Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Image Processing => Topic started by: marimagen on October 29, 2008, 09:49:07 am
-
I have several hundreds raf files I took with my old Fuji S2 camera. I'm afraid one of these days the raf format will no longer be supported by photohsop and the like. I think it would be wise to save them to a more universal raw format. What do you think I should do, and more specifically how can I avoid losing information in the process.
Thanks in advance,
Marie
-
I have several hundreds raf files I took with my old Fuji S2 camera. I'm afraid one of these days the raf format will no longer be supported by photohsop and the like. I think it would be wise to save them to a more universal raw format. What do you think I should do, and more specifically how can I avoid losing information in the process.
Thanks in advance,
Marie
You really only have one RAW choice, that is DNG format. Adobe suggests conversion to DNG, but also saving your original RAW files too. If you're really worried, I'd also consider processing them to a 16-bit TIFF, too.
Also, not to scare you, but you do have to consider what media you're storing to, and how many "mirrored" copies you are making...
That all said, and beyond standard archiving procatices, I really don't see the point of a DNG conversion until Adobe actually drops support of these files. You can always run the DNG conversion in the previous Adobe version, and they have yet to actually drop a format of any RAW files they have previously supported, to my knowledge.
-
Thanks Ted. The thing is that Fuji is so far behind now. I fear at some point big software companies will no longer make the effort to support their special raf format anymore. But as you say, I'll worry when it'll happen! Marie
-
You should read up on DNG in any case, because while Ted might not see any advantage, a lot of us do - even when our file formats are more common and therefore less vulnerable than yours. I put a few of the advantages in the later posts in this thread - http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....c=28828&hl= (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=28828&hl=)
In your position, I would definitely convert the files to DNG and archive the raw files.
John
-
You should read up on DNG in any case, because while Ted might not see any advantage, a lot of us do - even when our file formats are more common and therefore less vulnerable than yours. I put a few of the advantages in the later posts in this thread - http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....c=28828&hl= (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=28828&hl=)
In your position, I would definitely convert the files to DNG and archive the raw files.
John
Actually, I certainly agree with John... that you should read up on it so you can make a good choice for yourself. The Adobe page is here, there's an valid opinion on DNG for every photographer out there...
http://www.adobe.com/products/dng/ (http://www.adobe.com/products/dng/)
One of the sites that deals with the bigger issues is here: http://www.openraw.org/ (http://www.openraw.org/) OpenRaw. They are dealing with just the issues you're facing.
-
You link to OpenRaw? Isn't that the site for people who don't see the point of DNG and believe the camera makers will give up their secret formats?
-
You link to OpenRaw? Isn't that the site for people who don't see the point of DNG and believe the camera makers will give up their secret formats?
Yes, I do, because it's an important point of view, and source of good information. As you've noted, I personally don't see the need for most of this. However, other people may, and it's an informative read.
-
As you've noted, I personally don't see the need for most of this. However, other people may, and it's an informative read.
Then I would argue you don't understand the problem. OpenRaw.org has their collective heads in the sand and are trying to force the camera makers to open up and document something that the makers are disinclined to do. They are far more likely to adopt DNG as an alternative than lift the kimono entirely. Add to that the fact that Adobe is taking steps to mitigate the camera makers' remaining objections to DNG like offering DNG to the ISO as the basis of the next TIFF-EP format update *which is what almost all of the current proprietary raw file formats is based on except Foveon, and adopting the DNG Profile schema to address color rendering looks and I think that the walls blocking will eventually come tumbling down.
Look, we NEED a standardized and normalized raw file format whose documentation is open and that allows for private maker notes to remain private. OpenRaw.org doesn't get that...that's why DNG is so important to the industry, not sure why YOU don't get that?
-
Then I would argue you don't understand the problem. OpenRaw.org has their collective heads in the sand and are trying to force the camera makers to open up and document something that the makers are disinclined to do. They are far more likely to adopt DNG as an alternative than lift the kimono entirely. Add to that the fact that Adobe is taking steps to mitigate the camera makers' remaining objections to DNG like offering DNG to the ISO as the basis of the next TIFF-EP format update *which is what almost all of the current proprietary raw file formats is based on except Foveon, and adopting the DNG Profile schema to address color rendering looks and I think that the walls blocking will eventually come tumbling down.
Look, we NEED a standardized and normalized raw file format whose documentation is open and that allows for private maker notes to remain private. OpenRaw.org doesn't get that...that's why DNG is so important to the industry, not sure why YOU don't get that?
Polite isn't he? Can't give over his point of view without sarcastic personal insults. A great asset to Adobe's customer relations.
-
Ooh, looks like the heavy squad has turned up....
In the original poster's position, with one of the more obscure raw file formats, there's even more advantage in having at least one copy of the original in DNG format.
OpenRaw was always a haven of wishful thinking over commercial reality, and more liable now to mislead rather than enlighten.
John
-
Then I would argue you don't understand the problem. OpenRaw.org has their collective heads in the sand and are trying to force the camera makers to open up and document something that the makers are disinclined to do. They are far more likely to adopt DNG as an alternative than lift the kimono entirely. Add to that the fact that Adobe is taking steps to mitigate the camera makers' remaining objections to DNG like offering DNG to the ISO as the basis of the next TIFF-EP format update *which is what almost all of the current proprietary raw file formats is based on except Foveon, and adopting the DNG Profile schema to address color rendering looks and I think that the walls blocking will eventually come tumbling down.
Look, we NEED a standardized and normalized raw file format whose documentation is open and that allows for private maker notes to remain private. OpenRaw.org doesn't get that...that's why DNG is so important to the industry, not sure why YOU don't get that?
uh, OK.
...not sure if I really deserved that. I actually do know quite a lot about the issue, spoken to a few of the product managers at Adobe, actually, had discussions with many others in the field, and have come to my own conclusions. I think it's an issue that everyone should learn about, and this post is a great example of that need.
It's not really fair to assume that because we don't agree, I don't know what I'm talking about, is there? Beyond that, I'm really not trying to push my viewpoint on anyone, was I?
-
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/shoootrawsmart/ (http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/shoootrawsmart/)
You need one less 'o'.
-
Ted,
Jeff's last phrase did seem a bit strong, but when you're recommending the deluded OpenRaw and processing the Rafs to 16-bit TIFFs, in preference to DNG, it seems fair enough to question whether you do understand the problem or have thought about it from enough angles.
John
-
You need one less 'o'.
HAHAHA!
Thanks
-
Ted,
Jeff's last phrase did seem a bit strong, but when you're recommending the deluded OpenRaw and processing the Rafs to 16-bit TIFFs, in preference to DNG, it seems fair enough to question whether you do understand the problem or have thought about it from enough angles.
John
I recommended reading the OpenRaw. I still do. You may think they're deluded, and others here, but I know a lot of very credible people who don't and it's part of a good education. If it was a simple answer, it wouldn't be such a complex discussion. Sorry, I'm not willing to say I, or anyone, can peer into the future and claim to have the truth about this very important issue.
Please read what I posted again:
You really only have one RAW choice, that is DNG format. Adobe suggests conversion to DNG, but also saving your original RAW files too. If you're really worried, I'd also consider processing them to a 16-bit TIFF, too.
Does that suggest TIFF in preference to DNG? No.
-
You really only have one RAW choice, that is DNG format. Adobe suggests conversion to DNG, but also saving your original RAW files too. If you're really worried, I'd also consider processing them to a 16-bit TIFF, too[/i].
Does that suggest TIFF in preference to DNG? No.
Accepted + apologies.
OpenRaw merely restates the problem which the original poster already recognizes. As for offering a solution, it's even less credible today than it was when the site was launched, while DNG has moved steadily forward, with smaller camera makers adopting the format and the choice of processing software, Adobe and others, having continued to expand. There's not much sign of those trends coming to an end - quite the contrary.
John
-
Thanks Ted. The thing is that Fuji is so far behind now. I fear at some point big software companies will no longer make the effort to support their special raf format anymore. But as you say, I'll worry when it'll happen! Marie
I'd suggest a couple things, though... keep very close tabs on the issue, and be very careful before you upgrade to a new version of Photoshop to make sure your files are still supported. Your safety net is going to be keeping at least one system "behind the wave", so you can fall back on that to process files if support gets pulled.
Also, you've got to consider the amount of files you have, and how much longer you're going to shoot with that camera. If it's a lot, (and "several hundreds" really isn't) I'd suggest getting to work on doing DNG conversions sooner rather than later... you don't want eleventy-million files to convert, if you're like me, it just won't happen. (I still have files from OS9-only cameras/software, dammit.)
-
Accepted + apologies.
OpenRaw merely restates the problem which the original poster already recognizes. As for offering a solution, it's even less credible today than it was when the site was launched, while DNG has moved steadily forward, with smaller camera makers adopting the format and the choice of processing software, Adobe and others, having continued to expand. There's not much sign of those trends coming to an end - quite the contrary.
John
We agree, John.
-
And the other viewpoint would be not to worry about watching for any wave. You're going to have x backups of your originals, so it makes sense right now that at least one of them will be a more archival format. Even if you only treat the DNG as a backup file, you're already in a better position. And the DNG has advantages other than the greater likelihood of surviving software change.
John
-
I recommended reading the OpenRaw. I still do. You may think they're deluded, and others here, but I know a lot of very credible people who don't and it's part of a good education. If it was a simple answer, it wouldn't be such a complex discussion.
It really is much more simple than many make it. The camera makers have struggled mightily to deal with digital photography. The Nikon/Canon/Kodak triad broke down and both Nikon and then Canon rushed into this with little or no expertise. Nikon took the dubious position of calling THIER raw file format NEF, which was an incredibly stupid thing to do because Nikon already had a non-raw file format from their scanners of the same extension. Canon flailed around first with CRW, then TIF (how stupid was that-open an early 1Ds file without Camera Raw-it opens the EXIF JPEG and if you hit save, it overwrites the original raw file). So, they both have screwed up royally. They had to adopt TIFF-EP to get their heads out of their arses...which if you know TIFF-EP (an ISO standard that Adobe gave the right to use TIFF 6 for) and finally, later NEF and CR2 files were better formed. So, the software divisions of the camera companies resorted to all sorts of gyrations to keep control over their less faulty formats my claiming only Nikon can possibly know how to process a Nikon file (same with Canon only Canon wisely chose not to try to sell software).
So, along comes an upstart Adobe, teaching Nikon and Canon a thing or two about how to write and specify file formats (something Adobe has a lot of experience with and the camera makers none) and they have the gaul to write a piece of software (Camera Raw) that not only works on NEF & CR2 files but opens almost 200 DIFFERENT raw file formats. It's a pain so Thomas Knoll decides the industry needs a standardized raw file container format, DNG.
The ludites at OpenRaw.org decided that simple standardizing on a container format isn't good enough so the dummies go on a rampage denigrating DNG (and playing right into the camera makers' hands). Course, then Nikon screwed up and accidently encrypted the white balance data on a new camera (yes, it was encrypted, yes it was "accidental" as in incompetent further proof that the container format for raw files should NOT be in the hands of the camera makers). And all of this got really serious...
So, here we are in 2008 and there are STILL photographers who for one reason or another (generally FUD based) still think it's ok for the camera makers to cling to their undocumented, proprietary raw file formats, than only Nikon and Canon could possible know how to open their own files in an optimal manner and somehow don't understand just how critical it is that the "raw file format" needs to be standardized ASAP if you care at all about the long term preservation and conservation of digital photographs.
It's simple, the industry is currently at risk because Nikon and Canon have not been forced to the standards table by people who are too willing to accept the Kool-Aid spewed by the camera makers and their advocates...
So, yeah, I take a very dim view of any photographer that isn't pro DNG and anti-proprietary raw file formats. But there is a distinction. The people in OpenRaw.org seem to have their own agenda to try to strip the raw file formats secrecy rather than standardizing the way that whatever proprietary data is stored in a standardized way.
If you have ANY doubt that the way it is now is indeed risky, read this: Digital Preservation (http://photoshopnews.com/2005/05/11/digital-preservation/). The problem is real and pressing. No, not now or next year but the longer it goes before being addressed, the bigger the problem will be.
So, yeah, I see it as very simple. Letting Nikon and Canon get away with not standardizing is NOT in the best interest of photographers. I don't have any sympathy for anybody who would quibble on that point. Yes, it's useful to read and learn, but the way it currently is in the industry is not good for us, and that's not a debatable point. How do we fix it? Refuse to tolerate Nikon and Canon's current behavior, accept the realities that Nikon and Canon do need to have private maker notes (something OpenRaw.org rejects) and that we need to arrive at a standardized and safe container for raw digital capture. And personally, I can't think of a better or more experienced person (decoding about 200 raw formats already) than Thomas Knoll. While Adobe is a for-profit corporation, if you knew the inside story you would realize that the primary reason Adobe is doing DNG is because Thomas thinks it's a good idea. That's really about it. That's Adobe's agenda...
-
Then I would argue you don't understand the problem. OpenRaw.org has their collective heads in the sand and are trying to force the camera makers to open up and document something that the makers are disinclined to do. They are far more likely to adopt DNG as an alternative than lift the kimono entirely. Add to that the fact that Adobe is taking steps to mitigate the camera makers' remaining objections to DNG like offering DNG to the ISO as the basis of the next TIFF-EP format update *which is what almost all of the current proprietary raw file formats is based on except Foveon, and adopting the DNG Profile schema to address color rendering looks and I think that the walls blocking will eventually come tumbling down.
Look, we NEED a standardized and normalized raw file format whose documentation is open and that allows for private maker notes to remain private. OpenRaw.org doesn't get that...that's why DNG is so important to the industry, not sure why YOU don't get that?
You know, I went back an re-read your post, and the truth is I agree with that too. I agree that the relationship between Adobe and their DNG initiative and the camera manufacturers HAS to be developed, and if they are able to reach some relationship where I have a choice to shoot a DNG on my camera that allows me all the advantages of the manufacturer files, WITH the advantages of DNG, it would be a wonderful world. We do need it, and I truly believe that it's inevitable.
If that was your point, we're in total agreement. (It wasn't however, quite what we were talking about...)
If you're saying I don't know what I'm talking about because I don't convert to DNG, well that's a different matter. If you're saying I'm giving bad advice by suggesting someone should read what has been a fairly active community has to say on the matter, then that's your opinion.
I am going home and drinking now.
-
It really is much more simple than many make it. The camera makers have struggled mightily to deal with digital photography. The Nikon/Canon/Kodak triad broke down and both Nikon and then Canon rushed into this with little or no expertise. Nikon took the dubious position of calling THIER raw file format NEF, which was an incredibly stupid thing to do because Nikon already had a non-raw file format from their scanners of the same extension. Canon flailed around first with CRW, then TIF (how stupid was that-open an early 1Ds file without Camera Raw-it opens the EXIF JPEG and if you hit save, it overwrites the original raw file). So, they both have screwed up royally. They had to adopt TIFF-EP to get their heads out of their arses...which if you know TIFF-EP (and ISO standard that Adobe gave the right to use TIFF 6 for) and finally, later NEF and CR2 files were better formed. So, the software divisions of the camera companies resorted to all sorts of gyrations to keep control over their less faulty formats my claiming only Nikon can possibly know how to process a Nikon file (same with Canon only Canon wisely chose not to try to sell software).
So, along comes an upstart Adobe, teaching Nikon and Canon a thing or two about how to write and specify file formats (something Adobe has a lot of experience with and the camera makers none) and they have the gaul to write a piece of software (Camera Raw) that not only works on NEF & CR2 files but opens almost 200 DIFFERENT raw file formats. It's a pain so Thomas Knoll decides the industry needs a standardized raw file container format, DNG.
The ludites at OpenRaw.org decided that simple standardizing on a container format isn't good enough to the dummies go on a rampage denigrating DNG (and playing right into the camera makers hands). Course, then Nikon screwed up an accidently encrypted the white balance data on a new camera (yes, it was encrypted, yes it was "accidental" as in incompetent further proof that the container format for raw files should NOT be in the hands of the camera makers).
So, here we are in 2008 and there are STILL photographers who for one reason or another (generally FUD based) still think it's ok for the camera makers to cling to their undocumented, proprietary raw file formats, than only Nikon and Canon could possible know how to open their own files in an optimal manner and somehow don't understand just how critical it is that the "raw file format" needs to be standardized ASAP if you care at all about the long term preservation and conservation of digital photographs.
It's simple, the industry is currently at risk because Nikon and Canon have not been forced to the standards table by people who are too willing to accept the Kool-Aid spewed by the camera makers and their advocates...
So, yeah, I take a very dim view of any photographer that isn't pro DNG anti-proprietary raw file formats. And the people in OpenRaw.org seem to have their own agenda to try to strip the raw file formats secrecy rather than standardizing the way that whatever proprietary data is stored in a standardized way.
If you have ANY doubt that the way it is now is indeed risky, read this: Digital Preservation (http://photoshopnews.com/2005/05/11/digital-preservation/). The problem is real and pressing. No, not now or next year but the longer it goes before being addressed, the bigger the problem will be.
So, yeah, I see it as very simple. Letting Nikon and Canon get away with not standardizing is NOT in the best interest of photographers. I don't have any sympathy for anybody who would quibble on that point. Yes, it's useful to read and learn, but the way it currently is in the industry is not good for us, and that's not a debatable point. How do we fix it? Refuse to tolerate Nikon and Canon's current behavior, accept the realities that Nikon and Canon do need to have private maker notes (something OpenRaw.org rejects) and that we need to arrive at a standardized and safe container for raw digital capture. And personally, I can't think of a better or more experienced person (decoding about 200 raw formats already) than Thomas Knoll. While Adobe is a for-profit corporation, if you knew the inside story you would realize that the primary reason Adobe is doing DNG is because Thomas thinks it's a good idea. That's really about it. That's Adobe's agenda...
I 100% agree, Jeff. (again, though... not what the question was asking)
NOW I'm drinking.
-
A great asset to Adobe's customer relations.
Just to be perfectly clear (so you don't make the mistake of thinking Adobe has some say over what I think or say) I don't work for Adobe...I have on occasion worked WITH Adobe on projects. But Adobe has diddly-squat control over me. So, if you presume that anything I do or say has anything thing to do with Adobe, their employees or their policies, then you should disabuse yourself of that misconception. Adobe is in no way responsible for (nor can they control) anything I say or do. The blame (or credit) is mine alone. Got that?
-
Letting Nikon and Canon get away with not standardizing is NOT in the best interest of photographers. [...] Yes, it's useful to read and learn, but the way it currently is in the industry is not good for us, and that's not a debatable point. How do we fix it? Refuse to tolerate Nikon and Canon's current behavior...
From the first moment I heard about DNG format I was relieved -- finally, someone took a real-world step toward standardization.
I'm interested to hear more about translating refuse to tolerate Nikon and Canon's current behavior into something that actually gets their attention. I'm sure they're well aware of consumer frustration about the endless proliferation of raw formats, with the formats seeming to change at least a little bit with each new camera model (why do they change the formats every time? Does anyone know?).
But never mind if they're aware of the frustration. It doesn't seem to matter -- it doesn't likely affect sales. One example: Michael Reichmann and other well respected reviewers have been forceful, for quite a while now, in pointing out the irritating MLU design strategy in some cameras. It's just stupid, what they've done with those menu-based MLU controls -- but, model after model: no change. (I saw a Canon official state flat-out, in a photo forum, that due to design limitations Canon "can't" change this aspect of the system. Oh, hogwash. When they redesign a camera system from the ground up, they can do whatever they want. That "can't" was nonsense. It isn't "can't"; it's "won't" -- likewise, what the manufacturers do with their raw formats.)
So well known reviewers expressing sensible opinions about bad design -- opinions shared by a lot of other people -- isn't sufficient. Market pressure is probably the only way to get the necessary changes made. But what market pressure would it be? Will people with big investments in Canon or Nikon gear stop updating their gear, or dump an entire line and buy into another manufacturer's line, simply over raw-format issues? It seems unlikely. People have just had to live with these file-format problems (and are glad to have DNG in the absence of other solutions).
So...what would get the manufacturers to pay attention, once and for all?
-
So...what would get the manufacturers to pay attention, once and for all?
The single biggest thing we can all do as photographers, is talk to the camera makers with a single voice...that the proliferation of undocumented and proprietary raw files formats is bad for photographers and bad for the photographic industry. As you can see by this thread, not all photographers see the problems...look over at the wasteland that is DPReview and you've got photographers fighting with other photographers saying that it's the camera maker's RIGHT to create their own undocumented file formats and that to standardize would stifle the development of new technologies (which is completely untrue).
So unless we as an industry speak with one voice to let the camera makers we don;t want them to continue in their current behavior, they'll have little incentive to change their behavior.
Adobe also has to do their job...as they promised that they would, they've presented DNG for consideration to the ISO for their upcoming TIFF-EP (that's tiff–which Adobe already owns and let's the ISO use–and electronic photography) revision. Unfortunately, that will take time cause standards bodies move at a glacial pace (with some good reasons, sometimes).
DNG also has to continue to advance and take down the barriers that the camera makers use to attach it on a technical basis. The recent DNG 1.2 spec and the inclusions of DNG Profiles are really pretty big news on that front. Camera makers that have complained about Camera Raw's color rendering should be pleasantly surprised (and maybe disappointed) that Adobe can now provide a colormetric simulation of their camera "looks". That has been a long standing issue that both Nikon and Canon have clung to. The next stage would be to implement maker note based lens correction capability. Course, there's no real standard for how to store lens correction data (perhaps the next TIFF-EP will address that).
But one can only do what one can do. The biggest thing would be for all photographers to be able to agree that the current situation sucks and something should be done about it. We need to collectively quit drinking the camera makers' Kool-Aid.
Personally, I don't advocate any sort of economic sanction or boycott because I seriously doubt it could work. There are brand loyalties and professional needs that will override one's desire to ability to resist buying something you need...but a constant advocacy of standard will eventually reach them over time (and when any political and technical barriers are removed).
I don't think we're at a tipping point yet...to much change too quickly and the camera makers are running full out to produce new cameras, but that will slow. When it does, aspects of competition will alter the landscape...can you image the pressure on Nikon (who does sell software) if Canon offered DNG as an option and photographers saw that as a technical plus?
It'll take time, for sure, but it must happen.
-
...the proliferation of undocumented and proprietary raw files formats is bad for photographers and bad for the photographic industry.
It certainly must give fits to people who have to maintain large digital archives in a variety of formats.
> look over at the wasteland that is DPReview and you've got photographers fighting with other photographers saying that it's the camera maker's RIGHT to create their own undocumented file formats and that to standardize would stifle the development of new technologies (which is completely untrue).
I suppose that sort of contention is useful in a DPreview food-fight, but does anyone ever back it up by specifying (or even just speculating about) what "new technology" is known to be supported by or enhanced by endless "churn" in RAW file formats?
Is there something in the Secret Sauce portion of these files that could conceivably provide clues to other manufacturers about, say, how a sensor is constructed, or about how a given camera's embedded software is encoded? The manufacturers must all feel there is some advantage to this constant churn -- some advantage that justifies the cost of the unending RAW-format development. Coding being expensive, the cost must be considerable.
> So unless we as an industry speak with one voice to let the camera makers we don;t want them to continue in their current behavior, they'll have little incentive to change their behavior.
But I wonder if they will perceive any need to change in the absence of any clear economic penalty -- adverse consumer reaction, that is -- for keeping on as they have been. If there were some particular organization, magazine (or whatever else) that could grab their attention, which one would it be?
> Camera makers that have complained about Camera Raw's color rendering should be pleasantly surprised (and maybe disappointed) that Adobe can now provide a colormetric simulation of their camera "looks". That has been a long standing issue that both Nikon and Canon have clung to.
Interesting criticism by the manufacturers, given that it's conceivable that you could do a reasonably good job with a lot of different RAW converters -- and easily possible to do a lousy job with the manufacturers' own software, no matter how good the manufacturers think the programs are. It ain't quite like film, eh? I might not be able to start with a bland sort of RAW image and then simulate perfectly some particular film -- but I might be able to come close given the right software and enough skill. So what would be this "look" they think their files have, I wonder.
> Personally, I don't advocate any sort of economic sanction or boycott because I seriously doubt it could work. There are brand loyalties and professional needs that will override one's desire to ability to resist buying something you need
Once every now and then some hothead on That Other Forum will advocate a big-ol' boycott of one of the manufacturers. Can't imagine anyone would take him up on it.
> I don't think we're at a tipping point yet...to much change too quickly and the camera makers are running full out to produce new cameras, but that will slow. When it does, aspects of competition will alter the landscape...can you image the pressure on Nikon (who does sell software) if Canon offered DNG as an option and photographers saw that as a technical plus?
I've often wondered what would happen if one of those companies were to pull off a big surprise, such as "natively" supporting DNG (within the camera itself) or at least within its raw converter. Yes, that'd probably get the other guys to pay attention in short order.
-
Is there something in the Secret Sauce portion of these files that could conceivably provide clues to other manufacturers about, say, how a sensor is constructed, or about how a given camera's embedded software is encoded? The manufacturers must all feel there is some advantage to this constant churn -- some advantage that justifies the cost of the unending RAW-format development. Coding being expensive, the cost must be considerable.
That is the argument... however, there's always the point that the chips are standard products made by 3rd parties whose specs are open and accessible. Maybe that's it... maybe that's precisely why, since everyone's got access to the same chips the way the process it is the key, but I don't buy it.
I've personally seen some of this with the older Imacon, and now the Hasselblad raw files. The way that worked was, if you shot to the CF card of that DB, it captured in DNG. The approved workflow was to download to the system through the DB and the software, in the process converting to the proprietary RAW file (FFF). This allowed the software to take the DNG data and add the chip data. On the back itself (accessible via a couple service codes) and also in the reference folders of the software, were camera ID files that specified the distinct parameters of that DB and chip. (Sometimes when we had service issues the trick was to rebuild that file from the reference file on the camera firmware.)
The evidence for that was the just plain awful rendering that PS did with those DNG files. Well, I thought it was. Now I'm wondering if it was just other basic data like camera "profiling" and white point etc, that wasn't getting set in the DNG file in a way that ACR could read it. That, I suppose, could be in the maker notes, and left out of the standard readable metadata by Imacon. Whatever.
The point I always come back to with the OEM argument that they have remarkable special data that they aren't going to release is show me the beef. I've spent a great deal of time looking at the differences between Nikon, Canon and Adobe RAW processing (and have looked, not recently mind you, but looked, at and compared the quality factors of virtually every other processor out there). I've not seen any particular overwhelming thing that justifies this proprietary attitude. MAYBE Nikon's rendering low-light noise, but please. My conclusion has pretty much always been that they don't have anything on any other package that processes their files.
But Adobe has allowed for this in the DNG structure. They allow for the maker notes, if Nikon wants to write proprietary data into the DNG file, there's a place to do it. (Actually, that begs the question, does Pentax and Leica have maker notes in their DNG files that anyone's aware of? Does their software process the files differently because of those notes?)
Again, where's the beef? The camera manufacturer software was so bad that a few companies, Phase in particular, has made a business replacing it. If the camera OEM guys could make a package that was the standard of the industry, as Adobe is, and could go toe-to-toe with Adobe or even produce some brilliant innovations like Iridient or others, that would be one thing. My personal experience is they can't. They can barely keep up. Granted, now it seems like most of them are pretty workable and mature, but that is because of, not in spite of, Adobe and Phase kicking them in the head.
So yes, I have the tattoo. (no you can't see it). DNG is a remarkable initiative, and it's interesting to me that Jeff say's it's Knoll's initiative, that's the first thing I've heard that makes sense about why they're spending resources on it. (All I'd heard was marketing hoo-haa from the product managers...) I think it's a thing that would be good for Photography. I seriously doubt, as I've said before, that it's not inevitable, actually, but that's because I have faith that photographers will demand it, and I echo the need for a unified voice in that regard.
That said, I teach workflow. I will stand by my advice given to the OP. At some point, or even as a current habit, it's a good idea to convert to DNG. I am still trying to work out the "other advantages" in specifically workflow and beyond archiving, others talk about, thus my other thread...
-
That is the argument... however, there's always the point that the chips are standard products made by 3rd parties whose specs are open and accessible.
This is true of Canon as well? I have always heard that Canon rolls their own sensors. If so, I would be surprised if the specs are freely available. For that matter, if Nikon has some other manufacturer (Sony?) make its sensors for, say, the D3 and D700, I would be surprised if their arrangement with that manufacturer includes making the sensor specs available. After all, they have paid through the nose for the technology and the manufacturing...
> The point I always come back to with the OEM argument that they have remarkable special data that they aren't going to release is show me the beef.
If it were to turn out that they don't have any especially interesting Secret Sauce in their RAW files, I would think they'd lose some face by admitting it. And if there's nothing terribly interesting in there after all, why ever bother encrypting data such as white-balance information? Then again, if there's all manner of interesting stuff in there, they aren't likely to provide the information. Either way, it remains proprietary.
> (Actually, that begs the question, does Pentax and Leica have maker notes in their DNG files that anyone's aware of? Does their software process the files differently because of those notes?)
If all RAW converters used the same kinds of algorithms for most of what they do, maybe we'd have a shot at reasonably "scientific" comparisons. But the silly things are so different from one another, and I can't begin to imagine how anyone can make such a comparison. I've seen a bunch of them on the web at various times -- and I can't form any conclusion about the results. No two sets of "test" results look much alike, and participants in those discussions don't all have the same reactions to the results, either. One converter will do a better job than others at rendering fine image detail accurately. Another will do a better job at noise reduction. Another will have a superior set of controls for adjusting dynamic range. Some folks claim passionately that Nikon Capture NX is the only decent converter for .NEF files. Others say Bah, Humbug to that (odd!) program: they get what they need from Lightroom or ACR. Yadda yadda yadda. So "who's winning"?
> I have faith that photographers will demand [a standardized file format], and I echo the need for a unified voice in that regard.
Again my question: what form of the demand will get and keep the manufacturers' attention?
> That said, I teach workflow. I will stand by my advice given to the OP. At some point, or even as a current habit, it's a good idea to convert to DNG.
I should probably get back into doing that. (I sure would love it if someone would devise a better command-line tool for it than Adobe's afterthought-ish CLI for its DNG converter.)
> So yes, I have the tattoo. (no you can't see it).
And here I was just in Boston. Had I but known, I could've knocked on your door and demanded a look. Drat. I just hate it when this happens.
-
Again my question: what form of the demand will get and keep the manufacturers' attention?
> So yes, I have the tattoo. (no you can't see it).
And here I was just in Boston. Had I but known, I could've knocked on your door and demanded a look. Drat. I just hate it when this happens.
I was thinking a lot about this issue this morning. It's that old 4 letter word, CASH. You figure some way to make these guys realize that it would generate sales by offering this feature, and they'll override the engineers' egos and the marketing guys' branding and make it happen, and these guys can spin better'n , well, you know who when it comes to flip-flopping on a stance. (I mean, for god sake. Hasselblad, my entire adult life built a cult around square format, mechanical cameras with Zeiss optics and then they scrap that and offer a 645 electronic camera with Fuji optics and don't skip a beat. I don't worry about their skills in that dept. )
So that, to me is the question. Show them that they can take a DNG-shooting camera to the bank, and you've done it. And you only have to do it with either Canon or Nikon, too, because if one does it, and it makes numbers, then the other one will too.
I have half a mind to start a petition saying I'll buy a Canon if it shoots DNG. I just read a nice interview with the Pres. of Canon, and he just about said it... they try to offer what the market demands, and why wouldn't they? Has anyone started something like that? Is there a DNG movement group somewhere I don't know about?
I was WONDERING what I'd do with my FB page after the election... heh.
As for the tattoo, here's all I'm gonna show you.
[attachment=9394:6560042_...0_745531.jpg]
-
[!--quoteo(post=0:date=:name=teddillard)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE (teddillard)[div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]You figure some way to make these guys realize that it would generate sales by offering this feature[/quote]
I imagine that the ability to shoot DNG -- and immediately afterward use Adobe's (or whoever else's) DNG profiling feature for greater color accuracy out of the box -- could be a "plus" for marketing. "Could" rather than "would." What percentage of Nikon's or Canon's market cares about this kind of thing to begin with? A relatively small group of RAW shooters (however passionate) won't move these guys. IAC, let it begin and I expect the other major companies would follow, if only to keep up bragging-rights-wise. So: how do you show 'em? What you heard during the interview with Canon's president seems like a good sign.
(DNG profiling -- not that I know the first thing about it. Hell, I'm still back in the Neolithic (PS CS2; the DNG profiling requires at least CS3, right? CS4?)
> Is there a DNG movement group somewhere I don't know about?
There's probably an energetic cadre of DNG enthusiasts somewhere within Adobe, at the least. :-)
> As for the tattoo, here's all I'm gonna show you.
Ok, then. I'll take what I can get.
-
I imagine that the ability to shoot DNG -- and immediately afterward use Adobe's (or whoever else's) DNG profiling feature for greater color accuracy out of the box -- could be a "plus" for marketing. "Could" rather than "would." What percentage of Nikon's or Canon's market cares about this kind of thing to begin with? A relatively small group of RAW shooters (however passionate) won't move these guys. IAC, let it begin and I expect the other major companies would follow, if only to keep up bragging-rights-wise. So: how do you show 'em? What you heard during the interview with Canon's president seems like a good sign.
(DNG profiling -- not that I know the first thing about it. Hell, I'm still back in the Neolithic (PS CS2; the DNG profiling requires at least CS3, right? CS4?)
> Is there a DNG movement group somewhere I don't know about?
There's probably an energetic cadre of DNG enthusiasts somewhere within Adobe, at the least. :-)
> As for the tattoo, here's all I'm gonna show you.
Ok, then. I'll take what I can get.
how bout one of my students' tattoos?
(these kids are hardcore i tell ya. i'm like, woah, its a nikon, she's like, dood, it's an F3)
[attachment=9420:n1425224...0_731774.jpg]
-
I imagine that the ability to shoot DNG -- and immediately afterward use Adobe's (or whoever else's) DNG profiling feature for greater color accuracy out of the box -- could be a "plus" for marketing. "Could" rather than "would." What percentage of Nikon's or Canon's market cares about this kind of thing to begin with? A relatively small group of RAW shooters (however passionate) won't move these guys. IAC, let it begin and I expect the other major companies would follow, if only to keep up bragging-rights-wise. So: how do you show 'em? What you heard during the interview with Canon's president seems like a good sign.
The other thing... how hard could it be? Seriously. Nikon D1s used to shoot TIFF. What is the big deal?
-
The other thing... how hard could it be? Seriously. Nikon D1s used to shoot TIFF. What is the big deal?
According to Thomas (who should know) with the current Nikon & Canon cameras, their NEF/CR2 files are SO CLOSE TO DNG, that they could prolly turn the DNG option on with a camera firmware update. No, it ain't hard at all, they just don't "feel like" doing it.
-
how bout one of my students' tattoos?
(these kids are hardcore i tell ya. i'm like, woah, its a nikon, she's like, dood, it's an F3)
Better her than me. I draw the line at physical pain for camera-adoration's sake...just affording the silly things is painful enough.
-
ok dammit schewe you got me all fired up about this again.
I want to make a petition here, on LL. I see there's been one circulating, since 04, but it seems like it's dead and who knows what they did with it. You want to draft it?
-
You want to draft it?
No, my political interests to work on behalf of the photo industry quit when I retied as the national president of the APA in the 1990s. I'm more interested in work back channel and to the extent that I can, teaching and writing about it. I'll let the youngsters in the industry do something for a change :~)
-
Can I throw in an answer to the original question? I used the S-2 for a few years and had very good luck with the DNG conversion. Why?
I can't tell DNG apart from the original RAF.
The files are much smaller then the RAF. (I don't know why, but Fuji raw files are a lot bigger than the other manufacturers'.)
If you've already edited your RAFs, the DNGs will reflect those settings.
The conversion runs easily in the background while you do other stuff.
Also, if you convert your files, you will have made yourself a backup of sorts, so you can separate out the two types for safe keeping.
MB
-
No, my political interests to work on behalf of the photo industry quit when I retied as the national president of the APA in the 1990s. I'm more interested in work back channel and to the extent that I can, teaching and writing about it. I'll let the youngsters in the industry do something for a change :~)
OK then but I don't want to hear any crap if you don't like the copy.
-
Can I throw in an answer to the original question? I used the S-2 for a few years and had very good luck with the DNG conversion. Why?
I can't tell DNG apart from the original RAF.
The files are much smaller then the RAF. (I don't know why, but Fuji raw files are a lot bigger than the other manufacturers'.)
If you've already edited your RAFs, the DNGs will reflect those settings.
The conversion runs easily in the background while you do other stuff.
Also, if you convert your files, you will have made yourself a backup of sorts, so you can separate out the two types for safe keeping.
MB
great to know!
(how DARE you keep us on thread!!?! )
-
please post to show your support:
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=29138 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=29138)
-
yeah well...
I know we've just had some more important stuff going on and all, but I'm beginning to see the camera manufacturers' positions. After a few days, and after I've posted notice of this on several groups, there are a scant 50 sigs. If no one cares enough to simply go to a petition and support it, then they certainly aren't going to buy a camera because of it.
(thanks to those that DID sign, by the way...)
The effort to post trashing OpenRaw and beat your chest about a "unified voice" is many times more that a simple couple of clicks signing the petition. Even more, the effort to post supporting the petition is a constructive step, even better would have been some support on how to make a great petition, rather than a hollow rant on a forum.
Granted, I'm pretty new here, (as far as posting goes anyway), but this is the second time I've seen pretty, well, "spirited" opinions posted (read: opinionated, exclusionary and often mildly abusive...) and then when there's a suggestion that something actually be done, some consensus reached and some progress made in resolution of these issues, then, nothing.
So, if that's what this noise amounted to, then fine, I'm just asking. It makes it kind of hard to answer a simple question, like what the OP was here, but whatever, if that's the culture here... so be it.
If you do actually want to do something, however insignificant or misguided you feel it may be, the petition is here:
http://www.petitiononline.com/dng01/petition.html (http://www.petitiononline.com/dng01/petition.html)
-
That is a rather silly post, Ted. OK, not many turned up to your petition, but try to think of it as your "I've been to the mountaintop" part in the long struggle. As for trashing OpenRaw, well, I think the response was more like Rosa Parks deciding it wasn't enough to just ask for better things. Even then, it took time, many other protests and wider developments, before the promised land was reached.
John
-
That is a rather silly post, Ted. OK, not many turned up to your petition, but try to think of it as your "I've been to the mountaintop" part in the long struggle. As for trashing OpenRaw, well, I think the response was more like Rosa Parks deciding it wasn't enough to just ask for better things. Even then, it took time, many other protests and wider developments, before the promised land was reached.
John
Once again, John, missing my point. Silly indeed. One of the many words I decided to not use, however tempting, in describing the posts on this thread.
-
Once again, John, missing my point.
Insofar as there was a clear point, Ted, I'm afraid it comes over as no-one cares enough to actually do something by joining your petition, so there's not enough support for DNG and what you call "noise" really amounts to nothing constructive. I doubt the reference would cross the pond, but it's all a bit like Wolfie Smith berating the proletariat for not hearing the Tooting Popular Front's call. Progress towards a universally-readable common image format comes in many small steps, from the O{ ticking the ballot box and converting those RAF files, to trashing OpenRaw or questioning camera makers' claims that they make the best software for our pictures, to people pointing out that DNG's workflow benefits shouldn't be narrowly-defined in processing terms, to Adobe making the DNG format an agreed standard, to Windows XP users being unhappy that Adobe failed to make a DNG codec for XP, to Apple including baseline support for the DNG format, and a thousand other moves in the right direction. Best not to get too hung up or imply too much from how few folk might sign a petition.
John
-
Insofar as there was a clear point, Ted, I'm afraid it comes over as no-one cares enough to actually do something by joining your petition, so there's not enough support for DNG and what you call "noise" really amounts to nothing constructive. I doubt the reference would cross the pond, but it's all a bit like Wolfie Smith berating the proletariat for not hearing the Tooting Popular Front's call. Progress towards a universally-readable common image format comes in many small steps, from the O{ ticking the ballot box and converting those RAF files, to trashing OpenRaw or questioning camera makers' claims that they make the best software for our pictures, to people pointing out that DNG's workflow benefits shouldn't be narrowly-defined in processing terms, to Adobe making the DNG format an agreed standard, to Windows XP users being unhappy that Adobe failed to make a DNG codec for XP, to Apple including baseline support for the DNG format, and a thousand other moves in the right direction. Best not to get too hung up or imply too much from how few folk might sign a petition.
John
Thanks for the advice. Like I've said before, I'm a man who needs an Editor.
(My point was simply if nobody cares enough to take the 30 seconds it takes to sign this, then the manufacturers are justified in not putting the effort into offering it.)
Now sign the petition.
-
(My point was simply if nobody cares enough to take the 30 seconds it takes to sign this, then the manufacturers are justified in not putting the effort into offering it.)
No, you got it wrong...failure to place a vote on a poll has everything to do with the way you characterize and promote it. Maybe if you had asked Michael to post a note about it on his what's new page...or some other site that gets a ton of hits. Maybe if you hadn't posted the aborted thread where you asked people to just do the poll without engaging in discussion (yeah, like THAT'S gonna work–NOT).
The fact that you're all fired up and took to the streets only to find very few people out in the streets says nothing about the issue and everything about that fact everything takes time and promotion and a bit more of a long term view that 10 days. The fact is, 50 people saw the thread and voted...rather than feeling good about that, you are blaming everybody ELSE for not doing something.
Very short sighted in my view. I've been advocating DNG for about 5 years (encouraging Thomas Knoll even before the DNG format was announced) so pardon me if I don't get all excited over a poll.
-
No, you got it wrong...failure to place a vote on a poll has everything to do with the way you characterize and promote it. Maybe if you had asked Michael to post a note about it on his what's new page...or some other site that gets a ton of hits. Maybe if you hadn't posted the aborted thread where you asked people to just do the poll without engaging in discussion (yeah, like THAT'S gonna work–NOT).
The fact that you're all fired up and took to the streets only to find very few people out in the streets says nothing about the issue and everything about that fact everything takes time and promotion and a bit more of a long term view that 10 days. The fact is, 50 people saw the thread and voted...rather than feeling good about that, you are blaming everybody ELSE for not doing something.
Very short sighted in my view. I've been advocating DNG for about 5 years (encouraging Thomas Knoll even before the DNG format was announced) so pardon me if I don't get all excited over a poll.
And THAT is exactly why I asked for your help... you've been promoting this, you know the issues, you know this forum and how best to post something like this, yet all I've got is pot-shots and criticism. I'm not asking anyone to sell their souls to satan here, I'm simply observing that the last thing done like this is apparently not current, from 2004, and had great support. Now the issue is still there, Adobe has followed through and done what they've said they would do, I merely thought it would be a good time to give it another poke, and am amazed at how little interest there is in it beyond a willingness to yabber on endlessly.
I'm done with it. I'm going back to my lovely Smart Objects.
-
And THAT is exactly why I asked for your help... you've been promoting this, you know the issues, you know this forum and how best to post something like this, yet all I've got is pot-shots and criticism.
Uh huh...well, some of us HAVE been working on this for a while now and at the moment are otherwise engaged (two books to finish and the start of a 15 city tour for the Epson Print Academy), so if you want to do it, do it...I'll continue to work towards the goals as I've been doing (like working with Adobe to advance the agenda and the technology)
I'm done with it. I'm going back to my lovely Smart Objects.
Ok, bye now...
-
Uh huh...well, some of us HAVE been working on this for a while now and at the moment are otherwise engaged (two books to finish and the start of a 15 city tour for the Epson Print Academy), so if you want to do it, do it...I'll continue to work towards the goals as I've been doing (like working with Adobe to advance the agenda and the technology)
Ok, bye now...
It took you more time to post the snipes at what I did do, than it would have taken to give some constructive suggestions, Jeff.
...whatever. I have my own 2 books to work on.
-
How much is there in RAW files that DNG doesn't support? Whose RAW files contain secret sauce? The only folks I know of who'll talk openly about this are Hasselblad (who also support a DNG conversion option in their proprietary software, although not in-camera). Hasselblad folks claim (David or Paul from Hasselblad, please correct me if I have this wrong) that DNG will support everything they do, EXCEPT for their DAC lens corrections. There are apparently extra data in the FFF raw files that support the lens corrections, which there is no place to put in a DNG, and which only Flexcolor and Phocus can read anyway. I don't know of any other manufacturer doing similar lens corrections (or at least not describing them in the same way - Phase One and DXo (and maybe others) both seem to do similar things, but entirely after the fact, not relying on embedded data). Hasselblad's lens corrections reach the apex of complexity in their new HTS 1.5 tilt-shift adapter, where DAC corrects for side effects of camera movements! I know that nobody else is doing that right now. I'm pretty sure that both "odd sensor" RAW formats (Fuji and Foveon/Sigma) have some incompatibilities with DNG, which assumes a standard Bayer sensor. Is everything except these three formats (Hasselblad, Fuji and Foveon) basically compatible with DNG? Does Nikon, Canon or someone else have fields in their RAW files for future use in lens correction that DNG doesn't support? As far as I know, the Hasselblad trick with the tilt-shift adapter is completely unique, because nobody else's tilt-shift lenses electronically report the degree of tilt or shift to the camera? Other makers' lenses certainly do share data with the camera, and I'm not totally sure that other manufacturers are not using these data in their conversions (although, if they are, I'd be expecting to hear about it in advertising - it's a great argument to buy the camera manufacturer's lenses).
-Dan
-
How much is there in RAW files that DNG doesn't support? Whose RAW files contain secret sauce? The only folks I know of who'll talk openly about this are Hasselblad (who also support a DNG conversion option in their proprietary software, although not in-camera). Hasselblad folks claim (David or Paul from Hasselblad, please correct me if I have this wrong) that DNG will support everything they do, EXCEPT for their DAC lens corrections. There are apparently extra data in the FFF raw files that support the lens corrections, which there is no place to put in a DNG, and which only Flexcolor and Phocus can read anyway. I don't know of any other manufacturer doing similar lens corrections (or at least not describing them in the same way - Phase One and DXo (and maybe others) both seem to do similar things, but entirely after the fact, not relying on embedded data). Hasselblad's lens corrections reach the apex of complexity in their new HTS 1.5 tilt-shift adapter, where DAC corrects for side effects of camera movements! I know that nobody else is doing that right now. I'm pretty sure that both "odd sensor" RAW formats (Fuji and Foveon/Sigma) have some incompatibilities with DNG, which assumes a standard Bayer sensor. Is everything except these three formats (Hasselblad, Fuji and Foveon) basically compatible with DNG? Does Nikon, Canon or someone else have fields in their RAW files for future use in lens correction that DNG doesn't support? As far as I know, the Hasselblad trick with the tilt-shift adapter is completely unique, because nobody else's tilt-shift lenses electronically report the degree of tilt or shift to the camera? Other makers' lenses certainly do share data with the camera, and I'm not totally sure that other manufacturers are not using these data in their conversions (although, if they are, I'd be expecting to hear about it in advertising - it's a great argument to buy the camera manufacturer's lenses).
-Dan
Dan, I think this is a really good question... for the most part, my understanding is there is data in almost every, if not every, maker's RAW file that is considered proprietary. The question of different sensor designs, like Foveon for example, is a good question I've seen brought up elsewhere... in theory, if a maker designs a sensor that is not a Bayer Array then the DNG standard would need retooling. I wasn't aware of data that couldn't be written to DNG, my impression from what Adobe has told me was that there was room for pretty much anything, it was more a case of the makers deciding they wouldn't.
The issue, for me and what I recommend to people, comes down to the point made by the Fuji user above, Michael Bailey, who doesn't see a difference between a Camera RAW conversion from DNG or RAF. IF you're happy with what Adobe does to the raw file from your camera then it makes perfect sense to convert and save the DNG as an archival source. That is presuming that, although the maker does have special sauce, Adobe does fine without it. In the case of the Hasselblad files you're bringing up, then I'm guessing you'd be happier using the Hasselblad software (have they got Phocus working yet?), since it sounds like it makes a better file. My experience with Hasselblad has been that Flexcolor made a far, far superior conversion of the DNG than Adobe did, but that was a few years ago.
It all comes down to "show me the beef". If the camera makers can prove to me they have a better solution than Camera RAW (or the processor of your choice) then fine, I'll use their processor. If not, then I'm back to Camera RAW.
That said I still just can't understand the maker's lack of adoption of DNG. If their files and sauce are better, then adoption of DNG would prove that, as their raw files are superior to even their own in-camera JPG. It would be an option for shooters, it would open their market more. The one hint that I keep mulling is Tom Hogarty's cryptic comment about camera horsepower...
In-camera support for the format is far from universal, though DNG-capable cameras from Casio, Pentax, Ricoh, Leica and Samsung have been launched. "A lot of cameras don't have the horsepower," said Hogarty, and confirmed discussions with manufacturers were continuing: "there is continual dialogue with manufacturers so we can support all the proprietary formats out there and make sure DNG has the features they need."
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0805/08051503adobeDNG.asp (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0805/08051503adobeDNG.asp)
Perhaps shooting DNG takes more resources, and slows things down? I dunno, but I don't know of any makers who are telling...
-
Dan, I think this is a really good question... for the most part, my understanding is there is data in almost every, if not every, maker's RAW file that is considered proprietary. The question of different sensor designs, like Foveon for example, is a good question I've seen brought up elsewhere... in theory, if a maker designs a sensor that is not a Bayer Array then the DNG standard would need retooling. I wasn't aware of data that couldn't be written to DNG, my impression from what Adobe has told me was that there was room for pretty much anything, it was more a case of the makers deciding they wouldn't.
The issue, for me and what I recommend to people, comes down to the point made by the Fuji user above, Michael Bailey, who doesn't see a difference between a Camera RAW conversion from DNG or RAF. IF you're happy with what Adobe does to the raw file from your camera then it makes perfect sense to convert and save the DNG as an archival source. That is presuming that, although the maker does have special sauce, Adobe does fine without it. In the case of the Hasselblad files you're bringing up, then I'm guessing you'd be happier using the Hasselblad software (have they got Phocus working yet?), since it sounds like it makes a better file. My experience with Hasselblad has been that Flexcolor made a far, far superior conversion of the DNG than Adobe did, but that was a few years ago.
It all comes down to "show me the beef". If the camera makers can prove to me they have a better solution than Camera RAW (or the processor of your choice) then fine, I'll use their processor. If not, then I'm back to Camera RAW.
That said I still just can't understand the maker's lack of adoption of DNG. If their files and sauce are better, then adoption of DNG would prove that, as their raw files are superior to even their own in-camera JPG. It would be an option for shooters, it would open their market more. The one hint that I keep mulling is Tom Hogarty's cryptic comment about camera horsepower...
In-camera support for the format is far from universal, though DNG-capable cameras from Casio, Pentax, Ricoh, Leica and Samsung have been launched. "A lot of cameras don't have the horsepower," said Hogarty, and confirmed discussions with manufacturers were continuing: "there is continual dialogue with manufacturers so we can support all the proprietary formats out there and make sure DNG has the features they need."
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0805/08051503adobeDNG.asp (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0805/08051503adobeDNG.asp)
Perhaps shooting DNG takes more resources, and slows things down? I dunno, but I don't know of any makers who are telling...
If there's room for "pretty much anything" in DNG, then I see no reason for manufacturers not to write the standard stuff into DNG in a standard way, then add lens correction data (Hasselblad claims that they have 57,000 possible corrections in Phocus, and they use metadata from the lens to choose which one to apply) or other things that no non-manufacturer converter can understand into extra fields in the DNG. That way, a file exists that anything can convert, and that the manufacturer's software can convert better... The only place this might break down is in the (rare) case of non-Bayer sensors (and DNG seems to handle Fuji, although not Foveon, competently). What camera manufacturer is still trying to SELL RAW conversion software? Only Nikon? Anyone who is giving away the software with the purchase of a camera should have no interest in forcing its use... If CR2 (for example) is so close to DNG as to be convertible by firmware upgrade, what possible interest does Canon have in not providing that upgrade? If it's that close, it can't possibly require extra camera horsepower... Even if there's stuff in the file a standard converter won't understand, why not do what Hasselblad does and say "we're happy to go to DNG, here's what you get, and here's what's missing". If everybody else does it, Nikon will have to go along (what percentage of their revenue can they possibly make by selling Capture NX)? As far as I can see, the camera manufacturers don't lose (apart from Nikon, they haven't had a financial interest in their proprietary raw files for years), the converter manufacturers benefit by only having to understand one standard, and photographers benefit from knowing they can read the files years later. If there is something in the "extra" data they don't want competitors seeing, encrypt that, and that alone. Every manufacturer knows what a standard RAW file, a white balance, and the like look like anyway, so why bother keeping that secret? Even proprietary lens correction data shouldn't be an issue, because most of the proprietary stuff is almost certainly in the lookup tables on the software side, anyway. Knowing that the lens was a 50 mm from production batch 11, maybe even serial number 11-09876, focused at 1.7 meters, an HTS was used, tilted 1.3 degrees, and 2 mm of front rise was used shouldn't help Hasselblad's competitors (I use Hasselblad as an example, because they've been unusually open about this), as long as what Phocus DOES with that information remains Hasselblad intellectual property. Can anyone think of truly proprietary information coming from the camera?
-Dan
-
It could merely be that they like to pack everything into a single lump of data rather than in easily-read paragraphs....
John
-
I just found this, fairly incredible resource on DNG:
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/ (http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/)
...cant' believe I hadn't heard about this, but then I've always been a little slow. He goes into just about everything imaginable and I've only had a chance to skim the surface. He even goes into some detail about OpenRaw as a post-mortem, which should make you guys happy, Jeff and John.
-
It could merely be that they like to pack everything into a single lump of data rather than in easily-read paragraphs....
John
...don't pick on him, I LOVE this guy!
-
You link to OpenRaw? Isn't that the site for people who don't see the point of DNG and believe the camera makers will give up their secret formats?
...not to beat a dead horse, but reading on Barry's (incredibly helpful) DNG resource site led me to this:
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/origins.htm (http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/origins.htm)
I'm feeling vindicated in suggesting reading up on OpenRaw.
Barry was, early on, involved with the OpenRaw site. He also, early on, saw the mistakes that were being made there, as did, eventually I see, the guy that started OpenRaw. Barry went on to create his own site in support of DNG. 30-some pages.
I'm not trying to stir up OpenRaw debates here again, only to point out the value of complete research for a balanced understanding of the issues. You learn as much from the mis-steps as you do from the successes.
That said, if I'd known about Barry's site at the time, I probably would have foregone the OpenRaw link for his.