Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Capture One Q&A => Topic started by: brandon on July 19, 2015, 03:53:18 am
-
Sorry if this is an oldie , but I havent seen a full explanation (and maybe things have changed). Some years ago I converted my raw files to DNG (and didnt keep the raws , from 1DsMk1, G10 etc) and imported to LR. Later using CO (vers 6,7 and now 8) I cant seem to get the same functionality as if they were native files esp lens corrections etc. Proponents of DNG seem to say it contains the raw file data in a different container, and is open spec and therefore should be able to be used by all software manufacturers etc. Im not interested in the "politics" of it all, just what way I can utilise all the original file information within CO8 in developing these images. Do I need to "reconstruct" the original raw formats? if so how? can CO8 now do this? Thanks in advance for advice.
-
Each camera manufacturer can embed proprietary data into their RAW file.
They do this so there is an incentive to experience processing with their software.
For example, some manufactures will embed which AF sensor was active at the time
of exposure.
Adobe having a monopoly, is the decider of what stays and goes.
After all they want the experience to be best for their platform.
The only sure solution to your situation is embedding the original RAW.
-
Sorry if this is an oldie , but I havent seen a full explanation (and maybe things have changed). Some years ago I converted my raw files to DNG (and didnt keep the raws , from 1DsMk1, G10 etc) and imported to LR. Later using CO (vers 6,7 and now 8) I cant seem to get the same functionality as if they were native files esp lens corrections etc.
Hi Brandon,
Sad to hear that you tossed the camera original Raws (which usually is a TIFF type of format) after conversion to DNG. The DNG specs have changed over the years, and earlier versions didn't record all data that the Raws had available. More recent versions seem to be more complete, but you can never tell if everything that may prove to be beneficial later, was carried over. The only way to do that is by embedding the entire original Raw in the DNG, but that only increases file size for little benefit. If you had done that, then at least you'd be able and restore the original Raw.
In the case of Capture One, it possibly is another reason. C1 supports the original camera Raws of a huge number of cameras. They invested time and money to decode the files and maybe even figured out some of the secret stuff that's hidden in the file, to allow even better quality conversions. The support for DNGs, is not as extensive, and may yield lower quality conversion. There is little incentive for Phase One to recode the work they did years ago, and run the risk of screwing something up in the conversion process.
They also would have to redo some of that (like adding code to initialize the new fields, or changing the way the Raw conversion uses that data) if the DNG standard is changed in the future even though the original camera Raws didn't change since they were recorded. Since the DNG can also be created by others than the Camera maker (e.g. LR/ACR panoramas, or HDRs, or other sources), they cannot be certain either that the converter gets fed valid Raw data that can be used by Capture One (encoding errors or abnormal sizes), so they are suddenly forced to add validations to the converter code to avoid problems for which they would also need to ramp up support.
So it adds (future) cost to redo past work and to support a standard they do not own, and thus cannot plan resources for. And there is no real benefit for them to fully support DNG, because they still need to create camera profiles or specific decoding (e.g. Fuji X-trans) for new cameras that require support, and in addition supporting DNGs will only lower the threshold for users that for some specific feature want to switch to Adobe products (who try to lock in customers from switching back) and drop future C1 upgrades at any time they choose.
So there is more of a benefit for Adobe than for Phase One in fully supporting DNGs.
Proponents of DNG seem to say it contains the raw file data in a different container, and is open spec and therefore should be able to be used by all software manufacturers etc. Im not interested in the "politics" of it all, just what way I can utilise all the original file information within CO8 in developing these images. Do I need to "reconstruct" the original raw formats? if so how? can CO8 now do this? Thanks in advance for advice.
Only if you created DNGs that embedded the entire original Raws. Otherwise you got screwed by the propaganda, and you have to suffer the consequences, not the propagandists. Lesson for the future, never toss originals, ever.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Thanks Bart for a thorough and learned explanation as always. Ive stayed in native raw format since and learnt the lesson. Its not the end of the world of course, but photos from LR with lens correction (eg the G10 I used as a travel camera around Cameroun in 2010 and 2011) look very different (distortion wise) from the CO ones subsequently let alone other changes. I may very well have embedded the original in the DNG (how do I tell in retrospect?) as Ive tended to be very conservative (in the true sense), but as I was living in that AFrican nation with limited media cards and backup I never stored the proprietary raws before reusing in the field.
-
Thanks Bart for a thorough and learned explanation as always. Ive stayed in native raw format since and learnt the lesson. Its not the end of the world of course, but photos from LR with lens correction (eg the G10 I used as a travel camera around Cameroun in 2010 and 2011) look very different (distortion wise) from the CO ones subsequently let alone other changes. I may very well have embedded the original in the DNG (how do I tell in retrospect?) as Ive tended to be very conservative (in the true sense), but as I was living in that AFrican nation with limited media cards and backup I never stored the proprietary raws before reusing in the field.
It would probably take the Adobe DNGconverter (version 9.1 currently), to reverse the embedding of the original camera Raw in the DNG, assuming it was originally fully embedded.
Here are the Windows versions (https://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/product.jsp?product=106&platform=Windows) for download, and here for the Mac (https://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/product.jsp?product=106&platform=Mac).
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi,
I don't agree with Bart on this one.
To begin with, DNG is well documented, so Capture One doesn't need to do a lot of decoding effort to support DNG.
The other fact is that many other raw developers support DNG very well. The ones I have used are RawTherapy, AccuRaw, Iridient Raw Developer and of course LR/ACR.
I have used DNG since back in 2006. I decided to use the option to embed the original raw file in the DNG. Using this option I can always extract the original raw file from the DNG.
On the other hand, I must freely admit that three raw converters I tried never did properly support DNG, and these were Apples's Aperture, Capture One and DxO. Personally, I don't understand why some vendors refuse to support the only well documented raw format, but I guess this is more politics than an engineering choice.
All raw converters I have seen, except the three I mentioned do support DNG.
I would think that it is possible to write code that can generate raw format from DNG, but as there are something like 300 different raw formats it may be an excessive effort.
Best regards
Erik
Hi Brandon,
Sad to hear that you tossed the camera original Raws (which usually is a TIFF type of format) after conversion to DNG. The DNG specs have changed over the years, and earlier versions didn't record all data that the Raws had available. More recent versions seem to be more complete, but you can never tell if everything that may prove to be beneficial later, was carried over. The only way to do that is by embedding the entire original Raw in the DNG, but that only increases file size for little benefit. If you had done that, then at least you'd be able and restore the original Raw.
In the case of Capture One, it possibly is another reason. C1 supports the original camera Raws of a huge number of cameras. They invested time and money to decode the files and maybe even figured out some of the secret stuff that's hidden in the file, to allow even better quality conversions. The support for DNGs, is not as extensive, and may yield lower quality conversion. There is little incentive for Phase One to recode the work they did years ago, and run the risk of screwing something up in the conversion process.
They also would have to redo some of that (like adding code to initialize the new fields, or changing the way the Raw conversion uses that data) if the DNG standard is changed in the future even though the original camera Raws didn't change since they were recorded. Since the DNG can also be created by others than the Camera maker (e.g. LR/ACR panoramas, or HDRs, or other sources), they cannot be certain either that the converter gets fed valid Raw data that can be used by Capture One (encoding errors or abnormal sizes), so they are suddenly forced to add validations to the converter code to avoid problems for which they would also need to ramp up support.
So it adds (future) cost to redo past work and to support a standard they do not own, and thus cannot plan resources for. And there is no real benefit for them to fully support DNG, because they still need to create camera profiles or specific decoding (e.g. Fuji X-trans) for new cameras that require support, and in addition supporting DNGs will only lower the threshold for users that for some specific feature want to switch to Adobe products (who try to lock in customers from switching back) and drop future C1 upgrades at any time they choose.
So there is more of a benefit for Adobe than for Phase One in fully supporting DNGs.
Only if you created DNGs that embedded the entire original Raws. Otherwise you got screwed by the propaganda, and you have to suffer the consequences, not the propagandists. Lesson for the future, never toss originals, ever.
Cheers,
Bart
-
In general:
- leave your raws as they come out of the camera
- process your very favorite raws to TIFF and keep the TIFF
IMO the above two simple recommendations represent the greatest chance of avoiding hassle/loss as a result of obsolescence, with minimal up front hassle.
-
Hi,
Just keep in mind that TIFFS are not containing all info from raws. Tiffs are demosaiced. Also, TIFFs are three to six times the size of raws.
Best regards
Erik
In general:
- leave your raws as they come out of the camera
- process your very favorite raws to TIFF and keep the TIFF
IMO the above two simple recommendations represent the greatest chance of avoiding hassle/loss as a result of obsolescence, with minimal up front hassle.
-
Hi,
If the Raw images are embedded in the DNG-file they can be extracted. I use DNG normally, and whenever I want to use a DNG file with Capture One I extract it.
The raw files are fully recoverable by that method. The original files (in my case IIQ) have the same MD5 checksum as the extracted files. So if you checked the checkbox to embed original raw into the DNG, your problems are solved.
Best regards
Erik
It would probably take the Adobe DNGconverter (version 9.1 currently), to reverse the embedding of the original camera Raw in the DNG, assuming it was originally fully embedded.
Here are the Windows versions (https://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/product.jsp?product=106&platform=Windows) for download, and here for the Mac (https://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/product.jsp?product=106&platform=Mac).
Cheers,
Bart
-
Thanks for the advice (including trying most updated DNG converter to recover the embedded raw files) and opinions. I use both LR and CO and currently the native raws work best for both, and Im not about to drop CO because it wont work with all aspects of DNG (which is as Bart notes is complex to guarantee forward compatibility with all features). Maybe Im wrong in my logic here but keeping the native raws (of any camera) and copies of DNG converter programs, if and only if, the native raw loses support gowing forward and only then converting to DNG is a better path forward than DNG converting. (simpler to keep some DNG converter applications in the download folder if needed as an "insurance" policy). Esparanto was supposed to be an "open source" universal language that didnt really unify the world, but not all was lost.....
-
Thanks for the advice (including trying most updated DNG converter to recover the embedded raw files) and opinions. I use both LR and CO and currently the native raws work best for both, and Im not about to drop CO because it wont work with all aspects of DNG (which is as Bart notes is complex to guarantee forward compatibility with all features). Maybe Im wrong in my logic here but keeping the native raws (of any camera) and copies of DNG converter programs, if and only if, the native raw loses support gowing forward and only then converting to DNG is a better path forward than DNG converting. (simpler to keep some DNG converter applications in the download folder if needed as an "insurance" policy). Esparanto was supposed to be an "open source" universal language that didnt really unify the world, but not all was lost.....
Just to mention, Capture One 8.3.2 supports DNG version 1.4 now.
However, I agree it is far simpler to stick with the manufacturers RAW file.
-
Just to mention, Capture One 8.3.2 supports DNG version 1.4 now.
However, I agree it is far simpler to stick with the manufacturers RAW file.
Hi David,
I just tried a conversion of an EOS-5DS R raw file, and compared it to a DNG converted version (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=102466.msg841136#msg841136) of it. With exactly the same controls settings, the Whitebalance is significantly different. The color after re-Whitebalancing on neutral grey, still shows color differences from the same source file, the only difference is that the files are the original Camera Raw and a DNG converted file version.
I do not know if that has anything to do with the 1.4 update, or that there are DNG interpretation issues (or something else?), but it's not what one would expect. When I look at the file metadata tool panel in C1 8.32, I do see that the "Vendor Specific, White balance" field is empty in the DNG version, but I have set a manual WB after importing the files so that should not be relevant, I think?
It's a bit puzzling, although I'm not affected because I do not convert to DNG, but still...
I know it is just one file, but maybe your service desk has more reports about differences?
I also read on the Capture One forum a reply by Paul Steunebrink where he confirmed that Capture One doesn't play nice on DNGs, and another post where he says that DNG (in that case linear DNGs produced by DxO, they may have made an error or its due to C1, dunno) is not as straightforward as Adobe wants us to believe.
So what's up with DNG support in Capture One (in case one made the mistake to toss the original Raws)? Anything specific to look out for? Or is there a general difficulty with C1 conversions from DNG. It's a general question, not a complaint from me (because I'm personally not affected), but I'd like to be able and give proper advice to clients (preferably without having to test all possible scenarios for them).
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi David,
I just tried a conversion of an EOS-5DS R raw file, and compared it to a DNG converted version (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=102466.msg841136#msg841136) of it. With exactly the same controls settings, the Whitebalance is significantly different. The color after re-Whitebalancing on neutral grey, still shows color differences from the same source file, the only difference is that the files are the original Camera Raw and a DNG converted file version.
I do not know if that has anything to do with the 1.4 update, or that there are DNG interpretation issues (or something else?), but it's not what one would expect. When I look at the file metadata tool panel in C1 8.32, I do see that the "Vendor Specific, White balance" field is empty in the DNG version, but I have set a manual WB after importing the files so that should not be relevant, I think?
It's a bit puzzling, although I'm not affected because I do not convert to DNG, but still...
I know it is just one file, but maybe your service desk has more reports about differences?
I also read on the Capture One forum a reply by Paul Steunebrink where he confirmed that Capture One doesn't play nice on DNGs, and another post where he says that DNG (in that case linear DNGs produced by DxO, they may have made an error or its due to C1, dunno) is not as straightforward as Adobe wants us to believe.
So what's up with DNG support in Capture One (in case one made the mistake to toss the original Raws)? Anything specific to look out for? Or is there a general difficulty with C1 conversions from DNG. It's a general question, not a complaint from me (because I'm personally not affected), but I'd like to be able and give proper advice to clients (preferably without having to test all possible scenarios for them).
Cheers,
Bart
the same camera profiles used for both DNG and non DNG ?
-
the same camera profiles used for both DNG and non DNG ?
Yes, I've manually duplicated all settings, one-by-one, because perhaps not everything is automatically copied over despite me specifying that it should. That of course is just the user interface, and I do not know if under the hood it is actually picked up. There might also be something that's related to GPU acceleration, which I have not yet switched off, or to last night's graphics drivers update of the nVidia controller/GPU.
I have also not tried an older DNG converter, or an older DNG standard <1.4, or maybe the 9.1.1 version developed a glitch. Many possibilities, but it's odd for sure.
Cheers,
Bart
-
So what's up with DNG support in Capture One (in case one made the mistake to toss the original Raws)?
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=102466.msg841266#msg841266
is not as straightforward as Adobe wants us to believe.
As you know by now, it's straightforward for at least four different products, sadly for C1, it's not straightforward for their engineers.
A one man shop (Brian Griffith / Iridient Digital) had no such 'issues'.
Im not interested in the "politics" of it all, just what way I can utilise all the original file information within CO8 in developing these images.
Phase One's Capture One simply doesn't provide full (correct) support for DNG.
-
The other fact is that many other raw developers support DNG very well. The ones I have used are RawTherapy, AccuRaw, Iridient Raw Developer and of course LR/ACR.
To add to that list (which we should continue to compile), add Raw Photo Processor 64 to those that correctly deal with DNG. I tested it, LR/ACR and Iridient Developer and like you, found identical pixel for pixel renderings from a CR2 and a DNG converted (in LR) from that original.
-
Hi,
My understanding is that Capture One does not properly support DNG as a whole.
Part of that is, I would think, that DNG is also includes a recipe for raw conversion, like compromise matrices and colour space conversions. Capture One has a different pipeline, and I don't think they use the information in the DNG Colour Profiles.
Personally, I would say it is a great pity. I would say a standard for raw images is badly needed, not least for permanence, who nows which file formats will be supported in 20-30 years. Some file formats my have less permanence than the media they have been written on.
Best regards
Erik
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=102466.msg841266#msg841266
As you know by now, it's straightforward for at least four different products, sadly for C1, it's not straightforward for their engineers.
A one man shop (Brian Griffith / Iridient Digital) had no such 'issues'.
Phase One's Capture One simply doesn't provide full (correct) support for DNG.
-
My understanding is that Capture One does not properly support DNG as a whole.
Correct...at best C1 attempts to simulate DNG compatibility but hasn't really embraced DNG. If the newest version on C1 claims to be completely compatible with DNG spec 1.4, that's a welcome change...in the past C1 has only supported an older 1.3 SDK which allowed them to skirt several issues. Would be nice is Phase One stated that C1 embraced DNG 1.4.
-
Correct...at best C1 attempts to simulate DNG compatibility but hasn't really embraced DNG. If the newest version on C1 claims to be completely compatible with DNG spec 1.4, that's a welcome change...in the past C1 has only supported an older 1.3 SDK which allowed them to skirt several issues. Would be nice is Phase One stated that C1 embraced DNG 1.4.
Hi Jeff,
I agree it would be nice but, although the release notes for Capture One version 8.3 already mentioned DNG 1.4 support, as far as I can see there are still issues in e.g. color rendering, which is a bit surprising, as we are now at version 8.3.2. So support may be quite basic like that the files can be opened without issues, but not that all features are equally usable, if at all, or there are other reasons..
In another recent LuLa thread, Doug Peterson confirmed (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=102466.msg841266#msg841266) that C1 "doesn't provide full support for DNG", but that could mean many things. Not supporting Adobe DCP and lens correction data e.g. would be obvious candidates, because Capture one uses ICC camera profiles and their own lens correction data (to accommodate Tilt/Shift lenses and extreme wide-angle lenses with resulting Color Cast effects, and optional noise reduction that is tuned per camera model.
The fact that color rendering from the same file (as original camera Raw and as DNG conversion) with the same controls settings is so different is puzzling. I think it would offer Capture One a larger chance of having Adobe users switch to Capture One for high quality conversions, than the other way around.
Cheers,
Bart
-
well, I am a newbie with CO, a one month of trial :-), but have experience with Lightroom. My impression is that capture one does a bit better job with dng files in general, and when the conditions are hard it can make a significant difference.
See my previously posted file of a night shot in Argentine at which nobody answered... The fact is that the 5d2 raw file was in 2009 converted to dng (no embedded camera raw).
Links in the insert lightroom.
-
Hi Jeff,
I agree it would be nice but, although the release notes for Capture One version 8.3 already mentioned DNG 1.4 support, as far as I can see there are still issues in e.g. color rendering, which is a bit surprising, as we are now at version 8.3.2. So support may be quite basic like that the files can be opened without issues, but not that all features are equally usable, if at all, or there are other reasons..
In another recent LuLa thread, Doug Peterson confirmed (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=102466.msg841266#msg841266) that C1 "doesn't provide full support for DNG", but that could mean many things. Not supporting Adobe DCP and lens correction data e.g. would be obvious candidates, because Capture one uses ICC camera profiles and their own lens correction data (to accommodate Tilt/Shift lenses and extreme wide-angle lenses with resulting Color Cast effects, and optional noise reduction that is tuned per camera model.
The fact that color rendering from the same file (as original camera Raw and as DNG conversion) with the same controls settings is so different is puzzling. I think it would offer Capture One a larger chance of having Adobe users switch to Capture One for high quality conversions, than the other way around.
Cheers,
Bart
Capture One 8.3.2 is "raw data" compatible with DNG 1.4. For some cameras the color model used by Abobe is just not compatible with the "Capture One color model". Also the lens distortion model are not the same. In 8.3.2 Capture One internally converts the color model used in the DNG.
Will Capture One embrace DNG fully going forward, even for colors? Yes as much as makes sense - including "native" colors. 8.3.2 is just first step.
-Lionel
-
In another recent LuLa thread, Doug Peterson confirmed (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=102466.msg841266#msg841266) that C1 "doesn't provide full support for DNG", but that could mean many things.
It could, but it's pretty clear, why this product, unlike many others, doesn't produce the results Adobe and Jeff and I have repeatedly told you should occur and does occur when software correctly handles a DNG. As I said on that post, Doesn't support full support' is code word for bug! Oh on, it's not a bug, it just doesn't work as designed. You're in denial!
-
well, I am a newbie with CO, a one month of trial :-), but have experience with Lightroom. My impression is that capture one does a bit better job with dng files in general, and when the conditions are hard it can make a significant difference.
Hi Hans,
It doesn't mean that C1 cannot process DNGs at all, it's just that they are rendered differently compared to the Camera Raw originals if the same development settings are used. I'm pretty sure that a DNG conversion can be made that looks good by itself, it just needs different settings than for the original camera Raw, which is puzzling, but not the end of the world.
See my previously posted file of a night shot in Argentine at which nobody answered... The fact is that the 5d2 raw file was in 2009 converted to dng (no embedded camera raw).
So that would have been encoded with a much older DNG version, if the file hasn't been rewritten after editing. Which shows that there is a certain level of support, but not of all the features that could be stored in the DNG container, because many would not make sense to a different Raw converter.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Capture One 8.3.2 is "raw data" compatible with DNG 1.4. For some cameras the color model used by Abobe is just not compatible with the "Capture One color model". Also the lens distortion model are not the same. In 8.3.2 Capture One internally converts the color model used in the DNG.
Will Capture One embrace DNG fully going forward, even for colors? Yes as much as makes sense - including "native" colors. 8.3.2 is just first step.
-Lionel
Thanks a lot for chiming in Lionel. Don't worry about a few folks who go ape, I don't, they are allowed to make fools of themselves, it's a free society.
The Original Camera Raws that are supported are generally pretty well converted (although probably there's always room for improvement). It's just the fact that the Raw data in the original Camera Raws, and the DNG container version of that same (or it it altered?) data, produces different results with the same settings which is puzzling for users.
Good to learn that you intend to reduce the differences in rendering of 'native' colors, going forward. I know that resources are always limited, and that supporting DNG is not as easy as some might think, although the differences in color rendering are hard to grasp for people on the outside, myself included.
I've compared the EXIFs of an original CR2 and a DNG conversion of it with a text difference tool in NotePad+, and I can see that as a result from the conversion some original data gets stripped, some data is changed, and some data is added (some of the stripped data in another form, and newly created DNG specific data), but I do not immediately see changes that could explain (to me) where the color rendering difference could be created, but it's perhaps something deeper than the EXIF allows to see.
Cheers,
Bart
-
It doesn't mean that C1 cannot process DNGs at all, it's just that they are rendered differently compared to the Camera Raw originals if the same development settings are used.
Why is that and what benefit does that provide? You remain silent on that question, hopefully Doug will reply.
I'm pretty sure that a DNG conversion can be made that looks good by itself, it just needs different settings than for the original camera Raw, which is puzzling.
It's interesting that despite the facts and testing by more than one person as to the reasons, and explanation from someone inside the company, you find this puzzling. Yet you're not puzzled why it is justified?
Don't worry about a few folks who go ape, I don't, they are allowed to make fools of themselves, it's a free society.
Hilarious. Someone (Myself and Eric) using actual testing methodology to illustrate multiple raw converters operate as they should with a DNG, instead of making assumptions based on heresy of others, (you) equates to you as 'going ape' and make fools of themselves. Is anyone taking you seriously other than you Bart?
Good to learn that you intend to reduce the differences in rendering of 'native' colors, going forward.
He shouldn't have to! The product should either treat DNG's correctly or not at all.
-
Capture One 8.3.2 is "raw data" compatible with DNG 1.4. For some cameras the color model used by Abobe is just not compatible with the "Capture One color model". Also the lens distortion model are not the same. In 8.3.2 Capture One internally converts the color model used in the DNG.
Will Capture One embrace DNG fully going forward, even for colors? Yes as much as makes sense - including "native" colors. 8.3.2 is just first step.
-Lionel
nice to see somebody who is actually from PhaseOne itself... what was the logic for that - "8.3.2 Capture One internally converts the color model used in the DNG. " instead of just treating DNG just as any other raw file format and applying the color transforms (guided by the data in icc/icm containers) the same way as for other raw files ?
-
Part of that is, I would think, that DNG is also includes a recipe for raw conversion
you do not need to use neither "dcp" nor "icc/icm" data that may or may not be embedded in DNG container for a raw conversion - you shall be able just select whatever profile /external to DNG container/ for example P1 shipped with C1 - just like for example RPP does (with DNG files)
-
Thanks all for the range of opinions and insights. It is less than ideal that C1 cant make use of the DNG format, but I have learnt to avoid the conversion anyway. (so my question was about historical conversion on import to LR)
A little off the original topic, but as i posted it Id be interested to hear from proponents of DNG about 1) with the different standards mentioned is DNG really forward compatible (eg to some future time when camera raw support might be lost), and 2) what is the actual or perceived future value in using it (including eg creating a DNG with embedded raw =increased size). Im really struggling to see the functional or potential archival value.
-
A little off the original topic, but as i posted it Id be interested to hear from proponents of DNG about 1) with the different standards mentioned is DNG really forward compatible (eg to some future time when camera raw support might be lost), and 2) what is the actual or perceived future value in using it (including eg creating a DNG with embedded raw =increased size). Im really struggling to see the functional or potential archival value.
A DNG is basically a TIFF type of file, similar to Camera Raws. As far as we know, if it started as an original camera Raw file, the DNG contains the same original Bayer CFA data. During conversion to DNG some data is stripped from the EXIF metadata header (e.g. I saw some missing GPS data references), some minor changes are made to some EXIF data fields, a lot of header data is added to the DNG that is of specific benefit for Adobe products (but might also be used by others should they choose to). Some of the added data may be calculated from the data it stripped, other data (e.g. an exposure bias, and color tables) is created purely to accommodate the ACR processes.
As people like Dave Coffin (author of DCRaw) have shown, a reasonable Raw conversion is possible based on little more than the basic Bayer CFA (or other layouts) data, but there is a lot of additional data available in the Raw file's metadata headers that could be utilized to make even better conversions. If and how the various Raw converters use that data is unknown. Some data is hidden in proprietary data sections (e.g. Makernotes, but there may be more), but some clever folks have succeeded in partly decoded that.
So future access to the Raw Bayer CFA data, and a reasonable demosaiced conversion of that, was already possible (and will be) for the future, even if the original manufacturers of the cameras and the Raw file format cease to exist. In fact, some reverse engineered conversion code (e.g. for Foveon (http://www.proxel.se/x3f.html)) is said to perform better than the manufacturer's .
Another argument that is sometimes used is that it would be faster to release new camera support. Well, of course the cameras already come with camera support from the manufacturers. But for those who would like to use it in their own ecosystem, it would be nice if e.g. Adobe didn't have to do the work, but rather the manufacturers for Adobe. So that would benefit Adobe more than the manufacturers. In fact it only increases the dependency of users on Adobe instead of alternative software developers, which is neither in the interest of Camera makers, nor of the makers of alternative Raw converters, nor for users of those cameras.
Still, it would also be nice if DNG support (processing of DNGs Raw data) is good in other (non-Adobe) products, because that would increase competition. Some already do support DNGs in the sense that they basically just use the Bayer CFA data (just like DCRaw does) and then add their own secret sauce to that. So they can just ignore a lot of the data that Adobe dictates as mandatory to others who want to create DNGs, it's read only. But for those it also matters little if the Bayer CFA data was coming from the original Camera Raw file, or from a DNG conversion, it's the same Raw data.
For those who want to write DNG, there are much stricter guidelines which take some effort (time and money) to implement correctly for the ever changing new camera features. Some features are dropped, but the now irrelevant fields in the DNG still need to be populated with correct (but ineffective for conversion) data (to avoid tripping up some other software that makes a mistake an tries to use it), and new fields may need to be sanctioned by Adobe (and competitors?) before they can be added to the DNG standard and populated, well ahead in time before a new product can be launched.
Cheers,
Bart
-
what is the actual or perceived future value in using it
it is sime a good intermediate format for a workflow, that's it
there are several different questions that people usually forget to distinguish
1) why camera manufacturers do not switch to "DNG" - a lot of legit reasons why __AND__ the real question is why they do not want to document whatever format they are using in terms of what all their different tags mean and how they shall be used by raw converters... that is the core issue.
2) why converting to DNG and deleting the original raws is a bad idea - even Adobe employees like Eric Chan don't do this (and publicly state that they don't do) and they know better :D
3) using DNG as an intermediate format for a specific workflow - no issues at all, if that suits you - use by all means
-
A little off the original topic, but as i posted it Id be interested to hear from proponents of DNG about 1) with the different standards mentioned is DNG really forward compatible (eg to some future time when camera raw support might be lost), and 2) what is the actual or perceived future value in using it (including eg creating a DNG with embedded raw =increased size). Im really struggling to see the functional or potential archival value.
1. AFAIK, there's no issue converting a converted DNG to update the spec. I know I've converted older DNG's that didn't have Fast Load previews to newer versions with that feature. Jeff might have better data to share about this.
2. The actual value of DNG for some of us is well documented. Often smaller file size, no sidecar files, ability to embed multiple converter's parametric instructions within the container, ability to embed DNG camera profiles, Fast Load previews, a rendered JPEG of the current instructions, etc. So there are workflow advantages for some of us and there's the issue of file compatibility moving into the future (which no one can predict).
For some of us, those who've been doing this awhile, the history of proprietary file formats is either unsettling or down right painful. I've got all kinds of proprietary data who's original applications and/or developers have gone the way of the dodo bird. Kodak PhotoYCC data, iView from Live Picture, Xrez, old Kodak DCS camera 'raw' data etc. Is it impossible to access this data? No, not yet. I have very old hardware running very old operating systems such if I needed to access say PhotoCD data, I could. As long as I can get that very old hardware to remain viable. The JPEG and TIFF's I created from Photoshop 1.0.7 back in 1990, I can open today in Photoshop CC 2015 among lots of other applications on the most current OS and hardware. As should be an option for our image data.
So there are two ends to this DNG debate. Workflow advantages some of us desire and having some open (more open?) file format based on our experiences with proprietary file formats over the years. And no, rendering all the data to a TIFF before the old hardware dies isn't a good solution albeit, better than having no access to the data.
Lastly, proprietary image data, raw or otherwise isn't in a photographers best interest. An open, non proprietary raw file that could be accessed as easily and as differently in terms of software options isn't a technological issue, it's a political issue. Why should photographers have to be involved with politics surrounding their image data? The folks who dismiss DNG or another openly documented raw format never explain that.
-
Kodak PhotoYCC data, iView from Live Picture, Xrez, old Kodak DCS camera 'raw' data etc.
see how he is painfully trying to come up with any relevant examples... counted one example from DCS cameras (which ones exactly ?)... http://www.nikonweb.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=327 or http://www.nikonweb.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=328 or did your old PhotoDesk, the last one version that was supporting those cameras, magically stopped working in the proper OS in VmWare/Fusion/whatever else you can use to keep the old OS running ?
-
Lastly, proprietary image data, raw or otherwise isn't in a photographers best interest.
so are proprietary parametric adjustments that lock photographer into a specific raw converter like ACR/LR ;D
-
Hi Andrew,
Well said! I share your opinion.
Best regards
Erik
Lastly, proprietary image data, raw or otherwise isn't in a photographers best interest. An open, non proprietary raw file that could be accessed as easily and as differently in terms of software options isn't a technological issue, it's a political issue. Why should photographers have to be involved with politics surrounding their image data? The folks who dismiss DNG or another openly documented raw format never explain that.
-
I have very old hardware running very old operating systems such if I needed to access say PhotoCD data, I could. As long as I can get that very old hardware to remain viable.
FYI,
There are several alternatives (http://tedfelix.com/PhotoCD/PCDSoftware.html), some for free, that run on modern hardware. And this one (https://sites.google.com/site/pcdmagicwindows/) runs on Windows 10 (and the MAC version runs on Mac OS X 10.5 (Leopard) or later on either Intel or PowerPC based systems) ...
In addition to that, PhotoCDs are film scans (so already a second generation image, a bit like archiving a TIFF), and if one has taken care of the film then even higher quality scans can be made.
Cheers,
Bart
-
see how he is painfully trying to come up with any relevant examples... counted one example from DCS cameras (which ones exactly ?)... http://www.nikonweb.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=327 or http://www.nikonweb.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=328 or did your old PhotoDesk, the last one version that was supporting those cameras, magically stopped working in the proper OS in VmWare/Fusion/whatever else you can use to keep the old OS running ?
And under current Operating Systems, the free DCraw (http://www.cybercom.net/~dcoffin/dcraw/) (and also all programs that use it to extract the Raw data) will support Kodak DSLR's: DCS200, DCS315C, DCS330C, DCS420, DCS460, DCS460A, DCS520C, DCS560C, DCS620C, DCS620X, DCS660C, DCS660M, DCS720X, DCS760C, DCS760M, EOSDCS1, EOSDCS3B, NC2000F, Kodak ProBack, PB645C, PB645H, PB645M, DCS Pro 14n, DCS Pro 14nx, DCS Pro SLR/c, DCS Pro SLR/n
There are several people who provide pre-compiled binaries (as a command line tool) for most popular desktop Operating Systems (e.g. here (http://www.fastpictureviewer.com/downloads/#links) for Windows).
Cheers,
Bart
-
Aside, I find it interesting that most all the RAW capable cellphones are using DNG as their output file (Not a NEF, RAW, etc.) along with the JPG. Sony makes some sensors for the phones and they use DNG. Samsung S6 Edge is also using DNG for their RAW images as of June. DNG might be the standard of the future, at least for the cellphone cameras. Of course they are pretty much pre-set in that they have one fixed lens, set diaphragm, a pre-set vignetting, and noise routine so all that may be compensated in the DNG easier than trying to write all that into various methods buried in a RAW file too.
No doubt the camera makers can produce a better DNG than third parties too as they know their proprietary hidden RAW info. I was surprised that Nikon included PF Coma Correction in Capture NX-D for their new Fresnel lenses. Doubt if a third party converter is onto that one yet, and likely just trying to produce with what looks good.
SG
-
Aside, I find it interesting that most all the RAW capable cellphones are using DNG as their output file (Not a NEF, RAW, etc.) along with the JPG.
that simply means it makes sense for those companies to use DNG for that market, specifically if they have already code support from the core OS code vendor (Android, etc)... there is nothing wrong with DNG itself ___if__ the company itself wants to use it and sees benefits for itself in that (which is clearly not the case with most manufacturers in the area of still cameras)... but again the core problem is if the manufacturer wants to document what their firmware is writing, be it DNG or other tiff based format or non tiff based format.
Samsung S6 Edge is also using DNG for their RAW images as of June.
and they actually dropped DNG for their dSLM cameras, even after experiencing it while collaborating with Pentax in dSLRs... go figure :D
-
Aside, I find it interesting that most all the RAW capable cellphones are using DNG as their output file (Not a NEF, RAW, etc.) along with the JPG.
Indeed! Probably far more to do with their disinterest in politics than those other companies who remain nameless.
-
Indeed! Probably far more to do with their disinterest in politics than those other companies who remain nameless.
Samsung example was naturally ignored (dropping DNG for still cameras)... companies do use what makes sense for them, that's it...