DNG vs. PEF

Anvh · 11-13-2012, 11:19 AM

Originally posted by dosdan

One "advantage" is that it offers a lossy version of raw.

DNG also has Lossy these days

riff · 11-13-2012, 12:20 PM

Why would one want lossy raw, that's what jpegs are.

PEF and DNG are just containers. I use DNG, it is a standard of sorts.

Anvh · 11-13-2012, 01:51 PM

Originally posted by riff

Why would one want lossy raw, that's what jpegs are.

Instead of saying something like that why not look it up first what it actually delivers?

riff · 11-13-2012, 02:16 PM

Originally posted by Anvh

Instead of saying something like that why not look it up first what it actually delivers?

Because I don't want lossy negatives.

**boriscleto** · 11-13-2012, 02:28 PM

Originally posted by riff

Because I don't want lossy negatives.

Nikon only has it because it's been there since the D2 and D200. Every camera since the D70 has had it, the D50 didn't. I don't see why anyone would want to use it now that 32GB of flash memory is like $20. Nikon has been offering lossless compression since the D3/D300.

Anvh · 11-13-2012, 02:41 PM

Thats no reason to say something that isn't true.

Anvh · 11-13-2012, 02:42 PM

Originally posted by boriscleto

Nikon only has it because it's been there since the D2 and D200. Every camera since the D70 has had it, the D50 didn't. I don't see why anyone would want to use it now that 32GB of flash memory is like $20. Nikon has been offering lossless compression since the D3/D300.

It's not an alternative to RAW, it's an alternative to JPEG.
If you look at it that way it makes more sense.

riff · 11-13-2012, 03:38 PM

Originally posted by Anvh

Thats no reason to say something that isn't true.

I assume this is directed at me. If so please elaborate else disregard.

**wtlwdwgn** · 11-14-2012, 11:24 AM

Adobe has added a lossy DNG option so that users can choose to have a smaller file size. Don't know much about it and won't choose to use it myself but it's supposed to be less lossy than jpegs. More info here.

JeffP3456 · 11-14-2012, 11:02 PM

I was just wondering about this myself! I have always used DNG and don't really see much if any diff in programs like Aperture or DxO but AFAIK a true raw file stores the raw sensor data whereas according to Adobe a DNG file is basically a Tiff file with standardized metadata. So the camera is internally processing the raw data and creating a Tiff file which means that whatever sensor data is not logged into the metadata is lost.
I think I agree with a previous poster who said that DNG is really a lossless JPG replacement more than a raw format.

Still I plan to continue using DNG but I wonder what if anything is getting lost forever. (other than my sanity, of course)!

**boriscleto** · 11-15-2012, 06:26 AM

From Wikipedia...

Quote:

Technical summary

A DNG file always contains data for one main image, plus metadata, and optionally contains at least one JPEG preview.[2] It normally has the extension "dng" or "DNG".

DNG conforms to TIFF/EP and is structured according to TIFF. DNG supports various formats of metadata, (including Exif metadata, XMP metadata, IPTC metadata), and specifies a set of mandated metadata.[28]

DNG is both a raw image format and a format that supports "non-raw", or partly processed, images.[2] The latter (non-raw) format is known as "Linear DNG".[31] Linear DNG is still scene-referred and can still benefit from many of the operations typically performed by a raw converter, such as white balance, the application of a camera color profile, HDR compositing, etc. All images that can be supported as raw images can also be supported as Linear DNG. Images from the Foveon X3 sensor or similar, hence especially Sigma cameras, can only be supported as Linear DNG.

DNG can contain raw image data from sensors with various configurations of color filter array (CFA). These include: conventional Bayer filters, using 3 colors and rectangular pixels; 4 color CFAs, for example the RGBE filter used in the Sony DSC-F828; rectangular (non-square) pixels, for example as used in the Nikon D1X; and offset sensors (for example with octagonal pixels) such as Super CCD sensors of various types, as used in various Fujifilm cameras. (Or combinations of these if necessary). DNG specifies metadata describing these individual parameters; this is one significant extension to TIFF/EP.

When used in a CinemaDNG movie clip, each frame is encoded using the above DNG image format. The clip's image stream can then be stored in one of two formats: either as video essence using frame-based wrapping in an MXF file, or as a sequence of DNG files in a specified file directory.

Anvh · 11-15-2012, 10:32 AM

Originally posted by JeffP3456

I was just wondering about this myself! I have always used DNG and don't really see much if any diff in programs like Aperture or DxO but AFAIK a true raw file stores the raw sensor data whereas according to Adobe a DNG file is basically a Tiff file with standardized metadata. So the camera is internally processing the raw data and creating a Tiff file which means that whatever sensor data is not logged into the metadata is lost.
I think I agree with a previous poster who said that DNG is really a lossless JPG replacement more than a raw format.

Still I plan to continue using DNG but I wonder what if anything is getting lost forever. (other than my sanity, of course)!

You're mixing things here.

First of ALL raw formats are based on TIFF.

About the JPEG part that was about lossy DNG/RAW in which case we arent really talking about RAW then anymore but a different format that is between JPEG and RAW in.
So what Riff is saying; that JPEG and lossy RAW are the same thing is not correct.

Riff instead of me elaborating this, why not try google first.
I'm not a school teacher.

riff · 11-15-2012, 07:04 PM

Originally posted by Anvh

So what Riff is saying; that JPEG and lossy RAW are the same thing is not correct.
Riff instead of me elaborating this, why not try google first.
I'm not a school teacher

I didn't say JPEG and lossy RAW were the same thing I said a JPEG is a (form of) lossy RAW.
As far as elaborating I wanted you to elaborate on what I said that apparently so incensed you, not what a lossy RAW is. I don't care in detail what a lossy RAW is. "Lossy RAW" tells me enough. Don't want it, don't need it, don't think it is a good idea.

Quote:

One "advantage" is that it offers a lossy version of raw.

I replied to this, as I don't see it to be an advantage at all. Buy a spendy camera and then set it to take images that are less then the camera is capable of, yeah great feature that! Oh but wait I can do that by shooting JPEG. <yawn>

Anyway you can have the last shot, better things to do then split hairs with you especially over this.

JeffP3456 · 11-15-2012, 10:07 PM

so if raw files store the pre-demosaiced sensor info etc, how come some of my k5 raw files get as big as 24Mb?

What is taking up that much extra space?

Anvh · 11-16-2012, 08:55 AM

But JPEG's arent a form of Lossy RAW and you're applying that they are both roughly the same thing.
Sure they are both lossy with the same compression but that's where it ends the similarities.

As for the rest, if the word LOSSY makes you already lose interest then so be it but why on earth make a statement while you don't know any thing about it for the rest?

Well it's hard to know/see the advantages if you don't know anything about lossy RAW besides that's it is lossy...

11-14-2012, 11:02 PM	#40
JeffP3456 Forum Member Join Date: May 2012 Location: Palm Beach County, Florida Photos: Gallery Posts: 64	is DNG really raw? I was just wondering about this myself! I have always used DNG and don't really see much if any diff in programs like Aperture or DxO but AFAIK a true raw file stores the raw sensor data whereas according to Adobe a DNG file is basically a Tiff file with standardized metadata. So the camera is internally processing the raw data and creating a Tiff file which means that whatever sensor data is not logged into the metadata is lost. I think I agree with a previous poster who said that DNG is really a lossless JPG replacement more than a raw format. Still I plan to continue using DNG but I wonder what if anything is getting lost forever. (other than my sanity, of course)!

11-15-2012, 10:07 PM	#44
JeffP3456 Forum Member Join Date: May 2012 Location: Palm Beach County, Florida Photos: Gallery Posts: 64	one last question so if raw files store the pre-demosaiced sensor info etc, how come some of my k5 raw files get as big as 24Mb? What is taking up that much extra space?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
K7 DNG vs PEF	GoremanX	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	28	05-16-2010 09:05 PM
PEF vs DNG	WerTicus	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	8	11-24-2009 11:02 AM
PEF or DNG	jackbullet	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	7	08-10-2009 12:31 PM
PEF or DNG	Nestos	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	14	07-08-2009 12:16 PM
DNG vs PEF?	photog	Pentax DSLR Discussion	17	07-07-2009 12:24 PM

11-13-2012, 11:19 AM	#31
Anvh Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,616	Originally posted by dosdan One "advantage" is that it offers a lossy version of raw. DNG also has Lossy these days

11-13-2012, 12:20 PM	#32
riff Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Photos: Albums Posts: 1,408	Why would one want lossy raw, that's what jpegs are. PEF and DNG are just containers. I use DNG, it is a standard of sorts.

11-13-2012, 01:51 PM	#33
Anvh Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,616	Originally posted by riff Why would one want lossy raw, that's what jpegs are. Instead of saying something like that why not look it up first what it actually delivers?

11-13-2012, 02:16 PM	#34
riff Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Photos: Albums Posts: 1,408	Originally posted by Anvh Instead of saying something like that why not look it up first what it actually delivers? Because I don't want lossy negatives.

11-13-2012, 02:28 PM	#35
boriscleto Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: North Syracuse, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,475	Originally posted by riff Because I don't want lossy negatives. Nikon only has it because it's been there since the D2 and D200. Every camera since the D70 has had it, the D50 didn't. I don't see why anyone would want to use it now that 32GB of flash memory is like $20. Nikon has been offering lossless compression since the D3/D300.

11-13-2012, 02:41 PM	#36
Anvh Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,616	Thats no reason to say something that isn't true.

11-13-2012, 02:42 PM	#37
Anvh Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,616	Originally posted by boriscleto Nikon only has it because it's been there since the D2 and D200. Every camera since the D70 has had it, the D50 didn't. I don't see why anyone would want to use it now that 32GB of flash memory is like $20. Nikon has been offering lossless compression since the D3/D300. It's not an alternative to RAW, it's an alternative to JPEG. If you look at it that way it makes more sense.

11-13-2012, 03:38 PM	#38
riff Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Photos: Albums Posts: 1,408	Originally posted by Anvh Thats no reason to say something that isn't true. I assume this is directed at me. If so please elaborate else disregard.

11-14-2012, 11:24 AM	#39
wtlwdwgn Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Billings, MT Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,838	Adobe has added a lossy DNG option so that users can choose to have a smaller file size. Don't know much about it and won't choose to use it myself but it's supposed to be less lossy than jpegs. More info here.

11-15-2012, 06:26 AM	#41
boriscleto Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: North Syracuse, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,475	From Wikipedia... Quote: Technical summary A DNG file always contains data for one main image, plus metadata, and optionally contains at least one JPEG preview.[2] It normally has the extension "dng" or "DNG". DNG conforms to TIFF/EP and is structured according to TIFF. DNG supports various formats of metadata, (including Exif metadata, XMP metadata, IPTC metadata), and specifies a set of mandated metadata.[28] DNG is both a raw image format and a format that supports "non-raw", or partly processed, images.[2] The latter (non-raw) format is known as "Linear DNG".[31] Linear DNG is still scene-referred and can still benefit from many of the operations typically performed by a raw converter, such as white balance, the application of a camera color profile, HDR compositing, etc. All images that can be supported as raw images can also be supported as Linear DNG. Images from the Foveon X3 sensor or similar, hence especially Sigma cameras, can only be supported as Linear DNG. DNG can contain raw image data from sensors with various configurations of color filter array (CFA). These include: conventional Bayer filters, using 3 colors and rectangular pixels; 4 color CFAs, for example the RGBE filter used in the Sony DSC-F828; rectangular (non-square) pixels, for example as used in the Nikon D1X; and offset sensors (for example with octagonal pixels) such as Super CCD sensors of various types, as used in various Fujifilm cameras. (Or combinations of these if necessary). DNG specifies metadata describing these individual parameters; this is one significant extension to TIFF/EP. When used in a CinemaDNG movie clip, each frame is encoded using the above DNG image format. The clip's image stream can then be stored in one of two formats: either as video essence using frame-based wrapping in an MXF file, or as a sequence of DNG files in a specified file directory.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-15-2012, 10:32 AM	#42
Anvh Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,616	Originally posted by JeffP3456 I was just wondering about this myself! I have always used DNG and don't really see much if any diff in programs like Aperture or DxO but AFAIK a true raw file stores the raw sensor data whereas according to Adobe a DNG file is basically a Tiff file with standardized metadata. So the camera is internally processing the raw data and creating a Tiff file which means that whatever sensor data is not logged into the metadata is lost. I think I agree with a previous poster who said that DNG is really a lossless JPG replacement more than a raw format. Still I plan to continue using DNG but I wonder what if anything is getting lost forever. (other than my sanity, of course)! You're mixing things here. First of ALL raw formats are based on TIFF. About the JPEG part that was about lossy DNG/RAW in which case we arent really talking about RAW then anymore but a different format that is between JPEG and RAW in. So what Riff is saying; that JPEG and lossy RAW are the same thing is not correct. Riff instead of me elaborating this, why not try google first. I'm not a school teacher.

11-15-2012, 07:04 PM	#43
riff Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Photos: Albums Posts: 1,408	Originally posted by Anvh So what Riff is saying; that JPEG and lossy RAW are the same thing is not correct. Riff instead of me elaborating this, why not try google first. I'm not a school teacher I didn't say JPEG and lossy RAW were the same thing I said a JPEG is a (form of) lossy RAW. As far as elaborating I wanted you to elaborate on what I said that apparently so incensed you, not what a lossy RAW is. I don't care in detail what a lossy RAW is. "Lossy RAW" tells me enough. Don't want it, don't need it, don't think it is a good idea. Quote: One "advantage" is that it offers a lossy version of raw. I replied to this, as I don't see it to be an advantage at all. Buy a spendy camera and then set it to take images that are less then the camera is capable of, yeah great feature that! Oh but wait I can do that by shooting JPEG. <yawn> Anyway you can have the last shot, better things to do then split hairs with you especially over this.

11-16-2012, 08:55 AM	#45
Anvh Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,616	But JPEG's arent a form of Lossy RAW and you're applying that they are both roughly the same thing. Sure they are both lossy with the same compression but that's where it ends the similarities. As for the rest, if the word LOSSY makes you already lose interest then so be it but why on earth make a statement while you don't know any thing about it for the rest? Well it's hard to know/see the advantages if you don't know anything about lossy RAW besides that's it is lossy...