Geoff
VIP Member
That's pretty sad for a V12 lol6.0L V12 actually
400hp!
*Official* Post Your Pictures Thread
- Thread starter computerhakk
- Start date
Perkomate
Active Member
Probably be detuned a fair bit for reliability though, also depending on the region it's from it could have different air/fuel maps for lower quality fuel.
G80FTW
Active Member
Right. You have to remember, this was 1997. Back then, this car was built to compete with the bentley and rolls royce of the era. None of which were really "sports" cars. They are pure luxury cars.
And Id like to think that it was "detuned" for reliability since its Mercedes but I think thats probably not the case. I think that when Mercedes originally introduced this engine power was not their main goal to begin with. The 6.0L V12 Mercedes brought to the table seems to have been purposefully built to be quiet and smooth. The kind of smooth that a V6 or V8 could not have offered. It is still to this day considered one of the smoothest engines made.
That said, a 0-60 time of 5.4 seconds in a car that weighs over 5,000 lbs in 1997 was a feat of its own really. So for its era, this was a very powerful car. Lets not forget the immense torque this car has.... its really insane. Id imagine if I chained it up to my house I could relocate my house to a more desirable location with ease
Last edited:
trewyn15
New Member
G80FTW
Active Member
Because my D3200 has a 24 MP sensor and your D3100 has a 14 MP sensor. that's why.
No i meant larger than your jpegs. You said they are like 5mb larger right?
My RAW's vary in size and can be as small as 16MB or go as high as 35MB.
G80FTW
Active Member
Yea but Im talking about the RAW files being larger than the JPEG files. They should be identical in size right? Mine are. They might differ by a few kb but they are pretty much the same.
I don't know. I've never shot JPEG with my camera. Though looking through my conversions, the JPEG's are about half of the RAW. JPEG's are normally much smaller than RAW because it compresses the photo and strips a lot of data out, whereas RAW captures everything and saves everything. That's why you can take a 4GB card and shoot far more JPEG's than RAW's.
G80FTW
Active Member
Hmm. Never had them differ that much in size on my camera...
But anyway, been reading alot about shooting JPG versus RAW. Its an interesting read:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm
Its a bit dated, and this guy is obviously putting down RAW as much as he possibly can praising JPG but I think he does have a few good points.
While I do like processing my images, perhaps I should start learning to get perfect shots in JPG and see how I like it. When it warms up this spring I will do just that. As from what he is saying, letting the camera process the image could result in slightly better image quality. Dont know what truth there is to that, I have not really paid attention to the few JPGs I have shot with this camera.
EDIT: I just shot both RAW and JPG and yes they are half the size. I guess I never noticed.
The RAW file, with no editing done at all:
The JPG that the camera gave me also with no editing:
Unless I got the 2 mixed up, after resizing the JPG from the camera is 200kb larger.
Last edited:
RAW is usually always a bit bigger than JPEG. Even once the JPEG has been processed.
They might be the same size for your D3100 which has a 14 MP sensor, but for my D3200 with a 24 MP sensor, the RAWs still end up a little larger.
My JPEGs are typically between 15-20MB. My RAWs are typically 20-25MB.
You can see the difference in your pictures, that the lighting was preserved in the RAW photo, whereas the JPEG tried to capture more of the light.
G80FTW
Active Member
Yea. In that link i posted it said that shadows have higher quality in jpgs than raws. Im not sure if thats true, but going off those 2 pictures id prefer raw. Ill do more playing around when it warms up. The question is can my camera process the images with a higher quality than photoshop.
Geoff
VIP Member
RAW is always bigger. RAW files are uncompressed, while JPG uses compression. Mine are typically twice the size of the JPG equivalents.
G80FTW
Active Member
Yea I got that now haha. I dont know what I was looking at before, perhaps I had my camera setup weird but when I first started shooting I could have swore both files were of identical size. But they arent now.
Geoff
VIP Member
You should always shoot in RAW though, it allows much greater flexibility to edit the photo in post.
Yeah I'm with Geoff on this. I shoot in RAW+Jpeg so if I don't want to edit the pics I still have a JPEG version I can send or use online.
If you're not familiar with RAW editing yet you should take the time to get used to it, it really just is a question of time as you'll understand how it works by moving the cursors and finding out what it does. And you can find a lot of help online. I use UFRaw, it also works with GIMP but I use as a standalone software.
If you're not familiar with RAW editing yet you should take the time to get used to it, it really just is a question of time as you'll understand how it works by moving the cursors and finding out what it does. And you can find a lot of help online. I use UFRaw, it also works with GIMP but I use as a standalone software.
Geoff
VIP Member
The only reason I started using RAW + JPEG was because I can now use a USB OTG cable to connect my camera to my phone to post photos online instantly without have to download them to my computer first, but the phone only reads JPEG's.
Kornowski
VIP Member
People still shoot in JPEG? It's an output format, I'd never consider shooting in it unless for a timelapse possibly, when space was an issue.
I remember shooting a timelapse and then spending the rest of the day snapping away, only to notice when I got home that I'd left it on JPEG. Gutted.
Here's a few from the beach this afternoon
I remember shooting a timelapse and then spending the rest of the day snapping away, only to notice when I got home that I'd left it on JPEG. Gutted.
Here's a few from the beach this afternoon