Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Capture One Q&A => Topic started by: jjj on October 12, 2015, 07:23:19 pm
-
David Grover -
Plus DNG support has been improving steadily in recent months. I.e we can now read the DNG 1.4 standard. Not just native DNG if you were not aware.
Improving that support more is an ongoing story which certainly isn't over yet!
David as the thread you replied in has now been closed, can you explain further about DNG and future camera support.
-
Why are we raising a debate DNG or NO DNG this has been beaten to a pulp for the past 10 years, with no resolution. None of the major camera manufacturers have moved one iota toward acceptance of the DNG option.
Simply way I look at it is, if you have decided to confine yourself to Adobe Products then your choice is simple follow the crowd.
If you prefer to keep your options open and also utilise other products available in the market then look at the pros and cons and make your own informed decision. The only software company that fully endorses and supports the development of DNG is Adobe. This is like a Windows/ OSX debate.
This debate is headed for an eventual closure the same as the earlier thread.
-
Why are we raising a debate DNG or NO DNG this has been beaten to a pulp for the past 10 years, with no resolution. None of the major camera manufacturers have moved one iota toward acceptance of the DNG option.
Simply way I look at it is, if you have decided to confine yourself to Adobe Products then your choice is simple follow the crowd.
If you prefer to keep your options open and also utilise other products available in the market then look at the pros and cons and make your own informed decision. The only software company that fully endorses and supports the development of DNG is Adobe. This is like a Windows/ OSX debate.
This debate is headed for an eventual closure the same as the earlier thread.
With an attitude like that and an ignorant rant that actually has nothing to do with what is being talked about, congratulations on helping it head that way.
>:(
-
Quote "With an attitude like that and an ignorant rant"
And you have already started the process.
-
Quote "With an attitude like that and an ignorant rant"
And you have already started the process.
No, he didn't. You did. jjj asked about C1's improvements to DNG support. Maybe he would like to be able to use C1 with an existing library of DNG files. Who knows ? He certainly didn't start any kind of DNG advocacy.
I'm also interested in this, as I have a batch of images from a while back which are DNG. Would I use it in the future ? Possibly, if I thought any of my photos were actually going to be of any interest to anybody in the future. But I don't, so I don't bother. Perhaps you should read what Jeff Schewe has to say about DNG. He's fully "confined to Adobe", right? You might be surprised.
-
I'm also interested in this, as I have a batch of images from a while back which are DNG.
Hi David,
If you also have the original Camera Raws, and assuming they were not DNGs from the start, why not use those originals?
It is known (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=102186.msg841495#msg841495) that DNGs are not fully supported in Capture One, not yet at least, so I have difficulty understanding why people insist seeking problems, instead of using better source files if they are available.
For the moment, let's face it, DNG is in some areas an Adobe specific tuned file format. That is fine if you are fully immersed in Adobe's product offererings and remain so. Some other application producers either ignore some of the metadata and (re)create their own, based on only a fraction (e.g. without some specific calibration data) of the (partially converted) available Raw data, others use the Adobe supplied libraries and just take what is offered as output.
Yet other producers have such a different approach, e.g. for their basic color engine, that it takes serious additional effort (i.e. cost) to convert between models, with all risks of errors because parts of the Adobe Color model are undocumented. It is not enough to describe the meta data fields, which are publicly documented, but the meaning and origin, and how to use those data elements is quite a different thing.
It would obviously be nice if Capture One could transparently use DNG input in all its variations and create superior conversions, but we're not there yet.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Ok story goes like this.
Prior to Capture One 8.3.1 (it might be 8.3 - but I am in an airport right now, so not in the best place to check!), there was limited DNG support unless we supported it natively from the camera. Like Ricoh GR off the top of my head. This fits with the policy of supporting cameras as opposed to file types.
Each camera in Capture One has different noise reduction settings based on ISO, performance and other factors. And a bespoke colour profile created by us. Supporting a camera means we produce about 700 images. I believe thats important background information!
Since we have been able to import Lightroom catalogs for a while, it is unfortunate if you had decided to take a DNG workflow decision* as DNGs not supported by Capture One would therefore not be imported.
The current situation is that we now support DNG 1.4. So ANY DNG file will work in Capture One but not with Capture One colours. We have a default DNG profile.
So if you did decide to import your Lightroom catalog into Capture One, everything would be visible.
I agree that a completely fluid DNG experience in Capture One would be the best solution.
David
*Don't read that as DNG bashing. I personally think using DNG has too many flaws to your future workflow and security to show any benefit over using the original manufacturers RAW file.
-
If you also have the original Camera Raws, and assuming they were not DNGs from the start, why not use those originals?
It is known (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=102186.msg841495#msg841495) that DNGs are not fully supported in Capture One, not yet at least, so I have difficulty understanding why people insist seeking problems, instead of using better source files if they are available.
There are two separate types of DNGs, so to speak.
1 - Other raw files converted to DNG. Which is what it seems you are talking about Bart
2 - Camera that natively produce DNG files. Which is what I and many others have talked about with regard to C1
A major benefit of DNG is that if you buy a new camera that saves to DNG, then you do not have to wait for your software of choice to be updated to include the 'new' variation of raw file, which at times can be no more different than the file saying the new camera's name in the header or wherever. So not new, not different and not improved at all, but still unusable until everything is updated. Not to mention that if your new camera was only introduced in the recent version of LR, you may want to avoid that update and thus be unable to work on your images in your favourite programme.
C1 however seems to be the exception to this as it didn't support DNG, it only supported individual cameras and not all cameras at that. My previous small camera I always carried with me a Ricoh that saved to DNG and was never supported for example and nor are Pentax MF cameras [at least last time I looked] and they've been around for a long while.
-
The current situation is that we now support DNG 1.4. So ANY DNG file will work in Capture One but not with Capture One colours. We have a default DNG profile.
To clarify - So am I to take it that any camera that saves raw camera files as DNGs, can now be opened in C1, even if you haven't profiled them? Plus, can you then make profiles yourself and save them for such cameras?
I agree that a completely fluid DNG experience in Capture One would be the best solution.
Glad to hear it, but in what way is it not yet fluid?
So if you did decide to import your Lightroom catalog into Capture One, everything would be visible.
But would all smart and dumb collections be? As if you use LR properly, you will have an extensive collection of such things, not to mention publish or export presets.
-
No, he didn't. You did. jjj asked about C1's improvements to DNG support. Maybe he would like to be able to use C1 with an existing library of DNG files. Who knows ? He certainly didn't start any kind of DNG advocacy.
I'm also interested in this, as I have a batch of images from a while back which are DNG. Would I use it in the future ? Possibly, if I thought any of my photos were actually going to be of any interest to anybody in the future. But I don't, so I don't bother. Perhaps you should read what Jeff Schewe has to say about DNG. He's fully "confined to Adobe", right? You might be surprised.
The point I am making is simply that the use of DNG or not is a matter of choice, labelling someone as "ignorant" or a particular raw processing software program as "inferior or deficient" because they do not support or subscribe to the use of a workflow that includes the use of the DNG format is not being objective.
I believe that if a pol were done you would see that users that do not use a workflow option with DNG are in the majority.
If Adobe were so confident that DNG workflow was clearly the best option for working with RAW files then they should change LR and ACR to only process raw files that have been converted to DNG.
-
A major benefit of DNG is that if you buy a new camera that saves to DNG, then you do not have to wait for your software of choice to be updated to include the 'new' variation of raw file, which at times can be no more different than the file saying the new camera's name in the header or wherever.
Hi,
This is not quite true. Each new camera needs to be profiled in some way. There may be a different (Bayer-)CFA, or the camera has slightly different sensor characteristics.
DNG is not a miracle worker, it's just a file format. The meta data that it stores needs to be interpreted by the Raw processor that uses the Raw data+metadata instructions, so the metadata needs to be properly formatted first (and some tags are converted or calculated to fit the Adobe processing method). For example, (some?) Canon Raws get an Exposure Bias/Offset added that Adobe prefers, but is undocumented and it's calculated or derived. If that's left out, or guessed wrong, the file will render too dark or to light by default (and who knows what else it causes).
And then there are lens corrections or dust data that may or may not need to be accommodated, or new features. It would be nice if all others did that work for Adobe ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
Bart,
But if the camera outputs natively in DNG, wouldn't all that be sorted by the camera manufacturer and be readily available? (Yes, dream on)
-
But if the camera outputs natively in DNG, wouldn't all that be sorted by the camera manufacturer and be readily available? (Yes, dream on)
Hi Frank,
That's the point, it would mean that the camera makers would have to do it for Adobe. There is no automagical support for a new camera just because the Raw is formatted as a DNG. Someone still has to do the work, which takes time/effort/money.
DNG by itself is just a container of which the metadata fields/tag descriptions are published, but not what the contents of the fields/tags is supposed to do in a Raw converter. Capture One would e.g. have to either ignore, or convert the Adobe formatted metadata, and convert everything to their color model, which apparently is not all that simple because their color model works rather differently (e.g. ICC scene referred profile versus DNG output referred profile).
Cheers,
Bart
-
DNG is not a miracle worker, it's just a file format.
Indeed! And it would be lovely if companies who say they support this file format, do so fully and correctly. Are we there with C1?
-
Indeed! And it would be lovely if companies who say they support this file format, do so fully and correctly. Are we there with C1?
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=102186.msg841495#msg841495
-
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=102186.msg841495#msg841495
So you're doing what, confirming they do not correctly support DNG as discussed in that old post?
-
If Adobe were so confident that DNG workflow was clearly the best option for working with RAW files then they should change LR and ACR to only process raw files that have been converted to DNG.
they actually do that... internally... that's why there is not difference between how they work with supported original raws and DNGs converted from those (if conversion is done by the same release version/level of ACR/LR/DNG Converter, to keep the same bugs intact)
-
A major benefit of DNG is that if you buy a new camera that saves to DNG, then you do not have to wait for your software of choice to be updated
if you like the color rendering from raw converter manufacturer you still have to wait for it... and then with no changes in the format itself it is the issue with software that intentionally blocks you work with a raw file, not with the format itself... just like Adobe software blocks opening a raw from a new camera in native non DNG raw format when there is absolutely no changes in the tags that it is using... that way they create an impression for some uneducated users about the "major benefit of DNG".
-
they actually do that... internally... that's why there is not difference between how they work with supported original raws and DNGs converted from those (if conversion is done by the same release version/level of ACR/LR/DNG Converter, to keep the same bugs intact)
I have not seen this info previously. Could you provide a link to the source of this information?
-
I have not seen this info previously. Could you provide a link to the source of this information?
you can try yourself with any non DNG raw file - if you find a difference between rendering from it and from DNG (non lossy) saved from it first with ACR/LR that you are using - congratulations, you have a bug - please file a bug report with Adobe :)
-
you can try yourself with any non DNG raw file - if you find a difference between rendering from it and from DNG (non lossy) saved from it first with ACR/LR that you are using - congratulations, you have a bug - please file a bug report with Adobe :)
OK I understanding what you are stating now "the rendering of the DNG file is the same as the rendering of a an original Raw file". I am not disputing that, what I am suggesting is , Adobe should only allow the "Copy as DNG" option when importing raw files into Lightroom.
-
OK I understanding what you are stating now "the rendering of the DNG file is the same as the rendering of a an original Raw file". I am not disputing that, what I am suggesting is , Adobe should only allow the "Copy as DNG" option when importing raw files into Lightroom.
On one hand, that would certain be "putting their money where their mouth is." On the other hand, I'd bet 75% of their customers would stop using Lightroom immediately if that were the case.
For all the doom and gloom about "proprietary camera raw formats," I for one will use them and not DNG, unless the camera itself produces DNG files (as my M9 does).
-
DNG is an free and open format that Adobe hoped all camera manufacturers would adopt to prevent the pointless proliferation of 'new' raw formats that only inconvenience camera buyers without actually providing additional benefits.
Converting to DNG is a different thing again aimed more IIRC for legacy benefits. Software in the future not being able to read formats from cameras that disappeared long before the software was invented for example. Not a bad idea in many ways as generic formats like DNG/JPEG will stand the rest of time far better than proprietary ones.
-
if you like the color rendering from raw converter manufacturer you still have to wait for it... and then with no changes in the format itself it is the issue with software that intentionally blocks you work with a raw file, not with the format itself... just like Adobe software blocks opening a raw from a new camera in native non DNG raw format when there is absolutely no changes in the tags that it is using... that way they create an impression for some uneducated users about the "major benefit of DNG".
That is paranoid tinfoil hat nonsense.
-
Quote "DNG is an free and open format that Adobe hoped all camera manufacturers would adopt to prevent the pointless proliferation of 'new' raw formats that only inconvenience camera buyers without actually providing additional benefits."
It has been over ten years Adobe has been advocating that camera manufacturers adopt this concept without much success. Digital cameras are still in a stage of rapid development, every few months new sensors and software for the rendering the raw data from them come to the market. The camera manufacturers know this and each one uses it to try and leapfrog other competitors, they do not wish to be tied to some file standard that may hamper them in further development of their products. Just my opinion as to why it has not happened.
-
software that intentionally blocks you work with a raw file, not with the format itself... just like Adobe software blocks opening a raw from a new camera in native non DNG raw format when there is absolutely no changes in the tags that it is using...
That is paranoid tinfoil hat nonsense.
Check out this history list of minimum ACR requirement / camera RAW support ,
https://helpx.adobe.com/camera-raw/kb/camera-raw-plug-supported-cameras.html
compare that change log to the Capture One archive.
https://www.phaseone.com/en/Downloads/Materials/Software-Archive/COReleaseNotes.aspx
Then tell me what the additional tags were in each new CaNikon cam introduction that necessitated an ACR version upgrade.
It may not have been to steer you to DNG, but it certainly seems designed to keep you firmly on the Adobe upgrade bandwagon. Not quite 'paranoid tinfoil hat nonsense' , as you put it.
-
DNG is an free and open format that Adobe hoped all camera manufacturers would adopt to prevent the pointless proliferation of 'new' raw formats that only inconvenience camera buyers without actually providing additional benefits.
Converting to DNG is a different thing again aimed more IIRC for legacy benefits. Software in the future not being able to read formats from cameras that disappeared long before the software was invented for example. Not a bad idea in many ways as generic formats like DNG/JPEG will stand the rest of time far better than proprietary ones.
DCRAW (https://www.cybercom.net/~dcoffin/dcraw/) is available on Mac, DOS/Windows, UNIX, and has been ported to Amiga, MorphOS, BeOS, OS/2, and RISC OS, supports native Camera Raws, and also converts some Sigma Foveon formats.
Despite the FUD from DNG fanboys, there is no significant legacy risk or legacy benefits for DNG in particular, because there have been alternatives for most cameras for a long time before DNG was introduced already. There is also the LibRAW library (http://www.libraw.org/) which is based on DCRAW and apparently fixes some issues, and can be integrated in all sorts of software.
For those who are too lazy to search for themselves, here is a list of cameras that DCRAW supports as of this writing:
Supported Cameras
Adobe Digital Negative (DNG)
AgfaPhoto DC-833m
Alcatel 5035D
Apple QuickTake 100
Apple QuickTake 150
Apple QuickTake 200
ARRIRAW format
AVT F-080C
AVT F-145C
AVT F-201C
AVT F-510C
AVT F-810C
Baumer TXG14
Blackmagic URSA
Canon PowerShot 600
Canon PowerShot A5
Canon PowerShot A5 Zoom
Canon PowerShot A50
Canon PowerShot A460 (CHDK hack)
Canon PowerShot A470 (CHDK hack)
Canon PowerShot A530 (CHDK hack)
Canon PowerShot A570 (CHDK hack)
Canon PowerShot A590 (CHDK hack)
Canon PowerShot A610 (CHDK hack)
Canon PowerShot A620 (CHDK hack)
Canon PowerShot A630 (CHDK hack)
Canon PowerShot A640 (CHDK hack)
Canon PowerShot A650 (CHDK hack)
Canon PowerShot A710 IS (CHDK hack)
Canon PowerShot A720 IS (CHDK hack)
Canon PowerShot A3300 IS (CHDK hack)
Canon PowerShot Pro70
Canon PowerShot Pro90 IS
Canon PowerShot Pro1
Canon PowerShot G1
Canon PowerShot G1 X
Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark II
Canon PowerShot G2
Canon PowerShot G3
Canon PowerShot G5
Canon PowerShot G6
Canon PowerShot G7 (CHDK hack)
Canon PowerShot G7 X
Canon PowerShot G9
Canon PowerShot G10
Canon PowerShot G11
Canon PowerShot G12
Canon PowerShot G15
Canon PowerShot G16
Canon PowerShot S2 IS (CHDK hack)
Canon PowerShot S3 IS (CHDK hack)
Canon PowerShot S5 IS (CHDK hack)
Canon PowerShot SD300 (CHDK hack)
Canon PowerShot S30
Canon PowerShot S40
Canon PowerShot S45
Canon PowerShot S50
Canon PowerShot S60
Canon PowerShot S70
Canon PowerShot S90
Canon PowerShot S95
Canon PowerShot S100
Canon PowerShot S110
Canon PowerShot S120
Canon PowerShot SX1 IS
Canon PowerShot SX110 IS (CHDK hack)
Canon PowerShot SX120 IS (CHDK hack)
Canon PowerShot SX220 HS (CHDK hack)
Canon PowerShot SX20 IS (CHDK hack)
Canon PowerShot SX30 IS (CHDK hack)
Canon PowerShot SX50 HS
Canon PowerShot SX60 HS
Canon EOS D30
Canon EOS D60
Canon EOS 5D
Canon EOS 5D Mark II
Canon EOS 5D Mark III
Canon EOS 5DS
Canon EOS 5DS R
Canon EOS 6D
Canon EOS 7D
Canon EOS 7D Mark II
Canon EOS 10D
Canon EOS 20D
Canon EOS 30D
Canon EOS 40D
Canon EOS 50D
Canon EOS 60D
Canon EOS 70D
Canon EOS 300D / Digital Rebel / Kiss Digital
Canon EOS 350D / Digital Rebel XT / Kiss Digital N
Canon EOS 400D / Digital Rebel XTi / Kiss Digital X
Canon EOS 450D / Digital Rebel XSi / Kiss Digital X2
Canon EOS 500D / Digital Rebel T1i / Kiss Digital X3
Canon EOS 550D / Digital Rebel T2i / Kiss Digital X4
Canon EOS 600D / Digital Rebel T3i / Kiss Digital X5
Canon EOS 650D / Digital Rebel T4i / Kiss Digital X6i
Canon EOS 700D / Digital Rebel T5i / Kiss Digital X7i
Canon EOS 750D / Digital Rebel T6i / Kiss Digital X8i
Canon EOS 760D / Digital Rebel T6s / Kiss Digital X9
Canon EOS 100D / Digital Rebel SL1 / Kiss Digital X7
Canon EOS 1000D / Digital Rebel XS / Kiss Digital F
Canon EOS 1100D / Digital Rebel T3 / Kiss Digital X50
Canon EOS 1200D / Digital Rebel T5 / Kiss Digital X70
Canon EOS C500
Canon EOS D2000C
Canon EOS M
Canon EOS M3
Canon EOS-1D
Canon EOS-1DS
Canon EOS-1D X
Canon EOS-1D Mark II
Canon EOS-1D Mark II N
Canon EOS-1D Mark III
Canon EOS-1D Mark IV
Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II
Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III
Casio QV-2000UX
Casio QV-3000EX
Casio QV-3500EX
Casio QV-4000
Casio QV-5700
Casio QV-R41
Casio QV-R51
Casio QV-R61
Casio EX-FH100
Casio EX-S20
Casio EX-S100
Casio EX-Z4
Casio EX-Z50
Casio EX-Z500
Casio EX-Z55
Casio EX-Z60
Casio EX-Z75
Casio EX-Z750
Casio EX-Z8
Casio EX-Z850
Casio EX-Z1050
Casio EX-Z1080
Casio EX-ZR100
Casio Exlim Pro 505
Casio Exlim Pro 600
Casio Exlim Pro 700
Contax N Digital
Creative PC-CAM 600
DJI 4384x3288
Epson R-D1
Foculus 531C
Fuji E550
Fuji E900
Fuji F700
Fuji F710
Fuji S1
Fuji S2Pro
Fuji S3Pro
Fuji S5Pro
Fuji S20Pro
Fuji S100FS
Fuji S5000
Fuji S5100/S5500
Fuji S5200/S5600
Fuji S6000fd
Fuji S7000
Fuji S9000/S9500
Fuji S9100/S9600
Fuji S200EXR
Fuji SL1000
Fuji HS10/HS11
Fuji HS20EXR
Fuji HS30EXR
Fuji HS50EXR
Fuji F550EXR
Fuji F600EXR
Fuji F770EXR
Fuji F800EXR
Fuji F900EXR
Fuji X-Pro1
Fuji X-A1
Fuji X-A2
Fuji X-E1
Fuji X-E2
Fuji X-M1
Fuji X-S1
Fuji X-T1
Fuji XF1
Fuji XQ1
Fuji XQ2
Fuji X100
Fuji X100s
Fuji X100T
Fuji X10
Fuji X20
Fuji X30
Fuji IS-1
Hasselblad CFV
Hasselblad H3D
Hasselblad H4D
Hasselblad V96C
Imacon Ixpress 16-megapixel
Imacon Ixpress 22-megapixel
Imacon Ixpress 39-megapixel
ISG 2020x1520
Kodak DC20
Kodak DC25
Kodak DC40
Kodak DC50
Kodak DC120 (also try kdc2tiff)
Kodak DCS200
Kodak DCS315C
Kodak DCS330C
Kodak DCS420
Kodak DCS460
Kodak DCS460A
Kodak DCS460D
Kodak DCS520C
Kodak DCS560C
Kodak DCS620C
Kodak DCS620X
Kodak DCS660C
Kodak DCS660M
Kodak DCS720X
Kodak DCS760C
Kodak DCS760M
Kodak EOSDCS1
Kodak EOSDCS3B
Kodak NC2000F
Kodak ProBack
Kodak PB645C
Kodak PB645H
Kodak PB645M
Kodak DCS Pro 14n
Kodak DCS Pro 14nx
Kodak DCS Pro SLR/c
Kodak DCS Pro SLR/n
Kodak C330
Kodak C603
Kodak P850
Kodak P880
Kodak Z980
Kodak Z981
Kodak Z990
Kodak Z1015
Kodak KAI-0340
Konica KD-400Z
Konica KD-510Z
Leaf AFi 7
Leaf AFi-II 12
Leaf Aptus 17
Leaf Aptus 22
Leaf Aptus 54S
Leaf Aptus 65
Leaf Aptus 75
Leaf Aptus 75S
Leaf Cantare
Leaf CatchLight
Leaf CMost
Leaf DCB2
Leaf Valeo 6
Leaf Valeo 11
Leaf Valeo 17
Leaf Valeo 22
Leaf Volare
Leica C (Typ 112)
Leica Digilux 2
Leica Digilux 3
Leica D-LUX2
Leica D-LUX3
Leica D-LUX4
Leica D-LUX5
Leica D-LUX6
Leica D-LUX (Typ 109)
Leica M (Typ 240)
Leica M Monochrom
Leica M8
Leica M9
Leica R8
Leica T (Typ 701)
Leica V-LUX1
Leica V-LUX2
Leica V-LUX3
Leica V-LUX4
Leica V-LUX (Typ 114)
Leica X VARIO (Typ 107)
Leica X1
Leica X2
Leica X (Typ 113)
Leica X-E (Typ 102)
Lenovo A820
Logitech Fotoman Pixtura
Mamiya ZD
Matrix 4608x3288
Micron 2010
Minolta RD175
Minolta DiMAGE 5
Minolta DiMAGE 7
Minolta DiMAGE 7i
Minolta DiMAGE 7Hi
Minolta DiMAGE A1
Minolta DiMAGE A2
Minolta DiMAGE A200
Minolta DiMAGE G400
Minolta DiMAGE G500
Minolta DiMAGE G530
Minolta DiMAGE G600
Minolta DiMAGE Z2
Minolta Alpha/Dynax/Maxxum 5D
Minolta Alpha/Dynax/Maxxum 7D
Motorola PIXL
Nikon D1
Nikon D1H
Nikon D1X
Nikon D2H
Nikon D2Hs
Nikon D2X
Nikon D2Xs
Nikon D3
Nikon D3s
Nikon D3X
Nikon D4
Nikon D4s
Nikon Df
Nikon D40
Nikon D40X
Nikon D50
Nikon D60
Nikon D70
Nikon D70s
Nikon D80
Nikon D90
Nikon D100
Nikon D200
Nikon D300
Nikon D300s
Nikon D600
Nikon D610
Nikon D700
Nikon D750
Nikon D800
Nikon D800E
Nikon D810
Nikon D3000
Nikon D3100
Nikon D3200
Nikon D3300
Nikon D5000
Nikon D5100
Nikon D5200
Nikon D5300
Nikon D5500
Nikon D7000
Nikon D7100
Nikon D7200
Nikon 1 AW1
Nikon 1 J1
Nikon 1 J2
Nikon 1 J3
Nikon 1 J4
Nikon 1 J5
Nikon 1 S1
Nikon 1 V1
Nikon 1 V2
Nikon 1 V3
Nikon E700 ("DIAG RAW" hack)
Nikon E800 ("DIAG RAW" hack)
Nikon E880 ("DIAG RAW" hack)
Nikon E900 ("DIAG RAW" hack)
Nikon E950 ("DIAG RAW" hack)
Nikon E990 ("DIAG RAW" hack)
Nikon E995 ("DIAG RAW" hack)
Nikon E2100 ("DIAG RAW" hack)
Nikon E2500 ("DIAG RAW" hack)
Nikon E3200 ("DIAG RAW" hack)
Nikon E3700 ("DIAG RAW" hack)
Nikon E4300 ("DIAG RAW" hack)
Nikon E4500 ("DIAG RAW" hack)
Nikon E5000
Nikon E5400
Nikon E5700
Nikon E8400
Nikon E8700
Nikon E8800
Nikon Coolpix A
Nikon Coolpix P330
Nikon Coolpix P340
Nikon Coolpix P6000
Nikon Coolpix P7000
Nikon Coolpix P7100
Nikon Coolpix P7700
Nikon Coolpix P7800
Nikon Coolpix S6 ("DIAG RAW" hack)
Nokia N9
Nokia N95
Nokia X2
Nokia 1200x1600
Nokia Lumia 1020
Olympus C3030Z
Olympus C5050Z
Olympus C5060WZ
Olympus C7070WZ
Olympus C70Z,C7000Z
Olympus C740UZ
Olympus C770UZ
Olympus C8080WZ
Olympus X200,D560Z,C350Z
Olympus E-1
Olympus E-3
Olympus E-5
Olympus E-10
Olympus E-20
Olympus E-30
Olympus E-300
Olympus E-330
Olympus E-400
Olympus E-410
Olympus E-420
Olympus E-500
Olympus E-510
Olympus E-520
Olympus E-620
Olympus E-M1
Olympus E-M5
Olympus E-M5MarkII
Olympus E-M10
Olympus E-P1
Olympus E-P2
Olympus E-P3
Olympus E-P5
Olympus E-PL1
Olympus E-PL1s
Olympus E-PL2
Olympus E-PL3
Olympus E-PL5
Olympus E-PL7
Olympus E-PM1
Olympus E-PM2
Olympus SH-2
Olympus SP310
Olympus SP320
Olympus SP350
Olympus SP500UZ
Olympus SP510UZ
Olympus SP550UZ
Olympus SP560UZ
Olympus SP570UZ
Olympus STYLUS1
Olympus TG-4
Olympus XZ-1
Olympus XZ-2
Olympus XZ-10
OmniVision OV5647 (Raspberry Pi)
Panasonic DMC-CM1
Panasonic DMC-FZ8
Panasonic DMC-FZ18
Panasonic DMC-FZ28
Panasonic DMC-FZ30
Panasonic DMC-FZ35/FZ38
Panasonic DMC-FZ40
Panasonic DMC-FZ50
Panasonic DMC-FZ70
Panasonic DMC-FZ100
Panasonic DMC-FZ150
Panasonic DMC-FZ200
Panasonic DMC-FZ1000
Panasonic DMC-FX150
Panasonic DMC-G1
Panasonic DMC-G2
Panasonic DMC-G3
Panasonic DMC-G5
Panasonic DMC-G6
Panasonic DMC-GF1
Panasonic DMC-GF2
Panasonic DMC-GF3
Panasonic DMC-GF5
Panasonic DMC-GF6
Panasonic DMC-GF7
Panasonic DMC-GH1
Panasonic DMC-GH2
Panasonic DMC-GH3
Panasonic DMC-GH4
Panasonic DMC-GM1
Panasonic DMC-GM5
Panasonic DMC-GX1
Panasonic DMC-GX7
Panasonic DMC-L1
Panasonic DMC-L10
Panasonic DMC-LC1
Panasonic DMC-LF1
Panasonic DMC-LX1
Panasonic DMC-LX2
Panasonic DMC-LX3
Panasonic DMC-LX5
Panasonic DMC-LX7
Panasonic DMC-LX100
Panasonic DMC-TZ61
Panasonic DMC-ZS40
Pentax *ist D
Pentax *ist DL
Pentax *ist DL2
Pentax *ist DS
Pentax *ist DS2
Pentax GR
Pentax K10D
Pentax K20D
Pentax K100D
Pentax K100D Super
Pentax K200D
Pentax K2000/K-m
Pentax K-x
Pentax K-r
Pentax K-3
Pentax K-5
Pentax K-5 II
Pentax K-5 II s
Pentax K-50
Pentax K-500
Pentax K-7
Pentax K-S1
Pentax K-S2
Pentax Optio S
Pentax Optio S4
Pentax Optio 33WR
Pentax Optio 750Z
Pentax Q-S1
Pentax Q7
Pentax 645D
Pentax 645Z
Phase One LightPhase
Phase One H 10
Phase One H 20
Phase One H 25
Phase One P 20
Phase One P 25
Phase One P 30
Phase One P 45
Phase One P 45+
Photron BC2-HD
Pixelink A782
Polaroid x530
Redcode R3D format
Ricoh GR
Ricoh GX200
Ricoh GXR MOUNT A12
Ricoh GXR A16
Rollei d530flex
RoverShot 3320af
Samsung EK-GN120
Samsung EX1
Samsung EX2F
Samsung GX-1S
Samsung GX10
Samsung GX20
Samsung NX1
Samsung NX10
Samsung NX11
Samsung NX100
Samsung NX20
Samsung NX200
Samsung NX210
Samsung NX30
Samsung NX300
Samsung NX300M
Samsung NX500
Samsung NX1000
Samsung NX1100
Samsung NX2000
Samsung NX3000
Samsung NX mini
Samsung WB550
Samsung WB2000
Samsung S85 (hacked)
Samsung S850 (hacked)
Sarnoff 4096x5440
Sigma SD9
Sigma SD10
Sigma SD14
Sigma SD15
Sigma SD1
Sigma SD1 Merill
Sigma DP1
Sigma DP1 Merill
Sigma DP1S
Sigma DP1X
Sigma DP2
Sigma DP2 Merill
Sigma DP2S
Sigma DP2X
Sinar 3072x2048
Sinar 4080x4080
Sinar 4080x5440
Sinar STI format
SMaL Ultra-Pocket 3
SMaL Ultra-Pocket 4
SMaL Ultra-Pocket 5
Sony DSC-F828
Sony DSC-R1
Sony DSC-RX1
Sony DSC-RX1R
Sony DSC-RX10
Sony DSC-RX100
Sony DSC-RX100M2
Sony DSC-RX100M3
Sony DSC-V3
Sony DSLR-A100
Sony DSLR-A200
Sony DSLR-A230
Sony DSLR-A290
Sony DSLR-A300
Sony DSLR-A330
Sony DSLR-A350
Sony DSLR-A380
Sony DSLR-A450
Sony DSLR-A500
Sony DSLR-A550
Sony DSLR-A580
Sony DSLR-A700
Sony DSLR-A850
Sony DSLR-A900
Sony ILCA-77M2
Sony ILCE-7M2
Sony ILCE-7
Sony ILCE-7R
Sony ILCE-7S
Sony ILCE-3000
Sony ILCE-5000
Sony ILCE-5100
Sony ILCE-6000
Sony ILCE-QX1
Sony NEX-3
Sony NEX-3N
Sony NEX-5
Sony NEX-5N
Sony NEX-5R
Sony NEX-5T
Sony NEX-6
Sony NEX-7
Sony NEX-C3
Sony NEX-F3
Sony SLT-A33
Sony SLT-A35
Sony SLT-A37
Sony SLT-A55V
Sony SLT-A57
Sony SLT-A58
Sony SLT-A65V
Sony SLT-A77V
Sony SLT-A99V
Sony XCD-SX910CR
STV680 VGA
Cheers,
Bart
-
Despite the FUD from DNG fanboys, there is no significant legacy risk or legacy benefits for DNG in particular, because there have been alternatives for most cameras for a long time before DNG was introduced already. There is also the LibRAW library (http://www.libraw.org/) which is based on DCRAW and apparently fixes some issues, and can be integrated in all sorts of software.
Not a DNG fanboi as it happens and the FUD comes from the other side if anything. What do you mean by alternatives for cameras? Other software? As you should know, all software or software companies can vanish leaving you high and dry.
Lots of irrelevant nonsense being posted here which is not germane to a simple question about whether C1 will support more cameras than the limited range it previously did and in particular ones with DNG output, which should not even need an update to be used.
-
Quote "DNG is an free and open format that Adobe hoped all camera manufacturers would adopt to prevent the pointless proliferation of 'new' raw formats that only inconvenience camera buyers without actually providing additional benefits."
It has been over ten years Adobe has been advocating that camera manufacturers adopt this concept without much success. Digital cameras are still in a stage of rapid development, every few months new sensors and software for the rendering the raw data from them come to the market. The camera manufacturers know this and each one uses it to try and leapfrog other competitors, they do not wish to be tied to some file standard that may hamper them in further development of their products. Just my opinion as to why it has not happened.
Not the case as the supposedly 'new' file formats have not added anything. Often it's just the name of the camera in the file that changes and breaks compatibility. Sensors getting better does not necessarily mean the files they have to get stored in need to change.
It's just some image data being stored at end of the day in a container. If however it was a completely different kind of image altogether like say in Lightfield cameras, then yes you may have a point, but the same sensor in a bunch of cameras all needing different raw file formats or a camera gets a cosmetic update and software now needs to be updated.....
You get the same mess in video where the same kind of file gets a new wrapper for no real reason and suddenly becomes unusable in software.
-
For those who are too lazy to search for themselves, here is a list of cameras that DCRAW supports as of this writing ...
Bart,
I think you missed one out .. ;)
Best,
M
-
That is paranoid tinfoil hat nonsense.
you are referring to this statement = "just like Adobe software blocks opening a raw from a new camera in native non DNG raw format when there is absolutely no changes in the tags that it is using... that way they create an impression for some uneducated users about the "major benefit of DNG"."
1) do you dispute that if only the camera model inside was changed (format is intact, all tags have the same meanings) then Adobe will not open the raw in non DNG format ?
2) do you dispute that Adobe itself proclaim that this is not going to happen with DNG format ? which is claimed as a major benefit by Adobe (not the only one mind you )
-
Not the case as the supposedly 'new' file formats have not added anything.
Exactly.
Often it's just the name of the camera in the file that changes and breaks compatibility.
No, it doesn't break compatibility - the file, more often than not, is still the same. It's some software houses (cough, cough .. Adobe) who so design their software.
-
Check out this history list of minimum ACR requirement / camera RAW support ,
https://helpx.adobe.com/camera-raw/kb/camera-raw-plug-supported-cameras.html
compare that change log to the Capture One archive.
https://www.phaseone.com/en/Downloads/Materials/Software-Archive/COReleaseNotes.aspx
Then tell me what the additional tags were in each new CaNikon cam introduction that necessitated an ACR version upgrade.
It may not have been to steer you to DNG, but it certainly seems designed to keep you firmly on the Adobe upgrade bandwagon. Not quite 'paranoid tinfoil hat nonsense' , as you put it.
No idea quite what point you are making with those two links. I can see less camera supported on the not quite as hard to find list as previously was the case with C1. Though finally my pocket camera that I stopped using a year or so back, has finally been added with the latest update, so well done Phase how long did that take you? But still no Pentax 645s are far as I could see and not quite supporting the recent Canon's yet which are also edging close to competition for Phase cameras.
I've heard Adobe engineers/Product Managers complain that they can't simply support new cameras because manufacturers keep breaking compatibility and it is sometimes no more than the camera name and they find it very frustrating.
Yet for some unknown reason the camera manufacturers never get blamed for new file formats that Lightroom or whatever cannot support as camera that was released a while after the software was released, it's always Adobe's fault. You see this time and time again in forums/online. It gets Adobe a lot of unwarranted bad press and it is not in their interest to garner such dislike. They make zero money from DNG by the way, it's a solution for all camera developing software to be able to support cameras as soon as they are released.
Have people also forgotten that camera companies rather stupidly may not want to let Adobe software deal with their output. Nikon a few years back tried to cripple their raw files so that only Nikon software could deal with them properly (http://www.cnet.com/news/nikons-photo-encryption-reported-broken/) . Not free Nikon software either. Or anywhere near being good.
Nikon had to backtrack very rapidly as many people would rather change to Canon or whoever rather than drop Photoshop/Lightroom/C1 etc.
-
Yet for some unknown reason the camera manufacturers never get blamed for new file formats that Lightroom or whatever cannot support as camera that was released a while after the software was released, it's always Adobe's fault. You see this time and time again in forums/online.
So true! I don't know how people can ignore the facts and are unable place the blame where it belongs. Then you'll hear nonsense about how DNG is a way for Adobe to make more money, it's no good as it's not a 'standard' etc, etc. If native camera raw files were as equally accessible as say the JPEG the same camera creates from the raw, I suspect Adobe would never have needed to consider creating DNG.
-
No, it doesn't break compatibility - the file, more often than not, is still the same. It's some software houses (cough, cough .. Adobe) who so design their software.
So what software can open a new camera's 'new' file format without an update?
As I said above it is against any software company's interest to delay support for a new camera. IF C1 supports Model X and LR does not or vice versa guess what software the new camera purchaser is going to try out whilst waiting for an update? The one that works. Then if they prefer the alternative software, you've lost a customer.
So do you know how to parse and open Raw files then? Just because it may only be a camera name change, doesn't mean it's a simple solution.
Just like only changing part of a software or physical key stops it from opening whatever it is meant to. Regardless of whether how minor the change.
Don't forget these files need to be reverse engineered to open.
-
1) do you dispute that if only the camera model inside was changed (format is intact, all tags have the same meanings) then Adobe will not open the raw in non DNG format ?
Why would I dispute that? I specifically said it was a problem and explained above why it is necessarily not a trivial issue and not in Adobe's interest o pretend to delay.
2) do you dispute that Adobe itself proclaim that this is not going to happen with DNG format ? which is claimed as a major benefit by Adobe (not the only one mind you )
That's a very awkwardly worded sentence, not really sure what you mean.
However DNG files from new cameras open straight away in LR/ACR and other software without updates, the exception has always been C1. Some of the reason seem political as serious and much cheaper camera rivals like Pentax use DNG.
-
Another thing for those who are paranoid about the purpose of DNG.
Adobe made a free DNG convertor, so you can continue to use older software with newer cameras.
So rather than having to update to the newest version of PS/LR [or any other DNG supporting software] whenever you buy a newer camera, you can carry on using your old software as long as you want. Once files are converted to DNG. Obviously you get some new cameras added during point releases, but if you buy a camera which is only added to a later full version, that you do not own, it's very handy tool
Now is that is behaviour that should be applauded, particularly when companies on the whole like to force you to upgrade computers/software because they break compatibility.
However I'm not so sure the Adobe of today would introduce such a piece of software. They also used to have an exceptionally good upgrade policy of from three prior versions, which got dropped to one and then replaced not long after with CC.
-
Another thing for those who are paranoid about the purpose of DNG.
Adobe made a free DNG convertor, so you can continue to use older software with newer cameras.
yes, free, closed source DNG converter... ACR or LR can also be used - including trial versions - to convert to DNG, so ?
-
So rather than having to update to the newest version of PS/LR [or any other DNG supporting software] whenever you buy a newer camera, you can carry on using your old software as long as you want. Once files are converted to DNG. Obviously you get some new cameras added during point releases, but if you buy a camera which is only added to a later full version, that you do not own, it's very handy tool
or Adobe can simply allow to use formats w/o blocking it based on model name... with the same results.
-
Why would I dispute that? I specifically said it was a problem and explained above why it is necessarily not a trivial issue and not in Adobe's interest o pretend to delay.
That's a very awkwardly worded sentence, not really sure what you mean.
However DNG files from new cameras open straight away in LR/ACR and other software without updates, the exception has always been C1. Some of the reason seem political as serious and much cheaper camera rivals like Pentax use DNG.
so basically you insulted me here for no reason ?
-
If native camera raw files were as equally accessible as say the JPEG the same camera creates from the raw
and they are ... the rest is your imagination.
-
Yet for some unknown reason the camera manufacturers never get blamed for new file formats that Lightroom or whatever cannot support as camera that was released a while after the software was released
and they shall not be blamed for that, because you are buying that camera with the full knowledge of that and they supply free raw converters...
, it's always Adobe's fault.
no, it is fault of somebody who buys a camera knowing that is not supported for his/her needs... vote with your dollar.
-
and they shall not be blamed for that, because you are buying that camera with the full knowledge of that and they supply free raw converters...
no, it is fault of somebody who buys a camera knowing that is not supported for his/her needs... vote with your dollar.
I see why John has you on ignore, you post a lot of ignorant rubbish.
-
so basically you insulted me here for no reason ?
No, with good reason. I was saying your sentence was poorly written, because it was.
Not meant as an insult as it happens, but as you've proven to be a remarkably clueless in your last few comment by ignoring any facts that contradicts your paranoid world view , feel free to take that this sentence and previous post as an insult. ;D Even though again they are simply descriptive of your behaviour.
-
I see why John has you on ignore, you post a lot of ignorant rubbish.
+1!
-
Just to say its time to sign off from participating in this thread. There has been nothing inspirational or informative to encourage further participation. Enjoy the rest of the evening.
-
Just to say its time to sign off from participating in this thread. There has been nothing inspirational or informative to encourage further participation. Enjoy the rest of the evening.
Well you did start things off in the first reply by being contentious and talking about issues irrelevant to the question. So well done old chap.
-
Well, even though this thread has turned into a DNG flame war, I can't believe no one has mentioned the single most important compelling reason as to why I convert my non-native-DNG Canon cameras to DNG:
Image Data file verification!
It's why I've even converted my old jpg collection to dng. And using the DNG verification feature in LR, it has already saved several files from disappearing forever, had they gone unnoticed through the backup chain. I now make sure to always verify before doing backups. It doesn't even take that long either. Plus I get to rid them of their full-size JPG previews that I have no use of in the process, saving even more space.
It's the OTHER reasons that are political. This one is not.
-
You're not serious, right? Data file verification shall be done on every file format, no matter if it is an EXE, LIB, XLSX, DOCX, TIFF, or DNG. It should not be limited to any file extension.
-
That's why I do wish it were done on all formats in LR - or Capture One (which I'm trying ATM) for that matter. It would likely be so easy for them to do the hash on just the image data and store that in the catalog and/or XMP, but they don't as far as I know (maybe CO does?). I'd rather not go through a bunch of hoops to do so manually. Right now it's right there in LR for DNGs to do it easily and very quickly.
p.s. Man.. The verifications to post to this site are just ridiculous, ain't it?!? :D I've never seen anything like it. :o
-
p.s. Man.. The verifications to post to this site are just ridiculous, ain't it?!? :D I've never seen anything like it. :o
Only when first joining. There's no problems with spambots and their ilk here though.
Just grumpy humans. ;D