My first K-5 question...
Posted 16/09/2011 - 19:27
Link
I've heard someone say that PEF hold more information but no idea what kind of information and if it's true.
I simply shoot in DNG because it's better supported and i don't see any difference.
I simply shoot in DNG because it's better supported and i don't see any difference.
Stefan
K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ
K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ
Posted 16/09/2011 - 19:58
Link
There doesn't seem to be any quality difference and DNG is probably more future proof. I say probably because even the new Q DNG files are already only fully usable with an Adobe update to ACR.
Best regards, John
Posted 16/09/2011 - 21:05
Link
johnriley wrote:
I say probably because even the new Q DNG files are already only fully usable with an Adobe update to ACR.
Where did you read that?
I say probably because even the new Q DNG files are already only fully usable with an Adobe update to ACR.
Stefan
K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ
K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ
Posted 16/09/2011 - 21:09
Link
From Ned Bunnell. You must have missed the original discussion Stefan.
Best regards, John
Posted 16/09/2011 - 21:15
Link
johnriley wrote:
From Ned Bunnell. You must have missed the original discussion Stefan.
No i haven't missed that, did you?From Ned Bunnell. You must have missed the original discussion Stefan.
Ned Bunnel said this.
Currently, Adobe Camera Raw and other software that can handle DNG files do not yet have components to handle DNG files captured by Q at 100% levels. You will find that Q images will open in PhotoShop, however certain functions like automatic lens correction do not work.
So the DNG opens but the automatic lens correction doesn't work.
That isn't that surprising because you need corrections profiles for that and those aren't there yet, not even all the DA lenses are profiled yet either.
So this has nothing to do with Photoshop being unable to open or progress DNG files from the Q, because that part works.
It's a bit like saying you can't use your car any more because the airco doesn't work...
I already pointed this out in another thread.
Stefan
K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ
K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ
Posted 16/09/2011 - 21:21
Link
In other words, exactly what I said, that is, that the files are not fully functional and need an update. Nobody said they wouldn't open.
Best regards, John
Posted 17/09/2011 - 01:00
Link
That's not what you said.
You said adobe doesn't support the DNG file of the Q but that isn't true, it supports it fully and the file is fully functional with all the options connected to RAW files.
The automatic lens correction has nothing to do with DNG or any other file type, it's a separate feature. The correction also work with jpg files for example but it needs lens profiles for it to work, it needs to know how much he needs to correct a lens.
This info is not stored with the photo but is provided separately by the software manufacture. So yes files need to be added for that but it has nothing to do with DNG, its a different problem altogether.
You said adobe doesn't support the DNG file of the Q but that isn't true, it supports it fully and the file is fully functional with all the options connected to RAW files.
The automatic lens correction has nothing to do with DNG or any other file type, it's a separate feature. The correction also work with jpg files for example but it needs lens profiles for it to work, it needs to know how much he needs to correct a lens.
This info is not stored with the photo but is provided separately by the software manufacture. So yes files need to be added for that but it has nothing to do with DNG, its a different problem altogether.
Stefan
K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ
K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ
Posted 17/09/2011 - 01:09
Link
Quote:
You said adobe doesn't support the DNG file of the Q but that isn't true
What I said was:You said adobe doesn't support the DNG file of the Q but that isn't true
Quote:
I say probably because even the new Q DNG files are already only fully usable with an Adobe update to ACR.
Please read it again!
I say probably because even the new Q DNG files are already only fully usable with an Adobe update to ACR.
Best regards, John
Posted 17/09/2011 - 01:18
Link
John the word probably is not correct in your second quote there, it simply fully support the DNG file of the Q.
So yes i can read
So yes i can read
Stefan
K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ
K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ
Posted 17/09/2011 - 08:02
Link
Probably is an ironic sort of statement in English, as per, for example Tom Baker's Dr Who saying to Countess Scarleone, "You're a beautiful woman, probably..." (City of Death, 1979)
The meaning of my statement was't literal.
The meaning of my statement was't literal.
Best regards, John
Posted 17/09/2011 - 08:09
Link
Personally, I don't trust Adobe one inch. When everybody has moved to DNG, they will start charging for it.
Keywords: Charming, polite, and generally agreeable.
Posted 17/09/2011 - 11:35
Link
ChrisA wrote:
WOO - done it. And remarkably easily, it turned out.
It occurred to me that what I needed was something thin, made of plastic not metal - so, inspired by Carl's suggestion, I used the plastic handle end of a nail file - like this one
Held the camera on my lap, and gradually inserted the file handle between the overlapping wire of the D-ring. Since the handle starts off thin, and then gets thicker, it was perfect for gradually increasing the gap.
As soon as the gap was big enough, the ring just rotated easily and could be removed with the flexible protector.
No damage or scratches, and I reckon it would be similarly easy to get it back on.
Hope this helps someone else sometime..
I would just have taped it down to stop it rattling. WOO - done it. And remarkably easily, it turned out.
It occurred to me that what I needed was something thin, made of plastic not metal - so, inspired by Carl's suggestion, I used the plastic handle end of a nail file - like this one
Held the camera on my lap, and gradually inserted the file handle between the overlapping wire of the D-ring. Since the handle starts off thin, and then gets thicker, it was perfect for gradually increasing the gap.
As soon as the gap was big enough, the ring just rotated easily and could be removed with the flexible protector.
No damage or scratches, and I reckon it would be similarly easy to get it back on.
Hope this helps someone else sometime..
I'm not modifying my K-5 for anything less than full remote operability (including live view monitoring) to mount on a mini RC helicopter! (Which will never happen, BTW, but it's nice as a completely unrealistic pipe dream).
My Flickr • Pentax K-5 • K-5 II • Sigma 8-16mm F/4.5-5.6 DC HSM • Tamron SP AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II LD ASL • SMC Pentax-DA* 50-135mm F/2.8 ED [IF] SDM • SMC Pentax-DA 55-300mm F/4-5.8 ED • SMC Pentax-DA 18-135mm F/3.5-5.6 ED AL [IF] WR • Vivitar 100mm F/3.5 Macro AF • Metz Mecablitz 58 AF-2
Posted 17/09/2011 - 15:39
Link
johnriley wrote:
The meaning of my statement was't literal.
And how should you know that?The meaning of my statement was't literal.
George Lazarette wrote:
Personally, I don't trust Adobe one inch. When everybody has moved to DNG, they will start charging for it.
They have applied the file to be a standard, not sure if they can then charge for it...
Personally, I don't trust Adobe one inch. When everybody has moved to DNG, they will start charging for it.
Stefan
K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ
K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ
Add Comment
To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.
4839 posts
19 years
South West London
Is there any reason to use PEF rather than DNG? There doesn't seem to be much in the way of filesize advantage any more.
I've had a look through this thread, and also briefly at the review mentioned, but apart from that, has anyone found any compelling reason to use PEF?
I use Picasa for image organisation, and although it insists it's the latest version, it can't handle K-5 PEFs.
Pentax K-3, DA18-135, DA35 F2.4, DA17-70, DA55-300, FA28-200, A50 F1.7, A100 F4 Macro, A400 F5.6, Sigma 10-20 EXDC, 50-500 F4.5-6.3 APO DG OS Samsung flash SEF-54PZF(x2)
.