On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 08:40:42AM -0500, Cory Papenfuss wrote: > > Unfortunately for us Pentax folk, openraw.org seems to be mostly > > agenda-driven, with the agenda being "Why DNG is the wrong answer". > > > > One of the loudest voices in support of openraw is also completely > > opposed to a commercial organisation (viz. Adobe) having control > > of the spec., and seems only too willing to believe the wildest > > conspiracy theories about how Adobe might abuse this control. > > > > We discussed this survey back when it was first publicised, and > > quite a few people filled out the questionnaire. But it was very > > clear to most of us that it wasn't an unbiased survey, but was > > designed to elicit answers that supported the preconcieved agenda. > > > Not unbiased, maybe. It does bring up a valueable point > exemplified by the fact that I cannot convert my RAW photos to DNG's at > this point. I do not own any Microsoft products (nor do I plan to), and > my Mac is about 12 years old. I run linux exclusively and while the RAW > conversion utilities support reading DNG's, I cannot convert my current > PEF's to DNG. > > I've seen enough proprietary formats and proprietary utilities > come and go to have a healthy amount of hesitation to using them for > permanent archival.
Then write your own converter. It's easy enough to do - the DNG spec is published (not exactly what I call a proprietary format). The PEF format isn't published, of course, but it's been reverse-engineered. For permanent archival of RAW files, your choices are PEF or DNG. I know which seems the better option to me. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
