Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 13 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Michael's DNG comment  (Read 35658 times)
Alan Goldhammer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1605


WWW
« Reply #80 on: August 09, 2012, 06:42:07 PM »
ReplyReply


The DNG file or digital negative is not a Canon format.  The DNG file has been processed and does not contain as much color information as the Canon CR2 RAW file.  You can convert the file to a TIFF file in Digital Photo Professional and open the TIFF in Adobe.  This will retain color information and have a usable file across applications, but the file will be very large.

We hope this information was useful to you. Please let us know if we can be of any further assistance with any of our Canon products.

Thank you for choosing Canon.

Sincerely,

Trevis
Technical Support Representative


This would be funny if it wasn't so sad a reply.  I guess Trevis is implying that Leica cannot capture all the color information because they use the DNG standard; same for Pentax!
Logged

Martin Ocando
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 98



WWW
« Reply #81 on: August 09, 2012, 07:49:35 PM »
ReplyReply

I decided to ask Canon Support directly.  Here is my question:   Canon software does not offer dng file format as an option. This creates a problem each time I purchase a new camera that has a new raw format.  I can not utilize Lightroom or Adobe Camera Raw which are far superior raw converters compared to DPP.  Why does not Canon offer dng as an option either in camera or via DPP?  thanks in advance



Here is the reply:

Dear Bryan Conner:

Thank you for contacting Canon product support.  We value you as a Canon customer and appreciate the opportunity to assist you.

The DNG file or digital negative is not a Canon format.  The DNG file has been processed and does not contain as much color information as the Canon CR2 RAW file.  You can convert the file to a TIFF file in Digital Photo Professional and open the TIFF in Adobe.  This will retain color information and have a usable file across applications, but the file will be very large.

We hope this information was useful to you. Please let us know if we can be of any further assistance with any of our Canon products.

Thank you for choosing Canon.

Sincerely,

Trevis
Technical Support Representative



Ok, now everyone can move along....we have our answer!   Roll Eyes

Then sit down with Adobe to improve DNG color information. Or develop a new universal format and share it with everyone. What is the problem?

I don't see the point in keeping a closed format. Are they afraid that if they do that, people will jump ship faster then if they don't? Is a pretty short sighted decision, IMHO.
Logged

Martin Ocando
Panasonic Lumix DMC G3 - Panasonic G Vario 14-42mm f:3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS, Panasonic G 20mm f:1.7 ASPH, Panasonic G Vario 45-200mm f:4-5.6 OIS
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7241


WWW
« Reply #82 on: August 09, 2012, 11:00:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

From the answer it is pretty clear that the Canon representative is absolutely clueless...

For me it is clear that Adobe are the good boys and camera vendors are the bad ones. Just to point out, each new camera has it's own format, and that may even change subtly with a firmware update. The software to read it may not be around forever. Or it may not work on your next computer.

Best regards
Erik


Then sit down with Adobe to improve DNG color information. Or develop a new universal format and share it with everyone. What is the problem?

I don't see the point in keeping a closed format. Are they afraid that if they do that, people will jump ship faster then if they don't? Is a pretty short sighted decision, IMHO.

Logged

Bryan Conner
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 514


WWW
« Reply #83 on: August 09, 2012, 11:30:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Why should anyone have the expectation that Canon will make it possible to shoot in DNG?

Because DNG is being offered up as a standard file format for raw data from digital cameras and we as consumers would like to have standards compliant digital cameras.

I don't expect Canon to do anything concerning which format they use.  It is their choice.  I do think that it is in the best interests of the photographic industry that all camera manufacturers use an open raw format.  But, to expect it is to regard it as likely to happen, or to think that it will happen.  I have no reason to believe that Canon will adopt, or that it is likely that Canon will adopt, a new raw format.  There is no evidence pointing to that.  History points in the opposite direction.  Hence, no expectation.  I just want to know why there is no apparent reason for me to expect it.
Logged

Bryan Conner
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 514


WWW
« Reply #84 on: August 09, 2012, 11:33:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

From the answer it is pretty clear that the Canon representative is absolutely clueless...

For me it is clear that Adobe are the good boys and camera vendors are the bad ones. Just to point out, each new camera has it's own format, and that may even change subtly with a firmware update. The software to read it may not be around forever. Or it may not work on your next computer.

Best regards
Erik

I agree, either Trevis is clueless, or he is only repeating what he has been instructed to say.
Logged

dreed
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1209


« Reply #85 on: August 10, 2012, 09:44:41 AM »
ReplyReply

I don't expect Canon to do anything concerning which format they use.  It is their choice.  I do think that it is in the best interests of the photographic industry that all camera manufacturers use an open raw format.  But, to expect it is to regard it as likely to happen, or to think that it will happen.  I have no reason to believe that Canon will adopt, or that it is likely that Canon will adopt, a new raw format.  There is no evidence pointing to that.  History points in the opposite direction.  Hence, no expectation.  I just want to know why there is no apparent reason for me to expect it.

Companies deliver what users want. Part of what they want is that they expect something.

If you don't want DNG and thus don't expect it, then you're part of the problem that Jeff Schewe talked about earlier in this thread.

In this case we are the dog trainers and Canon is the dog. If we continue to let them to only jump as high as they can then they'll never jump any higher. If however we raise the bar and they only get fed when they jump as high as we want them to then they'll train and work harder to reach the goal. Unless it is that they don't want a biscuit.

If we the consumer do not create the demand and expectation for DNG then Canon won't deliver it. To do that means at the very least to stop asking "Why not" and to start asking "When".

Ultimately though it will not be enough for you or I to expect DNG from Canon/Nikon for it to be delivered, it must be expected from reviewers. And those that review coming cameras have got to be willing to keep saying "No native DNG output" in the "Cons" section of their review. Or say "I'd like to recommend this camera to you but it doesn't shoot DNG. Therefore it gets a ``Do not recommend'' stamp."
Logged
deejjjaaaa
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 743


« Reply #86 on: August 10, 2012, 10:57:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Most 3rd party raw converters can translate the different raw formats (languages) spoken by each manufacturers cameras.  But, can Canon's DPP open an NEF file? and vice versa?  My point in using the "Tower of Babble" example to describe the situation was in reference to all of these different "languages" being spoken.  And you are correct, I was using it jokingly.  When a new camera is introduced that uses a new raw format, it is possible that Adobe can not understand.  What about the Sony RX100 users today?  Where is your common language with it?  Which Adobe Raw converter can translate that language?

just wait for the next release - if you are in hurry there are converters to use now...  there is a difference between a tantrum (I want support the next minute when it is announced) and getting the proper support in w/ a next, regular release of a raw converter... RX100 is not some tool using which is a matter of life and death... neither for a pleasure nor for a business.
Logged
deejjjaaaa
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 743


« Reply #87 on: August 10, 2012, 11:03:18 AM »
ReplyReply

Just to point out, each new camera has it's own format

no, not each...  rarely format is changed - please for once - compare the sequential releases of dcraw code and do not mix format w/ the data stored in that format (like camera ID for example).
Logged
sandymc
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 248


« Reply #88 on: August 10, 2012, 11:45:46 AM »
ReplyReply

no, not each...  rarely format is changed - please for once - compare the sequential releases of dcraw code and do not mix format w/ the data stored in that format (like camera ID for example).


Yes, but the "format" not changing is less useful that you might think. Most raw formats don't encode everything that the raw converter needs to convert an image. E.g., what pixels are masked, color conversion parameters, etc. If you look inside DCRaw, you'll see individual settings for nearly every individual camera. So from the perspective of a raw developer, the format might as well change every time - you still have to change code, and release a new version of the software.

DNG is an exception in this regard because it encodes everything the raw converter needs into the image, rather than requiring that the raw converter have specific knowledge of the camera model. So new cameras can be introduced without requiring new versions of raw converters.

Sandy
Logged
Bryan Conner
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 514


WWW
« Reply #89 on: August 10, 2012, 12:00:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Companies deliver what users want. Part of what they want is that they expect something.

If you don't want DNG and thus don't expect it, then you're part of the problem that Jeff Schewe talked about earlier in this thread.

In this case we are the dog trainers and Canon is the dog. If we continue to let them to only jump as high as they can then they'll never jump any higher. If however we raise the bar and they only get fed when they jump as high as we want them to then they'll train and work harder to reach the goal. Unless it is that they don't want a biscuit.

If we the consumer do not create the demand and expectation for DNG then Canon won't deliver it. To do that means at the very least to stop asking "Why not" and to start asking "When".

Ultimately though it will not be enough for you or I to expect DNG from Canon/Nikon for it to be delivered, it must be expected from reviewers. And those that review coming cameras have got to be willing to keep saying "No native DNG output" in the "Cons" section of their review. Or say "I'd like to recommend this camera to you but it doesn't shoot DNG. Therefore it gets a ``Do not recommend'' stamp."

I expect you to understand that when I asked Canon my "why" question, that was the question that I wanted to ask.  I did not want to know when.  I wanted to know why.  Therefore, I asked the correct question for me.  I was not asking for you.  I expect you to be able to ask your own questions.  But, if you need assistance in asking your own questions, I will be happy to oblige...just let me know.  I do not think that I am part of the problem because I ask why instead of when.  If Canon does not offer dng in their cameras soon enough for me to have when I "must" have it and it is so important to me that I can not work without it, THEN I will look for an alternative.  Maybe I purchase a Leica or whatever other camera that is available that uses dng format.  I will make my own choice when I need to...just like I am able to choose what question to ask.  The bottom line, and what is most important, is that I think that all of the manufacturers could incorporate dng if they chose to do so.  It is about choice.  I think that dng, or something similar, would be good for the digital photographic world if it were adopted by all manufacturers.  So, I do not disagree with your position on dng, but I do disagree with the fact that you find it necessary to dictate what question I should ask when I am the one asking. 
« Last Edit: August 10, 2012, 12:08:47 PM by Bryan Conner » Logged

jeremypayne
Guest
« Reply #90 on: August 10, 2012, 12:28:53 PM »
ReplyReply

just wait for the next release

Exactly ... what a tempest in a teapot!

And I say that as an RX100 owner who is anxious for Adobe to release the next update.
Logged
AFairley
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1129



« Reply #91 on: August 10, 2012, 02:34:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Exactly ... what a tempest in a teapot!

And I say that as an RX100 owner who is anxious for Adobe to release the next update.

However, the fact remains that from a macro economic efficiency standpoint not having a unified RAW standard is ridiculously inefficient.  (Like incompatible mobile phone protocols, for example).  And I end up paying for that inefficiency, because Adobe's costs of continually updating LR and ACR to support every new model coming down the pike is passed on to me in the costs of the product.  No, it's not a big deal to me, but it's monumentally stupid.
Logged

Rory
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 156


« Reply #92 on: August 10, 2012, 04:08:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Just wondering.  If you are a nikon or canon shooter with all the bodies, lenses and accessories and the other manufacturer started using DNG, would you switch?  I would not just for the DNG.
Logged
wildlightphoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 610


« Reply #93 on: August 10, 2012, 04:30:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Just wondering.  If you are a nikon or canon shooter with all the bodies, lenses and accessories and the other manufacturer started using DNG, would you switch?  I would not just for the DNG.

Perhaps not just for DNG but personally it would help tip the balance of "pro" and "con".


In this case we are the dog trainers and Canon is the dog. If we continue to let them to only jump as high as they can then they'll never jump any higher. If however we raise the bar and they only get fed when they jump as high as we want them to then they'll train and work harder to reach the goal. Unless it is that they don't want a biscuit.

If we the consumer do not create the demand and expectation for DNG then Canon won't deliver it. To do that means at the very least to stop asking "Why not" and to start asking "When".

Ultimately though it will not be enough for you or I to expect DNG from Canon/Nikon for it to be delivered, it must be expected from reviewers. And those that review coming cameras have got to be willing to keep saying "No native DNG output" in the "Cons" section of their review. Or say "I'd like to recommend this camera to you but it doesn't shoot DNG. Therefore it gets a ``Do not recommend'' stamp."

I wish people could get equally passionate about viewfinders.
Logged
dreed
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1209


« Reply #94 on: August 10, 2012, 05:45:08 PM »
ReplyReply

So, I do not disagree with your position on dng, but I do disagree with the fact that you find it necessary to dictate what question I should ask when I am the one asking. 

Ah, now I understand why you were so defensive. You could have said that originally.
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7241


WWW
« Reply #95 on: August 10, 2012, 08:38:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Sorry,

I think there are no pros for proprietary raw.

Photographers have right to their own pictures.

I don't think it is wise to thrust the photo industry to support their proprietary raw formats for archival periods of time.

What I would suggest:

- Photo industry adopts common raw format, it doesn't need to be DNG but DNG is mature and proven

- Adobe makes whatever is needed to support the photo industry with regard to DNG (I got the impression they do just that)

- Photographers would not buy equipment until it is supported by their raw package

I really think that those application that are not supporting DNG need to rethink:

- I wanted to try out DxO because I'm interested in their lens corrections. It doesn't work with undemosaiced DNG. One consumer lost, and I'm not alone.

- Wanted to try out Aperture, they won't support DNG one potential customer lost.

Best regards
Erik


Perhaps not just for DNG but personally it would help tip the balance of "pro" and "con".

I wish people could get equally passionate about viewfinders.
Logged

deejjjaaaa
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 743


« Reply #96 on: August 12, 2012, 09:22:48 AM »
ReplyReply

DNG is an exception in this regard because it encodes everything the raw converter needs into the image

you forgot to mention - Adobe raw converter... and because format is rarely changing it has everything if it stops blocking opening the files based on camera model stored there

and the issue that DNG has camera profile stored boils down as to how many users are satisfied w/ one profile supplied by manufacturer... does Adobe DNG standard support several dcp profiles (or ICC) stored at once (to account for different color rendering) ?

« Last Edit: August 12, 2012, 09:32:31 AM by deejjjaaaa » Logged
sandymc
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 248


« Reply #97 on: August 12, 2012, 11:10:03 AM »
ReplyReply

does Adobe DNG standard support several dcp profiles (or ICC) stored at once (to account for different color rendering) ?

LR and ACR support that in DNG images via XMP, but so far as I am aware, its not documented.

Sandy
Logged
Keith Reeder
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 216


WWW
« Reply #98 on: August 12, 2012, 12:42:20 PM »
ReplyReply

does Adobe DNG standard support several dcp profiles (or ICC) stored at once (to account for different color rendering) ?

Does a CR2 or a NEF?

Not sure what your point is there...
Logged

Keith Reeder
Blyth, NE England
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7241


WWW
« Reply #99 on: August 13, 2012, 12:10:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I'm not really sure how an ICC profile belongs to a raw file. I got the impression that cameras cannot really be profiled in the iCC sense, but I may be wrong.

I mostly thing of the late Bruce Fraser's statement that a camera is a color mixing device, if I recall correctly.

Best regards
Erik


Does a CR2 or a NEF?

Not sure what your point is there...
Logged

Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 13 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad