Re: RAW file size variation? (Dumb Question #3485438345)
very insightful. you might find it useful to read the actual post though. i was talking about *software* part of it. dslrs are quite a bit more than "just a light tight box" and software is a big chunk of it. besides, pentax wasn't exactly a pioneer in this field. best, mishka > If you are discussing the istD, you really are clueless. > I suspect you are the type of customer they wish would just buy a Canon. > > William Robb
Re: RAW file size variation? (Dumb Question #3485438345)
- Original Message - From: "Mishka" Subject: Re: RAW file size variation? (Dumb Question #3485438345) some folks just expect to get something more than a half-baked bottom-dollar product when they are about to fork off a grand or so. but - hey, - that's just my opinion. if they are doing great without my money -- good for them. If you are discussing the istD, you really are clueless. I suspect you are the type of customer they wish would just buy a Canon. William Robb
Re: RAW file size variation? (Dumb Question #3485438345)
- Original Message - From: "Rob Studdert" Subject: Re: RAW file size variation? (Dumb Question #3485438345) On 14 Nov 2004 at 21:36, John Francis wrote: It's the same as the complaints about lack of the aperture coupler; some folks just expect everybody else to subsidise their preferences. I don't think so, the software development cost argument is a tenuous one. If I had the choice to forsake one function for faster/smaller RAW files I'm sure I could live without in-camera multiple exposures. How much cost do you think went into developing that baby, I would guess there is a whole lot more code and cost in there (especially considering is the first ever (and probably last) implementation in a DSLR). And I'm betting a whole lot more people shoot RAW than use the multiple exposure function on a regular basis? Pentax has a history of putting wonky little "features" onto their cameras. Really, how many LX users do you think have used the flag that covers the corner of the frame? How many LX users have actually rewound their film from frame 24 back to frame 3 because they wanted to put something else into that shot? Someone on the board of directors probably likes doing multiple exposures with his film camera, and it got sent to the engineers to be made to happen. Smaller RAW files would be nice, but it is more likely that they spent more time and money, rather than less, making PEF files twice as large as they need to be, and that development was independant of multiple exposures in the feature set. William Robb
Re: RAW file size variation? (Dumb Question #3485438345)
On 14 Nov 2004 at 21:36, John Francis wrote: > It's the same as the complaints about lack of the aperture coupler; > some folks just expect everybody else to subsidise their preferences. I don't think so, the software development cost argument is a tenuous one. If I had the choice to forsake one function for faster/smaller RAW files I'm sure I could live without in-camera multiple exposures. How much cost do you think went into developing that baby, I would guess there is a whole lot more code and cost in there (especially considering is the first ever (and probably last) implementation in a DSLR). And I'm betting a whole lot more people shoot RAW than use the multiple exposure function on a regular basis? Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: RAW file size variation? (Dumb Question #3485438345)
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 21:36:13 -0500 (EST), John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It's the same as the complaints about lack of the aperture coupler; yes, a kind of. five-and-diming the customers. > some folks just expect everybody else to subsidise their preferences. some folks just expect to get something more than a half-baked bottom-dollar product when they are about to fork off a grand or so. but - hey, - that's just my opinion. if they are doing great without my money -- good for them. best, mishka
Re: RAW file size variation? (Dumb Question #3485438345)
Ah yes more sophistry. John Francis wrote: Mishka mused: you mean, pentax did the right thing by tranfering their expenses (software development) on customers (storage). Since you put it like that - yes. Better for them to get the camera out earlier, and allow additional models to come out sooner. Not to mention that the additional R&D costs to write the software would probably add more to the cost of the camera than the additional storage. Certainly I'm sure that the owners who never use RAW mode would rather have a cheaper camera than pay extra for features that they will never use. It's the same as the complaints about lack of the aperture coupler; some folks just expect everybody else to subsidise their preferences. -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke
Re: RAW file size variation? (Dumb Question #3485438345)
Mishka mused: > > you mean, pentax did the right thing by tranfering their expenses > (software development) on customers (storage). Since you put it like that - yes. Better for them to get the camera out earlier, and allow additional models to come out sooner. Not to mention that the additional R&D costs to write the software would probably add more to the cost of the camera than the additional storage. Certainly I'm sure that the owners who never use RAW mode would rather have a cheaper camera than pay extra for features that they will never use. It's the same as the complaints about lack of the aperture coupler; some folks just expect everybody else to subsidise their preferences.
Re: RAW file size variation? (Dumb Question #3485438345)
we're paying for their lazy programmers every time. more images on a storage card and shorter time to flush an image from buffer to card is what they should have been paying attention to. home computers are fast enough now that unpacking from 12 to 16 bits should be the least of anyone's problems. Herb... - Original Message - From: "John Francis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2004 6:00 PM Subject: Re: RAW file size variation? (Dumb Question #3485438345) > Unlike most (or at least most who express an opinion) on this list, > I think Pentax did the right thing with their PEF fle format. > When the 14-bit sensors come out, Pentax won't have to change their > format. They can also use standard software libraries to read and > write their image files - a PEF file is actually just a very thinly > disguised TIFF file. That's going to make it really easy for any > future versions of Photo Laboratory and suchlike to handle both the > existing 12-bit and any future 14-bit (or even 16-bit) files.
Re: RAW file size variation? (Dumb Question #3485438345)
On 14 Nov 2004 at 18:00, John Francis wrote: > Unlike most (or at least most who express an opinion) on this list, > I think Pentax did the right thing with their PEF fle format. > When the 14-bit sensors come out, Pentax won't have to change their > format. They can also use standard software libraries to read and > write their image files - a PEF file is actually just a very thinly > disguised TIFF file. That's going to make it really easy for any > future versions of Photo Laboratory and suchlike to handle both the > existing 12-bit and any future 14-bit (or even 16-bit) files. Unfortunately I've come to view Pentax PhotoLab is a waste of time, like many others it seems. So I really don't care what the internal file format is, I just care that it can be decoded using PS CS RAW, which it seems even the unpadded files of various bit depths from other manufacturers can. I'm more concerned about how many shots I can fit on my CF cards and how much space my archives take up on my HDD array, how many RAW images fit on a DVD and how long it takes to transfer x number of images from my CF cards. > Fortunately, the very fact that PEF is already basically a TIFF > file means that Pentax are probably the most likely manufacturer > to switch to using DNG as their internal file format; they're > already 95% (or more) of the way there (DNG is also based on TIFF). > > Incidentally, this "well though out" DNG format also includes the > extra four bits of padding per pixel that you berate Pentax for > using. The reduction in file size output from the DNG converter > comes from the (optional) compression - turn compression off, and > DNG files approach PEF files in size. Again I don't care how it's dealt with, the padding could be added at any time in the data stream, what is important is the file size to the user. If DNG can fix this then it's a good thing IMHO. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: RAW file size variation? (Dumb Question #3485438345)
Lots, but none that will help here... Don Sanderson wrote: In my quest to understand all this stuff... Why do the .PEF file sizes vary so much? I just took 30 exposures, the files vary from 12,244KB to 14,239KB. I thought this might be tied to complexity or perhaps brightness of the subject, but it doesn't seem to be. Here are 3 results I obtained: (All at 150th/f:5.6 in weak daylight) 1.) Shot with lenscap on = 12,244KB 2.) Detailed shot of dried flowers = 12,875KB 3.) Shot of plain white wall = 12,572KB Any ideas? Don -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke
Re: RAW file size variation? (Dumb Question #3485438345)
you mean, pentax did the right thing by tranfering their expenses (software development) on customers (storage). then again, by the same logic, they should have used 32 bit files. just in case :) best, mishka On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 18:00:51 -0500 (EST), John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Unlike most (or at least most who express an opinion) on this list, > I think Pentax did the right thing with their PEF fle format. > When the 14-bit sensors come out, Pentax won't have to change their > format. They can also use standard software libraries to read and > write their image files - a PEF file is actually just a very thinly > disguised TIFF file. That's going to make it really easy for any > future versions of Photo Laboratory and suchlike to handle both the > existing 12-bit and any future 14-bit (or even 16-bit) files.
Re: RAW file size variation? (Dumb Question #3485438345)
Rob Studdert mused: > > The worst component of which are 4 bits of padding per pixel, it's completely > redundant and adds around 3MB to the file size, it seems to have been an easy > hurdle to jump for most other manufacturers. Unlike most (or at least most who express an opinion) on this list, I think Pentax did the right thing with their PEF fle format. When the 14-bit sensors come out, Pentax won't have to change their format. They can also use standard software libraries to read and write their image files - a PEF file is actually just a very thinly disguised TIFF file. That's going to make it really easy for any future versions of Photo Laboratory and suchlike to handle both the existing 12-bit and any future 14-bit (or even 16-bit) files. > Like Bill mentioned, I too hope that DNG is finally adopted as an industry > wide > defacto standard for RAW files, it's well thought out. Fortunately, the very fact that PEF is already basically a TIFF file means that Pentax are probably the most likely manufacturer to switch to using DNG as their internal file format; they're already 95% (or more) of the way there (DNG is also based on TIFF). Incidentally, this "well though out" DNG format also includes the extra four bits of padding per pixel that you berate Pentax for using. The reduction in file size output from the DNG converter comes from the (optional) compression - turn compression off, and DNG files approach PEF files in size.
RE: RAW file size variation? (Dumb Question #3485438345)
On 14 Nov 2004 at 15:59, Don Sanderson wrote: > Thanks, I still wonder why a jpeg with no detail would > take more space than a detailed one. Your example file sized are what I would expect (All at 150th/f:5.6 in weak daylight) 1.) Shot with lenscap on = 12,244KB 2.) Detailed shot of dried flowers = 12,875KB 3.) Shot of plain white wall = 12,572KB > Bloated files.hmmm > I wonder.is Pentax related to Micros***...NAH! ;-) The worst component of which are 4 bits of padding per pixel, it's completely redundant and adds around 3MB to the file size, it seems to have been an easy hurdle to jump for most other manufacturers. Like Bill mentioned, I too hope that DNG is finally adopted as an industry wide defacto standard for RAW files, it's well thought out. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
RE: RAW file size variation? (Dumb Question #3485438345)
Thanks, I still wonder why a jpeg with no detail would take more space than a detailed one. Bloated files.hmmm I wonder.is Pentax related to Micros***...NAH! ;-) Don > -Original Message- > From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2004 3:42 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: RAW file size variation? (Dumb Question #3485438345) > > > > - Original Message - > From: "Don Sanderson" > Subject: RAW file size variation? (Dumb Question #3485438345) > > > > In my quest to understand all this stuff... > > > > Why do the .PEF file sizes vary so much? > > I just took 30 exposures, the files vary from > > 12,244KB to 14,239KB. > > Bloated files. They have at least one JPEG imbedded in the file, > which I expect is where the size variations reside. > A PEF file converted to Adobe DNG is something like 5mb. > I would like to see DNG adopted as an industry standard, but I am not > holding out much hope. > > William Robb > >
Re: RAW file size variation? (Dumb Question #3485438345)
- Original Message - From: "Don Sanderson" Subject: RAW file size variation? (Dumb Question #3485438345) In my quest to understand all this stuff... Why do the .PEF file sizes vary so much? I just took 30 exposures, the files vary from 12,244KB to 14,239KB. Bloated files. They have at least one JPEG imbedded in the file, which I expect is where the size variations reside. A PEF file converted to Adobe DNG is something like 5mb. I would like to see DNG adopted as an industry standard, but I am not holding out much hope. William Robb
Re: RAW file size variation? (Dumb Question #3485438345)
On 14 Nov 2004 at 14:18, Don Sanderson wrote: > In my quest to understand all this stuff... > > Why do the .PEF file sizes vary so much? > I just took 30 exposures, the files vary from > 12,244KB to 14,239KB. They also contain an embedded jpg file which is supposedly used for histogram generation and review in camera. The Pentax RAW file is bloated, my average PEF file size (over 5k images) is 13,489,592B Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
RAW file size variation? (Dumb Question #3485438345)
In my quest to understand all this stuff... Why do the .PEF file sizes vary so much? I just took 30 exposures, the files vary from 12,244KB to 14,239KB. I thought this might be tied to complexity or perhaps brightness of the subject, but it doesn't seem to be. Here are 3 results I obtained: (All at 150th/f:5.6 in weak daylight) 1.) Shot with lenscap on = 12,244KB 2.) Detailed shot of dried flowers = 12,875KB 3.) Shot of plain white wall = 12,572KB Any ideas? Don
