Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: DNG Settings  (Read 8543 times)
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8628



WWW
« Reply #20 on: December 21, 2012, 10:03:04 AM »
ReplyReply

A native DNG is a DNG created in camera. So it's the original RAW file the respective camera writes to the card.
An alien DNG is a DNG created for instance through the DNG converter or exported form Lightroom or other softwares.

How is it alien if it follows the proper specifications? Is a TIFF opened in Photoshop then saved as a PSD make the PSD alien? I'm unclear on what you are trying to explain.

Quote
1.) quite obviously Capture One handles DNG really well - as long as they are native (camera-) DNGs, so unaltered RAW files.

I still don't understand how this is a DNG issue if whatever product or host converts into the DNG to the spec properly. We still have raw data in the DNG. We may have lost some proprietary metadata the original manufacturer's raw converter might use (but no one else). If I decide I don't want to use that converter, what's the problem?

Quote
So either Capture One can't read certain proprietary data from converted DNGs … or the respective data is simply not contained anymore in the converted DNG.

IOW, it's fully the fault of Capture One, not the DNG? ACR/LR can't read the proprietary metadata from my CR2's nor does that information do it any good anyway. What am I missing?
Logged

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

Posts: 1696


« Reply #21 on: December 21, 2012, 10:03:44 AM »
ReplyReply

Or "won't"....
but it does read the respective prorietary data from "original" DNGs ... how so?
Logged
tho_mas
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1696


« Reply #22 on: December 21, 2012, 10:08:21 AM »
ReplyReply

ACR/LR can't read the proprietary metadata from my CR2's nor does that information do it any good anyway.
well, when the proprietary metadata from your CR2's is not useful ... why does Canon writes it to the file? Apparently it's a pure waste of card space ...
Logged
Tony Jay
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2046


« Reply #23 on: December 21, 2012, 10:11:55 AM »
ReplyReply

well, when the proprietary metadata from your CR2's is not useful ... why does Canon writes it to the file? Apparently it's a pure waste of card space ...

Not if you use Canon's proprietary RAW conversion software!
(I use Lightroom BTW.)

Tony Jay
Logged
tho_mas
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1696


« Reply #24 on: December 21, 2012, 10:16:28 AM »
ReplyReply

Not if you use Canon's proprietary RAW conversion software!
I know!
So: at least Canon (who designed and built the respective camera and mixed the "secret sauce" contained in the RAW files) regards these data as something useful. Just as Phase One does (and others, too).
Logged
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2670



WWW
« Reply #25 on: December 21, 2012, 10:27:43 AM »
ReplyReply

Or "won't"....
but it does read the respective prorietary data from "original" DNGs ... how so?
See my "two doors" post above.
Logged

digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8628



WWW
« Reply #26 on: December 21, 2012, 10:40:35 AM »
ReplyReply

well, when the proprietary metadata from your CR2's is not useful ... why does Canon writes it to the file? Apparently it's a pure waste of card space ...

Correct, the proprietary data is not useful and not understood outside the manufacturer's converter (and the usefulness is up to debate). Having a proprietary metadata picture style that the manufacturer's converter can use as an initial rendering in their converter is useless to me for several reasons. 1. I don't use this converter. 2. I have no desire to mimic a camera JPEG (I'd just shoot JPEG). But the DNG has all the raw data I need otherwise. There's metadata for white balance that is not proprietary and again, for raw, not real useful as it has no effect on the raw data. It is a suggestion one can use in a converter. Or not use. And each converter will decipher that data and produce differing rendering all from identical data.

If I send you my address in a language or format you can't understand, what good is it? It isn't.
Logged

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

Posts: 8628



WWW
« Reply #27 on: December 21, 2012, 10:43:50 AM »
ReplyReply

So: at least Canon (who designed and built the respective camera and mixed the "secret sauce" contained in the RAW files) regards these data as something useful. Just as Phase One does (and others, too).

Of course they do. That doesn't necessarily make it a bit useful to their customers. If you spend some time working with various converters, all of which can't understand this proprietary data, you can then say if this is useful data or not. But what Canon and PhaseOne tell us is spin and marketing.

IF they really want to prove the superiority of this data, let us have a switch on the camera to pick proprietary raw or DNG and if this data is so special, we the end user can decide.
Logged

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

Posts: 1696


« Reply #28 on: December 21, 2012, 11:00:01 AM »
ReplyReply

the proprietary data is not useful and not understood outside the manufacturer's converter
that's obviously how Adobe sees things. That's okay. They have never made a camera, it's a software company.
Look: C1 can read DNGs as long as these DNGs are native camera DNGs. Obviously Phase One utilzes some data that gets lost in a converted DNG (and Phase One is not the manufacturer of Leica cameras as we all know).
The question is: why does the DNG Converter throws away data? Who defines which data is useful and which data is not? Adobe?
« Last Edit: December 21, 2012, 11:02:08 AM by tho_mas » Logged
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2670



WWW
« Reply #29 on: December 21, 2012, 11:09:20 AM »
ReplyReply

Last time I looked, it didn't throw away anything. Stuff like the maker notes is left in the file, for anyone who wants to read it.
Logged

digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8628



WWW
« Reply #30 on: December 21, 2012, 11:09:49 AM »
ReplyReply

that's obviously how Adobe sees things. That's okay. They have never made a camera, it's a software company.
Look: C1 can read DNGs as long as these DNGs are native camera DNGs. Obviously Phase One utilzes some data that gets lost in a converted DNG (and Phase One is not the manufacturer of Leica cameras as we all know).
The question is: why does the DNG Converter throws away data? Who defines which data is useful and which data is not? Adobe?

IF I take ANY proprietary raw file (NOT a DNG) and use ANY raw converter except the manufacturer's, the proprietary data is not used. So how is this an Adobe issue? Or a DNG issue?

Whatever data is 'thrown away' is data no one expect the manufacturer can use. Do you understand that key fact?
Logged

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

Posts: 1274


« Reply #31 on: December 21, 2012, 04:35:44 PM »
ReplyReply

IF I take ANY proprietary raw file (NOT a DNG) and use ANY raw converter except the manufacturer's, the proprietary data is not used.

how do you know that ? take SilkyPix (non OEM version, but what ISL sells) - how do you know that SilkyPix which is OEM for Fuji for example is not using Fuji's data... please do not generalize Adobe on others.
Logged
Vladimirovich
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 1274


« Reply #32 on: December 21, 2012, 04:39:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Last time I looked, it didn't throw away anything.

example - once upon a time Adobe was removing black, masked to light part of the data read of sensor during raw -> "non raw" DNG conversion (for example for Pentax cameras, that is when Pentax itself was writing it both in .PEF and .DNG raw files)... then without any notice they stopped doing this... so unless you checked (or probably looked through DNG SDK code) you did not know... and there are a lot of things that you, average Joe, do not know... was/is it important data ? for some applications it was.
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8628



WWW
« Reply #33 on: December 21, 2012, 04:59:04 PM »
ReplyReply

how do you know that ? take SilkyPix (non OEM version, but what ISL sells) - how do you know that SilkyPix which is OEM for Fuji for example is not using Fuji's data... please do not generalize Adobe on others.

What part of proprietary metadata isn't clear? Even if the data isn't proprietary, doesn't mean it is useful or can be used. I can save out the metadata instructions of edits which Lightroom and ACR can share and use. It's in English, I can see Vibrance +12. But no other raw processor uses the Adobe engine so Vibrance +12 is useless. Even if that application had a setting called Vibrance, and even if it set itself to +12, the engines are proprietary and different.

DNG doesn't remove anything that stops any processor that correctly reads that data to render the raw data using it's engine.

Quote
so unless you checked (or probably looked through DNG SDK code) you did not know...

My personal comment is, so what, it's not the least bit important to me. And if it were, then yes, I'd be looking at the SDK (assuming I could do anything with out, something an engineer of a raw module should be able to do).
Logged

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

Posts: 1696


« Reply #34 on: December 21, 2012, 05:52:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Whatever data is 'thrown away' is data no one expect the manufacturer can use. Do you understand that key fact?
do you understand the key fact that Capture One IS using some of the proprietary data camera manufacturers write into RAW files?
see for instance here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=73387.0;attach=71725;image
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8628



WWW
« Reply #35 on: December 21, 2012, 05:58:08 PM »
ReplyReply

do you understand the key fact that Capture One IS using some of the proprietary data camera manufacturers write into RAW files?
see for instance here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=73387.0;attach=71725;image

So what?
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
corwin
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #36 on: July 02, 2014, 01:25:02 PM »
ReplyReply

The primary, at least for me, reason to convert to DNG is that the DNG format is documented.  Many of the RAW files are not.  I do not intend to loose my images to hostage or abandon ware.

Logged
Vladimirovich
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 1274


« Reply #37 on: July 02, 2014, 01:52:27 PM »
ReplyReply

The primary, at least for me, reason to convert to DNG is that the DNG format is documented.  Many of the RAW files are not.  I do not intend to loose my images to hostage or abandon ware.
good logic - Adobe converts only what they know about, so no extra knowledge or safety are added.

PS: what do you think about Adobe CC - are you feel good about being hostage to your ability to pay in the future ?
Logged
Vladimirovich
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 1274


« Reply #38 on: July 02, 2014, 01:55:47 PM »
ReplyReply

DNG doesn't remove anything that stops any processor that correctly reads that data to render the raw data using it's engine.
going to the old piece - if my software was using that data (for example to fight banding) that old versions of Adobe DNG converter were discarding then convertingto DNG is stopping me.
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8628



WWW
« Reply #39 on: July 02, 2014, 01:56:14 PM »
ReplyReply

good logic - Adobe converts only what they know about, so no extra knowledge or safety are added.
What it doesn't know, we can't use and that data could be stored for something that does. The bottom line is, the conversion provides us the raw data necessary to render it. All the other bits are capable of being stored and of questionable usefulness.
Quote
PS: what do you think about Adobe CC - are you feel good about being hostage to your ability to pay in the future ?
No one is being held hostage. No one has a gun to their heads. Going down that path is pointless and been done far too many times in far too many threads here and around the internet.
Logged

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

Ad
Ad
Ad