Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Capture One Q&A => Topic started by: Bob Rockefeller on February 02, 2016, 02:22:57 pm
-
I was on a tech support call for a different problem, but the support agent mentioned that CO does not support DNG format files that do not have the original RAW file embedded. In those cases, CO will slow down, beach ball, and even become unresponsive for minutes at a time.
Converting to DNG would, it seems to me, often be done without that original RAW to save space. And is yet another reason not to use DNG format.
I wonder how many people reporting CO slowdowns, not associated with the catalog, are working with DNGs that don't have the original RAW embedded?
-
And is yet another reason not to use DNG format.
And is yet another reason not to use DNG format, in Capture 1. Elsewhere?
-
And is yet another reason not to use DNG format, in Capture 1. Elsewhere?
In my view, no where. I am constantly finding little things about DNG that cause problems. Even Jeff Schewe now recommends against DNG.
I just don't see the advantage to DNG. Will Lightroom one day no longer be able to decode an .ORF for my OM-D E-M1? Doubtful.
-
Even Jeff Schewe now recommends against DNG.
Really? In C1 or everywhere. And even if he does, it's not going to stop me from using it, I find multiple benefits to the format; not within C1 of course.
-
Really? In C1 or everywhere. And even if he does, it's not going to stop me from using it, I find multiple benefits to the format; not within C1 of course.
Yes, in general. On the LuLa video for Lightroom CC. And the second edition of his The Digital Negative downplays its use greatly.
But that doesn't mean you shouldn't use it. It has tripped me enough times that I don't.
How does it help you?
-
How does it help you?
What you could do is let us know if this issue is universal or only with C1 as this would provide a more honest set of data points of whether this IS an DNG issue or a C1 issue. As we both know, C1 isn't known for supporting DNG as well as they could.
Yes, in general
"All generalizations are false, including this one".
-Mark Twain
-
What you could do is let us know if this issue is universal or only with C1 as this would provide a more honest set of data points of whether this IS an DNG issue or a C1 issue. As we both know, C1 isn't known for supporting DNG as well as they could.
"All generalizations are false, including this one".
-Mark Twain
Let me move this over to a new topic since I've wandered off the original purpose: to see if some of the folks reported slow adjustments in C1 are working with DNG that don't have the original RAW file embedded.
-
Let me move this over to a new topic since I've wandered off the original purpose: to see if some of the folks reported slow adjustments in C1 are working with DNG that don't have the original RAW file embedded.
Since by your own admission, you don't use DNG, does it matter?
But the more important question is, DNG or C1 issue or a bit of both?
-
Since by your own admission, you don't use DNG, does it matter?
But the more important question is, DNG or C1 issue or a bit of both?
I posted this topic as a way to help C1 uses who may have this problem. It might matter to them.
-
I posted this topic as a way to help C1 uses who may have this problem. It might matter to them.
And it matters to me too Bob. FWIW, I suspect I was using PhaseOne products and software before you. Way back when LightPhase, was around, circa 1998. LONG before C1 and DNG existed.
-
How does it help you?
What you could do is let us know if this issue is universal or only with C1 as this would provide a more honest set of data points of whether this IS an DNG issue or a C1 issue. As we both know, C1 isn't known for supporting DNG as well as they could.
Andrew... you didn't adress Bob's question in how far DNG helps you...
And I am interessted in an answer to...: what's wrong with original RAW-files and in how far converting to DNG improves your workflow?
-
Andrew... you didn't adress Bob's question in how far DNG helps you...
I've gone on record many times here about why DNG helps me.
- No sidecar files
- Smaller than proprietary raw
- Openly documented file format
- Ability to embed one or more DNG camera profiles into container
- Ability to embed one or more set of rendering instructions even from differing converters
- Data verification!
- Ability to embed sizable, high quality JPEG of current rendering (you can pull that out and make a nice print, just in case)
- Better performance (in the converter I use)
-
No sidecar files
who cares? And by the way... this is not a capacity of DNG, but of the RAW-softwares...
Smaller than proprietary raw
sure, because proprietary data (that CAN be utilizesed by the manufacturers software!) gets stripped
Openly documented file format
:-) the file format is documented, yes. Does Adobe also documet what data gets stripped and why and how they uitilze the data they throw away? this is a lame argument...
Ability to embed one or more DNG camera profiles into container
only needed in a dedicated DNG-workflow. Not at all relevant when you work with native RAW-files.
Ability to embed one or more set of rendering instructions even from differing converters
Again only needed in a dedicated DNG-workflow. Not at all relevant when you work with native RAW-files.
Data verification!
Are you kidding? DNG throws away proprietary data. Only the reamaining data gets documented. DNG wnats to be the smallest denominator of RAW-files. And to some extend it is. But only data documented in DNG is verified... NOT the data that IS actually contained in native RAW files... that get stripped...
Ability to embed sizable, high quality JPEG of current rendering (you can pull that out and make a nice print, just in case)
nice feature.
Better performance (in the converter I use)
well, in the converter you use... not in all converters.
-
who cares? And by the way... this is not a capacity of DNG, but of the RAW-softwares...
sure, because proprietary data (that CAN be utilizesed by the manufacturers software!) gets stripped
:-) the file format is documented, yes. Does Adobe also documet what data gets stripped and why and how they uitilze the data they throw away? this is a lame argument...
only needed in a dedicated DNG-workflow. Not at all relevant when you work with native RAW-files.
Again only needed in a dedicated DNG-workflow. Not at all relevant when you work with native RAW-files.
Are you kidding? DNG throws away proprietary data. Only the reamaining data gets documented. DNG wnats to be the smallest denominator of RAW-files. And to some extend it is. But only data documented in DNG is verified... NOT the data that IS actually contained in native RAW files... that get stripped...
nice feature.
well, in the converter you use... not in all converters.
1. I care.
2. No, more effective compression in most cases. The metadata doesn't add up to much size wise.
3. I don't use nor ever will use the camera makers raw developer so that proprietary data is useless. An openly documented format (TIFF vs. PSD) is important to me.
4. I use a dedicated DNG workflow but, you don't have to to use DNG camera profiles! I want that data (I roll my own) with the raw data, DNG provides that.
5. I use a dedicated DNG workflow, I don't think storing just one set, let alone multiple parametric edits in the catalog or sidecar is as safe, for me, as having that in the DNG container.
6. I'm not kidding, I'm referring to checking the hash tag inside my raw converter of choice for data verification (got nothing to do with proprietary data I don't need).
7. Yes.
8. Of course, in the converter I use. Going full circle, be nice if C1 treated DNG as a first class citizen or not at all. Half baked doesn't make any sense to me. How about you?
-
sure, because proprietary data (that CAN be utilizesed by the manufacturers software!) gets stripped
Actually there are provisions for private tags where that data can be stored. But what's the point? ONLY the manufacturers raw converter understand it (that's what makes it proprietary :D ). Hell will freeze over when one of them supports DNG so the data seems useless to me.
As for data verification for DNG:
http://blogs.adobe.com/jkost/2013/08/dng-verification-in-lightroom-5.html
-
8. Of course, in the converter I use. Going full circle, be nice if C1 treated DNG as a first class citizen or not at all. Half baked doesn't make any sense to me. How about you?
I feel the same! Personally I think C1 should NOT support editing generic DNGs, TIFs, JPEGs and PNGs. The way it is implemented totally sucks! I also think - based on how C1 is desinged - they also should skip the whole "catalogue" feature... because you need extremely well equipped computers to make it work seamlessly (high speed disks, lots of RAM, super fast graphic cards, mulitple cores). C1 looks like a fully equipped cataloguing and RAW developping tool. But it is NOT! It's a RAW-processor... but it is clearly the best RAW processor out there... as long as you work with native RAW-files...
Just my 2 cents...
-
I feel the same! Personally I think C1 should NOT support editing generic DNGs, TIFs, JPEGs and PNGs. The way it is implemented totally sucks!
I have two non Adobe raw converters that support DNG I'd be happy to use full time IF I bailed out on Lightroom. The irony is, C1 could be on the list IF the company didn't do stupid stuff like support the format half baked as it is. They should either abandon it totally or a smarter move, fully support it. They should behave like the folks writing Affinity Photo (which not only supports DNG, it could be a PS replacement for me if again, I bailed on Adobe). In that product, they support PSD with layers! Amazing; you get all your layers, blend modes, etc. But not Layered TIFF. I asked them to consider this as it would aid in migration from Adobe customer to Affinity because there are customers with Layered TIFFs. And they said yes, it's coming. Now that is smart. The C1 folks could learn from that mindset and aid their bottom line.
-
I feel the same! Personally I think C1 should NOT support editing generic DNGs, TIFs, JPEGs and PNGs. The way it is implemented totally sucks! I also think - based on how C1 is desinged - they also should skip the whole "catalogue" feature... because you need extremely well equipped computers to make it work seamlessly (high speed disks, lots of RAM, super fast graphic cards, mulitple cores). C1 looks like a fully equipped cataloguing and RAW developping tool. But it is NOT! It's a RAW-processor... but it is clearly the best RAW processor out there... as long as you work with native RAW-files...
Just my 2 cents...
Hi Thomas,
I run a mid 2014 MBP with 16GB RAM, 2.8GHZ Intel Core i7, 2048GB graphics card and my catalog runs seamlessly.
Staying away from DNG discussion. :)
David
-
Hi Thomas,
I run a mid 2014 MBP with 16GB RAM, 2.8GHZ Intel Core i7, 2048GB graphics card and my catalog runs seamlessly.
I run a ~2012 AMD A8-3500 maxed out with 8GB RAM, 4 core, 512MB 'shared' video memory, under Windows 10. C1 runs just fine here in catalog mode.
Staying away from DNG discussion. :)
I would too, in your position. ;)
However I'd like to prod you into coaxing the Phase One/C1 team to become more adept at dealing with and utilizing DNG features, asap. Especially regarding saving develop instructions and multiple snapshots/variants into it - alongside [LR, in my case] data. 8) That belt-and-suspenders approach is important. I don't like having a single point of failure, even though I do religiously backup C1&LR catalogs.
......
Also, to clarify about the hash issue.. It's an image data hash - and nothing gets thrown away in the important image data - nor the other proprietary (but useless to me) data, like maker notes, etc.
YMMV regarding the usefulness of proprietary data.
-
I am using DNG converted from original .fff files within C19 and I am getting quite the same (good) results than originally processing the H files within Phocus.
I am a longtime C1 user (started with version 3 or so) and like to use C1 more than Phocus, that's why.
DNG is a great benefit to me for fff files and C1. However, a full native support of fff files within C1 would even be better, but that will never happen, as I was told.
-
Also, to clarify about the hash issue.. It's an image data hash - and nothing gets thrown away in the important image data - nor the other proprietary (but useless to me) data, like maker notes, etc.
YMMV regarding the usefulness of proprietary data.
Exactly! So we've got some proprietary data that only the company that produced it understands. How is that useful to anyone using any product outside said company?
-
How is that useful to anyone using any product outside said company?
When using Aperture, there's a feature to show focus points and the active focus point when the image was shot. It's very handy.
With a straight NEF RAW file, the feature worked. With a DNG conversion of the NEF (without the original RAW embedded), it did not. Somehow Aperture could use Nikon data that wasn't available in the same way (or at all?) in the DNG.
Does anyone else have real-world examples?
-
When using Aperture, there's a feature to show focus points and the active focus point when the image was shot. It's very handy.
AFAIK, focus points isn't proprietary data from the camera manufacturer. I suspect Aperture just didn't play nice with the DNG or the conversion didn't store that data but that's a guess. Again, I believe other raw converters (not Adobe's) support focus points so the data can't be proprietary.
-
Is proprietary data manufacturer's data that is unique to the manufacturer, but exposed by its SDK?
Or is it secret data that has to be reverse engineered?
I had assumed it to be the former. Which would give the user of the SKD freedom to use, or discard, that data. The DNG converter could "translate" that data it felt relevant and discard the rest. Which could bother some people.
-
Is proprietary data manufacturer's data that is unique to the manufacturer, but exposed by its SDK?
Or is it secret data that has to be reverse engineered?
I had assumed it to be the former. Which would give the user of the SKD freedom to use, or discard, that data. The DNG converter could "translate" that data it felt relevant and discard the rest. Which could bother some people.
Yes, unique to manufacturer and usually (not 100% reliably) in the SDK. Generally they are in the MakerNotes and are technically proprietary but they are not encrypted and apps can freely read and use the data. AFAIK Apple used the Nikon SDK which documents Nikon's focus point data. Same for Canon?
Adobe's DNG converters do not discard the focus points but store the data in an unparsed state. If someone wanted to parse that data from a DNG, I'm sure they could do so.
-
For Lightroom, this free plugin shows focus points:
http://www.lightroomfocuspointsplugin.com/
Ironically, it DOES work for my converted Canon G7X & S100 DNG files (without embedded original CR2), but not for either my Pentax K-3 or K-30. However that leads me to believe that Pentax does not save focus point information for those cameras.
-
One point I will offer in support of continued improvement for DNG support in Capture One is in being able to convert legacy archives of DNG files. While I stopped converting to DNG 3-4 years ago, I have over 30,000 DNG files from years prior that I would like to catalog and convert in Capture One.
When Apple announced the discontinuation of Aperture, I looked at going back to Lightroom and at Capture One. I found Capture One to produce superior results and I like the interface better than Lightroom. It was also significantly faster than Lightroom. This was Capture One 8. I opened case with PhaseOne and made the argument that (a) their software doesn't do a good job for DNG files made from camera original raw files, and (b) they could win over a lot more Aperture users if they fixed that.
I was very pleased to see Capture One 9 went a long way in addressing this. I had lots of exchanges with the support team at PhaseOne who gave the developers lots of my DNG files and who relayed my own experiences regarding DNG files with Capture One 8.
For many of us, the argument over whether to use DNG is immaterial. Discussiions over whether DNG files are inferior to the original camera native raw files is immaterial. We have tens of thousands of DNG files in our archives that we have to maintain. Continuing to improve DNG support in Capture One will enable more and more people to move their legacy archives into the tool.
-
For many of us, the argument over whether to use DNG is immaterial. Discussiions over whether DNG files are inferior to the original camera native raw files is immaterial. We have tens of thousands of DNG files in our archives that we have to maintain. Continuing to improve DNG support in Capture One will enable more and more people to move their legacy archives into the tool.
I agree.
But I do find it ironic the format that was intended to make legacy images more likely to be assessable in the future is the format that is causing problems for people wanting to move to CO! :)
-
But I do find it ironic the format that was intended to make legacy images more likely to be assessable in the future is the format that is causing problems for people wanting to move to CO! :)
What's ironic Bob isn't a file format container that's openly specified. What's ironic are companies that fail to properly support the format as specified or update the format as it progress.
-
What's ironic Bob isn't a file format container that's openly specified. What's ironic are companies that fail to properly support the format as specified or update the format as it progress.
That's what's ironic. A "future-proof" format that hasn't been accepted by at least CO and therefore isn't "future-proof." Just plain RAW files are handled just fine - the format we were supposed to be protected from by DNG. I wonder if there are others with partial support? Or is CO the odd man out here?
-
What's ironic Bob isn't a file format container that's openly specified. What's ironic are companies that fail to properly support the format as specified or update the format as it progress.
I concur. You cannot blame the file format for software makers not supporting it.
-
That's what's ironic. A "future-proof" format that hasn't been accepted by at least CO and therefore isn't "future-proof." Just plain RAW files are handled just fine - the format we were supposed to be protected from by DNG. I wonder if there are others with partial support? Or is CO the odd man out here?
Who promised anything about future proof? Why would you or anyone else blindly accept it? Just plain raw files are handled fine as are DNG's (with their advantages some of us like) in all kinds of other products. C1? Not so sure. So Bob, is it the format or the people who write software that handle it? Just look, if you will, at this discussion of focus point data that is 'said' to be proprietary but isn't. It isn't at all natively supported in an Adobe product, DNG or proprietary raw without a plug-in. So what? It's there, can be used if desired.
I know you want to 'defend' C1's history of sloppy implementation of one file format, fine. As I and other's have said, it only serves to keep potential customers from coming into the C1 fold.
Yes! CO is one of the odd man out here. The products I select, several not from Adobe work as they should.
-
I know you want to 'defend' C1's history of sloppy implementation of one file format, fine. As I and other's have said, it only serves to keep potential customers from coming into the C1 fold.
Yes! CO is the odd man out here.
No, I have no reason to defend CO and its DNG support. I would like that support because I do have some DNG files.
But Adobe does put DNG forward as a future-proof format:
The solution to this is Digital Negative (DNG), a publicly available archival format for the raw files generated by digital cameras. By addressing the lack of an open standard for the raw files created by individual camera models, DNG helps ensure that photographers will be able to access their files in the future.
- from https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/digital-negative.html
The ironic thing, to me, is that due to CO's poor implementation of support for DNG, some photographers are having trouble moving their images to "the future," if CO is the future for them.
My point from the start of this was to let CO users know about CO's potential slowdowns for DNGs without the original RAW embedded. And I mentioned that problems such as CO's poor support and Aperture's inability to find Nikon focus point data in a DNG were some of the reasons I moved away from using the format.
So that's the nut of it. Some DNG files are causing CO problems, maybe even crashes. If you have such problems with your DNG files, that could be why. And it provides a good chance to open a support request with the details and the DNG file involved. Enough support requests and enough example files might get CO's problem fixed.
-
But Adobe does put DNG forward as a future-proof format:
- from https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/digital-negative.html (https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/digital-negative.html)
Nowhere do they guarantee future proof. Does it help? Yes. Does it have other advantage for some? Yes.
You seem to continue to ignore that there are products that properly and fully support DNG while there's one you use that doesn't. It's pretty clear to me and a few other's how that can be rectified.
Some DNG files are causing CO problems, maybe even crashes.
So your proposition is, this isn't a CO bug, it's an issue with DNG? Seriously?
-
Nowhere do they guarantee future proof. Does it help? Yes. Does it have other advantage for some? Yes.
You seem to continue to ignore that there are products that properly and fully support DNG while there's one you use that doesn't. It's pretty clear to me and a few other's how that can be rectified. So your proposition is, this isn't a CO bug, it's an issue with DNG? Seriously?
Enough. I made no such proposition.
If you like DNG, use it. If you don't like CO, don't use it.
-
Enough. I made no such proposition.
I believe you did but whatever.
If you like DNG, use it. If you don't like CO, don't use it.
I will and do use DNG: kind of obvious. I will not use buy CO until they properly support that file format! They can. They should. But if they don't, I'm happy with at least three other, very good raw converters that properly support DNG. That CO apparently is unable or unwilling to support a file format like other, much smaller companies suggests to me, perhaps others, CO isn't worthy of my money. That's THEIR burden.
-
I will not use buy CO until they properly support that file format! They can. They should.
Have you tested version 9? DNG support is excellent for my files vs prior versions.
-
Have you tested version 9? DNG support is excellent for my files vs prior versions.
Nope, not yet. Your report does sounds encouraging. So at least the damn app doesn't quit as reported with DNG's that do not have the original proprietary raw embedded? Performance of DNG vs. not, any comments?
-
I have DNG files for Nikon D100, D200, D300 and D800 as well as Canon G5 and G11. All look excellent in V9 and seem to render with equal performance as my camera native raw files.
-
Nope, not yet. Your report does sounds encouraging. So at least the damn app doesn't quit as reported with DNG's that do not have the original proprietary raw embedded? Performance of DNG vs. not, any comments?
Seems like you should try Version 9 out then Andrew.
-
Seems like you should try Version 9 out then Andrew.
I plan to (going out of town, might be another week).