pef vs dng

Dario Bonazza dario.bonazza at virgilio.it
Mon Oct 5 16:08:25 EDT 2009


Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 9:01 AM, Dario Bonazza <dario.bonazza at virgilio.it> 
> wrote:
>> The dirty joke has no relevance in itself, but it suddenly came to mind 
>> when
>> thinking of the difference between theory and practice, and that was the
>> point I wanted to highlight.
>
> How your "dirty" joke was supposed to illuminate me is beyond my 
> imagination.

Slightly editing my sentence above:
<snip> thinking of the difference between theory and practice, and that (the 
difference betwen theory and practice) was the
point I wanted to highlight.

OK, I admit that too abstraction was required to follow my thoughts. Going 
further, my joke was meant to make one think that often there is indeed a 
difference between theory and practice. If you can accept the point, then 
you can probably accept that:
OK, you can converto PEF's into DNG's,
OK, you can compress uncompressed DNG's,
OK, you can automate any process you like and think it's worth doing that,
OK, anything else of your choice,

but...

1) Not everything works smoothly all the time
2) Nothing can be really for free (no money, no time, no problems, no risks, 
etc...).

Furthermore, I think there's no big point in doing something "just because 
you can do it". Usually, I prefer doing something interesting. So, why do I 
have to perform/setup those conversions/compressions just for obtaining a 
result (make the DNG's shrink into PEF's size) when a PEF is already of the 
PEF size?
Not to speak of the missing metadata when converting PEF to DNG before Adobe 
fixed the DNG mess.

Now that the K-7 can output compressed DNG's, I can see little reason for 
sticking to PEF. The only reason could be the possibility to convert PEF's 
to DNG's in case one day you'll find a good reason for doing that, while you 
cannot revert DNG's to PEF's in case you'll need that.

Dario





More information about the PDML mailing list