Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-21-2008, 12:51 PM   #46
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Groucho's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 402
QuoteOriginally posted by Ivan Glisin Quote
Probably metadata and makers notes. All photosite values must be EXACTLY the same, otherwise the format would not qualify as RAW at all.
Well, not for everyone; Nikon has a RAW format that is "lossy", it loses a little bit of information in the highlights but is still considered raw.

03-22-2008, 03:20 AM   #47
Inactive Account




Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Gloucester UK
Posts: 441
QuoteOriginally posted by baw Quote
With PDF Adobe has prevented Microsoft from offering PDF as an output option in Office.
Same might happen with DNG.
Also see the way they silently changed the XMP specs.
You're effectively locked into using Adobe software this way.
Office 2007 has PDF output:



As far as DNG is concerned, Adobe recommends that camera manufacturers use uncompressed DNG. See my earlier post https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-dslr-discussion/23183-pef-vs-dng.html#post199895.

No camera manufacturer that has DNG as a file format uses a compressed version. So far that is Pentax, Samsung, Ricoh and Leica. Maybe that's because the compression methodology is open to change, thus rendering a compressed format inadvisable?

Personally, I see no advantage in shooting DNG when I can use a lossless compressed PEF format, even in the future I suspect we shall always be able to convert our old PEF files to DNG if Pentax cease to exist or drop PEF as a proprietary format.

When Pentax Raw files were uncompressed with the D series and K100D, there was a definite advantage to convert to the lossless compressed DNG option as this saved on hard drive resources, but since the K10/20/200D I see no reason, apart from embedded XMP, to choose DNG over PEF. Certainly as a shooting preference, I use PEF, primarily for smaller file sizes on my SD cards and Epson P-2000 viewing compatibility, and now that PEF files are around the same size as compressed DNG files, I don't bother to convert to compressed DNG anymore.

Working with DNG files does have the advantage of having the XMP data embedded into the Raw file rather than in an external sidecar file, although not many non Adobe programs recognise the embedded XMP, most that do are image management programs such as IDImager and Iview.
03-22-2008, 04:24 AM   #48
Veteran Member
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,863
QuoteOriginally posted by flyer Quote
I got those info from those two "computer nerds".
Hi flyer,

we are all mere mortals. So please, could your computer nerd specify exactly how DNG could hold more information than PEF (as the rest of the world thinks it's a false statement )?

Maybe, it is just that your particular printing workflow does slightly better with DNG than PEF?
03-22-2008, 04:38 AM   #49
Veteran Member
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,863
I cannot refrain from a philosophical comment anymore


RAW has been sold as the digital equivalent of a photographer's negative. Please everybody, refrain from thinking in those terms. And esp. for DNG as "the standard" to archive those...

Why?

Well, RAW is just another image format (Bayer-pattern encoded colors). As an image format, it is not more "raw" than RGB, CMYK, HSB encoded colors or what else can be stored in PNG or TIFF (8 Bit or 16 Bit). One could as well have had extended TIFF one more time to hold Bayer-pattern encoded colors as well. They can all be converted to each another with a certain loss. And I also welcome DNG as we don't need 5 formats for a Bayer-pattern encoded color image.

If your camera happens to use Bayer-pattern encoded colors on its sensor, well then, RAW is raw. But your next camera may be different. E.g., for a Foveon sensor, TIFF16 would be raw.


So, the way we work with RAW is fine. It is just the philosophical rationale behind I put in question.

In the digital era, we don't "develop", we post-process. And we do this independently of RAW.

In consequence, I use terms "develop" and "post-process" as exact synonyms.

03-22-2008, 05:17 AM   #50
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Auckland
Posts: 553
QuoteOriginally posted by Canada_Rockies Quote
I use the R:Base dbms, and they licensed PDF output from Adobe. I will bet you an orange to two apples that MS simply would not pay the license fee.
QuoteOriginally posted by Richard Day Quote
Office 2007 has PDF output:
The Office 2007 Betas originally had the PDF export as a core function. Adobe got angry and started throwing legal threats around.

Because of this, Microsoft removed the feature - you now have to download this addin to make it work:

Microsoft Office 2007 Save as PDF Addin

What does all of this prove? Adobe isn't anymore altruistic than any other company. If, and when they want to keep a supposedly "open" format to themselves, they will do so.

On the subject of RAW files, ironically, since I just finished rubbishing Adobe, I use lightroom and convert to DNG, with the original PEF embedded.
03-22-2008, 06:06 AM   #51
Veteran Member
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,863
QuoteOriginally posted by cpopham Quote
Adobe isn't anymore altruistic than any other company.
Once a format is adopted by one of those open standardization bodies, it is ok. I believe, this is the case with PDF/X.

Otherwise, Adobe and Microsoft are at war about PDF vs. XPS as the forthcoming open document format. Who knows what's going on on the battleground...
03-22-2008, 01:01 PM   #52
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Auckland
Posts: 553
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
Once a format is adopted by one of those open standardization bodies, it is ok. I believe, this is the case with PDF/X.

Otherwise, Adobe and Microsoft are at war about PDF vs. XPS as the forthcoming open document format. Who knows what's going on on the battleground...
PDF isn't accepted yet, and in any case, what Adobe were really shitty about was that Word, as shipped, could save as a PDF file.... now who in their right mind would go and buy an Adobe converter product then?!

Wikipedia Article on Office 2007

This isn't irrational Adobe hate, and I personally use DNG with Lightroom, but I'm just attempting to illustrate that the questions and uncertainty surrounding the file format are valid.
03-22-2008, 09:59 PM   #53
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
oneill's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Coquitlam, BC, Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 315
Hi Richard,

Thanks for your very detailed postings on PEF vs DNG. I had read that there was more information in the new K20D PEF but I had not been able to have it confirmed. Your information brings a nice level of clarity.

There is one small advantage to the DNG and that is that the buffer fills at 14 PEF vs 16 DNG when you are shooting continuous. I seldom burst more than 10 frames, but it might give a slight edge when doing bird flight shots.

03-23-2008, 01:34 PM   #54
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
oneill's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Coquitlam, BC, Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 315
Hi Richard,
Thank you for posting such a detailed explanation between PEF & DNG. I had heard, but I cannot remember where, that there was more information in the PEF file, but was unable to confirm it.

There is one other small point to consider and that is that the DNG format has a slight edge in high speed continuous shooting. With the K20D the buffer is filled at 14 PEF, but at 16 DNG. That is probably a non issue with a landscape photographer but is a large issue with wildlife or sustained action shooting. I seldom fire more than a ten frame burst, but if you go to shoot another before the images have been written to the card there is an edge with DNG.
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!
acr, camera, dng, dslr, pef, pef vs, photography
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 03:12 AM. | 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