Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: A DNG is a DNG?  (Read 24388 times)
Mark_Tuttle
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 92


WWW
« on: October 24, 2008, 03:25:06 PM »
ReplyReply

I was hoping to be able to use Capture One Pro 4.5 to make LLC corrections and then export as a DNG, make a profile in in the Adobe DNG Editor and open in Lightroom 2.

What I discovered was that any DNG created in Capture One 4.1.2 may make a DNG profile but that it isn't read in Lightroom 2 as a choice.  All I see at the bottom under the Calibration options is "Embedded", and the preview looks exactly the same as though I took the Phase One TIFF file and converted it in Adobe Raw DNG Converter 4.5.

I asked Doug Peterson at Capture Integration about this and he replied:

"No information is passed from C1 to other programs through the DNG. It is a clean slate. The white balance is an exception as receiving programs *should* read the white balance with which the shot was ORIGINALLY shot (not what you've changed it to since).
The fact that the two programs create a slightly different DNG is not inherently against the specifications for DNG."

So it doesn't seem that all DNG files are constructed equally.  I haven't discovered a workaround that allows the advantages of making adjustments in RAW in one company's program and yet save the changes to open in another company's program.  Yes, I know I can make changes in ACR and have them tagged as long as I am using other Adobe products.

I thought DNG was heralded as open?  What am I missing?
Logged

Mark Tuttle
MarkTuttle dot Net
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5500


WWW
« Reply #1 on: October 24, 2008, 03:28:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Mark_Tuttle
I thought DNG was heralded as open?  What am I missing?


Are DNGs output from Capture 1 as an undemosiaced DNG or a Linear DNG? There are two flavors you know. Camera Raw and Lightroom can make and read both kinds, but if the DNG is a Linear DNG, then it ain't undemosaied any longer...Pretty sure that the DNG Profiles are only useful for completely raw DNGs...might want to take that up with Phase 1.
Logged
Panopeeper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1805


« Reply #2 on: October 24, 2008, 06:47:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
So it doesn't seem that all DNG files are constructed equally

There is no need for them to be equal in order to work as expected (their structure DOES have to be the same). However, if one version does not work at all, that needs to be investigated.

Can you upload the C1 generated DNG? (yousendit.com), and perhaps the native TIF as well?
« Last Edit: October 24, 2008, 06:49:08 PM by Panopeeper » Logged

Gabor
Farkled
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 97


« Reply #3 on: October 24, 2008, 08:39:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Can I assume that DxO generated DNGs are of the linear variety?  The results from DxO are reflected in the ACR start point.
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5500


WWW
« Reply #4 on: October 24, 2008, 08:59:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Farkled
Can I assume that DxO generated DNGs are of the linear variety?

Yep..
Logged
madmanchan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2110


« Reply #5 on: October 24, 2008, 09:19:07 PM »
ReplyReply

My understanding is that Capture One 4.5 is writing mosaiced DNG files, not linear DNG files. However, I do not believe that Capture One is embedding the same color profile into the DNG as the one that Capture One itself uses to process the images. That is why you are seeing different results.
Logged

NikosR
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 622


WWW
« Reply #6 on: October 24, 2008, 11:21:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Farkled
Can I assume that DxO generated DNGs are of the linear variety?  The results from DxO are reflected in the ACR start point.

Yes, but look here for caveats when using DxO to output DNGs. http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....20&start=20

It seems that the whole DNG thing is trickier than one might think.
« Last Edit: October 24, 2008, 11:23:27 PM by NikosR » Logged

Nikos
Farkled
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 97


« Reply #7 on: October 25, 2008, 02:20:21 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: NikosR
Yes, but look here for caveats when using DxO to output DNGs. http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....20&start=20

It seems that the whole DNG thing is trickier than one might think.
yeah, I'm following that with much interest if not 100% comprehension.  Nobody ever made any bones about feeding ACR a TIF before (other than some reduced capability) so I'm not worried about a cooked DNG now that I know what is happening.  It's kind of weird, but the Fraser/Schewe book on ACR (BTW, maybe the best manual I've ever read) is also the one that made DxO logical and easy for me.

I'm going to have to talk to my daughter about her using her student card to promote me an LR 2.1, but for the moment, for those images selected for intensive work, I seem to get the best results with DxO -> ACR especially with my most used lens (Canon 28-135) which is not renowned for sharpness or contrast.  DxO "fixes" that stuff and distortion and CA.  On some shots the difference is startling (compared to ACR or DPP alone).  With other lenses and shots, not so much.  My ACR is 4.x (latest I can have with CS3)

I have a feeling that by the time ACR gets to 7.x all this will be moot.
Logged
madmanchan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2110


« Reply #8 on: October 25, 2008, 09:53:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Fortunately there will be another major version of CR (i.e., 6.x) before we get to 7.
Logged

sniper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 586


« Reply #9 on: November 07, 2008, 01:16:11 PM »
ReplyReply

So much for the "universal" format.    Wayne
Logged
Panopeeper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1805


« Reply #10 on: November 07, 2008, 01:52:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: sniper
So much for the "universal" format.    Wayne
I am not an enthusiast of the current DNG format, but I can't leave this unanswered.

1. It is not always the sign of the weekness of a standard if some are not following it properly.

For example TIFF is a widely used standard. Still, there are many violations; in fact, it is quite common that TIFF rules are violated in native raw image files, sometimes due to programming error, sometimes to pure arrogance.

2. The DNG specification does allow for preprocessing of the original raw data before converting it in DNG format. Example: the "small raw" formats created by some Canon and Sony cameras.

One disadvantage of DNG is just, that it restricts the creativity of the camera designers. This case is the example for the opposite.
Logged

Gabor
NikosR
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 622


WWW
« Reply #11 on: November 08, 2008, 12:14:37 AM »
ReplyReply

DxO outputs LINEAR DNG which contains demosaiced 'raw' data and is well within the DNG specs AFAIK.

I understand linear DNG to contain RGB data (since the data is demosaiced). I have read that this data is not gamma corrected (hence 'linear') but I have also read that this is not necessarily so... So, the exact advantages of linear DNG vs. TIFF (for example) escape me and it would be useful if somebody knowledgable would join in this discussion. I understand that if you output linear DNG from DxO you can modify this file in ACR or any other linear DNG aware editor, but, I guess, my real question is this:

Is there any REAL (from the point of view of image quality attainable) advantage importing a linear DNG to process in LR as opposed to a TIFF file? The linear DNG or TIFF might come either from a converter like DxO or straight from a camera that supports both formats. Some of LR benefits when processing raw (for example noise processing before demosaicing) are surely not available when working on a linear DNG file...

The best info I've found so far on linear DNG is this http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/linear.htm
« Last Edit: November 08, 2008, 12:58:28 AM by NikosR » Logged

Nikos
Panopeeper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1805


« Reply #12 on: November 08, 2008, 11:02:05 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: NikosR
Is there any REAL (from the point of view of image quality attainable) advantage importing a linear DNG to process in LR as opposed to a TIFF file?
The DNG file IS a TIFF; so the question is, if the additional info, which is present in DNG format is necessary to develop the image.

Certainly there are important differences between the "normal TIFF" and a DNG. Although the demosaiced, linear file is in RGB format (as opposed to the raw format RgbGrbBrg), that is still in the camera's color space and no WB is applied yet. The DNG specifications contain the required info for the color space transformation and white balance application.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2008, 02:08:20 PM by Panopeeper » Logged

Gabor
sniper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 586


« Reply #13 on: November 09, 2008, 05:19:56 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Panopeeper
1. It is not always the sign of the weekness of a standard if some are not following it properly.

 As this is always going to happen does DNG actually have any real longevity as the archival format it's promoted as? if there are going to be "issues" with DNG v DNG we might as well stick the the cameras own RAW format, at least with those we are not being lulled into a false sense of security.  Wayne
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5500


WWW
« Reply #14 on: November 09, 2008, 01:19:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: sniper
A if there are going to be "issues" with DNG v DNG we might as well stick the the cameras own RAW format, at least with those we are not being lulled into a false sense of security.


Big differences...DNG is fully documented and for an archival file format, that's a really big thing...
Logged
Panopeeper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1805


« Reply #15 on: November 09, 2008, 02:07:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: sniper
As this is always going to happen does DNG actually have any real longevity as the archival format it's promoted as? if there are going to be "issues" with DNG v DNG we might as well stick the the cameras own RAW format, at least with those we are not being lulled into a false sense of security
I don't see any advantage in converting the native raw data in DNG format for archivation; just the opposite, the original is the original is the original. I keep almost every version of the DNG converter, and if it turned out to be necessary, I could convert my native raw files in DNG format.

Plainly, there is no advantage in converting native raw files in DNG format if the native raw is supported by your favourite raw processor. The conversion is useful, when you have a camera not supported in your version of PS/LR. ACR is a nightmare of software architecture, justifiable only with the wish to sell the newer and newest version of PS/LR even if you don't need the features.
Logged

Gabor
NikosR
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 622


WWW
« Reply #16 on: November 10, 2008, 01:02:44 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Panopeeper
Plainly, there is no advantage in converting native raw files in DNG format if the native raw is supported by your favourite raw processor. The conversion is useful, when you have a camera not supported in your version of PS/LR. ACR is a nightmare of software architecture, justifiable only with the wish to sell the newer and newest version of PS/LR even if you don't need the features.

I hope you have taken cover since I can see a BMW bike coming flying to get you  

 
Logged

Nikos
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5500


WWW
« Reply #17 on: November 10, 2008, 11:05:15 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Panopeeper
ACR is a nightmare of software architecture, justifiable only with the wish to sell the newer and newest version of PS/LR even if you don't need the features.


Well, let's see...leaving the whole DNG issue aside for the moment let's examine your contention that ACR is "a nightmare of software architecture". Are you referring to the plug-in architecture as it live in Photoshop or are you referring to the Camera Raw code itself? If you are talking about the plug-in architecture I might be inclined to agree that the plug-in SDK is very long in the tooth and that plug-in developers must suffer the Photoshop plug-in SDK if you want to develop cross platform plug-ins that need updating every time the OS or the host app gets major changes. It's a pain, but something that can not be simply changed without essentially breaking every 3rd party developer out there which Adobe is not exactly wanting to do.

If you are talking about the Camera Raw processing pipeline being a nightmare, then you're full of crap. Is it perfect? No...but it's the leading solution out there. Camera Raw has about 60% of the marketplace with Lightroom about 35%. So, it's not like people don't find useful functionality and compared to the camera makers' software (which of course should be "perfect" right?) it seems the Camera Raw engineers are doing a pretty good job.

The fact you don't seem to like the Camera Raw solution says more about you and your point of view than Camera Raw itself. If you've got a better solution to the problem of undocumented, proprietary raw file formats, let's hear it.
Logged
Panopeeper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1805


« Reply #18 on: November 10, 2008, 05:09:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Schewe
might be inclined to agree that the plug-in SDK is very long in the tooth and that plug-in developers must suffer the Photoshop plug-in SDK if you want to develop cross platform plug-ins that need updating every time the OS or the host app gets major changes
This was not my subject. I did not criticize the plug-in architecture, for I know nothing of it. However, as you touched it: even the "nothing" of knowledge is more than enough to realize, that ACR is misearbly misplaced in the plug-in architecture. They fit like chalk and cheese.

Quote
The fact you don't seem to like the Camera Raw solution says more about you and your point of view than Camera Raw itself
I am very sorry to disappoint you, but ACR is at the moment my favourite raw converter. This does not make it the ideal raw converter; however, you are not the one to discuss this issue with.

Quote
got a better solution to the problem of undocumented, proprietary raw file formats, let's hear it
I am afraid this will surprize you, but that subject has nothing to do with the raw formats. My comment related to the software architecture. If you believed that you have been asked in that subject, well, why don't you ask me about printing on an Epson (or on any other) printer?
Logged

Gabor
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5500


WWW
« Reply #19 on: November 10, 2008, 07:39:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Panopeeper
This was not my subject. I did not criticize the plug-in architecture, for I know nothing of it. However, as you touched it: even the "nothing" of knowledge is more than enough to realize, that ACR is misearbly misplaced in the plug-in architecture. They fit like chalk and cheese.


Well, the whole intent and design of Camera Raw was and still is a file format import plug-in...the reason to build it in the first place was to be able to open proprietary raw file formats that Photoshop can't read.

Import plug-ins are a special class of plug-in architecture that allows Photoshop to access and convert file formats. Look in your Photoshop File Format subfolder in Plug-ins to see all the other import plug-ins Photoshop needs to access various formats. The fact that Camera Raw has progressed in it's capabilities to appear far more than an import plug-in doesn't change that fact that that's all it is. If you want to see the Camera Raw pipeline in an application form, just look at Lightroom. Could Camera Raw be coded inside of Photoshop? Sure...but then it would no longer live on it's own and fall under the management of other people besides the Camera Raw team–which I think would be a bad thing.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad