Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Down

Author Topic: MFDB and DNG  (Read 20469 times)

ericstaud

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 396
    • www.ericstaudenmaier.com
MFDB and DNG
« on: November 15, 2006, 11:51:09 am »

Is anyone out there convrting their MFDB files to the DNG format?  What are the benefits and the risks in your workflow?

I have an Aptus 75 and would like to start converting the files in order to make cataloging easier.  It seems every MFDB maker has, at some point, announced support for DNG without any further clarification.

Phase One supports DNG, but I believe this is only for third party cameras, not the Phase One backs themselves.

Sinar files are being converted to DNG by Rainer, but does that mean he can't use the Sinar processing software after the files have been converted?

My Leaf files convert nicely to DNG.  The keywording and archiving becomes much easier and productive.  But when Leaf comes out with a killer processing software someday, I may be locked out with my catalog of DNG's.

For me the scales are tipping, and I think the benefits of having a viable, functional catalog of RAW files with embedded keywords and previews may outweigh the benefits of using the manufacturers software.
Logged

psorantin

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 55
MFDB and DNG
« Reply #1 on: November 15, 2006, 12:21:44 pm »

Quote
Is anyone out there convrting their MFDB files to the DNG format?  What are the benefits and the risks in your workflow?

I have an Aptus 75 and would like to start converting the files in order to make cataloging easier.  It seems every MFDB maker has, at some point, announced support for DNG without any further clarification.

Phase One supports DNG, but I believe this is only for third party cameras, not the Phase One backs themselves.

Sinar files are being converted to DNG by Rainer, but does that mean he can't use the Sinar processing software after the files have been converted?

My Leaf files convert nicely to DNG.  The keywording and archiving becomes much easier and productive.  But when Leaf comes out with a killer processing software someday, I may be locked out with my catalog of DNG's.

For me the scales are tipping, and I think the benefits of having a viable, functional catalog of RAW files with embedded keywords and previews may outweigh the benefits of using the manufacturers software.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=85429\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
Peter Sorantin
New Jersey

psorantin

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 55
MFDB and DNG
« Reply #2 on: November 15, 2006, 12:24:32 pm »

Eric,
How do you convert .mos files to DNG?
Via Adobe's converter?

Can you make a statement of how the file looks opening the .mos directly in PSC2 versus opening the DNG in PSCS2 - is it the same?

Txs for sharing; this is an important topic.

Peter
Logged
Peter Sorantin
New Jersey

ericstaud

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 396
    • www.ericstaudenmaier.com
MFDB and DNG
« Reply #3 on: November 15, 2006, 01:10:34 pm »

I use adobe's DNG converter.  I do not embed original.  The file output in ACR is identical in my experience with the DNG and the MOS.

The DNG:
-Can be cataloged by iView with acurate previews, including cropping.
-Can share keywording information between iView and Bridge.
-Can be processed in ACR, Lightroom, Raw Developer
-Cannot be processed in Leafs software
-Cannot be processed through the Custom Gain Adjuster

The MOS:
-Can be processed in LC10, LC8, ACR, Lightroom, Raw Developer
-Cannot carry keywording safely between LC10, Bridge, and iView
-If you hit the save button is LC10 on the A75 MOS, Bridge will loose all keywords and ACR process settings on that file.
-If you embed keyword with iView to an A75 file, all the Bridge and ACR settings can be lost as well.
-The MOS file does carry an embedded preview which reflects the current process settings in LC10 or LC8.
-The MOS cannot carry an embedded preview from ACR, Lightroom, or Raw Developer.


Converting to DNG takes what is a VERY messy situation with the MOS and archiving, and makes it posible to archive and catalog your RAW files.

I have tried support cases with Adobe and iView.  They point the finger at each other.
Leaf has announced DNG support, and said They are working on "it".  But that is as specific as they will be.
Logged

rainer_v

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1194
    • http://www.tangential.de
MFDB and DNG
« Reply #4 on: November 16, 2006, 07:04:58 am »

Quote
Sinar files are being converted to DNG by Rainer, but does that mean he can't use the Sinar processing software after the files have been converted?


[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=85429\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

yes, i cannot use capture shop with these dng files,- but i dont miss it  also cause i prefere at the moment the lightroom conversion ( i think michael taps from rawdeveloper has made here a great job ) and before i prefered iridient.
if i want to shoot tethered i do in capture, and convert the .sti capturefiles afterwards also to .dng.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2006, 04:03:27 pm by rehnniar »
Logged
rainer viertlböck
architecture photograp

nicolaasdb

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 213
    • http://
MFDB and DNG
« Reply #5 on: November 17, 2006, 08:14:12 pm »

I have been converting older (canon CR2) files to DNG.....so their won't be any major losses when their is quality difference.

I worked on a couple of these older CR2 to DNG files yesterday...and I don't see any difference.

What I like about the DND files is that they are a lot smaller (because of the lossless compression) with the CR2 files it is about 2MB smaller but when I tested it on a couple of MOS (leaf A65) files they were almost half smaller..which worried me a little...but then again Leaf also gives you the lossless compression option.

All in all I will wait before converting important files until we see MF dig back makers give you the option to shoot DNG....which is hopefully soon...so we can make the workflow even better, faster and easier.
Logged

James Russell

  • Guest
MFDB and DNG
« Reply #6 on: November 19, 2006, 11:40:30 am »

Early on I converted Leaf files to dng. (for the renaming mostly) and for size considerations, but gave up on that as once in dng, the files will not work in Leaf or pretty much any software other than Adobe.

Quite frankly I don't understand DNG as it really isn't cross platform (cameras included).  Why a Lecia DNG works in C-1 but a Leaf DNG won't doesn't say much for the open source idea of what DNG was suppose to be, especially from all the initiatives I've read.

It's understandable that all the camera and software companies want to make money and gain market share, but a lot of this proprietary stuff just becomes time consuming and is frustrating.

At least withh the Leaf file it will go into multiple convertors without conversion to dng, but I am still at a loss while all of this is so propreitary.

At some point you can understand people's frustration towards many of these companies.

Few of these cameras come out of the box, ready for prime time and most need firmware updates and require a learning curve that requires the photographer to reinvent his/her own series of workflow workarounds.

On the hardware side it is equally as frustrating and you can see this  from Hasselblad camera users.

It's obvious Hasselblad is moving their newest lens to a Hasselblad only system off back and camera in a effort to sell their back.

Rather than this, why not just make an equal or superior digital back?

It's obvous that Phase will support DNG only for non competitors, which is somewhat understandable but also very frustrating if you shoot multiple platforms.

There is a huge hole in the market for fast, effecient software that is compatible with all files.

Lightroom seems close, but needs tethered support and much faster processing and thumbnal/preview rendering.

RD is a great effort from a small company but still has some issues, like the thumbnails reflecting the process changes and as of today pscs1 and 2 are the only real cross platform softwares that are fast and stable, though with many cameras and files, the default settings leave a lot to be desired.

With all of this I really don't understand what DNG offers until a DNG file will work in all softwares from all manufacturers.



JR
Logged

CliffSamys

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 63
    • http://samys.com
MFDB and DNG
« Reply #7 on: November 23, 2006, 05:01:21 pm »

Quote
With all of this I really don't understand what DNG offers until a DNG file will work in all softwares from all manufacturers.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86034\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well reasoned and articulate. Thanks for voicing these points.
I see a lot of progress being made in the MFDB/DNG arena right now. It is still quite far from perfect, but at least I see movement. DNGs for 35mm files work well now. It's reasonable to think that MF DNGs will work just as well at some point. Let's keep in mind that DNG is still a relatively new thing. It will be interesting to compare today's situation to that of Spring/Summer 2007. I wouldn't be surprised to see a lot of improvement by then.
Logged
Cliff
Samy's Camera, Pro Digital Mana

damien

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 111
    • http://www.lovegroveportraits.com
MFDB and DNG
« Reply #8 on: November 23, 2006, 06:02:50 pm »

I understand that Hasselblad have abandoned the idea of DNG capture altogether. It's a bit of a Uturn but compatable with their wanting to keep a closed system.

Damien.

pss

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 960
    • http://www.schefz.com
MFDB and DNG
« Reply #9 on: November 23, 2006, 06:28:22 pm »

i don't really see the point in dng anyway....if all cameras/backs would shoot dng, it would be perfect, but that will never happen, so what is the point in converting one raw format to another? seems like there would be some loss somewhere in the conversion....
instead of adobe developing a "universal" standard they should put their energy into suporting all raw standards....but i understand where they are coming from...they want t be able to strongarm everybody into using their system....so i am not for dng...

also: from a workflow standpoint: there is no room/time to convert to dng...the conversion would have to take place BEFORE i make adjustments? people are complaining that the previews don't pop up fast enough, imagine if there is a conversion as well (no matter how fast, it won't be realtime)....

i have no problem with my raw files, i still work with my old leaf raw files, no problem either....what i would love to see is the option to work with phase files in aperture, preferably through a plug-in provided by phase using the C1 engine....conversion by C1 within the aperture interface...a dream...no dng necessary....
Logged

josayeruk

  • Guest
MFDB and DNG
« Reply #10 on: November 24, 2006, 12:11:21 am »

Quote
I understand that Hasselblad have abandoned the idea of DNG capture altogether. It's a bit of a Uturn but compatable with their wanting to keep a closed system.

Damien.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86796\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Not right Damien!    

You can export DNG files from FlexColor or you can directly convert them to DNG as you import from a Compact Flash card.

Jo. x
Logged

godtfred

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 293
    • http://
MFDB and DNG
« Reply #11 on: November 24, 2006, 08:28:11 am »

I just converted all my recent raw files (over 40000   ) to .dng. They are a mix from the following cameras:

Hasselblad H1D
Hasselblad H2D-22
Hasselblad H2+CFH39
Canon 10D
Canon 20D
Canon 1D mkII
Canon 5D
Nikon D2X

The only trouble I have run into is: the .dng's converted by flexcolor works everywhere I have tested but not in Aperture (what i USED to use...) Also the flexcolor .dng files from flexcolor 4.6.4 are much nicer with less noise than previous conversions. I'm slightly afraid this is going to bite me in the tail, as I throw away my 3FR files now, and cannot convert the raw material again in a future flexcolor upgrade to obtain better files. I am however satisfied with the quality from Flex. 4.6.4 so i guess its ok.

I must say it is lovely to use bridge now, everything in a nice and tidy file structure with no sidecar files lying about, also its wonderful to finally have one software to view it all in...  

I'm looking into lightroom, and it seems to handle the Hassy .dng's well, but I'm sitting on the fence until the final version is out. If Aperture gets its act together on the .dngs I will stick with it because I'm used to it.
Logged
Axel Bauer
godtfred.com H2|M679CS|P45+

mtomalty

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 541
    • http://www.marktomalty.com
MFDB and DNG
« Reply #12 on: November 24, 2006, 10:34:56 am »

Quote
The only trouble I have run into is: the .dng's converted by flexcolor works everywhere I have tested but not in Aperture (what i USED to use...)
Quote


I have read on one of the Aperture info pages at Apple that only .DNG files converted
using the Adobe converter are recognized by aperture at this time.

I don't know if this also applies to camera models (Leica DMR and M8,for example) that
use the .dng format as their capture format

Mark
Logged

James Russell

  • Guest
MFDB and DNG
« Reply #13 on: November 24, 2006, 10:46:18 am »

Quote from: mtomalty,Nov 24 2006, 03:34 PM
Quote
The only trouble I have run into is: the .dng's converted by flexcolor works everywhere I have tested but not in Aperture (what i USED to use...)
Quote
I have read on one of the Aperture info pages at Apple that only .DNG files converted
using the Adobe converter are recognized by aperture at this time.

I don't know if this also applies to camera models (Leica DMR and M8,for example) that
use the .dng format as their capture format

Mark
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86855\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


If you shoot the Leaf there really is no reason to go DNG as Leaf works in about every software except aperture.

Once again I don't understand dng other than it makes adobe's job a little easier, but unless it is an adopted standard that you can go from Leaf to dng, and back to leaf software (or phase or any manufacturer), then to me it's just not a viable alternative.

Maybe it will get better next year, but in the digital world, rumor or pdf's mean nothing until  you actually use it.

Still, I am really taken by lightroom as long as they get the speed and stability up to release.

Forget about the web galleries as they are lame anyway.  Just make a software that offers fast stable processing options and maybe even tethers across multiple camera/back platforms.


JR
Logged

ericstaud

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 396
    • www.ericstaudenmaier.com
MFDB and DNG
« Reply #14 on: November 24, 2006, 12:17:51 pm »

Hi James,

There is a great ability in cataloging software to add keywords to images to make a searchable archive of images.  Imagine Julius schulmann's archive.  Shoot 50-100 projects per year for 50 years, 10 photos of each house.  Now have magazines and book publishers call you for random photos from all 25,000 to 50,000 photos.  If clients called you randomly for photos you've made over the last 15 years how long would it take you to find them.  With a properly cataloged archive it should take less than 20 seconds.

My architectural photos are keyworded with the Homeowner, Architect, Client, Architectural style, and Subject Matter at a very minimum.  I can seach for an image even using the spotlight search in OSX, but typically use a program like iView Media Pro.

The Leaf Raw files are NOT cross-compatable with LC10, LC8, Bridge, and iView for this purpose.  So while converting to DNG rules out processing in Leafs software, the power of using DNGs with embedded metadata outweighs any need to use Leafs software.

The DAM book is really worth a read.

I agree lightroom is really great.  Does it embedd your keywords or make sidecars?  Is all the metadata portable, or is it kept in a proprietary archive?  Does it read any keywording embedded by LC10, Bridge, or iView.  This is all functionality that should be standardized between applications.
Logged

James Russell

  • Guest
MFDB and DNG
« Reply #15 on: November 24, 2006, 12:40:33 pm »

Quote
I agree lightroom is really great.  Does it embedd your keywords or make sidecars?  Is all the metadata portable, or is it kept in a proprietary archive?  Does it read any keywording embedded by LC10, Bridge, or iView.  This is all functionality that should be standardized between applications.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86874\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I understand the cataloging, but since .mos files shot from my contax loses most of the meta data anyway, I've given up on it for a searchable data base.  I have a updateable pdf file I use and it's slow but at least I can find every image (knock on wood).

No lightroom does not make sidecar files and I assume because it uses a different processing engine that pscs 1 and 2, (I'm just guessing).

What lightroom needs is more speed, sidecar files, drag and drop sorting, fast (very fast) renaming, fast previews, copy and paste settings and most importantly stability . . . . oh yea, did I mention speed?


The sidecar files are essential to fast workflow, mostly because you can work in smaller folder batches, then copy it all over to a large folder and batch without having to wait for preview rendering.

Leaf and hasselblad desperatly need lightroom to come out of the box working, because their software's are just too far behind C-1 in stability and batch functions.

Regardless of the platform, regardless of how pretty any of us think a certain file is, in the end we must have fast stable software for an easier workflow.  Leaf and Hasselblad need to work on thier canned white balance settings so everything out of the camera is close.

Every minute wasted correcting a file is multiplied by thousands after a large pressured project.


IMO


JR
« Last Edit: November 24, 2006, 12:42:27 pm by James Russell »
Logged

damien

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 111
    • http://www.lovegroveportraits.com
MFDB and DNG
« Reply #16 on: November 24, 2006, 03:31:28 pm »

Quote from: James Russell,Nov 24 2006, 06:40 PM
Leaf and Hasselblad need to work on thier canned white balance settings so everything out of the camera is close.

Phase too have unusable auto white balance (on the P25). I just use a daylight setting all the time with the odd custom one every now and then - Just like the old film days!

Quote from: Jo
 You can export DNG files from FlexColor or you can directly convert them to DNG as you import from a Compact Flash card.

I meant to say Hasselblad have abandoned DNG as a capture format in camera. It was going to be an option to shoot to DNG as Leica do etc. Even Phase is going to provide a convert to DNG function I hear, but I'm not sure why.

Damien

yaya

  • Guest
MFDB and DNG
« Reply #17 on: November 25, 2006, 01:04:41 am »

A few notes about DNG and Aperture/ Lightroom/ ACR/ Adobe DNG converter:

In order to support DNG, all four converters first need to support the RAW file format that this DNG came from, meaning Adobe/ Apple must have the specific camera or back for testing and creating their "As Shot" settings before they can support it. None of them has Input profiles as part of the workflow, so they need to create a specific look for each camera/ back model.

Which is why certain DNG files won't open in Aperture, at least not for the moment.

Yair
« Last Edit: November 25, 2006, 01:09:19 am by yaya »
Logged

brumbaer

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 67
MFDB and DNG
« Reply #18 on: November 25, 2006, 06:17:21 am »

Quote
In order to support DNG, all four converters first need to support the RAW file format that this DNG came from meaning Adobe/ Apple must have the specific camera or back for testing and creating their "As Shot" settings before they can support it.

Adobe DNG is a standalone format. You can render any DNG without being able or even know about the original raw format. To be true that is the idea behind DNG.

There are Tags which specify the "as shot" values and how to convert the bitmap into XYZ color Space. Which is exactely what an input profile does.
A DNG file is not "valid" without this information.

ACR and Lightroom and Raw Developer support any "valid" DNG you throw at them and render it.

Aperture in contrast only converts DNGs from Cameras, Aperture supports, which makes DNG support, in the sense of support for an universal format,  a farce.

I assume Apple is afraid that they could fall short quality wise in comparison to other applications if they do not do some special tweaking.

Or probably Apertures internal processing path will always use the native raw format converter and Aperture does not process the DNG directly , but converts DNG to camera specific raw and converts that.

Whatever the reason is, it's not really DNG dependent, it's an Apple thing.

For programmers DNG is nice. One format to rule them all. No camera specific formats. Input filters once written can be used for any camera model, and all camera models will profit from any improvement.

For those back manufacturers, who supply their own editing software for free (read as part of the bundle)  it's different.

The editing software is part of the package and might swing the decision which back to buy into their direction.

If all manufacturers support dng, the best software will be used by all users across all brands, making a waste of the money spend to develop an application as a matter to increase the atractiveness of their digital backs.

So manufacturers will probably incoorperate a protection sheme and support brand specific DNGs only. Or they will ask money for their software.

Or something else, your guess

Regards
Stephan


There are
Logged

yaya

  • Guest
MFDB and DNG
« Reply #19 on: November 25, 2006, 06:53:03 am »

Thanks Stephan for this explanation,

Can you please explain why Adobe's DNG converter does not support certain RAW files and why these these require the manufacturer's propriatry software to convert to DNG?.

Please also note that most manufacturers, while allowing some "openness" of their files, still require their own software for tethered work and for special features/ utilities such as Live Video,  multi-shot, firmware updates etc. that are currently not provided by stand-alone converters.

Yair



Quote
Adobe DNG is a standalone format. You can render any DNG without being able or even know about the original raw format. To be true that is the idea behind DNG.

There are Tags which specify the "as shot" values and how to convert the bitmap into XYZ color Space. Which is exactely what an input profile does.
A DNG file is not "valid" without this information.

ACR and Lightroom and Raw Developer support any "valid" DNG you throw at them and render it.

Aperture in contrast only converts DNGs from Cameras, Aperture supports, which makes DNG support, in the sense of support for an universal format,  a farce.

I assume Apple is afraid that they could fall short quality wise in comparison to other applications if they do not do some special tweaking.

Or probably Apertures internal processing path will always use the native raw format converter and Aperture does not process the DNG directly , but converts DNG to camera specific raw and converts that.

Whatever the reason is, it's not really DNG dependent, it's an Apple thing.

For programmers DNG is nice. One format to rule them all. No camera specific formats. Input filters once written can be used for any camera model, and all camera models will profit from any improvement.

For those back manufacturers, who supply their own editing software for free (read as part of the bundle)  it's different.

The editing software is part of the package and might swing the decision which back to buy into their direction.

If all manufacturers support dng, the best software will be used by all users across all brands, making a waste of the money spend to develop an application as a matter to increase the atractiveness of their digital backs.

So manufacturers will probably incoorperate a protection sheme and support brand specific DNGs only. Or they will ask money for their software.

Or something else, your guess

Regards
Stephan
There are
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86954\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Up