The RAW vs JPEG Debate
Posted 12/07/2007 - 16:58
Link
I always shoot Raw with my Ist DL2 and K10D. However I use DNG with the K10D as I believe that it may be more future proof.
Will software be available to convert PEF in 10 years time?
I suspect that DNG will, as it is a Standard to be used by other manufacturers.
Any other thoughts on this?
Regards
Graham
Will software be available to convert PEF in 10 years time?
I suspect that DNG will, as it is a Standard to be used by other manufacturers.
Any other thoughts on this?
Regards
Graham
Posted 12/07/2007 - 17:06
Link
Quote:
I have a 2gb card in my k10d, on startup with a formated card it tells me I can take approx:
DNG= 119.
PEF=120.
Not a great deal of difference there but it is an assumption on the camera's part.
however, there is a ~ 6Mb saving for PEF files per image taken. For two identical shots the DNG is 16.2 Mb and the PEF is 10.2 Mb
I've been using DNG as i was under the assumption that there was little or no compression used, whereas PEF has 'some' compression. I thought compression was to be avoided where possible for several reasons.
1. image degradation, even lossless compression would cause some loss or change of data captured.
There are two kinds of compression. "Lossy" compression works by discarding data that is deemed to be unnecessary - an example is a JPEG.I have a 2gb card in my k10d, on startup with a formated card it tells me I can take approx:
DNG= 119.
PEF=120.
Not a great deal of difference there but it is an assumption on the camera's part.
however, there is a ~ 6Mb saving for PEF files per image taken. For two identical shots the DNG is 16.2 Mb and the PEF is 10.2 Mb
I've been using DNG as i was under the assumption that there was little or no compression used, whereas PEF has 'some' compression. I thought compression was to be avoided where possible for several reasons.
1. image degradation, even lossless compression would cause some loss or change of data captured.
"Lossless" compression works by recording the data more efficiently, eg: "1 and 100 zeroes" instead of "1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000."
PEF files are losslessly compressed, so there is no image degradation.
Quote:
2. performance issues, saving the raw data must be faster than compressing, THEN saving the data.
Actually, it's probably quicker to compress, then save a small file, than to save a large file.2. performance issues, saving the raw data must be faster than compressing, THEN saving the data.
Quote:
I'll do some more research on the PEF format.
Now that K10D PEFs are widely supported there is no reason to use DNG. If you want to archive DNG files rather than PEFs, convert afterwards.I'll do some more research on the PEF format.
G
Keywords: Charming, polite, and generally agreeable.
Posted 12/07/2007 - 17:14
Link
Just to add to this...
The JPG output is compressed and handled in circuit. The PRIME engine has a dedicated JPG conversion circuit that greatly speeds up the JPG. In fact, AFAIK the main CPU doesn't even have to get involved. That's why the K10D can rattle away in JPG mode and still be twiddling its thumbs
On the other hand the compressed PEF format is Huffman encoded (which is completely lossless) and I think has to be handled by the main CPU. As has been mentioned there is some tradeoff between the time to write an uncompressed file vs the time to do the compression.
And to repeat - Huffman encoding is lossless. Completely and utterly. What goes in, comes out - no bits changed at all. Nada. I can point you to the math if you want... but it's brain-ache stuff
Matt
The JPG output is compressed and handled in circuit. The PRIME engine has a dedicated JPG conversion circuit that greatly speeds up the JPG. In fact, AFAIK the main CPU doesn't even have to get involved. That's why the K10D can rattle away in JPG mode and still be twiddling its thumbs
On the other hand the compressed PEF format is Huffman encoded (which is completely lossless) and I think has to be handled by the main CPU. As has been mentioned there is some tradeoff between the time to write an uncompressed file vs the time to do the compression.
And to repeat - Huffman encoding is lossless. Completely and utterly. What goes in, comes out - no bits changed at all. Nada. I can point you to the math if you want... but it's brain-ache stuff
Matt
http://www.mattmatic.co.uk
(For gallery, tips and links)
(For gallery, tips and links)
Posted 12/07/2007 - 17:27
Link
Ok
I have just done a few PEF test shots and they will only open in the pentax software I have. Which I have to be honest I dont like.
They wont open in CS3 or Silkypix 3 so what software will they work with
Pete
I have just done a few PEF test shots and they will only open in the pentax software I have. Which I have to be honest I dont like.
They wont open in CS3 or Silkypix 3 so what software will they work with
Pete
Wedding & Portrait photographer
Posted 12/07/2007 - 17:31
Link
Quote:
Ok
I have just done a few PEF test shots and they will only open in the pentax software I have. Which I have to be honest I dont like.
They wont open in CS3 or Silkypix 3 so what software will they work with
Pete
They certainly do open in CS3. Do you have all the online updates?Ok
I have just done a few PEF test shots and they will only open in the pentax software I have. Which I have to be honest I dont like.
They wont open in CS3 or Silkypix 3 so what software will they work with
Pete
And also in Picasa.
Posted 12/07/2007 - 17:53
Link
Quote:
They wont open in CS3 or Silkypix 3 so what software will they work with
I use SilkyPix all the time for PEF files... one of the reasons I bought it was that it supported PEFs before I upgraded Photoshop. I also like the way SilkyPix works and its end result more than other software, but that is obviously secondary to being able to read the file format in the first place.
They wont open in CS3 or Silkypix 3 so what software will they work with
Posted 12/07/2007 - 18:25
Link
Quote:
Ok
I have just done a few PEF test shots and they will only open in the pentax software I have. Which I have to be honest I dont like.
They wont open in CS3 or Silkypix 3 so what software will they work with
Pete
Try again, Pete. K10D PEFs work in all the main software packages. You might however, have a very early version of Silkypix (and CS3). I suggest you update. Ok
I have just done a few PEF test shots and they will only open in the pentax software I have. Which I have to be honest I dont like.
They wont open in CS3 or Silkypix 3 so what software will they work with
Pete
G
Keywords: Charming, polite, and generally agreeable.
Posted 12/07/2007 - 18:35
Link
Quote:
Ok
I have just done a few PEF test shots and they will only open in the pentax software I have. Which I have to be honest I dont like.
They wont open in CS3 or Silkypix 3 so what software will they work with
Pete
Lightroom opens PEF files fine.Ok
I have just done a few PEF test shots and they will only open in the pentax software I have. Which I have to be honest I dont like.
They wont open in CS3 or Silkypix 3 so what software will they work with
Pete
thanks all for the info, I'll try using PEF to get more on the card.
Please call me aj,
I use a Pentax K10D, on a MacBook with LightRoom (vers 1.3 + beta 2)
http://www.ba-joseph.co.uk/gallery
I use a Pentax K10D, on a MacBook with LightRoom (vers 1.3 + beta 2)
http://www.ba-joseph.co.uk/gallery
Posted 13/07/2007 - 09:35
Link
K10D PEFs open in:
Lightroom, Capture One LE, Silkypix, Photoshop CS2, Bibble, Picasa etc etc.
Are there any more??
BUT you have to have the later versions (or the latest!). For Adobe products you download the "Adobe Camera Raw" update - which is separate from the main product and can also include Adobe's stand alone DNG converter.
Latest version of Silkypix is 3.0.11 (think the K10D was supported from 3.0.9 or even . In fact Silkypix supported the K10D from the time the K10D was launched (not really any surprise there given the links between Pentax and Silkypix!).
Matt
Lightroom, Capture One LE, Silkypix, Photoshop CS2, Bibble, Picasa etc etc.
Are there any more??
BUT you have to have the later versions (or the latest!). For Adobe products you download the "Adobe Camera Raw" update - which is separate from the main product and can also include Adobe's stand alone DNG converter.
Latest version of Silkypix is 3.0.11 (think the K10D was supported from 3.0.9 or even . In fact Silkypix supported the K10D from the time the K10D was launched (not really any surprise there given the links between Pentax and Silkypix!).
Matt
http://www.mattmatic.co.uk
(For gallery, tips and links)
(For gallery, tips and links)
Posted 14/07/2007 - 11:08
Link
Sometimes I need to just view the photographs taken by my K10D. I use FastStone Image Viewer faststone.org for this. But in general all my PEF files are well organized and viewed by PicaJet Photo Managerhttp://picajet.com. I am not a professional photographer although some of my art photographs win a couple of regional contests. But I recommend the above tools to handle your Pentax RAW and JPEG files. Another small tool which I use to automate converting PEF to DNG is RoboImport, check it also. [/url]
Posted 14/07/2007 - 12:32
Link
Mattmatic, Aperture is a RAW converter, that opens k10 raw files.
I'm not really a pixel peeper, but it works pretty good for my needs.
I'm not really a pixel peeper, but it works pretty good for my needs.
Fired many shots. Didn't kill anything.
Posted 14/07/2007 - 19:58
Link
Mac Preview will also open RAW files for viewing, if you want to see what you have. I always use Bridge for viewing my RAW images.
Add Comment
To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.


2176 posts
19 years
West Midlands
I've been using DNG as i was under the assumption that there was little or no compression used, whereas PEF has 'some' compression. I thought compression was to be avoided where possible for several reasons.
1. image degradation, even lossless compression would cause some loss or change of data captured.
2. performance issues, saving the raw data must be faster than compressing, THEN saving the data.
2. Some time is spent on compression, but less time on writing to the card. I don't know which takes longer; The internal compression of data or the writing of an additional 6M to the card. It is possible that compressing and writing the PEF is faster than writing the DNG itself.
I haven't done any tests, it would be interesting to hear how many PEFs can be taken compared to DNG before the buffer slows things down.
Dan
https://www.flickr.com/photos/honourabletyr/