Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 13 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Michael's DNG comment  (Read 39764 times)
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7648


WWW
« Reply #20 on: August 07, 2012, 11:41:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

DNG converter is released simultaneously with Adobe Camera Raw and Lightroom, normally, so it is little help.

There is some software like Bibble Pro that doesn't support DNG, so now days I embed the original RAW files in my DNGs.

Raw formates can change even on the same camera in connection with SW upgrades. In my view the situation is simply insane.

Best regards
Erik


It is not a big issue if your raw files are supported by the dng converter.  But, if the dng converter can not convert your raw files, you are sol.
Logged

deejjjaaaa
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 965



« Reply #21 on: August 07, 2012, 12:03:46 PM »
ReplyReply

.
 In my view the situation is simply insane.
and what the real example from your experience that made you insane recently ?
Logged
deejjjaaaa
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 965



« Reply #22 on: August 07, 2012, 12:05:11 PM »
ReplyReply

given that one can batch convert to DNG and throw out the original RAWs?

why in the world do you want to through out the original raw files (be it DNG or non DNG) ?
Logged
deejjjaaaa
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 965



« Reply #23 on: August 07, 2012, 12:07:42 PM »
ReplyReply

It is not a big issue if your raw files are supported by the dng converter.  But, if the dng converter can not convert your raw files, you are sol.

Adobe DNG converter is not the only "dng converter" that exists...  and if you want just demosaicked data w/o WB applied and no gamma there are more options
Logged
snoleoprd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 434



WWW
« Reply #24 on: August 07, 2012, 12:36:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Adobe DNG converter is not the only "dng converter" that exists...  and if you want just demosaicked data w/o WB applied and no gamma there are more options

Care to enlighten us on other DNG Converters that support cameras before or differently than Adobe? I have seen converters that will take a DNG to something else.

Alan
Logged

Alan Smallbone
Orange County, CA
sbay
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 92


WWW
« Reply #25 on: August 07, 2012, 04:16:45 PM »
ReplyReply

why in the world do you want to through out the original raw files (be it DNG or non DNG) ?

If the camera makers were to have DNG as a native output what would be the difference between that and what you get from converting NEF/CR2/etc --> DNG in batch post processing? If there's no difference why keep the raw file? is there any information in the RAW file that would not be in the DNG?
Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7648


WWW
« Reply #26 on: August 07, 2012, 10:39:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

According to to some knowledgeable people there is or may be information in RAW that cannot be stored in DNG. Some programs, like Bibblepro 5.x and DxO wouldn't handle DNG-files. DxO would handle linear DNG, but linear DNG is demosaiced.

DNG itself is changing. There are different generations of DNG and what used to be a limitation in version 2 may be solved in version 4 for instance.

Best regards
Erik



If the camera makers were to have DNG as a native output what would be the difference between that and what you get from converting NEF/CR2/etc --> DNG in batch post processing? If there's no difference why keep the raw file? is there any information in the RAW file that would not be in the DNG?
Logged

Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5499


WWW
« Reply #27 on: August 07, 2012, 11:02:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Does anyone know if there is any effort to have something like an ISO or JPEG comittee mechanism for developing a raw file format? Either starting with DNG released by Adobe, or from another starting point?

Just to be perfectly friggin' clear (and blowing the crap out of the FUD already posted here), DNG is the brainchild of Thomads Knoll because he studied the Kodak, Nikon and Canon raw files and realized the camera companies didn't have a friggin' clue how to create a well-formed raw file format. We're talking Thomas Knoll who started this whole digital imaging thing, ya know?

He came up with DNG–and Adobe decided to support him and release it as a publicly documented, license free proposed raw file format standard. Funny thing happened, suddenly both Canon and Nikon's subsequent raw file formats magically got a lot better (because they studied DNG and learned a lot).

DNG is not an evil plot by Adobe to try to corner the market on raw file formats...ironically, Adobe had already deeded TIFF to the ISO and allowed the ISO to adopt TIFF into the TIFF-EP format (TIFF for electronic photography). Adobe has already offered DNG to the ISO for their next TIFF-EP update (last I heard "they're working on it"–the ISO is pretty slow to change standards).

To those people who presume that adopting a standard will somehow abort the ability of camera companies to innovate, bullshyte...Camera Raw/DNG has responded to each and every substantial design concept change and updated the DNG spec. There is nothing, and I mean NOTHING that a camera company can come up with that Thomas the the ACR engineers can't deal with...Thomas and Eric Chan are really, really bright boys and no camera company can possible compete with them in terms of software development to process raw images...ACR/DNG already supports over 275 raw file formats and counting...even Capture One can't support all the cameras that ACR/DNG support (although Dcraw by Dave Coffin comes close because he and Thomas have worked closely together and Adobe has even, uh, given Dave a bit of a gift which I can't really talk about).

To those photographers who suspect Adobe is the evil empire trying to squeeze out the camera companies, again, total friggin' bullshyte. Any photographer who thinks it's somehow a good idea that Nikon and Canon are allowed _NOT_ adhere to a raw file format standard is part of the problem, not the solution...when I read about a photographer claiming that Nikon and Canon should reject DNG or some other standard, I seriously wanna bitchslap the motherf@$ker...because it's exactly that sort of photographer that is allowing the camera companies to pull the friggin' wool over photographers' eyes...(sorry for my language–not really, but if you can't guess, I'm starting to get really friggin' tired of idiots giving the green light to Nikon and Canon).

If you want to do some reading, read this...Digital Preservation.

If you read that and come back here and say with a straight face that Nikon and Canon are doing any sort of good thing for the industry by rejecting the adoption of the raw file format standard, I'll eat my hat, my shoes and my underwear...

DNG may not be perfect...but Thomas and the ACR engineers will be happy to listen to ANY technical discussion regarding changes to the DNG spec (we're already as version 1.4 and a lot of the changes have been suggested by the same friggin' camera companies that refuse to adopt DNG).

I'm with Mike on this...the current state of the industry is an abomination...there is no way that photographers should accept the crap than Nikon and Canon (primarily) have tried to get away with. It's a tremendous disservice to the industry, puts our cultural heritage at risk, and for what? Some arrogant thought that maybe, just maybe the proprietary, undocumented raw file formats may have some sort of residual value? Again, bullshyte...the big secret in the industry is there are no "secrets" in the raw file–all of that can be decoded. Whats secret and proprietary is the analog to digital conversion and how the sensor data is written to disk. Once it's saved to media, there's nothing that can't be decoded-it's just a pain in the arse.

Seriously, anybody who thinks that letting the camera companies continue behaving the way they have been behaving is a good idea really must be thought of as an enemy of the photo industry...and deejjjaaaa, if you don't have something substantive to contribute regarding the technical limitations of DNG (so it can be advanced) I suggest you quit trying to take the adversarial position...you are not helping photographers in the industry, you are only giving the camera companies cover and spreading FUD. If you have specific technical issues with DNG, I can direct you to Thomas and Eric and they will fix them. Put up or shut up. But please quit cutting the friggin' camera companies any slack...it's a disservice to the industry (and purely pisses me off, if you haven't guessed).
« Last Edit: August 07, 2012, 11:21:47 PM by Schewe » Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5499


WWW
« Reply #28 on: August 07, 2012, 11:14:01 PM »
ReplyReply

According to to some knowledgeable people there is or may be information in RAW that cannot be stored in DNG. Some programs, like Bibblepro 5.x and DxO wouldn't handle DNG-files.

Again, it would be useful if you could stick to the friggin' facts...Eric Hyman didn't "like" DNG (for some reasons I could mention not in a public forum). Bibble didn't offer full DNG support but only offered DNG support for cameras they already decoded and supported natively–which is not true DNG support. DxO support DNG but must demosiac the file to do the lens correction (duh) and writes out linear DNG.

There are a few cameras out of the 275+ cameras supported whose private maker note metadata is not  moved and stored in a DNG...Sigma/Foveon raw files are an example because their raw files are, well goofy (and again, totally undocumented)...there are some early Canon raw files whose private maker notes were, in essence, encrypted (more by accident vs. intentionally) so that metadata isn't written (from what I remember with discussions from Thomas-but I may be wrong). Metadata that DNG doesn't understand but it properly formed and stored safely is move into the DNG even if ACR/DNG doesn't know what the metadata is or means.

Fact is, if Thomas wanted to, I'm pretty darn sure he could take a proprietary raw file form most any current camera (except Sigma), convert the file to DMNG and the decode the DNG and write back a proprietary raw file that would fool even the camera companies' software and be able to be processed in the camera software.

Again, anybody reading this that doesn't work for Nikon and Canon are are not pissed as hell at the current state of the industry, you are part of the problem, not part of the solution...there is simply no legitimate reason to let Nikon and Canon get away with this crap–which is the point Mike was trying to make.
Logged
Graham Welland
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 612


« Reply #29 on: August 08, 2012, 02:58:37 AM »
ReplyReply

I just wish DNG was universally supported by all raw converters and not just proprietary raw conversion of DNG content. I know that with Apple for example I've been burned by supposed DNG support that it meant support only of embedded raw files known to the converter and not full support. It seems few manufacturers (if at all) render demosaic'd DNGs that are universally supported now and in the future - maybe I'm missing something but I believe ONLY demosaic'd files will survive the test of time ... (and software companies that bite the dust)
« Last Edit: August 08, 2012, 03:00:56 AM by Graham Welland » Logged

Graham
Keith Reeder
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 252


WWW
« Reply #30 on: August 08, 2012, 03:47:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Care to enlighten us on other DNG Converters that support cameras before or differently than Adobe? I have seen converters that will take a DNG to something else.

It probably doesn't qualify by your criteria Alan, but there's this - http://www.visualbakery.com/Tools/DNGImporter.aspx - which is based on the Adobe converter and enhances it.
Logged

Keith Reeder
Blyth, NE England
Keith Reeder
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 252


WWW
« Reply #31 on: August 08, 2012, 03:49:38 AM »
ReplyReply

Eric Hyman didn't "like" DNG (for some reasons I could mention not in a public forum). Bibble didn't offer full DNG support

A mindless policy that has been carried forward to AfterShot Pro (ASP) for no good reason that I can see. They argue that it would be too resource intensive to have to profile DNG conversions for every camera out there, believe it or not.
Logged

Keith Reeder
Blyth, NE England
dreed
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1260


« Reply #32 on: August 08, 2012, 04:24:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: dreed
If DNG is to succeed that Adobe needs to do the following: renounce any IP ownership associated with DNG, DNG decoding or encoding.

What ownership?

Adobe created DNG therefore it is theirs.

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Negative):
DNG is based on the TIFF/EP standard format, and mandates significant use of metadata. Exploitation of the file format is royalty-free; Adobe has published a license allowing anyone to exploit DNG, and has also stated that there are no known intellectual property encumbrances or license requirements for DNG. Adobe stated that if there was a consensus that DNG should be controlled by a standards body, they were open to the idea. Adobe has submitted DNG to ISO for incorporation into their revision of TIFF/EP.

Quote
Quote
They also need to give up ownership to a standards body so that there are no licensing fees associated with writing either a DNG decoder or encoder.
They’ve been trying. And there are no licensing fees that I’m aware of to use DNG.

I wouldn't say that "been trying" is the right way to describe their efforts but there does seem to be some amount of acceptance of them doing it if it became necessary.
Logged
dreed
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1260


« Reply #33 on: August 08, 2012, 04:41:44 AM »
ReplyReply

What's the bet that Canon/Nikon are being obstructionist at an executive level, rather the engineers involved probably suffer from NIHS (Not Invented Here Syndrome) and as long as the decision is left up to the engineers, nothing will change.

Maybe Adobe needs to fly a few executives west and drink sake, play golf/tennis with the appropriate people at Canon/Nikon.
Logged
Robert-Peter Westphal
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 278



WWW
« Reply #34 on: August 08, 2012, 05:15:44 AM »
ReplyReply

I think in case of Nikon it is an economocal problem, if they would switch to DNG in complete.

At the moment, they sell their software package Nikon Capture NX2 seperatly, and this software package is te only which is available to read and understand all infromation available in the NEF. As far as I know, most of the included infropmation are encrypted and only the white-balance chosen by the camera is free. To my knowlede, this is the reason why only Capture NX2 can create a jpg from a NEF which looks identical as the jpg coming directly from the camera.

I don't know the yearly turnover Nikon makes by selling Capture NX2, but I think it could be one reason for them not to go wiht DNG.

Robert
Logged

'visit my completly renewed gallery at http://www.naturfotografie-westphal.com '
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9189



WWW
« Reply #35 on: August 08, 2012, 08:58:33 AM »
ReplyReply

>What ownership?
Adobe created DNG therefore it is theirs.

So what? It cost nothing for anyone to use the format, it is publicly documented. How is this in any way obstruction from camera manufacturers writing out the format, as they do JPEG or for other raw converters to be coded to decode that data?
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
deejjjaaaa
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 965



« Reply #36 on: August 08, 2012, 09:11:03 AM »
ReplyReply

It probably doesn't qualify by your criteria Alan, but there's this - http://www.visualbakery.com/Tools/DNGImporter.aspx - which is based on the Adobe converter and enhances it.
C1 can convert to DNG (at least old versions - I stopped using it), Pentax OEM raw converter can convert PEF to DNG, DxO can output linear DNG, DNG sdk is used by some free or opensource projects to allow them to generate DNG...
Logged
deejjjaaaa
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 965



« Reply #37 on: August 08, 2012, 09:15:44 AM »
ReplyReply


Again, anybody reading this that doesn't work for Nikon and Canon are are not pissed as hell at the current state of the industry, you are part of the problem, not part of the solution...there is simply no legitimate reason to let Nikon and Canon get away with this crap–which is the point Mike was trying to make.

in addition to C&N = there are Sony, Panasonic, Olympus, Samsung, Fuji all do not want to deal w/ DNG = and their marketshare is not zero... the only notable camera makes in DNG camp now are Leica and Ricoh/Pentax... Samsung was using DNG in rebranded Pentax dSLRs but apparently did not see any worth to it and dumped DNG after divorce w/ Pentax.
Logged
deejjjaaaa
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 965



« Reply #38 on: August 08, 2012, 09:19:03 AM »
ReplyReply

To those photographers who suspect Adobe is the evil empire trying to squeeze out the camera companies, again, total friggin' bullshyte.

several years ago who was thinking that Google will be making cell phones or MS will make tablets or you name it... may be Adobe will start making cameras  Grin
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9189



WWW
« Reply #39 on: August 08, 2012, 09:19:20 AM »
ReplyReply

in addition to C&N = there are Sony, Panasonic, Olympus, Samsung, Fuji all do not want to deal w/ DNG = and their marketshare is not zero... the only notable camera makes in DNG camp now are Leica and Ricoh/Pentax... Samsung was using DNG in rebranded Pentax dSLRs but apparently did not see any worth to it and dumped DNG after divorce w/ Pentax.

None of that changes the crux of Jeff’s statement about photographers who don’t bitch and moan about these facts being part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 13 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad