Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 9:01 AM, Dario Bonazza <[email protected]>
wrote:
The dirty joke has no relevance in itself, but it suddenly came to mind
when
thinking of the difference between theory and practice, and that was the
point I wanted to highlight.
How your "dirty" joke was supposed to illuminate me is beyond my
imagination.
Slightly editing my sentence above:
<snip> thinking of the difference between theory and practice, and that (the
difference betwen theory and practice) was the
point I wanted to highlight.
OK, I admit that too abstraction was required to follow my thoughts. Going
further, my joke was meant to make one think that often there is indeed a
difference between theory and practice. If you can accept the point, then
you can probably accept that:
OK, you can converto PEF's into DNG's,
OK, you can compress uncompressed DNG's,
OK, you can automate any process you like and think it's worth doing that,
OK, anything else of your choice,
but...
1) Not everything works smoothly all the time
2) Nothing can be really for free (no money, no time, no problems, no risks,
etc...).
Furthermore, I think there's no big point in doing something "just because
you can do it". Usually, I prefer doing something interesting. So, why do I
have to perform/setup those conversions/compressions just for obtaining a
result (make the DNG's shrink into PEF's size) when a PEF is already of the
PEF size?
Not to speak of the missing metadata when converting PEF to DNG before Adobe
fixed the DNG mess.
Now that the K-7 can output compressed DNG's, I can see little reason for
sticking to PEF. The only reason could be the possibility to convert PEF's
to DNG's in case one day you'll find a good reason for doing that, while you
cannot revert DNG's to PEF's in case you'll need that.
Dario
--
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.
