At one time I saved the PEFs. A few years ago I finally realized that I never used them for anything and deleted all of them.
There are so many advantages to DNG. I shoot directly in DNG in my Pentax camera body that has that option. Any others I convert on Import to Lightroom. Given that DNG is a fully defined and disclosed format there is no need for XMP sidecar files. The XMP data is stored within the DNG file. There is a good summary of DNG here <http://dpbestflow.org/DNG> This quote from the section on file formats is interesting. I've never heard about the "hash" anywhere else. "The DNG format preserves the original raw sensor data just the same as the proprietary raw files. Nothing is left out. DNG is a safer archival container for several important reasons. The first is that it is a documented format. Its specification is openly published and how DNG files are constructed is openly shared with other software vendors. The second reason is that, unlike any other raw format, DNG contains a file verification tool known as a "hash" that can tell if the raw image data remains unchanged and uncorrupted. This hash only references the raw image data, so a DNG file can be processed an infinite number of times and the XMP instruction set(s) and embedded JPEG preview(s) can be redone an infinite number of times, but the underlying raw data does not change, so it can continue to be verified forever. One disadvantage of DNG has nothing to do with the format itself but has to do with the number of software vendors that choose to support DNG. Since not all do, DNG files cannot be processed in every possible raw file processor out there, especially the camera manufacturer's software. DNG can, however, contain even the proprietary raw file within the DNG container, so if this is a concern, you can choose to save your DNG files with the proprietary raw files embedded. The file verification hash will then also protect the proprietary raw data as well as the DNG raw image data. This, in fact, is currently the only way to verify proprietary raw files. DNG files can sometimes be smaller than proprietary raw since DNG uses a very efficient lossless compression scheme on the raw image data. DNG files can be the same size or slightly larger than proprietary raw if they contain full size JPEG previews. DNG files can be twice the size of proprietary raw if the proprietary raw file is optionally embedded." End of Quote from dpbestworkflow. There is a way more information at dpbestworkflow.org George Sinos -------------------- [email protected] www.georgesphotos.net plus.georgesinos.com On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 6:45 AM, J.C. O'Connell <[email protected]> wrote: > what if you wanted to use the cameras lcd as a display device, > can the bodies display DNG files? > > ----------------- > J.C.O'Connell > [email protected] > ----------------- > > -----Original Message----- > From: PDML [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bruce Walker > Sent: Friday, October 26, 2012 7:37 AM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: Convert PEF to DNG or not? > > "I should have kept the PEF files." -- said by no-one, ever. :-) > > I do what Alastair does. I've shot raws since 2007 and I've tossed out > all the PEFs, keeping only the converted DNGs (some 37,000 of them). > > DNG is essentially a superset of PEF and they are both lossless > formats. DNG has wide industry support, and is a de facto standard. > PEF is unique to Pentax and Pentax supports both. > > > > On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 3:17 AM, Alastair Robertson > <[email protected]> wrote: >> I routinely convert my PEF's into DNG's on import into lightroom (and >> throw away the PEF at that time) and have the lightroom catalog set to >> write the metadata into the DNG. That way, if the files are moved >> from one catalog to another, the keywords, develop settings etc go >> with them without the need to import from catalog. I have no worries >> about the DNG format continued to being supported - there must be a >> lot more people using DNG than PEF in the world! >> >> Alastair >> >> On 26 October 2012 18:08, Boris Liberman <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Hi! >>> >>> I've been thinking about this for a long time now. I have few tens of >>> thousands of photos that were taken by *istD (PEF) or K10D (also PEF, > shame >>> on me). I could convert them to DNG and discard (is it smart?) the >>> originals. >>> >>> Do you think it is a good idea? Do I need to worry about compatibility > with >>> various version of DNG format/Adobe DNG support? >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> Boris >>> >>> -- >>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>> [email protected] >>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >>> follow the directions. >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> [email protected] >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > follow the directions. > > > > -- > -bmw > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > follow the directions. > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
