pef vs dng

Dario Bonazza dario.bonazza at virgilio.it
Mon Oct 5 12:27:00 EDT 2009


Mark Roberts wrote:

> Dario Bonazza wrote:
>
>>So I simply
>>won't recommend using a larger file format without a good reason, just
>>"because we've got the power to manage that".
>
> Compressed DNG *isn't* a larger file format than PEF. In theory or
> practice.
>
> Ther *are* good reasons for using DNG for archiving, like unification
> of the raw file and the XMP data.

Mark, I don't want to convince you (or anyone else) to use PEF format 
instead of compressed DNG. Sure I'd use DNG on cameras doing it compressed. 
But... Larry Colen wrote:

> I've been using pef raw files in my K20.
>
> Are there any disadvantages to switching to dng?

Larger files (22MB vs 16MB), hence more SD/hard disk memory required.
However, you can move around the hard disk waste by compressing uncompressed 
DNG files before storing them, if you feel comfortable in doing that every 
time you transfer images from the camera. However, you can also store PEF 
files and then convert them to compressed DNG at a later time, if/when 
you'll decide DNG will suite you better. Also remind that you can always do 
PEF to DNG, while you cannot do DNG to PEF.

Dario





More information about the PDML mailing list