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
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:
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
- 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
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
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
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,
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:
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,
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
.
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
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
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
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
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
- 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
- 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
17 matches
Mail list logo
