Curious question about Lightroom previews and Camera Raw Cache
WilderW Dec 29, 2011 10:40 AMPosted in the Flickr Lightroom Group as well:
I have noticed something about the Lightroom (3.6) previews and Camera Raw cache that have me puzzled.
I create a brand new empty catalog and purge the Camera Raw Cache.
Then I import ONE Nikon RAW (NEF) file with dimensions 2592 x 3872 (10 megapixels - 10,036,224 pixels).
Next I export that NEF file to an uncompressed 8-bit TIFF file. You would expect the size of that TIFF file to be roughly 30 megabytes (10 megapixels x 3 bytes per RGB value) and in fact the TIFF file is 30,135,830 bytes in size. If you export the same TIFF file but specify ZIP compression the resulting file size is 10,834,038 bytes. Obviously the compression obtained here is going to be highly specific to the image but so far no surprises.
During import I specify render 1:1 previews and I go into Loupe mode and view the entire image at 1:1 size. I also visit the develop module and do a bunch of manipulations on the image but no cropping.
At the conclusion of all of that I exit from Lightroom and examine the size of the Camera Raw Cache folder as well as the Lightroom previews folder. It would be my expectation that the previews folder should have a rendered full image and that the Camera Raw Cache should also have a rendered form of the raw data. What would you expect the size of those respective folders to be?
In fact - in my trials the previews folder totals a mere 1,675,264 bytes and the Camera Raw Cache which contains one DAT file corresponding to the one cached image is merely 267,374 bytes. This does not seem like nearly enough bits to preserve the rendered image nor is there a full size image tucked away in the actual catalog either - that file is not large enough to contain that. And yet I can use Loupe mode at 1:1 size and move from image to image with no loading delays (even when importing multiple files).
I'm wondering if I've missed something obvious in my analysis and if not, whether someone might care to speculate as to what magic Adobe is practicing here. Even if we grant them some special algorithm to compress their previews I don't see how they can achieve a compression so much greater than the ZIP-compressed TIFF file achieves.
And for those that might think to ask - I've repeated these experiments with multiple raw images and on both the PC and MAC platforms.
I look forward to some answers or interesting theories or perhaps someone might replicate the experiment and report findings.


