PEF quality not the same as DNG... What the?? and jpeg :-(

AVANT · 10-15-2007, 09:07 AM

Originally posted by m8o

wondering actually, isn't it no compression? A 10 Mega-pix RAW image is around 10 32-bit Mega-bytes in size, with some overhead for hearder inf o etc... no? It's what I thought anyway.

If there was no compression involved, the filesizes wouldn't vary as much as they do. On my average take, I range from 9-11MB, occassionally higher. DNGs (which are not compressed) are consistently 16MB iirc? The header info will have a minimal impact on file size. Think of how much text that would need before even making 250k. I sure as heck don't see that much information.

So I'm fairly sure that it's losslessly compressed.

Tom M · 10-17-2007, 09:54 AM

Using non-Pentax software (AKA: Adobe)

A DNG will process sharper than a PEF

This is old news.. Since the first reviews of the K10D came out this has been known and well documented.

Tom M · 10-17-2007, 10:14 AM

Also, file size has nothing to do with anything.. PEF and DNG are both lossless and the RAW data contained in both is IDENTICAL!

The reason for the larger file sizes is simply the compression technique. Pentax chooses a compression technique that allows more shots per card. Adobe on the other hand, well, they don't make cameras so their objectives are slightly different.

As I said before, there will be NO difference in image quality between DNG and PEF when processing with Pentax software. There WILL be a difference when processing PEF and DNG with Adobe products. The Adobe products produce sharper results when converting DNG,.

So, let's recap here..

If you're using Pentax software, use the PEF file format as you will get more shots per card.

If you're using Adobe software, decide whether you want that small amount of sharpness or more card capacity.

Lastly, if you allow the Pentax software to default process your PEF images, the results will be identical to the jpeg's produced by the camera. The obvious benefit here is that with the PEF file you have far more freedom to manipulate the image beyond the default processing allowing you to possibly produce better images.

carpents · 10-17-2007, 11:23 AM

Originally posted by Tom M

Using non-Pentax software (AKA: Adobe)

A DNG will process sharper than a PEF

This is old news.. Since the first reviews of the K10D came out this has been known and well documented.

I've read many reviews of the K10D, and have never, ever heard such a thing. PEF files are sharper than JPEGs, not competing RAW formats. If you have a link to another opinion, it would come in handy for this thread. The OP has already repeated his test and gotten inverse results, which would nullify the original hypothesis.

ChrisA · 10-17-2007, 11:26 AM

Originally posted by Tom M

There WILL be a difference when processing PEF and DNG with Adobe products. The Adobe products produce sharper results when converting DNG,.

I couldn't tell the difference between the DNG and the PEF in my experiment, examples given earlier in this thread.

I used CS3, and its default actions importing the RAW files in each case. No image mods, just conversion of a 100% crop from each to max quality JPG.

What is it you have to do to get it to make the DNG sharper?

Tom M · 10-17-2007, 01:18 PM

Originally posted by carpents

I've read many reviews of the K10D, and have never, ever heard such a thing. PEF files are sharper than JPEGs, not competing RAW formats. If you have a link to another opinion, it would come in handy for this thread. The OP has already repeated his test and gotten inverse results, which would nullify the original hypothesis.

Well, not only has this been discussed, proved and beaten like a dead horse but, it's true. A DNG, for whatever reason, produces sharper images when processed through Adobe than a PEF does.. I know, I too was wondering whether it was true or not but, I can assure you that if you do a 'newspaper' shot and process both photos in Adobe, the DNG will have better sharpness. And, I believe dpreview may have been the one to first point this out..

The answer to this (it appears to me) is that Adobe Camera RAW must produce a JPEG that is substantially sharper than the RAW image captured by the camera...

dkittle · 10-17-2007, 01:21 PM

Hey Tom M,

Is there any word on whether a PEF processed with Pentax software is as sharp as a DNG processed with Adobe software?

Tom M · 10-17-2007, 01:27 PM

Well dkittle, Since the resulting images are jpegs (you don't send RAW files to the developer or post RAW files on the web) and the Adobe Raw produces a sharper jpeg than that of a Pentax Raw file..

The way you guys have been testing this is flawed..

Shoot the exact same scene in DNG and then in PEF.

Process the PEF file through Pentax and output a jpeg.

Process the DNG file through Adobe and output a jpeg..

Compare the two jpegs. The Adobe jpeg will be sharper..

ChrisA · 10-17-2007, 02:29 PM

Originally posted by Tom M

Well dkittle, Since the resulting images are jpegs (you don't send RAW files to the developer or post RAW files on the web) and the Adobe Raw produces a sharper jpeg than that of a Pentax Raw file..

The way you guys have been testing this is flawed..

Shoot the exact same scene in DNG and then in PEF.

Process the PEF file through Pentax and output a jpeg.

Process the DNG file through Adobe and output a jpeg..

Compare the two jpegs. The Adobe jpeg will be sharper..

I don't understand, sorry. It doesn't seem to be consistent with this:

Originally posted by Tom M

A DNG, for whatever reason, produces sharper images when processed through Adobe than a PEF does.. I know, I too was wondering whether it was true or not but, I can assure you that if you do a 'newspaper' shot and process both photos in Adobe, the DNG will have better sharpness.

... which is what I did, and I couldn't see any difference.

Could you elaborate please?

carpents · 10-17-2007, 04:10 PM

Originally posted by Tom M

Well, not only has this been discussed, proved and beaten like a dead horse but, it's true. A DNG, for whatever reason, produces sharper images when processed through Adobe than a PEF does.. I know, I too was wondering whether it was true or not but, I can assure you that if you do a 'newspaper' shot and process both photos in Adobe, the DNG will have better sharpness. And, I believe dpreview may have been the one to first point this out..

The answer to this (it appears to me) is that Adobe Camera RAW must produce a JPEG that is substantially sharper than the RAW image captured by the camera...

I think you're confusing the issue. The OP stated that a PEF and DNG both processed in ACR/Lightroom/Whatever will show a different image quality. Yes, your scenario is true because the Pentax software sucks. But you can process a PEF file in ACR/Lightroom/Whatever software and get identical looking shots.

I haven't ever processed a single RAW file in Pentax Photo Lab because the UI is horrendous. I don't really care what the output is.

Photo Tramp · 10-18-2007, 01:25 AM

I know Sean is right in this post. If you process anything with the Pentax software ( and god why would you) (Ok it may be the only processing software you have ) It will never be the quality of lightroom. ARC is much better to process with and you can get close to true. but then again Dng files are digital negativities and pef are the RAW files which contain all the data. Question? when you convert a PEF to DNG have you checked your file size. If you notice they are not the same size. Also I think it would be much better to convert the PEF to TIFF and process those files before converting anything to JPEG. I think you will see the difference is much better for Lightroom to accept and process.

Edvinas · 10-18-2007, 08:10 AM

Originally posted by m8o

wondering actually, isn't it no compression? A 10 Mega-pix RAW image is around 10 32-bit Mega-bytes in size, with some overhead for hearder inf o etc... no? It's what I thought anyway.

You're not correct. Pentax RAW file is 12 bit, so RAW image data is ~10Mpixs×12bit which results in ~15Mbytes. Add some overhead info (EXIF, preview JPEG) and you have uncompressed DNG ~16MB in size. Compressed PEF is ~10MB.

Regarding 123K10D findings... Well, he didn't post any pictures to prove his statement. Also his statement contradict to my personal experience. Could it be that his Lightroom applies different sharpening amount to PEF and to DNG and therefore he gets sharper looking DNG than PEF?

Tom M · 10-18-2007, 08:35 AM

I'm not sure why it's true but, Adobe processes RAW images better than Pentax does.

Though, there seems to be some Pentax statement supporting the differences not being by accident. I beleive that the President of Pentax some time after the release of the K10D stated in an interview that their approach to final images was somewhat different from that of Canon or Nikon, etc.. He stated that they attempted to give the images a film-like quality that is missing on current DSLR's.. From this statement one could guess that the reason the images don't process as sharp with the Pentax software is they feel it provides a 'closer to film look' and is intentional.

m8o · 10-18-2007, 08:52 AM

Originally posted by Edvinas

Regarding 123K10D findings... Well, he didn't post any pictures to prove his statement. Also his statement contradict to my personal experience. Could it be that his Lightroom applies different sharpening amount to PEF and to DNG and therefore he gets sharper looking DNG than PEF?

He posted a retraction of his findings in another thread.

Thanx for the clarification on the file-size question I was mistaken on.

and · 10-18-2007, 09:01 AM

heh yeah I am surprised to see this thread is still alive and kicking after that other thread was posted

10-17-2007, 01:18 PM	#36
Tom M Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Lincoln Park, NJ Photos: Gallery Posts: 780	Originally posted by carpents I've read many reviews of the K10D, and have never, ever heard such a thing. PEF files are sharper than JPEGs, not competing RAW formats. If you have a link to another opinion, it would come in handy for this thread. The OP has already repeated his test and gotten inverse results, which would nullify the original hypothesis. Well, not only has this been discussed, proved and beaten like a dead horse but, it's true. A DNG, for whatever reason, produces sharper images when processed through Adobe than a PEF does.. I know, I too was wondering whether it was true or not but, I can assure you that if you do a 'newspaper' shot and process both photos in Adobe, the DNG will have better sharpness. And, I believe dpreview may have been the one to first point this out.. The answer to this (it appears to me) is that Adobe Camera RAW must produce a JPEG that is substantially sharper than the RAW image captured by the camera... Last edited by Tom M; 10-17-2007 at 01:24 PM.

10-17-2007, 01:27 PM	#38
Tom M Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Lincoln Park, NJ Photos: Gallery Posts: 780	Well dkittle, Since the resulting images are jpegs (you don't send RAW files to the developer or post RAW files on the web) and the Adobe Raw produces a sharper jpeg than that of a Pentax Raw file.. The way you guys have been testing this is flawed.. Shoot the exact same scene in DNG and then in PEF. Process the PEF file through Pentax and output a jpeg. Process the DNG file through Adobe and output a jpeg.. Compare the two jpegs. The Adobe jpeg will be sharper.. Last edited by Tom M; 10-17-2007 at 01:37 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
RAW + JPEG with JPEG on One Star quality	laissezfaire	Pentax DSLR Discussion	58	12-10-2008 02:42 PM
PEF or DNG?	beaumont	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	14	09-15-2008 08:34 AM
K10D JPEG, PEF & DNG lens metadata is fully revealed ....	Richard Day	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	1	08-07-2007 02:54 PM
PEF vs DNG	Fireball	Pentax DSLR Discussion	19	07-21-2007 08:01 PM
Pentax PEF vs DNG camera RAW Quality	benjikan	Pentax DSLR Discussion	3	03-22-2007 09:42 PM

10-15-2007, 09:07 AM	#31
AVANT Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: California Posts: 426	Originally posted by m8o wondering actually, isn't it no compression? A 10 Mega-pix RAW image is around 10 32-bit Mega-bytes in size, with some overhead for hearder inf o etc... no? It's what I thought anyway. If there was no compression involved, the filesizes wouldn't vary as much as they do. On my average take, I range from 9-11MB, occassionally higher. DNGs (which are not compressed) are consistently 16MB iirc? The header info will have a minimal impact on file size. Think of how much text that would need before even making 250k. I sure as heck don't see that much information. So I'm fairly sure that it's losslessly compressed.

10-17-2007, 09:54 AM	#32
Tom M Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Lincoln Park, NJ Photos: Gallery Posts: 780	Using non-Pentax software (AKA: Adobe) A DNG will process sharper than a PEF This is old news.. Since the first reviews of the K10D came out this has been known and well documented.

10-17-2007, 10:14 AM	#33
Tom M Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Lincoln Park, NJ Photos: Gallery Posts: 780	Also, file size has nothing to do with anything.. PEF and DNG are both lossless and the RAW data contained in both is IDENTICAL! The reason for the larger file sizes is simply the compression technique. Pentax chooses a compression technique that allows more shots per card. Adobe on the other hand, well, they don't make cameras so their objectives are slightly different. As I said before, there will be NO difference in image quality between DNG and PEF when processing with Pentax software. There WILL be a difference when processing PEF and DNG with Adobe products. The Adobe products produce sharper results when converting DNG,. So, let's recap here.. If you're using Pentax software, use the PEF file format as you will get more shots per card. If you're using Adobe software, decide whether you want that small amount of sharpness or more card capacity. Lastly, if you allow the Pentax software to default process your PEF images, the results will be identical to the jpeg's produced by the camera. The obvious benefit here is that with the PEF file you have far more freedom to manipulate the image beyond the default processing allowing you to possibly produce better images.

10-17-2007, 11:23 AM	#34
carpents Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: West Chester, PA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,420	Originally posted by Tom M Using non-Pentax software (AKA: Adobe) A DNG will process sharper than a PEF This is old news.. Since the first reviews of the K10D came out this has been known and well documented. I've read many reviews of the K10D, and have never, ever heard such a thing. PEF files are sharper than JPEGs, not competing RAW formats. If you have a link to another opinion, it would come in handy for this thread. The OP has already repeated his test and gotten inverse results, which would nullify the original hypothesis.

10-17-2007, 11:26 AM	#35
ChrisA Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: London Posts: 393	Originally posted by Tom M There WILL be a difference when processing PEF and DNG with Adobe products. The Adobe products produce sharper results when converting DNG,. I couldn't tell the difference between the DNG and the PEF in my experiment, examples given earlier in this thread. I used CS3, and its default actions importing the RAW files in each case. No image mods, just conversion of a 100% crop from each to max quality JPG. What is it you have to do to get it to make the DNG sharper?

10-17-2007, 01:21 PM	#37
dkittle Inactive Account Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Toronto, Ontario Photos: Gallery Posts: 429	Hey Tom M, Is there any word on whether a PEF processed with Pentax software is as sharp as a DNG processed with Adobe software?

10-17-2007, 02:29 PM	#39
ChrisA Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: London Posts: 393	Originally posted by Tom M Well dkittle, Since the resulting images are jpegs (you don't send RAW files to the developer or post RAW files on the web) and the Adobe Raw produces a sharper jpeg than that of a Pentax Raw file.. The way you guys have been testing this is flawed.. Shoot the exact same scene in DNG and then in PEF. Process the PEF file through Pentax and output a jpeg. Process the DNG file through Adobe and output a jpeg.. Compare the two jpegs. The Adobe jpeg will be sharper.. I don't understand, sorry. It doesn't seem to be consistent with this: Originally posted by Tom M A DNG, for whatever reason, produces sharper images when processed through Adobe than a PEF does.. I know, I too was wondering whether it was true or not but, I can assure you that if you do a 'newspaper' shot and process both photos in Adobe, the DNG will have better sharpness. ... which is what I did, and I couldn't see any difference. Could you elaborate please?

10-17-2007, 04:10 PM	#40
carpents Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: West Chester, PA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,420	Originally posted by Tom M Well, not only has this been discussed, proved and beaten like a dead horse but, it's true. A DNG, for whatever reason, produces sharper images when processed through Adobe than a PEF does.. I know, I too was wondering whether it was true or not but, I can assure you that if you do a 'newspaper' shot and process both photos in Adobe, the DNG will have better sharpness. And, I believe dpreview may have been the one to first point this out.. The answer to this (it appears to me) is that Adobe Camera RAW must produce a JPEG that is substantially sharper than the RAW image captured by the camera... I think you're confusing the issue. The OP stated that a PEF and DNG both processed in ACR/Lightroom/Whatever will show a different image quality. Yes, your scenario is true because the Pentax software sucks. But you can process a PEF file in ACR/Lightroom/Whatever software and get identical looking shots. I haven't ever processed a single RAW file in Pentax Photo Lab because the UI is horrendous. I don't really care what the output is.

10-18-2007, 01:25 AM	#41
Photo Tramp Inactive Account Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Lancaster, PA. Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,041	I know Sean is right in this post. If you process anything with the Pentax software ( and god why would you) (Ok it may be the only processing software you have ) It will never be the quality of lightroom. ARC is much better to process with and you can get close to true. but then again Dng files are digital negativities and pef are the RAW files which contain all the data. Question? when you convert a PEF to DNG have you checked your file size. If you notice they are not the same size. Also I think it would be much better to convert the PEF to TIFF and process those files before converting anything to JPEG. I think you will see the difference is much better for Lightroom to accept and process.

10-18-2007, 08:10 AM	#42
Edvinas Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Kaunas Posts: 1,458	Originally posted by m8o wondering actually, isn't it no compression? A 10 Mega-pix RAW image is around 10 32-bit Mega-bytes in size, with some overhead for hearder inf o etc... no? It's what I thought anyway. You're not correct. Pentax RAW file is 12 bit, so RAW image data is ~10Mpixs×12bit which results in ~15Mbytes. Add some overhead info (EXIF, preview JPEG) and you have uncompressed DNG ~16MB in size. Compressed PEF is ~10MB. Regarding 123K10D findings... Well, he didn't post any pictures to prove his statement. Also his statement contradict to my personal experience. Could it be that his Lightroom applies different sharpening amount to PEF and to DNG and therefore he gets sharper looking DNG than PEF?

10-18-2007, 08:35 AM	#43
Tom M Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Lincoln Park, NJ Photos: Gallery Posts: 780	I'm not sure why it's true but, Adobe processes RAW images better than Pentax does. Though, there seems to be some Pentax statement supporting the differences not being by accident. I beleive that the President of Pentax some time after the release of the K10D stated in an interview that their approach to final images was somewhat different from that of Canon or Nikon, etc.. He stated that they attempted to give the images a film-like quality that is missing on current DSLR's.. From this statement one could guess that the reason the images don't process as sharp with the Pentax software is they feel it provides a 'closer to film look' and is intentional.

10-18-2007, 08:52 AM	#44
m8o Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: 40°-55'-44" N / 73°-24'-07" W [on LI] Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,092	Originally posted by Edvinas Regarding 123K10D findings... Well, he didn't post any pictures to prove his statement. Also his statement contradict to my personal experience. Could it be that his Lightroom applies different sharpening amount to PEF and to DNG and therefore he gets sharper looking DNG than PEF? He posted a retraction of his findings in another thread. Thanx for the clarification on the file-size question I was mistaken on.

10-18-2007, 09:01 AM	#45
and Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,476	heh yeah I am surprised to see this thread is still alive and kicking after that other thread was posted