-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
PEF or DNG - which RAW format do you prefer?
- Thread starter Holger Bargen
- Start date
-
- Tags
- pentax k-5 pentax k10d
Holger Bargen
Veteran Member
It's OK to include the new models. I actually use the K5 - but in few month maybe I will have a new camera.
I was not aware that the RAW format changes that much between different cameras. I was thinking that is a little bit similar to the situation with the JPGs where it does not matter from which camera the file comes. So I learned that the RAW - no matter if PEF or DNG - is different between K5 an K3 - and not only in size (which everybody would expect) but also from the specifications that allow the different software packages to read it. That is an important information for me.
I do (at least the first step) of postprocessing of my RAWs with DxO. It never has been a problem and I could not detect any differences between PEF and DNG.
If I follow the discussion, I think I will stay with DNG as it is more of a standard and I did not find any advantages of PEF (besides the advantage that you can transfer PEF to DNG but not the opposite way). But if there is no advantage of PEF over DNG there is no reason why you should have it.
Thank you all for your comments and inputs to this thread!
Best regards
Holger
I was not aware that the RAW format changes that much between different cameras. I was thinking that is a little bit similar to the situation with the JPGs where it does not matter from which camera the file comes. So I learned that the RAW - no matter if PEF or DNG - is different between K5 an K3 - and not only in size (which everybody would expect) but also from the specifications that allow the different software packages to read it. That is an important information for me.
I do (at least the first step) of postprocessing of my RAWs with DxO. It never has been a problem and I could not detect any differences between PEF and DNG.
If I follow the discussion, I think I will stay with DNG as it is more of a standard and I did not find any advantages of PEF (besides the advantage that you can transfer PEF to DNG but not the opposite way). But if there is no advantage of PEF over DNG there is no reason why you should have it.
Thank you all for your comments and inputs to this thread!
Best regards
Holger
Barry Pearson
Veteran Member
PEFs don't differ much from one Pentax to another. (NEFs don't differ much between Nikon models. CR2s don't differ much between Canon models).
The problem is mainly that a PEF doesn't fully describe the characteristics of the camera model concerned. (Similarly NEFs and CR2s). It supplies the sensor data, but it doesn't tell you (for example) what sensor data represents the red of a London Bus in daylight. And there are lots more things that raw processing software needs which are not in the typical native raw file.
So raw processing software contains sets of data per camera model that supplies these characteristics. (The camera make and model, taken from the raw file, is used to identify which set of data to use). When a new camera model is launched, the software developers have to add a new set of data, then re-issue the software. Until they do, the camera make and model in the raw file doesn't point to any set of data.
Often (probably typically) the software developers at least need examples of raw files from the camera model, and preferably a camera itself. They typically don't get this from the camera maker. There is a lot of reverse-engineering involved.
DNGs contain a lot of metadata that describes the characteristics of the camera model in detail. And these are described in a consistent way, even for cameras from different makers. (It is surprising how little innovation is in any particular camera. Cameras may be "state of the art", but are rarely "new art"). So software can extract all this data from the DNG file, instead of having it built in. That way, software that supports DNG fully may have been issued before the camera was launched. yet still learn enough about that camera model from every DNG file to process it satisfactorily.
Right across the industry, there is a huge waste of development effort and lots of irritation to photographers because camera don't all write DNGs. Shoddy engineering!
Holger Bargen
Veteran Member
Dear Barry,
thank you very much for all your explanations - I have learned a lot.
Best regards
Holger
thank you very much for all your explanations - I have learned a lot.
Best regards
Holger
bettyswolloks
Well-known member
DNG. As I use all adobe products in PP it makes sense to use their file format.
newmikey
Veteran Member
You can always convert a PEF to DNG but will never be able to convert a DNG to PEF.
All of my software supports PEF, DCRAW is simple C source code and will always be free to any code developer wanting to program a new raw editor. C is a standard that will be supported for a long, long period into the future.
Haven't seen a reason to step into DNG except for on my GR which has it as its only raw format.
All of my software supports PEF, DCRAW is simple C source code and will always be free to any code developer wanting to program a new raw editor. C is a standard that will be supported for a long, long period into the future.
Haven't seen a reason to step into DNG except for on my GR which has it as its only raw format.
wjwncpro_Ds
Veteran Member
GordonBGood
Veteran Member
Oh, I think "never" is too strong a word; in fact, it is possible to convert a DNG back to a PEF or any other raw format other than one can never completely reconstruct the thumbnail or embedded JPEG preview if they were replaced in the proprietary to DNG conversion process or in later processing - these would be replaced by versions generated by the back conversion processing.
I had started a Java project to do this for Pentax DSLR's so that those who had converted their raw images to DNG's would be able to use Bibble/Corel AfterShot Pro, but ran out of time and have never completed it. However, I got far enough along to have it working within limits.
Regards, GordonBGood
JeffAHayes
Veteran Member
DNG ALL THE WAY. It's now one of the first settings I check (and change, if necessary) on a new Pentax camera.
PEF is pretty much Pentax-specific, not that it might not work with other software, without plug-ins. DNG is a pretty universal format used by Adobe, which is THE HIGH LORD AND MASTER of all image editing and manipulation, lol.
That's a trend it's not worth bucking, at least not when the camera offers you the choice.
Jeff
Hmmmmmmmmm, well, after reading some replies I see there are some folks who have software that will read PEF but NOT DNG. I didn't know that. I also see that PEF can be converted to DNG, but not the other way around. I'm still probably going to stick with DNG. I just don't see the point. Who has the time to spend all that time with individual images if you shoot lots of them? PP it in Lightroom and/or PS and move on to the next one.
--
A word is worth 1/1000th of a picture... Maybe that's why I use so many words!
PEF is pretty much Pentax-specific, not that it might not work with other software, without plug-ins. DNG is a pretty universal format used by Adobe, which is THE HIGH LORD AND MASTER of all image editing and manipulation, lol.
That's a trend it's not worth bucking, at least not when the camera offers you the choice.
Jeff
Hmmmmmmmmm, well, after reading some replies I see there are some folks who have software that will read PEF but NOT DNG. I didn't know that. I also see that PEF can be converted to DNG, but not the other way around. I'm still probably going to stick with DNG. I just don't see the point. Who has the time to spend all that time with individual images if you shoot lots of them? PP it in Lightroom and/or PS and move on to the next one.
--
A word is worth 1/1000th of a picture... Maybe that's why I use so many words!
Last edited:
These metadata may be useful in Adobe's software to manipulate the colors. Othewise, e.g. Using DCRAW, on Linux and etc., they could be useless.
Barry Pearson
Veteran Member
The DNG metadata is not just about colours. It even describes the order of the filters in the colour filter array, etc. So there is information in the DNG metadata that is essential for raw processing. Software may be able to get the information elsewhere, or guess, but that metadata certainly isn't useless..
Dave Coffin re-organised DCRAW around the DNG colour matrices, so it holds its own colour metadata in a similar (I think inverted) way. I believe that if DCRAW processes a DNG for a camera it hasn't been updated for, it uses the DNG colour matrices. Here are quotes from Dave Coffin that I captured in 2007. Some of the original links are broken. But see DPReview and Internet Archive.
"Not only is Adobe DNG now supported, the entire codepath has been redesigned for it. Adobe's XYZ->CAM matrices allow color science to replace black magic, whether decoding DNG or the original raw files".
"Adobe Digital Negative (DNG) is a great format -- I totally redesigned dcraw for maximum DNG compatibility".
"Adobe DNG is great for small camera makers who don't want the hassle of creating their own raw format and writing software to support it. And it's great for dcraw, because now I can do real color management with Adobe's matrices instead of my crude color manipulations prior to dcraw v7.00".
There is a lot of software that my tests have shown can process DNG files when it doesn't support the native raw files for the cameras because it hasn't yet been updated. In other words, it relies on the DNG metadata in those cases
Barry Pearson
Veteran Member
What does that mean?
Obviously PEF is vastly further from being a standard than DNG is. If being a standard is a desirable characteristic of a raw file format, PEF, NEF, CR2, etc, are the worst choices!
Whilst I may disagree with Barry on some of the semantics of 'standard' I am completely confident that DNG will be readable long after PEF is dead and buried.
The argument you can convert PEF to DNG doesn't hold water as it relies on the 'DNG' tools supporting PEF and whilst they do today they may not in the future.
The same for any other point DNG is considerably more 'universal' even in linux.
The only PP software that has issues with DNG I use is after shot and this is because the original developer 'bibble labs' had problems with Adobe and so has not implented DNG support.
and one of my the linux apps seem to have issue with multi WB giving a green cast to images.
But on the other hand thumb-nailing work, CS5 works, rawtherappee works , shotwell works, DCraw works etc etc
DNG is a considerably safer archival formant than PEF.
Barry Pearson
Veteran Member
I'm intrigued by that comment about the semantics of "standard". I'm not sure what I said!
Paul Cruchten
Veteran Member
same here, switched to K10D because Aperture was too slow in implementing PEF support. Never switched back to PEF.
Basicaly
I see it as a closed propriety standard controlled by Adobe.
You see it as an open standard guided by Adobe.
Peter Lacus
Well-known member
- Messages
- 180
- Reaction score
- 73
About the only thing I don't like about DNG are those pesky "versions", so you can open some DNG files with some software, but not all. One would expect that newly designed file format would be created with a future expandability in mind. IMHO Adobe failed here (as they failed with PDF format). But it's no better with PEF in this area, so I use DNG wherever available.
Barry Pearson
Veteran Member
The versions represent increasing capability. Software that can handle a particular version can handle previous versions.
DNG was designed with future expandability in mind! As I said here :
"DNG is designed to evolve. It has a version scheme built into it that allows the DNG specification, DNG writers, and DNG readers, to evolve at their own paces".
"The way the version scheme works is that each DNG file holds its own version (the version of the specification it was written to) in itself. It can also hold the oldest version it is compatible with, (and if it doesn't there is a rule that defines that by default). So even after a new feature is added to the specification, if a DNG writer doesn't use that new feature, the version range in the DNG file would include previous versions. Then a DNG reader checks these numbers, and tells the user that an upgrade is needed if it can't handle this version. Perhaps some raw converters would decide not to handle that new feature. They would still be able to handle DNGs for cameras that didn't use it."
It would be unreasonable to expect Adobe in 2004 to design a final specification for DNG, catering for things that would become important for (say) 9 years or more.
And it would be very bad if old versions ceased to be valid. Lots of DNGs in the world, include lots coming from cameras, are versions 1.0.0.0 or 1.1.0.0.
What alternative scheme would you suggest?
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum