Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-06-2016, 10:27 AM   #16
Pentaxian
Barry Pearson's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Stockport
Posts: 870
QuoteOriginally posted by biz-engineer Quote
Indeed, your experiment give some hint that raws aren't raws per say, it the file size isn't fixed. Interesting. Does it means the DNG could be read as a JPEG is the files header was modified to look like a JPEG?
No. A DNG file doesn't resemble a JPEG file in the slightest degree!

It means that "lossless JPEG" really, really, can compress data without loss. Repeat, without loss!

06-06-2016, 11:08 AM   #17
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 115
Structurally, DNG is a variant of TIFF. As are other RAW file formats (PEF, CR2 and whatsernames). TIFF is just a container, the data fields within it are what makes the difference.

The thing here is that Pentax uses lossless compression. That's nothing magical, but quite normal, as your computer's using ZIP, 7Z, RAR, DMG or whatever else kind of compressed file. All these compression variants are lossless, and so is the variant used by Pentax on their DNG and PEF files.
06-06-2016, 01:01 PM   #18
Pentaxian
Barry Pearson's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Stockport
Posts: 870
QuoteOriginally posted by funktionsfrei Quote
Structurally, DNG is a variant of TIFF. As are other RAW file formats (PEF, CR2 and whatsernames). TIFF is just a container, the data fields within it are what makes the difference.

The thing here is that Pentax uses lossless compression. That's nothing magical, but quite normal, as your computer's using ZIP, 7Z, RAR, DMG or whatever else kind of compressed file. All these compression variants are lossless, and so is the variant used by Pentax on their DNG and PEF files.
For interest, DNG is based on the ISO raw file format ISO 12234-2, also known as TIFF/EP. (Which in turn was based on TIFF).

ISO screwed up that standard, defining too little metadata and not making enough metadata mandatory. DNG adds in the extra metadata required. (ISO have been considering how to turn DNG into a revised ISO standard for years! They don't appear to be making much progress).

DNG uses "lossless JPEG" compression. I don't know what PEF uses. (Is that "Lossless JPEG" too?)
06-06-2016, 02:54 PM   #19
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: GMT +10
Photos: Albums
Posts: 10,576
QuoteOriginally posted by biz-engineer Quote
If not, then the raw is processed and can be any recipe chosen by the manufacturer to meet their goal.
Every stereo MP3 recorded at the same bit-rate and of 3 minutes duration is not an identical tune ...

---------- Post added 2016-06-07 at 08:06 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Na Horuk Quote
all modern DSLRs have some level of raw-cooking
Indeed. If you look at the image data pipeline from lens into camera and into SD card, the data is 'cooked' by about 15 chips and codecs in the pipeline. Some data is even 'cooked' on-sensor.

Eg Exmor:


It's not a 'pure' data pathway by any means. It is electronics, after all.


Last edited by rawr; 06-06-2016 at 03:12 PM.
06-06-2016, 11:28 PM   #20
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,812
QuoteOriginally posted by rawr Quote
Some data is even 'cooked' on-sensor.
Looks like there is some noise reduction on ADC bitstream post processing (decimation?) , also removes image details.

---------- Post added 07-06-16 at 08:31 ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Barry Pearson Quote
It means that "lossless JPEG" really, really, can compress data without loss. Repeat, without loss!
Ah ah I know, but I honestly simply haven't reverse engineered a DNG, nor JPEG and I don't work for Ricoh, so I can be sure if it is lossless or not.
06-06-2016, 11:52 PM   #21
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,148
QuoteOriginally posted by Tjompen1968 Quote
I was wondering why the K-1 raw files are about 45 MB when the Nikon D800s files are 75MB...
Same Image and ISO:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=pe...dget=1&x=0&y=0

Pentax 36 Mpx: 42,7 MB
Nikon 36 Mpx: 74,4 MB
Canon 50 MPx: 63,9 MB
Sony 42 MPx: 41,4 MB

Sony uses the most aggressive compression obviously (even in a model with hopefully now lossless compression).
Canon seems to use similar algorithms as Pentax.
Nikon seems to use a little weird choice (double size of Sony).
So we have anything between one Byte and two Bytes per pixel.

And all four produce very similar results (for the minority who care about results).
06-07-2016, 06:02 AM   #22
Pentaxian
Na Horuk's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Slovenia, probably
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 10,315
QuoteOriginally posted by beholder3 Quote
And all four produce very similar results (for the minority who care about results).
And I think this is exactly the point. Differences at this point are pretty much negligible. You get greater differences if you use good settings/techniques (vs bad or automatic), if you use better PP programs and techniques. Sure, there are some differences between different sensors, but these are getting more and more narrow; until you start comparing them to Foveon or something exotic like that.
If one looks at a raw file with zero modifications, no NR, no sharpening, no added contrast (all of which get applied automatically by most PP).. then the file looks boring. It doesn't look like what the photographer saw. It doesn't look like what the audience wants to see.

I remember reading an article that claimed that it is very smart to use an algorithm that applies NR and compresses data at the same time, as you lost practically no detail, but the image looks much better, and is far easier to store. This article even argued to use a lower bit rate, since most extra bits only contain noise. Only "expand" to 16bit once you are on computer and starting to do PP. I don't know how correct this article is, but it certainly raised some good points
06-08-2016, 01:03 AM   #23
Pentaxian
Barry Pearson's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Stockport
Posts: 870
QuoteOriginally posted by biz-engineer Quote
Ah ah I know, but I honestly simply haven't reverse engineered a DNG, nor JPEG and I don't work for Ricoh, so I can be sure if it is lossless or not.
Fair comment.

I have published lots about the contents of DNG files. Both from reading the specification, and from my own examination of the contents using hex editors, etc:

(Barry Pearson's) DNG - Digital Negative format

Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
data, dslr, files, full frame, full-frame, k-1, k1, loss, pentax k-1, pipeline, post
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
645Z raw file size MKD Pentax Medium Format 4 05-31-2015 11:28 PM
Pentax Q Raw file size huge LightBug Pentax Compact Cameras 6 09-24-2014 11:45 PM
File Size for Raw john mood Pentax DSLR Discussion 23 01-04-2012 12:46 PM
K7 RAW file size candgpics Pentax DSLR Discussion 9 04-07-2010 09:43 PM
Raw/DNG File Size Ralph Wagner Pentax DSLR Discussion 3 06-04-2008 05:55 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:43 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top