RAW vs. Jpeg in Time-Lapse

Yosemite Tunnel View Milky Way

Yosemite Milky Way
What color is the milky way? For this photo, I shot in RAW and later decided the best temperature was 3829K.

Jpeg or RAW?

This is the great debate among those who create time-lapse. The argument is basically whether you should use the smaller, more manageable jpeg and give up some control, or use the RAW format and reduce the total number of photos you can take while also increasing your post workflow.

What’s the Difference?

When you take a picture with a digital camera, all the available information is compiled into one large RAW format file. This file will keep the information just as it was captured until you decide to compress it. With point and shoot cameras, this information is often automatically compressed immediately after the photo is taken. This newly compressed file is called a jpeg. DSLRs give you the choice of which file to use. Here are the pros and cons of both:


One of the first things new photographers learn is that professionals always use RAW. The same is probably true for professional time-lapse makers. However, while an amateur can easily take a couple hundred portraits or landscapes in RAW, the format becomes trickier as we approach the thousands of shots needed for time-lapse.

The first problem is the size. A photo in RAW might be 23MB while its jpeg version can be 5MB. This means fewer photos will fit on a memory card and they’ll take up more space on your hard drive. Not only are they bigger, but you’ll still have to convert them to jpeg or a similar format before you can turn them into a video. Even after compressing the RAW files, you’ll probably want to keep them in case you need to make a change later. This means the difference per photo on your hard drive can be 28MB for RAW and jpeg vs. 5MB for just jpeg. This number goes up as your megapixel count increases. Faster processors and cheaper storage might end this problem in the future if they outpace the megapixel growth rate in cameras.

As I mentioned above, you’ll need to convert your RAW images once you put them on your computer. There are plenty of free conversion tools, but this is still a time intensive step in the post workflow. I allow a few hours just to batch edit one shoot of RAW files. A recent shoot, which resulted in 1300 photos, took over twelve hours to process and a total of 36GB on my hard drive once converted. The resulting video was about twenty seconds long.

If I had to pick one reason why RAW is inferior to jpeg, it’s this: I can’t tell if a video was shot using RAW images or jpegs. I’d challenge any expert to tell me the difference by only looking at the final video. It’s simply not possible when done well.

However, RAW does have its benefits. The most important reason to shoot with RAW is that it will give you the best looking photos possible. How much better depends on your familiarity with jpegs. Someone with a mastery of their camera and Photoshop won’t see much improvement, but RAW is very forgiving and allows for creative changes after the photos have already been taken. Jpegs offer a much smaller file, but no matter how good the compression, you’ll always lose some information from the photos.

One final benefit of RAW is you can choose to export photos in a number of different formats. I mainly use jpeg, but tiff files are also popular for videos and use in HDR.


These are much smaller files that take up less space and are easier to process into videos because they don’t require as much post work. The main problem with jpegs is you have to use proper settings during your shoot or else go back and try again.

Unlike RAW, jpegs require you set the white balance in camera. You can try to change the color settings later, but this is very hard and gives inferior results. For example, if I accidentally select sunny on a cloudy day as my white balance, or if my camera’s settings are less than perfect, all of my photos will have a blue tint. RAW files let you select and play with WB on your computer, which is where you’ll make the final video. What looks good outside on your camera’s lcd screen might not work on your home computer. If you decide to use jpegs, make sure you manually set your WB with an 18% gray card when possible and lock your settings. Adjust this every time you move the camera and as light conditions change. You’ll also find that choosing a white balance becomes much harder after dark.


If you have big memory cards, a large hard drive, and a fast processor, I’d definitely recommend RAW. My earliest videos were all shot in jpeg and some came out really well but I only use RAW these days. Once you’ve overcome the size limitations, the benefits of RAW far outweigh jpeg, in my opinion. I suspect this debate will end in a few years as more cameras are able to capture in RAW and as computers evolve. If you think I’m wrong or missed an important point, please let me know in the comments.

Related posts:

6 thoughts on “RAW vs. Jpeg in Time-Lapse

  1. HI

    Good points to remember. I have just started on my professional journey as a photographer (at 52!) and RAW does scare me, mainly as I have not tried even one shot in raw on my 7-d. I have been j-pegging it and the results seem fine to me.

    My query has always been–“How much time do you really want to spend tweaking and changing your shots (1,300!!) past a little bit of color saturation, contrast and maybe a little crop here and there?”

    It seems that with such an amazing quality camera, like you say, it is impossible to tell the difference, even if some information is lost post-production….. In theory I understand you have virtually unlimited control over altering the original photo’s digital information with raw. In practice, it seems the smaller sized files work well if you do not plan on changing 12 different things on each photo. A full-page magazine spread could be a jpeg or ‘formerly’ a raw… who would know? Well, the clients and the DP I guess..

    Maybe I will try a raw or two, but how will I know if there has been a ‘difference’.. or an ‘advantage; using raw? Is it only technical?

    Miami Beach

    1. Ray,

      I think the only advantage is technical but I take any advantage I can get. As for saving time in post, I’d say you’re right that the best solution is getting things right in-camera. That said, if there is a problem, RAW is more forgiving. You can sometimes correct for white balance with jpegs but it’s really tough. It also depends on your setup and software. I have a fast computer with Lightroom 4, so it’s not too difficult to do bulk edits such as crop, WB adjust, lens compensation, etc. I edit one photo, apply the settings to all the others, and then walk away for an hour while they export. Thanks for writing.


      1. …Twelve hours is a mighty long time for 20 seconds. o_o

        Based on that alone I’ll use JPEG in most cases for timelapse. That said, for a sunset-night skyline timeplapse I wanna shoot, the white balance shift may call for RAW.

        1. A day-to-night transition definitely needs to be shot in RAW. I’ve done a few and even with the right camera and software they’re still difficult.

  2. Why not shoot small RAW files? This will be RAW but will also take up less space. 4.5M vs 18M on my Canon 7D. Seems like the best of both worlds. Is there something I’m missing?

    1. You’re right, that is an option. The only problem I have with it is you won’t have as large a photo for crops and pans. If space is an issue, this might be a fine compromise. That said, I’ve tried smaller RAW files in the past and wasn’t happy with them. It’s probably my imagination but I feel the final quality is better if you start with full resolution photos.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please type the characters of this captcha image in the input box

Please type the characters of this captcha image in the input box