Can you point to any evidence that shows that the output from a DNG file is in any way different to that from it's original RAW when both are processed in the same way with the same RAW converter?
I find it important to remove the condition processed in the same way with the same RAW converter
for a variety of reasons:
1. different raw converters may interpret the same data differently (this is obvious for anyone, who tried the manufacturer's raw processor and any other one),
2. "processed in the same way" is past all boundaries of mushiness; what is the meaning of "same way" for example relating to noise reduction?
Your stance on the 'purity' of the original RAW data seems to me to be ideology rather than reality, but since you are obviously a well informed kinda guy I'd be interested to find out if you can show firm examples why you have this apparently deep aversion to DNG files
1. I do not have any "aversion" to DNG files. The DNG design is a small-minded patchwork, but that is nothing special. As the matter of fact, my related product, Rawnalyze started out with supporting only
2. While I have quite a few objections re the DNG specifications, the subject in this forum is something different, namely if to convert
native raw files to DNG.
3. I am not only well-informed, but I am experienced enough not to *absolutely* trust anything, which "comes out of computer", not even if I myself have programmed it.
4. A specific example for the raw to DNG conversion being "inventive" for the lack of DNG ways expressing something present in the raw file: Canon's sRaw files.
5. A specific example for the Adobe DNG converter causing destruction
: see around post #26 in this Adobe forum
You are free to believe, that software coming out of the Adobe (or any other) door is free of error, but you are not free to expect, that any experienced person takes your considerations seriously.