On 3/2/14 2:12 pm, Patrick Shanahan wrote: >> P.S.: You mean your DNGs are 100% + 200% = 3 times as large as before? I >> would certainly report this to Adobe. > > no, 200% greater size, would be +100%. Does include raw.
No, that would be 100% "greater". :) What you mean is 200% "as great as" the original. Sorry to be pedantic, but this subtle difference leads to many gross exaggerations that I come across all the time. :P > Not interested in adobe products or assisting them in their quest to > obtain my money. DNG Converter is absolutely free. And frankly, I am thankful we have DNG because in 20 years, who knows what software will be around to read RAWs for camera X of maker Y (who has long gone out of business)? A common standard increases the chances of continued media access a lot. If you favor OSS, Digikam's DNGConverter is available, apart from Linux/BSD on OS X and Windows too. > My sincere apologies, I was including the raw. w/o the included raw, I do > get slightly greater than a 1% (one percent) reduction in file size. I > can provide some representative files for you to try yourself, if you > cannot accept my figures. These numbers sound reasonable. Size improvements depend a lot on the picture (noise, camera model, etc.). So you mileage would differ from my friend's. Again, this is all OT since the OP asked about a solution for Panasonic RAWs. And size was not an issue anyway, it was purely about being able to open their RAWs in DT. I think we can stop here. :) .mm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Managing the Performance of Cloud-Based Applications Take advantage of what the Cloud has to offer - Avoid Common Pitfalls. Read the Whitepaper. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=121051231&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ darktable-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/darktable-devel
