[JAZZer]

I have Pentax K10D.
I had been "jpg" shoter... I wanna advance my knowledge and shot RAW...

Which RAW format has better quality/possibilities ?
DNG or PEF ?

Help me with Yours recommendations!

[jfdavis58]

Neither has better quality-that's controlled entirely by the abilities of the operator.

There are some small differences in convenience and capacity and some considerations for long-term storage. But again, there is no definitive, undisputed leader in those categories.

[barondla]

Always shot pef with my K10D. Is it better? No idea. Use pef for a couple of reasons. 1. It is what I use on the DS so it stays the same. 2. Don't trust Adobe - still mad over them closing RSE/RSP. Guess I will try dng someday to see if there is a quality difference.
thanks
barondla

[HogRider]

I am using DNG right now, since I figured out that the old SilkyPix Version 2 which I used before can open and edit the K10D files in that format without a problem.

Besides being bigger in file size, is there any other disadvantage to DNG vs PEF?

[jfdavis58]

Somewhere, here in the forums (guilty party please stand up) a user compared RAW conversion from DNG and PEF very near the time when ACR3.7 launched. He/she used a difference tool and compared the outputs , each on it's own layer. I believe he/she concluded that the conversions were identical.

The main selling point in DNG is that it's quasi-open-source--at least the file specification; and in theory should survive hardware evolution, software evolution and company dissolution. Time will tell.

[Phazed]

in DP's review of the K10d they had DNG looking a lot better then the PEF.

[bdavis]

in DP's review of the K10d they had DNG looking a lot better then the PEF.

Come again? I just flipped through the review again, and I didn't see this comparison. Until ACR 3.7 added K10 PEF functionality, there would have been no way to compare conversion between PEF and DNG anyway, in any sort of useful way. Phil did his review before the ACR3.7 release...


The only difference I've experienced between the two formats is that I get ~120 DNGs on a 2 gig card, and ~180 PEFs.

[pentaxbeat]

If your Photoshop is CS2 and you havent upgraded the camera raw, it will only recognise DNG. However, it will only guess what white balance was usen in-camera, and the exif is not properly read. If you know your software, it makes no difference what so ever. I use bibble pro 4.9 and it recognises both. There is no, again: NO DIFFERENCE between the two.

A much more important note is to use adobe RGB 1998 instead of sRGB (often referred to as "stupid RGB"). Your whites will look much better. I did a comparison between DNG, PEF set to both sRGB and adobe RGB. No difference between PEF and DNG, huge difference with Adobe RGB and sRGB.

[neighhoma]

I prefer PEF. Both formats are now supported by Adobe and Aperture, so you can choose which one you like to use. PEF is inherent to Pentax so I went with that.

[SuperJared]

PEF has a smaller (compressed but lossless) filesize and, from the rumor-mill, stores more vendor specific information, like what lens you're using.

[photog]

PEF has a smaller (compressed but lossless) filesize and ... stores more vendor specific information ...

I have believed the Pentax manual that the file size was the same; but this thread has prompted me to actually conduct my own measurements.
DNG file size: 17,101,294B (does not appear to vary)
PEF file size: 15,840,000B (approx,depending on subject matter as one would expect with compression)
I invariably get 120 images on 2GB 240 on 4GB. I calculate that this will translate to 150 and 300 (approx)
RE: Image quality etc: I did not believe the people who said that ACR & CS2 could read more from the PEF files but my objective tests of the same subject matter (landscape) confirm this unequivocally.
However I have not yet confirmed whether DNG converted can translate this extra info when it compressed this file to about 10MG.
Thank you all for a very useful thread.
Ron McDermott
Brisbane Qld

[SuperJared]

I have believed the Pentax manual that the file size was the same; but this thread has prompted me to actually conduct my own measurements.

Interestingly, it seems the K10D estimates the amount of shots left based on the maximum size of the PEF. On a 2GB card I show availability for about 114 photos yet can store many more than that. I shoot PEF and most of my files are around 12MBs apiece, some are lower than 10MB. I have some older DNGs and they really don't change size-wise.

[photog]

...I have not yet confirmed whether DNG converted can translate this extra info when it compressed this file to about 10MG....
Ron McDermott
Brisbane Qld

I have now conducted extensive tests of PEF and "Pentax" DNG. When view in CS2 Bridge with ACR3.7 plugin the PEF display much more accurately. This is still the case when both have been processed with Adobe DNG converter. However after optimising with ACR both are of excelent quality and equally pleasing appearance.

However, PEF wins hands down on account of:
1 The initial accurate rendering in ACR is of benefit to workflow;
2 The smaller file size on SD card (I did not fill my 4GB card during a small wedding I shot today, but I am heading for 300 RAW files on the card)

Conversion to DNG is losssless the data is identical with the original PEF.
BTW, still building skill with the K10D but I am very happy with it.
Ron McDermott

[LV Dan]

From my understanding of the file structure, both the PEF and the DNG are pure raw pixel data so the quality should be exactly the same with only the wrapper having different data. However, older DNG files could have munipulation for color balance. The newer versions of DNG can now have both the adjusted data and the raw pixel data in the same file, making the DNG file larger. The benefit of this is that you can always revert back to the original raw data but also view the file with optimization. This is according to the Adobe DNG conversion FAQ.