• Kairos@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 days ago

      Well, you can just calculate the maximum number of bytes per image to see what the actual capacity is. 128M pixels * 3 bytes per pixel is 384 Megabytes. Should go down to 100 each after JPEG compression.

      • Mose13@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        5 days ago

        If you’re spending this much on a camera and only shooting JPEG, what are you doing lol

          • Mose13@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 days ago

            Ahhh I forgot about Fuji’s film simulations. But I still can’t imagine you spend more than $5k on a camera and use jpegs.

          • Mose13@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            5 days ago

            Most “lossless” compressions (e.g. PNG) wouldn’t work here, because they throw away a lot of extra data you get raw from the camera sensor. Hence photographers using their camera’s “raw” file type to retain as much data as possible. A PNG may capture everything you as a consumer sees in an image, but raw file types will retain extra information you can use when editing a photo.