Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
12-09-2009, 06:55 PM   #16
Veteran Member
GoremanX's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Georgia, VT
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,653
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
Anyhow, I'd agree that this matters more to some people than others, but I wouldn't assume the distinction is hobbyist versus pro. I'd say it's people who want to do a fair amount of PP but don't want to allocate much time to it, versus people who either *don't* want to do much PP, or who don't mind allocating a lot of time to it.
Don't get me wrong, I still think getting such features into open source projects is important, and I look forward to learning how to take advantage of them in the future!


QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
A quick look at F-spot suggests it's nowhere near as sophisticated as Digikam overall, and their implementation of non-destructive editing appears to be based on versioning - saving intermediate JPEG's - rather than true parametric image editing. Which would mean it actually doesn't provide any of the batch / setting copying advantages.
I find it amazing how much I can do with Digikam! I've been using it for years (since 2002) to organize my photo collections, never realizing all the great things it could do.

As far as parametric image editing, part of the problem is that the proprietary solutions have direct access to hardware in a way that open source solutions can't (yet). For example, Adobe Lightroom and Apple Aperture can talk directly to the GPU of specific video cards, thereby reducing the processing overhead of generating the edits to the image on the fly. Changes happen very quickly, even with lots of cumulative edits. Such features aren't nearly as pleasant on older video cards that aren't directly supported. There's no such reliable mechanism in place on open source platforms yet (although it's in development), which makes on-the-fly processing of images slow and cumbersome unless someone has a super-high-end computing platform. I think that's why F-Spot uses the versioning setup, with interim snapshots to show the current effect of the edits, but as a jpeg rather than a live RAW file. It's an interesting approach, and light years ahead of my old system of doing "Save As" after every edit in Photoshop 4.

03-16-2010, 07:46 PM   #17
Forum Member




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Seattle, Wash. USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 63
So you see we were told years ago DNG was going to be an open format so all cameras would be supported. Ha, DNG is nothing more than just another plot by Adobe to make more money from you.
03-16-2010, 08:12 PM   #18
Veteran Member
GoremanX's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Georgia, VT
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,653
Original Poster
What the heck are you talking about? How far in left field are you, anyways? Pretty far if it took you this long to reply to a long-dead thread.

The DNG format is completely open. It's freely implemented in tons of products, from cameras to image editors. It costs nothing to implement fully. The specification is redistributable without restriction. Lots of open source projects use it too.
03-16-2010, 08:17 PM   #19
Pentaxian
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 10,195
QuoteOriginally posted by ully Quote
So you see we were told years ago DNG was going to be an open format so all cameras would be supported. Ha, DNG is nothing more than just another plot by Adobe to make more money from you.
This is patently wrong. Any manufacturer or software vendor can use the DNG format without paying Adobe for the pleasure.
The DNG format can be opened by Adobe products that are 4 generations old.
How, pray tell, when they are giving it away for free, and are not forcing anyone to pay for it through licensing agreements, are they making any money off of me or anyone else?
Enquiring minds want to know?

03-16-2010, 08:38 PM   #20
Veteran Member
Jodokast96's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Erial, NJ USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,132
QuoteOriginally posted by GoremanX Quote
What the heck are you talking about? How far in left field are you, anyways? Pretty far if it took you this long to reply to a long-dead thread.

The DNG format is completely open. It's freely implemented in tons of products, from cameras to image editors. It costs nothing to implement fully. The specification is redistributable without restriction. Lots of open source projects use it too.
I thought the same thing when this reply to a similar thread of my own was made https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/886095-post36.html. Except it was nearly 2 years later!
03-16-2010, 08:44 PM   #21
Veteran Member
GoremanX's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Georgia, VT
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,653
Original Poster
Of course the whole concept is ludicrous. Even Pentax recommends the DNG format now, they don't just include its support as a compatibility crutch.

I often wonder where GordonBGood gets some of his "facts". Sometimes he sounds coherent, and then he throws a weird curveball out of nowhere.

I vote that the search feature be disabled to prevent this kind of ancient thread abuse.
03-17-2010, 04:16 PM   #22
Senior Member
GingerBeer's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 124
QuoteOriginally posted by GoremanX Quote
Even Pentax recommends the DNG format now, they don't just include its support as a compatibility crutch.
Where is Pentax's recommendation of DNG?
03-17-2010, 06:55 PM   #23
Veteran Member
GoremanX's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Georgia, VT
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,653
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by GingerBeer Quote
Where is Pentax's recommendation of DNG?
Right here:

Pentax 645D – Fiest Impressions & Interview

Relevant passage:
One key difference used to be the inability of DNG to handle compression, but this issue has now been solved and we fully support and recommend the usage of DNG.

03-17-2010, 06:59 PM   #24
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by GoremanX Quote
I often wonder where GordonBGood gets some of his "facts". Sometimes he sounds coherent, and then he throws a weird curveball out of nowhere.
Gordon has written his own raw processing algorithm and software tools to anayze raw data. I think his information is pretty bulletproof with respect to the actual technical details. But that doesn't mean people don't take his words out of context to twist them into supporting all sorts of nonsense, which is what appears to have happened in the above. There *are* technical differences that Gordon accurately describes, but the person who posted his out-of-context quote of surely was a much longer post has subverted a simple technical discussion of the difference to his own anti-DNG agenda. Note that the final conclusion in that post was *not* a quote from Gordon. In this case, blame the messenger for deliberately misrepresenting the message.
03-17-2010, 10:11 PM   #25
Senior Member
GingerBeer's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 124
QuoteOriginally posted by GoremanX Quote
Right here:

Pentax 645D – Fiest Impressions & Interview

Relevant passage:
One key difference used to be the inability of DNG to handle compression, but this issue has now been solved and we fully support and recommend the usage of DNG.
Cool, thanks. That's pretty interesting. I have changed a couple of times between DNG and PEF - currently on PEF. I don't know enough about the differences to make an informed decision - both seem to work fine.
03-18-2010, 12:42 AM   #26
Pentaxian
Arpe's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: New Zealand
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,346
QuoteOriginally posted by GingerBeer Quote
Cool, thanks. That's pretty interesting. I have changed a couple of times between DNG and PEF - currently on PEF. I don't know enough about the differences to make an informed decision - both seem to work fine.
Funny - I just changed to DNG for the first time! Just got sick of the XMP files. Noticed the camera says I can now get 166 files on the 4GB card as opposed to 161 PEFs (both of which are way out).

Are the Pentax DNGs as compressed as converting the PEFs to DNG with the Adobe converter? And, just curious, are the lens corrections and highlight and shadow corrections stored in a DNG? (I know PS can't read those corrections)
03-18-2010, 03:21 AM   #27
Veteran Member
GoremanX's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Georgia, VT
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,653
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Arpe Quote
Funny - I just changed to DNG for the first time! Just got sick of the XMP files. Noticed the camera says I can now get 166 files on the 4GB card as opposed to 161 PEFs (both of which are way out).

Are the Pentax DNGs as compressed as converting the PEFs to DNG with the Adobe converter? And, just curious, are the lens corrections and highlight and shadow corrections stored in a DNG? (I know PS can't read those corrections)
Compressed DNGs are mostly the same size as PEF files now. There's a slight difference between the two, but not much. I think the DNG converter did throw some data out, so it may have created artificially smaller DNG files.

There's really no fundamental difference between the two as far as usability goes, but DNG files are better supported. For example, when the K-7 first came out, it took months for graphics applications to support the new PEF format (it changes slightly with every new camera model). But DNG files were supported right away. Same thing happened when the K-x was released. So for most people, DNG is probably preferable.
05-16-2010, 02:28 PM   #28
Junior Member




Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 48
My Photoshop 7 cannot open DNG files from my K-m. I think back in those days CameraRaw was a paid plugin.

Ufraw is not very usable.
05-16-2010, 09:05 PM   #29
Pentaxian
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 10,195
QuoteOriginally posted by Pentaxoid Quote
My Photoshop 7 cannot open DNG files from my K-m. I think back in those days CameraRaw was a paid plugin.

Ufraw is not very usable.
Umm, that doesn't sound right.
The Photoshop 7 that I have opens all my DNG files (K10, K20 and K7) via Camera Raw, which came resident in the install.
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!
dng, k7, k7 dng vs, photography, photoshop
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
PEF or DNG? Jodokast96 Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 60 03-22-2010 11:34 AM
PEF vs DNG. sergio_fucchi Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 2 01-30-2009 07:06 PM
PEF or DNG? marius Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 3 08-17-2008 01:34 PM
PEF vs DNG MikeD Photographic Technique 3 01-24-2008 05:17 AM
PEF vs DNG Fireball Pentax DSLR Discussion 19 07-21-2007 08:01 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:38 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.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