Long exsposer, BIGGER FILE??

Techno-Geek

Techno-Geek

Boring
Messages
4,124
Name
Tony
Edit My Images
Yes
Slighty confused, just been told that longer exsposer makes the picture file bigger? is that true?

Tony
 
There's would possibly be some fluctuation to the 'normal' filesize from a certain camera, as there are with subjects that contain more colours or tones, but it wouldn't be dramatically different.
 
I can't see how it would
Did whoever told you give a reason/source of the info?
 
Sometimes, one might expect there to be more noise in a longer exposure. This could be one factor in an increase in file size.
 
The temptation to post a sarcastic answer was almost overwhelming, but in the spirit of Christmas I shall refrain :D

No - exposure time makes b****r all difference. The only thing that affects the file size is the amount of colour and detail in the image, especially with compressed files such as jpeg.
 
Yep, mr pants is on the right track. Long (seconds) exposure are more likely to produce noise as the sensor heats up which in turn will lead to larger files due to the way the compression works. In reality you'd only see a big difference if you're shooting plain colours, if there's much detail in the shot I doubt the difference would be much at all.
 
Could I be pedantic and say yes exposure time does make a difference. If you under expose significantly, your image will have fewer (or no) colour tones and therefore use fewer bites. So if you want to get more pics on your memory card you need to under expose them all. They will look complete crap of course but you'll get loads on if that's what's important to you;)
 
IT will make the filesize larger yes, due to the noise.

It'll also take a lot longer for the camera to write to card, only because of the noise reducing algorithms that the camera has got to perform before saving to card.
 
Don't white pixels take up more space than black? :-)
 
Thanks everyone, just tried it and it makes 1kb or 2kb difference on my 400D

Tony
 
I don't think exposure makes much difference to file size (not unless its completely overexposed, or underexposed).

However, I have noticed that my camera is much heavier to carry when my memory card is full :lol:

Mark
 
I understand that some images will compress to slightly different size files, but this cannot effect Raw files sizes, can it? That's down to pixels, nothing else I believe?

Richard.
 
So panoramic images are easier to carry if you have two people then even though they dont use more space? one each end?
 
Ah but if you use the rule of thirds the weight will be down one end so you'll need somene stronger down that end.
 
badgerbaiter said:
Not sure about file size on the card but when I've taken a 10 sec exposure ISO 100 it takes a long time to transfer from the buffer to the card. So surely the file size is bigger?
Click to expand...

I think that's the time it takes for the noise suppression processing to work its magic, which can only start after the exposure is completed of course.

Richard.
 
it is dependent on what colors in the picture
 
I expose to save the light, not conserve bytes. It is what it is.
The low cost of HC cards should mean storage is not an issue.
 
badgerbaiter said:
Not sure about file size on the card but when I've taken a 10 sec exposure ISO 100 it takes a long time to transfer from the buffer to the card. So surely the file size is bigger?
Click to expand...

I don't know what it's called in Canonland, but on Nikon "Long Exposure NR" takes a 2nd exposure of equal length to the 1st but with the mirror down. That exposure is then subtracted from the 1st exposure as certain types of noise will be the same between the two photos (hot pixels, amp glow, etc.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top