kchan
Member
The erf files are about 9.6mb. When I run them though DNG converter the resulting files are smaller, somewhere in the range of 5mb.
Any ideas why?
thanks,
ken
Any ideas why?
thanks,
ken
The DNG format compresses the the file efficiently in a non-destructive way ("lossless"), i.e. the pixels in the image are not changed in any way.kchan said:The erf files are about 9.6mb. When I run them though DNG converter the resulting files are smaller, somewhere in the range of 5mb.
frncz said:Compression takes time (processor time). Writing to disk takes time, depending on hardware characteristics. Depending on the balance between these two factors, compression followed by writing small files can be faster than no compression, but writing large files. If the processor in the Rd1s is relatively slow, it may be faster to go for fast writes and no compression. It is not necessarily a sloppy decision, but a value judgement concerning the importance of write/read speed, and amount of storage space. Memory cards are getting cheaper and faster, so the decision by Epson may be wise in the long term. We need to change camera to get a faster processor, but we can upgrade our memory card.
waldemarski said:Does anyone regularly convert their .ERF files to .DNG as a part of their default workflow? I could see doing that in the interests of space efficiency and compatibility.
just curious...
waldemar
waldemarski said:Does anyone regularly convert their .ERF files to .DNG as a part of their default workflow? I could see doing that in the interests of space efficiency and compatibility.