MFDB and DNG

[hubell]

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
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86814\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I have a folder of sample raw images from an H3D that I would like to export as DNGs. Could you please explain how to export these files as DNGs where they were imported originally into Flexcolor 4.64 as 3F files?
Thanks.

[godtfred]

I have a folder of sample raw images from an H3D that I would like to export as DNGs. Could you please explain how to export these files as DNGs where they were imported originally into Flexcolor 4.64 as 3F files?
Thanks.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86956\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

If the files are of the .FFF type, go to the thumbnails window in flexcolor, select the photos you want to export to .dng format. Hit the save button on the left hand of the thumbnailswindow. Chosse DNG from the drop down list that appears, and off you go...

If the files are shot to a compact flash card and are of the .3FR type, go to the import window in flexcolor, select the photos you want to export, and hit the "save dng" button on the left hand side...

In both cases (import/thumbnail window) you will have to select the correct disk/folder for the images to appear...

-axel.

[hubell]

If the files are of the .FFF type, go to the thumbnails window in flexcolor, select the photos you want to export to .dng format. Hit the save button on the left hand of the thumbnailswindow. Chosse DNG from the drop down list that appears, and off you go...

If the files are shot to a compact flash card and are of the .3FR type, go to the import window in flexcolor, select the photos you want to export, and hit the "save dng" button on the left hand side...

In both cases (import/thumbnail window) you will have to select the correct disk/folder for the images to appear...

-axel.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86963\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks, that worked.

[LasseDPF]

Hi Yair,

If I understand correctly the MOS format is an "open RAW" format, in the sense that others can make software for it (ie. Camera RAW etc.). Do you provide them with only the "blueprints", and they have to make the algotihms themselves ?

Why not make a "plugin", SDK (or whatever it is called) so that they can just pop that into their code and make beautiful conversions ? Provide to anyone interested..

I dont know if this is at all possible. Just a thought.. (I think canon have a raw conversion sdk for their cr2 files.. ?)

Lasse

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
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86939\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[Jonathan Wienke]

Why not make a "plugin", SDK (or whatever it is called) so that they can just pop that into their code and make beautiful conversions ? Provide to anyone interested..

I dont know if this is at all possible. Just a thought.. (I think canon have a raw conversion sdk for their cr2 files.. ?)

They do. It sucks; it is extremely slow. This approach also requires installing and configuring a hodgepodge of various manufacturers' conversion plugins for each proprietary file format one needs to use. With a single file format, only one conversion engine module is needed; the only thing needed on a per-camera basis is the RAW conversion profile data. You end up with smaller, more efficient code (only one conversion engine instead of several) which is easier to debug and maintain than multiple conversion engines from multiple vendors.

[brumbaer]

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?.

Hello Yair,
one of our misunderstandings ?

What I say is that an image once converted to DNG format is not brand specific anymore and can be opened and rendered by any software that supports DNG correctly (i.e. ACR, Raw Developer and Lightroom in contrast to Aperture)

The Adobe DNG converter does not read DNG, it creates DNG. To convert an image to DNG you must of course know the original file format. But later when the DNG is created and you open the DNG you do not know nor need to know about the original file format anymore.

Adobe DNG converter is like eMotionDng it takes a file format (or many in the case of Adobe DNG Conv.) and converts it to DNG. The DNG can be opened by any software that supports DNG correctly. If this wouldn't be the case you couldn't open the DNGs created with eMotionDng, because neither Lightroom nor ACR support native eMotion files formats.

Also Adobe DNG converter and ACR are different applications, it is not said that both support the same "raw formats". They most likely will, but not because it is a necessity for ACR to be able to open DNGs , but because both applications are created by the same manufacturer and they will share code in house.

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.

I understand this, but there is a difference in complexity, whether I write a tool to support tethered shooting and creating an DNG or whether I have to write a full fledged editor, which tries to compete with Photoshop.

And a complex product costs more to develop than a simple one. And if the company doesn't get any advantage from the increased development cost, be it in software revenue or increased back sales, it doesn't make much economic sense. Even worse if in opening your software, you might help an competitor to solve his problems.

Nonetheless I believe that there will always be the need for some kind of manufacturer software. The question is what it is supposed to do and how complex  it has to be. Isn't it enough to do the back specific processing and than give a standard file format (DNG or PSD or GammaDeltaEpsilon) to an Standard editor ? Many (most ?) people use PS at a later stage anyway, so why spend resources on providing something people probably don't need or don't use anyway.

I'm quite sure that many users would be happy to stick with one program for their main editing chores. So they don't have to learn new ways of file processing and editing whenever they switch to a new camera or back. And they will be happy to see that comfort, program logic and  speed don't change when they change the back.

Regards
SH

[TorbenEskerod]

xx

[yaya]

Hello Yair,
one of our misunderstandings ?

Might be  

I don't think that any of the current RAW converters, "general" or camera-specific is aiming at competing with Photoshop.  
However they do however compete with each other in trying to squeeze the maximum quality out of the RAW file (details, sharpness, colour accuracy, dynamic range...).

Manufacturer's software have the potential to do some of these things better than 3rd party software, in case there are back-specific characteristics that are being interpreted better by fine tuning a specific function or algorithm.
Even if this information is being freely shared, it does not mean that one company's engineers are trained or experienced enough to exploit it.

Tethered operation and live video have more than a simple device driver in them, especially when one tries to get the maximum capture rate and burst depth on various platforms or the optimal refresh-rate for composition and focusing without the use of excesive energy (heat).

The fact that most cameras still do not produce a RAW DNG file on one hand, and that some converters still do not "properly" support DNG (open or save) on the other hand, means (I think) there is still some room for imroving the format itself, to allow more manufacturers and software developers to conform to it.

Yair

[rainer_v]

Might be  
Manufacturer's software have the potential to do some of these things better than 3rd party software, in case there are back-specific characteristics that are being interpreted better by fine tuning a specific function or algorithm.
Even if this information is being freely shared, it does not mean that one company's engineers are trained or experienced enough to exploit it.
Yair
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=87011\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

yes, so it should be theoretically.
practically many softwares, written by the manufactors, dont use the full information which can be read out from the raw data as you can see a.e. in the highlight recovery capacity which differs very much, depending on how "clever" the software is interpretating the bayer algorythm.
i am surprissed that there is so much room for improvement left in some manufactors softwares . also some sw is overfreighted with code which has to support very "old" back generations and which is originally develloped years ago. the result is that these programs are slow, compared to more actual written solutions.
in reality a clever translated dng file can have better quality after opening it in lightroom    ( or raw develloper or ACR ) than in the original software, the problem is the conversion to dng.
this depends on the info which is written in the DNG, which may vary very much and so the 3. party program performance. so if the dng is written badly, the 3.party sw will perform bad also.

[CliffSamys]

I hate when hardware manufacturers try to argue that their software does a better job at processing their own files because they "know" their hardware better. This is just silly. Their file format is either open or closed. If open, other engineers will be able to exploit the hardware benefits just as well as the manufacturers'. Whether they do or not simply depends on their skill. This is evidenced by the recent rumors over processing Leaf files in LC or ACR. Lots of people were saying that only LC could render the highlights correctly. Rubbish. Will a 3rd party app do as good a job on every file? Probably not, but having multiple tools to solve different problems is a good thing. The trick is knowing when to use which app.
I was disappointed to see Hasse abandon their direct-DNG approach as well. I've been told that it came down to a speed issue. This seems like a shame to me, since speed is one thing that could most effectively be optimized for.
Speaking of Hasse and DNG... Anyone having problems with high ISO/low light DNG conversions from Hasse RAWs? Try shooting something at 400 and under exposing it by 4 or more stops. Process it in Flexcolor. Then export it as DNG and process that in ACR. Obviously there will be issues with exposure. But the Flexcolor files show nice smooth (albeit dark) tones. The DNGs I've seen fall apart into crazy grain/noise patterns. I don't know if this is a problem in the DNG export or the ACR handling of the files, but the former seems more likely. Changing the curve to Linear in ACR helps, but not enough. If anyone else is experiencing this, please let us know.

[James Russell]

I hate when hardware manufacturers try to argue that their software does a better job at processing their own files because they "know" their hardware better. This is just silly. Their file format is either open or closed. If open, other engineers will be able to exploit the hardware benefits just as well as the manufacturers'. Whether they do or not simply depends on their skill. This is evidenced by the recent rumors over processing Leaf files in LC or ACR. Lots of people were saying that only LC could render the highlights correctly. Rubbish. Will a 3rd party app do as good a job on every file? Probably not, but having multiple tools to solve different problems is a good thing. The trick is knowing when to use which app.
I was disappointed to see Hasse abandon their direct-DNG approach as well. I've been told that it came down to a speed issue. This seems like a shame to me, since speed is one thing that could most effectively be optimized for.
Speaking of Hasse and DNG... Anyone having problems with high ISO/low light DNG conversions from Hasse RAWs? Try shooting something at 400 and under exposing it by 4 or more stops. Process it in Flexcolor. Then export it as DNG and process that in ACR. Obviously there will be issues with exposure. But the Flexcolor files show nice smooth (albeit dark) tones. The DNGs I've seen fall apart into crazy grain/noise patterns. I don't know if this is a problem in the DNG export or the ACR handling of the files, but the former seems more likely. Changing the curve to Linear in ACR helps, but not enough. If anyone else is experiencing this, please let us know.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=87026\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think Cliff strikes a good point, but it could be taken on step further.

If the manufacturer's software produces a surperior conversion, then fine, for many instances that should be the direction, but for some reason most of the manufacturer's software is more confusing, clumsy and slower than third party aps.

For single file processing almost any software can be made to work, even something like lc10 or Nikon Capture, which both have yet to reach any form of maturity, but for large amounts of jpeg creation or batch correction/processing to tiffs then nearly all softwares except acr and C-1 seem to be challenged.  (challenged is the polite word).

I am truly at a loss to understand some of the software I am required to work with and really wonder if the manufactuers ever take 2000 files and give themself a test deadline to correct and process files.

I have said this a million times but all the manufacturers should be required to sit in a hotel room with a few thousand files and try to batch process and upload correct and high quality jpegs before the start of the next business day.

I think that would open some eyes as to how functional thier software is.

I do think Phase one's annoucemnt of V4 sounds very promsing and it seems that they have listeed better than the other manufactuerers, (Canon, Nikon included).

Still, press releases and PDF's don't mean much until the software is released, debugged and really tested in the real world.

One thing that all the software and hardware companies should address is cost.  We all want to move forward, but having to purchase new computers just to keep up with the cameras, that need new software to keep up with the features, that need new............. becomes a never ending cycle of upgrading and cost.


JR

[yaya]

I hate when hardware manufacturers try to argue that their software does a better job at processing their own files because they "know" their hardware better. This is just silly. Their file format is either open or closed. If open, other engineers will be able to exploit the hardware benefits just as well as the manufacturers'.

Cliff I hope you don't really *hate* it...but I think this statement is somewhat inaccurate.
There are hardware related tags that most 3rd party converters do not read.
There are embedded input profiles that some 3rd party converters do not read.
I'm not saying that this is good or bad, but they have to rely on their own matrix in order to present the image colours correctly.
There are also cases where the optimisation of the file is done by both hardware, firmware and software, simply because there is more horsepower in a computer than there is a in the camera (see your comment about Hasselblad writing into DNG).

I agree that having choices is a good thing and this is why some of the manufacturers provied an open RAW file.
When it comes to tethering things get a bit more complicated, which is why most 3rd party converters stay away from it, at least for the moment.

Yair

[pprdigital]

If open, other engineers will be able to exploit the hardware benefits just as well as the manufacturers'. Whether they do or not simply depends on their skill.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=87026\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes - and also their willingness to. It's a two way street. In some cases, a 3rd party writer will not extract enough information from the manufacturer to provide a conversion that matches the quality of the native manufacturer's software, even though the manufacturer has offered it. I know this has been an issue with Adobe and some manufacturers. They may only accept as much information as they feel they need (and which matches the amount of effort they wish to invest), yet the results could be better with more information and effort. This is usually a holdup from the 3rd party converter, not the manufacturer. A notable exception to this is Raw Developer by Iridient Systems. Brian puts in the work, and it shows in the results.

Steve Hendrix
PPR Digital

[CliffSamys]

Cliff I hope you don't really *hate* it...but I think this statement is somewhat inaccurate.
There are hardware related tags that most 3rd party converters do not read.
There are embedded input profiles that some 3rd party converters do not read.
I'm not saying that this is good or bad, but they have to rely on their own matrix in order to present the image colours correctly.
There are also cases where the optimisation of the file is done by both hardware, firmware and software, simply because there is more horsepower in a computer than there is a in the camera (see your comment about Hasselblad writing into DNG).

I agree that having choices is a good thing and this is why some of the manufacturers provied an open RAW file.
When it comes to tethering things get a bit more complicated, which is why most 3rd party converters stay away from it, at least for the moment.

Yair
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=87118\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Tags, Shmags. I hate 'em! (heh) Tags are even more useless than input profiles. Any competent RAW processor will offer better workflows than relying on manufacturer tags. I've been through all of this with Leaf directly. If there is something that LC can do to all files that ACR can't, show me. Simple as that.
The issue I'm having with Hasse DNGs is far beyond optimization. There's a bug somewhere. I hope. It was probably bad form of me to add this comment in this thread, but I hadn't really thought it through. I'm not sure what you're referring to by hardware, software and firmware optimization. If you could provide an example I'd appreciate it.I don't see it being this complicated. These are just machines with input and output leads. If you have access to the outputs, you can produce the same results as the manufacturer (providing you actually want to and are skilled to do so).

As far as 3rd party apps failing to provide quality goes, this is a market issue I reckon. If they don't fix it, people will eventually stop buying it. Of course with ACR this is somewhat different. I'd say that for the most part, ACR does a great job. Where it doesn't, more people need to complain. One problem is that Adobe doesn't charge anything for ACR. It's bundled with Photoshop, so the incentive to make it perfect everywhere is lessened. This may change with the release of Lightroom. This will be a paid-for app. It seems reasonable that Lightroom and ACR will continue to share code, which could mean better processing across the board for both apps. Let's just hope.

[James Russell]

) Tags are even more useless than input profiles. Any competent RAW processor will offer better workflows than relying on manufacturer tags.

This I agree with RD, ACR, Lightroom does not pick up the manufactuer's tags and the tags are so broad based they are virtually useless.

Warm Y 4, what is that?

How about a way to make our own settings and embed them in the camera back (not just the CF card)?

As far as 3rd party Aps, lightroom and RD will produce a superior file to lc10, v-8 and even in some instances with a Phase file in C-1.

I want to see Brian's RD succeed if not just for pulling for the little guy, but I have to say that lightroom has really great possiblities as long as they get the speed up, dump the idea of those lame web galleries, allow it to write sidecar files that can be picked up by ARC and most importantly get the stability to rock solid.

The input profiles mean nothing and even the manufactuer's canned white balance really can be discarded, especially on the A series leafs.

JR

[yaya]

If there is something that LC can do to all files that ACR can't, show me.

If you insist:

Individual channel sharpening
Better scaling, up to 300-350%
Accurate cropping
Better handling of chroma noise in long exposures and 400-800 iso
CMYK conversion
B&W conversion
Gain calibration and lens cast correction
Moire reduction
Hot folder and remote processing (in V8)

Some of these are obviously available in Photoshop after the conversion but not in ACR.

Yair

[pss]

i don't think it makes a lot of sense to look at ACR functionality without PS, since it is part of the package....you might as well add that  V8 or V10 have a browser which ACR does not....

from a technical standpoint i don't understand half the things said here, there is a point where i draw the line....i am very comfortable with V8, V10, C1, ACR, i wish i could use aperture and lightroom more, but i have no desire (or the time) to get into writing code or looking at how the software is written...and maybe that is why i am so frustrated by companies saying:"our standards are open" but no other software can work with their files, or "solutions" like DNG which look great on paper, but  are really only an attempt to force the market one way....

if the leaf files are really open, why can yair make a list of several points where V8 or V10 are better then adobe or apple?

aperture has great potential ( i can't use it all for now, but i can see the potential after playing with it) and it's biggest plus is the open architecture which allows for 3rd party plug-ins....so there has to be a way for leaf, sinar, imacon and phase to make simple (or not so simple) conversion plug-ins for aperture which allow everybody to do what they do best, the DMF companies their propriatory conversion (secrets?) and apple the interface....i am probably dreaming and there are several reasons why this can work, most of which are probably based on noone really wanting to do something that might give someone some advantage in the future.....
sinar, leaf, imacon and phase should make backs and back software not try and compete with adobe and apple on the software field...

about RD: didn't adobe buy RD?

[godtfred]

If you insist:

Individual channel sharpening
Better scaling, up to 300-350%
Accurate cropping
Better handling of chroma noise in long exposures and 400-800 iso
CMYK conversion
B&W conversion
Gain calibration and lens cast correction
Moire reduction
Hot folder and remote processing (in V8)

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=87194\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

In my experience a lot of these functions are not sought after in a raw converter... exept for the ability to handle noise, moire, gain and lens correction... (and of course set initial profiles, bit-depths, contrast, color, etc.)

What I see from colleagues is that the raw developer is there to make a "flat" negative, where adjustment layers are put on top for the possibility of future changes to the file. Locking changes (like B&W/CMYK conversion, sharpening, etc.) is not something one does at the RAW develpment stage. Also Photoshop (with plugins and similar programs...) have a much broader palette of tools to tweak channels, apply sharpening to selected areas, mask out bits to change individually, do compositing work, etc. RAW Converters mostly lack the ability to do local adjustments with masks, and so the functions are not so useful.

I see raw developers that can do lots of things, and yet only want them to be great file handlers, workflow creaters, and converters/developers for my "flat" psd/tiff "negative", as well as good batching programs together with tethered capabilities.

How does the majority here use their raw development software, it could tell us something about what MFDB owners needs from their raw converters...?

[CliffSamys]

If you insist:

Individual channel sharpening
Better scaling, up to 300-350%
Accurate cropping
Better handling of chroma noise in long exposures and 400-800 iso
CMYK conversion
B&W conversion
Gain calibration and lens cast correction
Moire reduction
Hot folder and remote processing (in V8)

Some of these are obviously available in Photoshop after the conversion but not in ACR.

Yair
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=87194\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

But this is just describing some items. I want you to show me. Pick any of these and show me with pictures what you are talking about. Of these "Gain calibration and lens cast correction" looks like the only one I'd be interested in at the RAW stage, but take your pick. Let me see how LC does better at any of these for every file thrown at it.  I'd be very grateful if you could provide me with RAW files and conversions showing LC doing a better job. I would definitely use them in my sales pitch!
And I'm not Leaf-bashing. I happen to really like Leaf for their open file format and speed of shooting. I'm just saying that a competent tech can get great results from many different tools. There is no magic going on that only certain companies can exploit.

[CliffSamys]

Warm Y 4, what is that?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=87188\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

LOL, yeah or: Valeo 6 NS-W Portrait.
An oldy but a goody! Nothin like having the leaf engineers color balance your files...

Do you see any functional difference between tags and input profiles when shooting RAWs? Seems to me like these two terms should be consolidated.