Re: Sony R7IV File Size, Processing Power, Storage
    Reply #2 on: July 19, 2019 at 11:09 am

    Sometimes you need to get out of the forest to see the trees.  I have been dealing with large megapixels files for a good part of my career, especially shooting Phase One as much as I have.  Over the years I have developed a system that works well for me.  I use Capture one and C1 is fast when it comes to working with larger files.  I shoot into sessions and I am able to move these sessions (folders) easily to new locations.  I do initial edits and move the files I don’t want to use into the trash folder that resides in the session folder.  Jack, you are right as to gaining space.  Many of shoot HDR or do fast frame rate captures.  This all eats up space fast.  Out of all of this, you may need only one or two images.  The hard part is actually trashing images. At times I think of myself as a horder of images.  I know I’ll never need these extra images but I hate to delete images.

    So, to keep it short. If I have done 5 exposure HDRs or fast frame rate captures, I very early on in the process move the unsued or unneeded images off to the trash folder.  Then once I am done all my editing and have the images I want and know for sure I will no longer need these images, I select them and delete them permanently.  It’s hard to do but after a while you get good at it and you’ll feel better as you are saving space.

    I will do a more formal explanation of this sometime in the not so distant future as an article and/or a possible video.

    Kevin Raber
    CEO & Publisher of PhotoPXL.com and Rockhopperworkshops.com

    Steve Baczewski
    Steve Baczewski
    Participant
    Posts: 10
    Re: Sony R7IV File Size, Processing Power, Storage
    Reply #3 on: July 19, 2019 at 11:49 am

    Kevin Do you still use Fuji cameras? From your post on the new A7RIV, I got the idea that your main go to camera is a Sony. Where does Fuji fit in if at all. Steve

    Steve Baczewski
    Steve Baczewski
    Participant
    Posts: 10
    Re: Sony R7IV File Size, Processing Power, Storage
    Reply #4 on: July 19, 2019 at 11:56 am

    Kevin Sounds like your surgery worked. Hope you heal quickly. S

    Kevin Raber
    Kevin Raber
    Keymaster
    Posts: 359
    Re: Sony R7IV File Size, Processing Power, Storage
    Reply #5 on: July 19, 2019 at 11:59 am

    Yes, I still have a full Fuji system.  Debra seems to have hijacked that system though and she loves it.  It fits her kind of photography perfectly.  We still have 2 XT2 and one of those I will have converted to infrared and the other I will sell.  We have the XT3 and XH1.  The Xh1 is nice because it has IBIS.  Plus we have a ton of lenses.  I like the Fuji system too much to sell it and as long as Debra is using it we’ll keep going with it.

    I have a story coming up once I get it finished taking the Fuji system to Japan.  What worked and what didn’t.

     

    Kevin Raber
    CEO & Publisher of PhotoPXL.com and Rockhopperworkshops.com

    Jack Pearson
    Jack Pearson
    Participant
    Posts: 1
    Re: Sony R7IV File Size, Processing Power, Storage
    Reply #6 on: July 19, 2019 at 1:32 pm

    I appreciate the concerns about file size slowing down your workflow. My biggest files are from my A7R3–soon to be from the A7R4. I have modified my workflow to do all of my culling and rating in Fast Raw Viewer. I load It is much faster than culling in Lightroom or Capture One and has the advantage of being able to display a real RAW histogram and show at a glance which parts of the image are in sharp focus–This greatly speeds up culling and rating before ingesting into Lightroom or Capture One.

    Steve Baczewski
    Steve Baczewski
    Participant
    Posts: 10
    Re: Sony R7IV File Size, Processing Power, Storage
    Reply #7 on: July 21, 2019 at 1:22 pm

    My excitement about the new Sony A7RIV is tempered by questions regarding the new sensor. What’s new? I know about the 61 MP but the actually physical sensor size is smaller that the A7RIII. The IV’s sensor is 35.7 x 23.8 and the III’s is 35.9 x 24. It ain’t much but it’s been a long standing thought that squeezing more pixels into the same space doesn’t necessarily get you increased quality. Quality for me is image detail, a increasingly wider and more accurate color gamut, and Increased dynamic range. Is the processor new? Is the BSI improved. Exactly what is being done to this new camera that gives such confidence to so many people that are lining up to purchase it. I currently using the A7RIII and although I am not married to it, it delivers.

    Kevin Raber
    Kevin Raber
    Keymaster
    Posts: 359
    Re: Sony R7IV File Size, Processing Power, Storage
    Reply #8 on: July 21, 2019 at 3:36 pm

    Steve,  As of late I try to trust my eyes and not specs as in the end it’s the eyes that will take the image and finally make it.  I came from the school where we all learned bigger Pixels are better.  And, in many ways they are.  However, with such new technologies as we are seeing with and will be seeing more of with sensors it’s a matter of does it make an image I am happy with.  For the most part every time these days I explore (pixel peep) an image I am astounded at what I am seeing.  There was a time a long time ago if you didn’t shoot at a senors prime ISO you’d expect a lot of noise and artifacts.  Now not so much.

    For example, with my present Sonys the a9 and A7rIII and a7III when shooting I rely on auto ISO  where I can set the upper parameters which are usually around 12,800.  Yep, you heard that right.  Now I can go out and use manual (remember that)?  I set the shutter speed to what I want to say 1500th sec and f/stop to say f/8 and I let the ISO handle the variable.  This type of shooting allows me to shoot actions and know that I will get the shot.  The AF is super fast, the f/stop is just right and the shutter speed will freeze action.  The auto ISO makes instantaneous decisions to correct for changes in light and dark as well as overall brightness in a scene.

    The ISO of 12,800 with the Sony is better than I used to get out of 400 ISO o film back in the day.  I can shoot in twilight, room brightness and all sorts of conditions I wouldn’t have thought of before.

    I could give more examples, but Sony is no slouch when it comes to making sensors and I would expect to see amazing quality out of the sensor even with 61mp, frankly I am not worried, just impatient as I want to get shooting with this camera.

    Kevin Raber
    CEO & Publisher of PhotoPXL.com and Rockhopperworkshops.com

    Steve Baczewski
    Steve Baczewski
    Participant
    Posts: 10
    Re: Sony R7IV File Size, Processing Power, Storage
    Reply #9 on: July 21, 2019 at 4:50 pm

    Kevin  I agree re: seeing is believing, plus it would defy logic that Sony would put out a new camera that doesn’t visibly show a new level of file quality.  I loved your comment about ISO 12,800 being the new ISO 400.  The quality of high ISOs along with better processing software opens another door. You have always embraced new technology, I am a bit slow to go.Thanks for your response. S

    Gerner Christensen
    Gerner Christensen
    Participant
    Posts: 16
    Re: Sony R7IV File Size, Processing Power, Storage
    Reply #10 on: July 25, 2019 at 4:16 am

    This I guess is probably for Adobe users? My present A7R3 uncompressed files I normally convert to DNG resulting in approx 40MB files. Then if I will not print the file, but just save them storred on my disk system. But bbefore storring them finally, I run the files through ACR’s downsampling function set a 24MP. Now our files are not that difficult to provide space on of disks.

    Kevin Raber
    Kevin Raber
    Keymaster
    Posts: 359
    Re: Sony R7IV File Size, Processing Power, Storage
    Reply #11 on: July 26, 2019 at 1:36 pm

    Gerner,  why all the extra steps?  IMO it is best not to do a DNG conversion.  The Sony RAW files. are great and work well with LR, ACR and especially Capture One.  Also, once again in my opinion, I wouldn’t compress files to save space.  Disk space is pretty inexpensive these days

    My routine is to delete extra files not needed like brackets images I am not using, and obviously bad shots.  Then I just want to work from the RAWs.  Remember DNG was created to be there for the day when a RAW processor no longer supported a RAW file.  For now and foreseeable future I don’t see ant reason or benefit of going to a DNG workflow.  In many cases, the camera makers RAW file has files in it that DNG might not capture like black cal or pixel mapping of a sensor.  A DNG file may not allow you to get the most from your ARW file.  If the manufacturer thought DNG would work they would actually save to DNG in their cameras. Leica is one of the only camera makers that come to mind that saves a DNG from their cameras.

    Just saying, save yourself time and steps and stay in the original RAW format and do without compression.

    Kevin Raber
    CEO & Publisher of PhotoPXL.com and Rockhopperworkshops.com

    Harvey Stearn
    Harvey Stearn
    Participant
    Posts: 5
    Re: Sony R7IV File Size, Processing Power, Storage
    Reply #12 on: August 1, 2019 at 11:05 pm

    Jack raises an interesting question, that given a steady march to higher resolution (read more data and larger files), and a parallel objective of higher image quality, at what point do we reach diminishing returns as buyers and users? The diminishing returns probably have less to do with adjusting for increased storage volume, and more to do with whether the cost and effort of achieving “better” images is justified by useable improvement. Companies like Sony can certainly continue to produce technical improvements in sensors and lenses that might continue to motivate us photographers to suffer the brain damage of selling prior models every other year or sooner to buy the latest thing. But, what we gain in useable image size increases may be something that many of us can’t take advantage of except for bragging rights. You almost have to be in the billboard advertising business to justify cameras with 100 and 150 MP sensor outputs.

    Yet, as a longtime landscape photographer, I still tend to feel that 61 MP produced by the Sony A7rM4 camera is not a bridge too far, even though my gallery exhibition days are largely over. In fact, 200 or 300 megabyte files are nothing new to me, as even five years ago, I made many stitched panoramas using a sharp 85mm narrow focus lens to ultimately produce a single image that could have been made by one exposure with a 16mm or a 24mm lens. This has been an effective way to capture more detail as an alternative to more expensive high resolution cameras. But, it’s simpler and quicker to use a higher resolution camera. And so, I was among the very first buyers to order the Sony A7rM4, as I do perceive practical value from this additional resolution which is still very cost-effective.  My objective in capturing landscapes and other content rich subjects is to achieve the greatest sense of reality which corresponds to human vision. Since we see in individual bites of two degrees which our brain stitches together to cover approximately 46 degrees, our reality is based upon substantial resolution. But, there are other aspects of reality besides detail as we well know, which includes color accuracy and contrast control.

    However, if the ultimate objective is duplicating visual reality, then the larger question is where does photography go from here? Do we ultimately wind up making high resolution holistic videos? We won’t know until technology and consumer tastes evolve further. As far as storage space problems go, earlier this year I spent three months reducing my 43,000-image library to 14,000 images and mining older images for un-extracted gold. I found some, and made peace with trashing almost 30,000 failed and duplicate files that I now know were not worth keeping. And, it isn’t to save storage, as that’s cheap as Kevin points out. It’s to save time and effort sorting through my inventory. More about the benefits of this process in another article that I started last month.

    Harvey

    Greg Scott
    Greg Scott
    Participant
    Posts: 7
    Re: Sony R7IV File Size, Processing Power, Storage
    Reply #13 on: August 16, 2019 at 6:42 pm

    I suspect each of has developed preferred methods for conserving disk space. When I travel, I store images on two 2TB SSD’s and sometimes a third copy on my laptop SSD. A few years ago, I took a good many extra images. Switching to a mirrorless format provides a lot of extra information before I take the shot. I should add I almost never use the rear LCD when shooting in daylight. I just can’t see detail clearly like I can from the electronic view finder. So I find that if I take a little extra time in composition, the number of shots I take is usually fairly small. When I am shooting landscapes, I use focus peaking quite often. This only requires sliding the lens setting from autofocus to manual after I have composed. I also use a back button autofocus option so the focus doesn’t change when I take the shot.

    Like Kevin, I use Capture One (aka C1) for all RAW processing. There are two steps I use that help me to eliminate marginal shots. The first is I apply an automatic levels adjustment to all imported images. This helps me to pre-visualize the potential in images. Next I use C1’s focus review option to quickly identify shots out of focus. While this isn’t 100% accurate, 90% of the time I can quickly filter out shots that are out of focus.

    I have ordered the Sony A7R IV chiefly because I am interested in the improvements in continuous autofocus, eye tracking, increase in phase detection points, improved in-body stabalization and a new 5.7 M-dot OLED viewfinder. Over the next 12 months I will be shooting wildlife at least half of the time so the A7R IV and the 200-600mm Sony lens combination will be fairly busy.

    Louis Foubare
    Louis Foubare
    Participant
    Posts: 18
    Re: Sony R7IV File Size, Processing Power, Storage
    Reply #14 on: September 8, 2019 at 3:56 pm

    I am happy to see more pixels on the Sonys, but I think photographers are going to stop seeking more pixels going forward. I own the Fuji GFX 100. To put things in perspective: My Olympus OMD-1E files come in at 14mb. The Fuji files are running 200mb. I use two Promise raid systems (one as backup offsite) to store photographs. Those aren’t cheap. I was coming close to filling mine up, but with the Fuji’s arrival, I got religion. It is easy to go out and shoot 300 images in a day, rate 10 of them 5 star, and forget about the other 290 when you have what seems like infinite disk space. You can’t do that with 200mb files unless you own a hard drive company. I am on a deleting crusade. After I shoot with the Fuji and review the files, I delete immediately. And I have been going back and systematically recovering hard drive space. That will take at least a month of daily deletions.

    As for processing power, I find my basic Mac Pro desktop–the trash can–works fine in terms of moving the sliders in Lightroom or the adjustment layers in Photoshop. I do see signs of bottlenecks elsewhere. With the Fuji files, it takes a good 30 to 45 seconds for the file to open in Photoshop when I select “Edit In” in Lightroom. I have one image that includes 5 Fuji GFX 100 files stitched together. I can’t get it to transfer from Lightroom to Photoshop.

    I use a Canon Prograf 1000 as my printer. When I send files to the printer, things move very slowly in terms of moving the file to the print que.

    I had planned to do this long before the Fuji arrived because some of my Photoshop files use a lot of layers: Today 64GB of RAM arrives. It will replace my 16GB of RAM. We will see if that makes a difference.

    The higher pixel count also has other unexpected ramifications. Last week I posted my first set of GFX 100 issues to my photoblog on Squarespace. I do so as jpgs and in lower quality. Yet, SquareSpace’s system rejected them. Turns out they had to be downsized in terms of the length of the longest side. I also post images to my portfolio on Photoshelter. Those I do as high quality jpegs because I view it as an online backup. I will have to rent more space if I continue that practice, which I will.

    In terms of on-the-road backup. I never found the Cloud to be viable backup solution when faced with hotel WIFI transfer rates. I can’t even get one RAW file to transfer, let along 300. Until 5G is readily available and fully developed in terms of functionality, the largerp Pixel counts will put hotel WIFI further out of reach.

    As for me, I will always be happy to buy better pixels, but in terms of the need, 100 is my upper limit if we are just focused on pixels, and that fact really didn’t drive the Fuji GFX 100 purchase decision. There are people out there a lot smarter than I am when it comes to the science of sensors, but I don’t perceive increasing the number of pixels as the major factor in improving the quality of pixels.

    Jack

    My experience with Fuji 50R files and Phase 100 and 150 files using C1 is terrific with my Mac Pro 2TB SSD master with 64RAM and external TB2 RAID drives. No bottlenecks and even with stitched files it does not bog down like LR.  Give C1 a trial and you might be surprised.

    Lou

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 21 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.