Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Down

Author Topic: Call for DNG. One more different take...  (Read 8010 times)

ThomasH_normally

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 23
    • http://
Call for DNG. One more different take...
« on: September 17, 2015, 10:59:35 AM »

I hope that you saw the great technical analysis of DNG details by 'torger'. If not, I would recommend to lookup the thread "Yet some DNG comments (from a raw software developer)". Probably none of us is better qualified to assess usability of DNG as a universal and standard RAW format.

Still, I believe that Michael's rantatorial hits the spot. We need prominent photographers to voice this opinion more often. If not DNG, than another format should be taken, but please the same universal format for all.  Personally though I have the impression that software manufacturers also like the situation, because the constantly arriving new cameras force everybody to upgrade the software. With a format like DNG in place, many users would not be compelled to grab every one of the new image processor versions.

The problem of standard fragmentation itself is wider than the RAW file format.  Think of the battery-o-mania.  We have meanwhile hundreds of differing batteries, for each we need a dedicated charger. On the road I carry with me a set of power cord spliters, and a dedicated bag of chargers.  Once I made a mistake, and plugged a wrong charger cable into my portable drive with card reader: Same plug, different voltage.  What a smell of burning electronics... Once I took both the Canon and Nikon popular battery, put these on a scale and assessed the charge to compare to 4 low discharge AA's, such as Sanyo Eneloops. The difference in weight was minimal, but the 4 AA's provided way more charge, justifying the few more grams.  And they are everywhere, offered in a fierce competition for charge and quality.  We are spending fortune on proprietary batteries, and often get 3rd party replacements, which prove subpar.

By analogy to this raw-file and battery chaos, imagine every county or state would have its own power plug, maybe even differing voltage. we would need in every hotel a dedicated cable and/or converter!  We have this situation across countries, and we clearly suffer from it. 

At least at a national level, we enjoy the building code, forcing everybody to use identical standard for plugs and sockets, approved through a certified underwriter.  Sometimes industry standards establish themselves and prevail. Think of the now forgotten IBM-Floppy, or the cat-5 internet plug and cable.  Sometimes a stringent control and laws rule, like in case of radio frequencies.

My opinion is, that such an action is necessary for the portable power sources as well, and also for the raw file format.   Imagine a law would be issued, that every camera has to use a battery from a mandatory set of alternatives, and has to use a mandatory raw file.  I am all for it. 
Logged

AlterEgo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1996
Re: Call for DNG. One more different take...
« Reply #1 on: September 17, 2015, 11:03:04 AM »

> Think of the battery-o-mania.  We have meanwhile hundreds of differing batteries, for each we need a dedicated charger.

classical FUD, as in most cases the it is the same format with just a different camera model in the same tag and that still does not address the need of raw converter manufacturers to make their own camera profiles...
Logged

amolitor

  • Guest
Re: Call for DNG. One more different take...
« Reply #2 on: September 17, 2015, 12:35:41 PM »

We need prominent photographers to voice this opinion more often. If not DNG, than another format should be taken, but please the same universal format for all. 

Actually, if you want something like this done, the shortest path is to simply do it. I see lots of people standing around saying "someone ought to do a bunch of work here" but nobody actually stepping up to, you know, do it.

Just write a standard. Pull together a committee of experts, of which there seem to be a tremendous number. Promote it to standards bodies.
Logged

GrahamBy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1361
    • 500px
Re: Call for DNG. One more different take...
« Reply #3 on: September 18, 2015, 06:07:04 AM »

Once I took both the Canon and Nikon popular battery, put these on a scale and assessed the charge to compare to 4 low discharge AA's, such as Sanyo Eneloops. The difference in weight was minimal, but the 4 AA's provided way more charge, justifying the few more grams.

When? Because most modern batteries are Li-Ion, and have much greater charge density than anything that comes in AA-format. Moreover, since a single "classic" dry-cell is a 1.5V cell and a single Li-Ion is 2.4V, there will not be true Li-ion AA's... too much risk of burning electronics.

Yes, standard batteries would be wonderful. So would standard headlamps on cars. It's not going to happen, too much money to be made selling brand-specific batteries.

Non-standard RAW is a different story, it does nothing to make anyone any money that I can see...

There is a solution of course: buy a Pentax. You get DNG, you get in-body shake-reduction, two features that should be standard, but aren't. If it's important, vote for it with your credit card.
« Last Edit: September 18, 2015, 06:09:30 AM by GrahamBy »
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16020
Re: Call for DNG. One more different take...
« Reply #4 on: September 18, 2015, 10:36:15 AM »

When? Because most modern batteries are Li-Ion, and have much greater charge density than anything that comes in AA-format. Moreover, since a single "classic" dry-cell is a 1.5V cell and a single Li-Ion is 2.4V, there will not be true Li-ion AA's... too much risk of burning electronics.

Yes, standard batteries would be wonderful. So would standard headlamps on cars. It's not going to happen, too much money to be made selling brand-specific batteries.

Non-standard RAW is a different story, it does nothing to make anyone any money that I can see...

There is a solution of course: buy a Pentax. You get DNG, you get in-body shake-reduction, two features that should be standard, but aren't. If it's important, vote for it with your credit card.


Great if you begin from scratch, but should you already own an armoury of very expensive glass and no way to write it off against business...

Rob C

Lightsmith

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 149
Re: Call for DNG. One more different take...
« Reply #5 on: November 12, 2015, 04:54:18 PM »

DNG is a proprietary format and adds nothing of value in terms of workflow much less archival image data. The standard format that has been around for decades and remains as the only universal public domain format is TIFF. Any photo editing or graphics or press print application can work with a TIFF file and that cannot be said for any other format where version levels are not even compatible as with Adobe's other formats for Illustrator, et al.
Logged

AlterEgo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1996
Re: Call for DNG. One more different take...
« Reply #6 on: November 12, 2015, 05:09:39 PM »

DNG is a proprietary format and adds nothing of value in terms of workflow much less archival image data.

on the contrary - as an intermediate workflow format it is very useful actually, as an archival format of course not unless it is the original raw format of the camera or unless you also save the original raw file as it was written by cameras firmware... but to argue against using it in between the original raw (which may as well be DNG) and final output is useless - how about using optics correction in one software and passing otherwise un-WB/non-color transformed data further down the pipeline... DNG is a better solution for that vs a generic tiff (DNG is tiff, yes)
Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11969
    • http://digitaldog.net/
Re: Call for DNG. One more different take...
« Reply #7 on: November 12, 2015, 06:11:38 PM »

DNG is a proprietary format and adds nothing of value in terms of workflow much less archival image data.
How is it proprietary when the spec is openly documented? There are provisions for private tags yes, to hold actual proprietary data that DNG doesn't itself 'need' because, well it's some camera proprietary data. DNG add's huge value to my workflow. If it doesn’t for you, that's fine. But both your comments above hold zero value and are inaccurate to those of us who understand how this all operates. DNG is based on TIFF! Both are owned and controlled by Adobe. Consider that...
Logged
Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
I'm out of here.

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10564
    • Echophoto
Re: Call for DNG. One more different take...
« Reply #8 on: November 13, 2015, 01:07:37 AM »

Hi,

Several good points.

DNG is owned by Adobe but so is TIFF, and as stated before DFG is a variant of TIFF. DNG is well specified and the specification is open.

AlterEgo makes a good point that DNG is a good vessel for handling lens corrections. Adobe offers a well thought out platform for handling metadata, lens corrections, camera profiling and other things. As pointed out by Anders Torger, it is far from perfect. But it is well defined. Would vendors use similar functionality on proprietary and undocumented raw formats we would have a great mess.

Now, proprietary raw formats are mostly based TIFF-PE (another Adobe controlled standard) without a lot of advanced features, so they can be read by many programs, although all programs probably cannot use all proprietary information in the files.

Best regards
Erik

on the contrary - as an intermediate workflow format it is very useful actually, as an archival format of course not unless it is the original raw format of the camera or unless you also save the original raw file as it was written by cameras firmware... but to argue against using it in between the original raw (which may as well be DNG) and final output is useless - how about using optics correction in one software and passing otherwise un-WB/non-color transformed data further down the pipeline... DNG is a better solution for that vs a generic tiff (DNG is tiff, yes)

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6217
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: Call for DNG. One more different take...
« Reply #9 on: November 13, 2015, 02:36:28 AM »

DNG is a proprietary format and adds nothing of value in terms of workflow much less archival image data.

Well ya might wanna double check your facts...then get back to us.
Logged

kikashi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5948
Re: Call for DNG. One more different take...
« Reply #10 on: November 13, 2015, 03:44:40 AM »

Actually, if you want something like this done, the shortest path is to simply do it. I see lots of people standing around saying "someone ought to do a bunch of work here" but nobody actually stepping up to, you know, do it.

Just write a standard. Pull together a committee of experts, of which there seem to be a tremendous number. Promote it to standards bodies.



Jeremy
Logged

BobShaw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 863
    • Aspiration Images
Re: Call for DNG. One more different take...
« Reply #11 on: November 13, 2015, 04:02:23 AM »

DNG is a proprietary format and adds nothing of value in terms of workflow much less archival image data.
+1
Most if not all camera manufacturers won't adopt it because it severely restricts the ability to produce new features.
Hasselblad start using it in 2005 and dropped it within a year or so.

However if you want to do it go right ahead. Waste of time and money. My Mac OS reads all the raw files and has all the support I need for them, thanks.
Logged
Website - http://AspirationImages.com
Blog - http://AspirationImages.com/blog
Photography, Custom Framing and Printing, Sydney Australia

AlterEgo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1996
Re: Call for DNG. One more different take...
« Reply #12 on: November 13, 2015, 04:49:11 AM »

Well ya might wanna double check your facts...then get back to us.
you mean the part that DNG used with a particular software from a particular vendor for conversion from non DNG to DNG is well known historically to drop either part of the data read off sensor or part of metadata or both, no  ;D ?
Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11969
    • http://digitaldog.net/
Re: Call for DNG. One more different take...
« Reply #13 on: November 13, 2015, 04:50:57 AM »


+1
Most if not all camera manufacturers won't adopt it because it severely restricts the ability to produce new features.
Hasselblad start using it in 2005 and dropped it within a year or so.


However if you want to do it go right ahead. Waste of time and money. My Mac OS reads all the raw files and has all the support I need for them, thanks.
Got very little to do with an OS or anything that: reads all the raw files and has all the support I need for them! There are a good dozen or more capabilities of the format that support some people's workflow that has absolutely NOTHING to do with access to the raw data. Like data verification of the raw data and container! Perhaps you don't care about bit rot of your negatives, some of us do. Or the ability to embed a pretty large and useable JPEG of the rendered image 'just in case'. Or the ability to embed DNG camera profiles we build because we strive for better color and what that critical profile to be transportable. Or better performance thanks to fast load preview data.


+1 all you like, that's fine. But get the facts about the potential advantages to some of us straight before you and other's suggest DNG is a solution solely to aid accessibility of proprietary raw data; that's the tip of the iceberg.
Logged
Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
I'm out of here.

john beardsworth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3899
    • http://www.beardsworth.co.uk
Re: Call for DNG. One more different take...
« Reply #14 on: November 13, 2015, 06:42:52 AM »

+1
Most if not all camera manufacturers won't adopt it because it severely restricts the ability to produce new features.
Hasselblad start using it in 2005 and dropped it within a year or so.

That's little better than a factoid.

Haven't Leica gone downhill since they started using DNG? And Pentax?

Hoggy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 110
Re: Call for DNG. One more different take...
« Reply #15 on: November 21, 2015, 11:25:34 PM »

There is a solution of course: buy a Pentax. You get DNG, you get in-body shake-reduction, two features that should be standard, but aren't. If it's important, vote for it with your credit card.

Yup!  I did!  Pentax K-30, then K-3.  Every single lens has shake reduction as well!  If they offered good raw-capable super compacts, I'd get those in a heartbeat.  But they don't, so I had to go with Canon S100, then later a G7X.

And I agree about hearing people say "I will wait until something other than DNG, because it's 'controlled' by Adobe"..  There seems to be nothing else developing though.  Hmm..

The big reason why I throw away camera originals (Canon), even with the Pentax too.. Is 1) Image data verification! (saved me several times!)  2)  I get to rid the raws of their useless (to me) full-size jpg previews - can save ~3-6MB per file with having no previews  3) Holds xmp inside for belt-and-suspenders backup of metadata & develop settings/snapshots (although could be considered bad by some because of backup reasons)  4)  Can use lossless (EDIT: I meant lossy) DNG for those shots that you just can't quite seem to throw away.  ;)

For me, there is absolutely no reason I'd even want to save camera originals anymore..  The verification part alone is valuable beyond belief!



P.S.  Don't use a credit card - horrifically bad...  Use a debit card instead.  ;)
--
Die-Hard DNG Fanatic  8)
« Last Edit: November 26, 2015, 03:15:33 AM by Hoggy »
Logged
Cams: Pentax K-3, K-30 & Canon G7X, S100
Firm supporter of DNG, throwing away originals.
It's the hash, man..  That good hash!

kikashi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5948
Re: Call for DNG. One more different take...
« Reply #16 on: November 22, 2015, 03:46:53 AM »

P.S.  Don't use a credit card - horrifically bad...  Use a debit card instead.  ;)

Bad advice in the UK. You get a moderately comprehensive degree of protection against fraudsters when you pay by credit card and none if you use a debit card.

Jeremy
Logged

BartvanderWolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 6702
Re: Call for DNG. One more different take...
« Reply #17 on: November 22, 2015, 04:52:53 AM »

The big reason why I throw away camera originals (Canon), even with the Pentax too.. Is 1) Image data verification! (saved me several times!)

Hi,

I wonder, why did your files get corrupted? And if they were detected as being corrupt, how did you repair them, without the originals still available? And do you realise that the repeated writing of the DNGs, every time the file is edited and new XMP data has to be written, increases the risk of something going wrong ...

Quote
2)  I get to rid the raws of their useless (to me) full-size jpg previews - can save ~3-6MB per file with having no previews

Useless to you, not useless to others. Even if the Raw data would get corrupted, one can often still extract the Preview. But I agree that it's nice to be able and write one's personally preferred preview size.

Quote
3) Holds xmp inside for belt-and-suspenders backup of metadata & develop settings/snapshots (although could be considered bad by some because of backup reasons)

Besides that that XMP data is only useful inside an Adobe application like LR/ACR, the required additional backups, even if the Raw data itself didn't change, but the XMP data might have been, the repeated writing of changed XMP data causes the entire file to be rewritten to disk. Besides causing potential disk fragmentation (and wear on SSDs), each write holds an inherent possibility of data corruption. Since the verification data is held inside the file, there is no way of verifying with absolute certainty that the file as such (including verification data) was written correctly. The verification data is calculated from the Raw data which was perhaps changed by memory module error during editing. Only when reading the file next time, is the verification data compared (assuming the file as such was readable), and since it was calculated from potentially corrupted data, it will report that everything is fine. Even rewriting the verification data itself seperately over and over again is bad for security. Once calculated and verified, one should not keep recalculating and writing it, it only adds to the risk of something going wrong. Maybe that's what you've experienced?

Quote
4)  Can use lossless DNG for those shots that you just can't quite seem to throw away.  ;)

You mean that you normally write 'lossy' compressed DNGs? Or do you mean that it is possible to encapsulate the original Raw inside a DNG wrapper? The latter seems a bit of a convoluted cludge, why not just keep the camera original? It will get converted on the fly anyway when it's read by LR/ACR.

Camera original Raws have other benefits, such as for some Canon files they can hold dust removal data, and they can be lens corrected with the DPP application very well, and the colors are often reported as superior. With the advent of sensor shift technologies to improve the Bayer CFA color accuracy per pixel, and resolution enhancing half pixel shifts, it gets increasingly difficult to store such solutions in a DNG wrapper. We've seen it with Foveon file formats, and also for Digital camera backs that store a lot of additional (blackframe and other calibration data, and need LCC corrections), we'll see it with the Lytro kind of solutions, stereo file formats, etc.

Quote
For me, there is absolutely no reason I'd even want to save camera originals anymore..  The verification part alone is valuable beyond belief!

It seems you might need to give that some more thought. While the verification feature is not entirely without merit, it does give a false sense of confidence. But then that happens more often with (DNG) fanatics ...

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

john beardsworth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3899
    • http://www.beardsworth.co.uk
Re: Call for DNG. One more different take...
« Reply #18 on: November 22, 2015, 05:01:56 AM »

It seems you might need to give that some more thought. While the verification feature is not entirely without merit, it does give a false sense of confidence. But then that happens more often with (DNG) fanatics ...

Silly name calling.... But you expect that from DNG phobics, don't you?

BartvanderWolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 6702
Re: Call for DNG. One more different take...
« Reply #19 on: November 22, 2015, 05:32:37 AM »

Silly name calling.... But you expect that from DNG phobics, don't you?

John, you are mistaken. Diehard DNG fanatic is "Hoggy's" signature. No name calling on my part.

DNG phobic? I rest my case.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Up