Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: ericstaud on November 15, 2006, 11:51:09 am
-
Is anyone out there convrting their MFDB files to the DNG format? What are the benefits and the risks in your workflow?
I have an Aptus 75 and would like to start converting the files in order to make cataloging easier. It seems every MFDB maker has, at some point, announced support for DNG without any further clarification.
Phase One supports DNG, but I believe this is only for third party cameras, not the Phase One backs themselves.
Sinar files are being converted to DNG by Rainer, but does that mean he can't use the Sinar processing software after the files have been converted?
My Leaf files convert nicely to DNG. The keywording and archiving becomes much easier and productive. But when Leaf comes out with a killer processing software someday, I may be locked out with my catalog of DNG's.
For me the scales are tipping, and I think the benefits of having a viable, functional catalog of RAW files with embedded keywords and previews may outweigh the benefits of using the manufacturers software.
-
Is anyone out there convrting their MFDB files to the DNG format? What are the benefits and the risks in your workflow?
I have an Aptus 75 and would like to start converting the files in order to make cataloging easier. It seems every MFDB maker has, at some point, announced support for DNG without any further clarification.
Phase One supports DNG, but I believe this is only for third party cameras, not the Phase One backs themselves.
Sinar files are being converted to DNG by Rainer, but does that mean he can't use the Sinar processing software after the files have been converted?
My Leaf files convert nicely to DNG. The keywording and archiving becomes much easier and productive. But when Leaf comes out with a killer processing software someday, I may be locked out with my catalog of DNG's.
For me the scales are tipping, and I think the benefits of having a viable, functional catalog of RAW files with embedded keywords and previews may outweigh the benefits of using the manufacturers software.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=85429\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Eric,
How do you convert .mos files to DNG?
Via Adobe's converter?
Can you make a statement of how the file looks opening the .mos directly in PSC2 versus opening the DNG in PSCS2 - is it the same?
Txs for sharing; this is an important topic.
Peter
-
I use adobe's DNG converter. I do not embed original. The file output in ACR is identical in my experience with the DNG and the MOS.
The DNG:
-Can be cataloged by iView with acurate previews, including cropping.
-Can share keywording information between iView and Bridge.
-Can be processed in ACR, Lightroom, Raw Developer
-Cannot be processed in Leafs software
-Cannot be processed through the Custom Gain Adjuster
The MOS:
-Can be processed in LC10, LC8, ACR, Lightroom, Raw Developer
-Cannot carry keywording safely between LC10, Bridge, and iView
-If you hit the save button is LC10 on the A75 MOS, Bridge will loose all keywords and ACR process settings on that file.
-If you embed keyword with iView to an A75 file, all the Bridge and ACR settings can be lost as well.
-The MOS file does carry an embedded preview which reflects the current process settings in LC10 or LC8.
-The MOS cannot carry an embedded preview from ACR, Lightroom, or Raw Developer.
Converting to DNG takes what is a VERY messy situation with the MOS and archiving, and makes it posible to archive and catalog your RAW files.
I have tried support cases with Adobe and iView. They point the finger at each other.
Leaf has announced DNG support, and said They are working on "it". But that is as specific as they will be.
-
Sinar files are being converted to DNG by Rainer, but does that mean he can't use the Sinar processing software after the files have been converted?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=85429\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
yes, i cannot use capture shop with these dng files,- but i dont miss it also cause i prefere at the moment the lightroom conversion ( i think michael taps from rawdeveloper has made here a great job ) and before i prefered iridient.
if i want to shoot tethered i do in capture, and convert the .sti capturefiles afterwards also to .dng.
-
I have been converting older (canon CR2) files to DNG.....so their won't be any major losses when their is quality difference.
I worked on a couple of these older CR2 to DNG files yesterday...and I don't see any difference.
What I like about the DND files is that they are a lot smaller (because of the lossless compression) with the CR2 files it is about 2MB smaller but when I tested it on a couple of MOS (leaf A65) files they were almost half smaller..which worried me a little...but then again Leaf also gives you the lossless compression option.
All in all I will wait before converting important files until we see MF dig back makers give you the option to shoot DNG....which is hopefully soon...so we can make the workflow even better, faster and easier.
-
Early on I converted Leaf files to dng. (for the renaming mostly) and for size considerations, but gave up on that as once in dng, the files will not work in Leaf or pretty much any software other than Adobe.
Quite frankly I don't understand DNG as it really isn't cross platform (cameras included). Why a Lecia DNG works in C-1 but a Leaf DNG won't doesn't say much for the open source idea of what DNG was suppose to be, especially from all the initiatives I've read.
It's understandable that all the camera and software companies want to make money and gain market share, but a lot of this proprietary stuff just becomes time consuming and is frustrating.
At least withh the Leaf file it will go into multiple convertors without conversion to dng, but I am still at a loss while all of this is so propreitary.
At some point you can understand people's frustration towards many of these companies.
Few of these cameras come out of the box, ready for prime time and most need firmware updates and require a learning curve that requires the photographer to reinvent his/her own series of workflow workarounds.
On the hardware side it is equally as frustrating and you can see this from Hasselblad camera users.
It's obvious Hasselblad is moving their newest lens to a Hasselblad only system off back and camera in a effort to sell their back.
Rather than this, why not just make an equal or superior digital back?
It's obvous that Phase will support DNG only for non competitors, which is somewhat understandable but also very frustrating if you shoot multiple platforms.
There is a huge hole in the market for fast, effecient software that is compatible with all files.
Lightroom seems close, but needs tethered support and much faster processing and thumbnal/preview rendering.
RD is a great effort from a small company but still has some issues, like the thumbnails reflecting the process changes and as of today pscs1 and 2 are the only real cross platform softwares that are fast and stable, though with many cameras and files, the default settings leave a lot to be desired.
With all of this I really don't understand what DNG offers until a DNG file will work in all softwares from all manufacturers.
JR
-
With all of this I really don't understand what DNG offers until a DNG file will work in all softwares from all manufacturers.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86034\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well reasoned and articulate. Thanks for voicing these points.
I see a lot of progress being made in the MFDB/DNG arena right now. It is still quite far from perfect, but at least I see movement. DNGs for 35mm files work well now. It's reasonable to think that MF DNGs will work just as well at some point. Let's keep in mind that DNG is still a relatively new thing. It will be interesting to compare today's situation to that of Spring/Summer 2007. I wouldn't be surprised to see a lot of improvement by then.
-
I understand that Hasselblad have abandoned the idea of DNG capture altogether. It's a bit of a Uturn but compatable with their wanting to keep a closed system.
Damien.
-
i don't really see the point in dng anyway....if all cameras/backs would shoot dng, it would be perfect, but that will never happen, so what is the point in converting one raw format to another? seems like there would be some loss somewhere in the conversion....
instead of adobe developing a "universal" standard they should put their energy into suporting all raw standards....but i understand where they are coming from...they want t be able to strongarm everybody into using their system....so i am not for dng...
also: from a workflow standpoint: there is no room/time to convert to dng...the conversion would have to take place BEFORE i make adjustments? people are complaining that the previews don't pop up fast enough, imagine if there is a conversion as well (no matter how fast, it won't be realtime)....
i have no problem with my raw files, i still work with my old leaf raw files, no problem either....what i would love to see is the option to work with phase files in aperture, preferably through a plug-in provided by phase using the C1 engine....conversion by C1 within the aperture interface...a dream...no dng necessary....
-
I understand that Hasselblad have abandoned the idea of DNG capture altogether. It's a bit of a Uturn but compatable with their wanting to keep a closed system.
Damien.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86796\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Not right Damien!
You can export DNG files from FlexColor or you can directly convert them to DNG as you import from a Compact Flash card.
Jo. x
-
I just converted all my recent raw files (over 40000 ) to .dng. They are a mix from the following cameras:
Hasselblad H1D
Hasselblad H2D-22
Hasselblad H2+CFH39
Canon 10D
Canon 20D
Canon 1D mkII
Canon 5D
Nikon D2X
The only trouble I have run into is: the .dng's converted by flexcolor works everywhere I have tested but not in Aperture (what i USED to use...) Also the flexcolor .dng files from flexcolor 4.6.4 are much nicer with less noise than previous conversions. I'm slightly afraid this is going to bite me in the tail, as I throw away my 3FR files now, and cannot convert the raw material again in a future flexcolor upgrade to obtain better files. I am however satisfied with the quality from Flex. 4.6.4 so i guess its ok.
I must say it is lovely to use bridge now, everything in a nice and tidy file structure with no sidecar files lying about, also its wonderful to finally have one software to view it all in...
I'm looking into lightroom, and it seems to handle the Hassy .dng's well, but I'm sitting on the fence until the final version is out. If Aperture gets its act together on the .dngs I will stick with it because I'm used to it.
-
The only trouble I have run into is: the .dng's converted by flexcolor works everywhere I have tested but not in Aperture (what i USED to use...)
I have read on one of the Aperture info pages at Apple that only .DNG files converted
using the Adobe converter are recognized by aperture at this time.
I don't know if this also applies to camera models (Leica DMR and M8,for example) that
use the .dng format as their capture format
Mark
-
The only trouble I have run into is: the .dng's converted by flexcolor works everywhere I have tested but not in Aperture (what i USED to use...) I have read on one of the Aperture info pages at Apple that only .DNG files converted
using the Adobe converter are recognized by aperture at this time.
I don't know if this also applies to camera models (Leica DMR and M8,for example) that
use the .dng format as their capture format
Mark
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86855\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
If you shoot the Leaf there really is no reason to go DNG as Leaf works in about every software except aperture.
Once again I don't understand dng other than it makes adobe's job a little easier, but unless it is an adopted standard that you can go from Leaf to dng, and back to leaf software (or phase or any manufacturer), then to me it's just not a viable alternative.
Maybe it will get better next year, but in the digital world, rumor or pdf's mean nothing until you actually use it.
Still, I am really taken by lightroom as long as they get the speed and stability up to release.
Forget about the web galleries as they are lame anyway. Just make a software that offers fast stable processing options and maybe even tethers across multiple camera/back platforms.
JR
-
Hi James,
There is a great ability in cataloging software to add keywords to images to make a searchable archive of images. Imagine Julius schulmann's archive. Shoot 50-100 projects per year for 50 years, 10 photos of each house. Now have magazines and book publishers call you for random photos from all 25,000 to 50,000 photos. If clients called you randomly for photos you've made over the last 15 years how long would it take you to find them. With a properly cataloged archive it should take less than 20 seconds.
My architectural photos are keyworded with the Homeowner, Architect, Client, Architectural style, and Subject Matter at a very minimum. I can seach for an image even using the spotlight search in OSX, but typically use a program like iView Media Pro.
The Leaf Raw files are NOT cross-compatable with LC10, LC8, Bridge, and iView for this purpose. So while converting to DNG rules out processing in Leafs software, the power of using DNGs with embedded metadata outweighs any need to use Leafs software.
The DAM book is really worth a read.
I agree lightroom is really great. Does it embedd your keywords or make sidecars? Is all the metadata portable, or is it kept in a proprietary archive? Does it read any keywording embedded by LC10, Bridge, or iView. This is all functionality that should be standardized between applications.
-
I agree lightroom is really great. Does it embedd your keywords or make sidecars? Is all the metadata portable, or is it kept in a proprietary archive? Does it read any keywording embedded by LC10, Bridge, or iView. This is all functionality that should be standardized between applications.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86874\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I understand the cataloging, but since .mos files shot from my contax loses most of the meta data anyway, I've given up on it for a searchable data base. I have a updateable pdf file I use and it's slow but at least I can find every image (knock on wood).
No lightroom does not make sidecar files and I assume because it uses a different processing engine that pscs 1 and 2, (I'm just guessing).
What lightroom needs is more speed, sidecar files, drag and drop sorting, fast (very fast) renaming, fast previews, copy and paste settings and most importantly stability . . . . oh yea, did I mention speed?
The sidecar files are essential to fast workflow, mostly because you can work in smaller folder batches, then copy it all over to a large folder and batch without having to wait for preview rendering.
Leaf and hasselblad desperatly need lightroom to come out of the box working, because their software's are just too far behind C-1 in stability and batch functions.
Regardless of the platform, regardless of how pretty any of us think a certain file is, in the end we must have fast stable software for an easier workflow. Leaf and Hasselblad need to work on thier canned white balance settings so everything out of the camera is close.
Every minute wasted correcting a file is multiplied by thousands after a large pressured project.
IMO
JR
-
Leaf and Hasselblad need to work on thier canned white balance settings so everything out of the camera is close.
Phase too have unusable auto white balance (on the P25). I just use a daylight setting all the time with the odd custom one every now and then - Just like the old film days!
You can export DNG files from FlexColor or you can directly convert them to DNG as you import from a Compact Flash card.
I meant to say Hasselblad have abandoned DNG as a capture format in camera. It was going to be an option to shoot to DNG as Leica do etc. Even Phase is going to provide a convert to DNG function I hear, but I'm not sure why.
Damien
-
A few notes about DNG and Aperture/ Lightroom/ ACR/ Adobe DNG converter:
In order to support DNG, all four converters first need to support the RAW file format that this DNG came from, meaning Adobe/ Apple must have the specific camera or back for testing and creating their "As Shot" settings before they can support it. None of them has Input profiles as part of the workflow, so they need to create a specific look for each camera/ back model.
Which is why certain DNG files won't open in Aperture, at least not for the moment.
Yair
-
In order to support DNG, all four converters first need to support the RAW file format that this DNG came from meaning Adobe/ Apple must have the specific camera or back for testing and creating their "As Shot" settings before they can support it.
Adobe DNG is a standalone format. You can render any DNG without being able or even know about the original raw format. To be true that is the idea behind DNG.
There are Tags which specify the "as shot" values and how to convert the bitmap into XYZ color Space. Which is exactely what an input profile does.
A DNG file is not "valid" without this information.
ACR and Lightroom and Raw Developer support any "valid" DNG you throw at them and render it.
Aperture in contrast only converts DNGs from Cameras, Aperture supports, which makes DNG support, in the sense of support for an universal format, a farce.
I assume Apple is afraid that they could fall short quality wise in comparison to other applications if they do not do some special tweaking.
Or probably Apertures internal processing path will always use the native raw format converter and Aperture does not process the DNG directly , but converts DNG to camera specific raw and converts that.
Whatever the reason is, it's not really DNG dependent, it's an Apple thing.
For programmers DNG is nice. One format to rule them all. No camera specific formats. Input filters once written can be used for any camera model, and all camera models will profit from any improvement.
For those back manufacturers, who supply their own editing software for free (read as part of the bundle) it's different.
The editing software is part of the package and might swing the decision which back to buy into their direction.
If all manufacturers support dng, the best software will be used by all users across all brands, making a waste of the money spend to develop an application as a matter to increase the atractiveness of their digital backs.
So manufacturers will probably incoorperate a protection sheme and support brand specific DNGs only. Or they will ask money for their software.
Or something else, your guess
Regards
Stephan
There are
-
Thanks Stephan for this explanation,
Can you please explain why Adobe's DNG converter does not support certain RAW files and why these these require the manufacturer's propriatry software to convert to DNG?.
Please also note that most manufacturers, while allowing some "openness" of their files, still require their own software for tethered work and for special features/ utilities such as Live Video, multi-shot, firmware updates etc. that are currently not provided by stand-alone converters.
Yair
Adobe DNG is a standalone format. You can render any DNG without being able or even know about the original raw format. To be true that is the idea behind DNG.
There are Tags which specify the "as shot" values and how to convert the bitmap into XYZ color Space. Which is exactely what an input profile does.
A DNG file is not "valid" without this information.
ACR and Lightroom and Raw Developer support any "valid" DNG you throw at them and render it.
Aperture in contrast only converts DNGs from Cameras, Aperture supports, which makes DNG support, in the sense of support for an universal format, a farce.
I assume Apple is afraid that they could fall short quality wise in comparison to other applications if they do not do some special tweaking.
Or probably Apertures internal processing path will always use the native raw format converter and Aperture does not process the DNG directly , but converts DNG to camera specific raw and converts that.
Whatever the reason is, it's not really DNG dependent, it's an Apple thing.
For programmers DNG is nice. One format to rule them all. No camera specific formats. Input filters once written can be used for any camera model, and all camera models will profit from any improvement.
For those back manufacturers, who supply their own editing software for free (read as part of the bundle) it's different.
The editing software is part of the package and might swing the decision which back to buy into their direction.
If all manufacturers support dng, the best software will be used by all users across all brands, making a waste of the money spend to develop an application as a matter to increase the atractiveness of their digital backs.
So manufacturers will probably incoorperate a protection sheme and support brand specific DNGs only. Or they will ask money for their software.
Or something else, your guess
Regards
Stephan
There are
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86954\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Not right Damien!
You can export DNG files from FlexColor or you can directly convert them to DNG as you import from a Compact Flash card.
Jo. x
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86814\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I have a folder of sample raw images from an H3D that I would like to export as DNGs. Could you please explain how to export these files as DNGs where they were imported originally into Flexcolor 4.64 as 3F files?
Thanks.
-
I have a folder of sample raw images from an H3D that I would like to export as DNGs. Could you please explain how to export these files as DNGs where they were imported originally into Flexcolor 4.64 as 3F files?
Thanks.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86956\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
If the files are of the .FFF type, go to the thumbnails window in flexcolor, select the photos you want to export to .dng format. Hit the save button on the left hand of the thumbnailswindow. Chosse DNG from the drop down list that appears, and off you go...
If the files are shot to a compact flash card and are of the .3FR type, go to the import window in flexcolor, select the photos you want to export, and hit the "save dng" button on the left hand side...
In both cases (import/thumbnail window) you will have to select the correct disk/folder for the images to appear...
-axel.
-
If the files are of the .FFF type, go to the thumbnails window in flexcolor, select the photos you want to export to .dng format. Hit the save button on the left hand of the thumbnailswindow. Chosse DNG from the drop down list that appears, and off you go...
If the files are shot to a compact flash card and are of the .3FR type, go to the import window in flexcolor, select the photos you want to export, and hit the "save dng" button on the left hand side...
In both cases (import/thumbnail window) you will have to select the correct disk/folder for the images to appear...
-axel.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86963\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks, that worked.
-
Hi Yair,
If I understand correctly the MOS format is an "open RAW" format, in the sense that others can make software for it (ie. Camera RAW etc.). Do you provide them with only the "blueprints", and they have to make the algotihms themselves ?
Why not make a "plugin", SDK (or whatever it is called) so that they can just pop that into their code and make beautiful conversions ? Provide to anyone interested..
I dont know if this is at all possible. Just a thought.. (I think canon have a raw conversion sdk for their cr2 files.. ?)
Lasse
A few notes about DNG and Aperture/ Lightroom/ ACR/ Adobe DNG converter:
In order to support DNG, all four converters first need to support the RAW file format that this DNG came from, meaning Adobe/ Apple must have the specific camera or back for testing and creating their "As Shot" settings before they can support it. None of them has Input profiles as part of the workflow, so they need to create a specific look for each camera/ back model.
Which is why certain DNG files won't open in Aperture, at least not for the moment.
Yair
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86939\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Why not make a "plugin", SDK (or whatever it is called) so that they can just pop that into their code and make beautiful conversions ? Provide to anyone interested..
I dont know if this is at all possible. Just a thought.. (I think canon have a raw conversion sdk for their cr2 files.. ?)
They do. It sucks; it is extremely slow. This approach also requires installing and configuring a hodgepodge of various manufacturers' conversion plugins for each proprietary file format one needs to use. With a single file format, only one conversion engine module is needed; the only thing needed on a per-camera basis is the RAW conversion profile data. You end up with smaller, more efficient code (only one conversion engine instead of several) which is easier to debug and maintain than multiple conversion engines from multiple vendors.
-
Thanks Stephan for this explanation,
Can you please explain why Adobe's DNG converter does not support certain RAW files and why these these require the manufacturer's propriatry software to convert to DNG?.
Hello Yair,
one of our misunderstandings ?
What I say is that an image once converted to DNG format is not brand specific anymore and can be opened and rendered by any software that supports DNG correctly (i.e. ACR, Raw Developer and Lightroom in contrast to Aperture)
The Adobe DNG converter does not read DNG, it creates DNG. To convert an image to DNG you must of course know the original file format. But later when the DNG is created and you open the DNG you do not know nor need to know about the original file format anymore.
Adobe DNG converter is like eMotionDng it takes a file format (or many in the case of Adobe DNG Conv.) and converts it to DNG. The DNG can be opened by any software that supports DNG correctly. If this wouldn't be the case you couldn't open the DNGs created with eMotionDng, because neither Lightroom nor ACR support native eMotion files formats.
Also Adobe DNG converter and ACR are different applications, it is not said that both support the same "raw formats". They most likely will, but not because it is a necessity for ACR to be able to open DNGs , but because both applications are created by the same manufacturer and they will share code in house.
Please also note that most manufacturers, while allowing some "openness" of their files, still require their own software for tethered work and for special features/ utilities such as Live Video, multi-shot, firmware updates etc. that are currently not provided by stand-alone converters.
I understand this, but there is a difference in complexity, whether I write a tool to support tethered shooting and creating an DNG or whether I have to write a full fledged editor, which tries to compete with Photoshop.
And a complex product costs more to develop than a simple one. And if the company doesn't get any advantage from the increased development cost, be it in software revenue or increased back sales, it doesn't make much economic sense. Even worse if in opening your software, you might help an competitor to solve his problems.
Nonetheless I believe that there will always be the need for some kind of manufacturer software. The question is what it is supposed to do and how complex it has to be. Isn't it enough to do the back specific processing and than give a standard file format (DNG or PSD or GammaDeltaEpsilon) to an Standard editor ? Many (most ?) people use PS at a later stage anyway, so why spend resources on providing something people probably don't need or don't use anyway.
I'm quite sure that many users would be happy to stick with one program for their main editing chores. So they don't have to learn new ways of file processing and editing whenever they switch to a new camera or back. And they will be happy to see that comfort, program logic and speed don't change when they change the back.
Regards
SH
-
xx
-
Hello Yair,
one of our misunderstandings ?
Might be
I don't think that any of the current RAW converters, "general" or camera-specific is aiming at competing with Photoshop.
However they do however compete with each other in trying to squeeze the maximum quality out of the RAW file (details, sharpness, colour accuracy, dynamic range...).
Manufacturer's software have the potential to do some of these things better than 3rd party software, in case there are back-specific characteristics that are being interpreted better by fine tuning a specific function or algorithm.
Even if this information is being freely shared, it does not mean that one company's engineers are trained or experienced enough to exploit it.
Tethered operation and live video have more than a simple device driver in them, especially when one tries to get the maximum capture rate and burst depth on various platforms or the optimal refresh-rate for composition and focusing without the use of excesive energy (heat).
The fact that most cameras still do not produce a RAW DNG file on one hand, and that some converters still do not "properly" support DNG (open or save) on the other hand, means (I think) there is still some room for imroving the format itself, to allow more manufacturers and software developers to conform to it.
Yair
-
Might be
Manufacturer's software have the potential to do some of these things better than 3rd party software, in case there are back-specific characteristics that are being interpreted better by fine tuning a specific function or algorithm.
Even if this information is being freely shared, it does not mean that one company's engineers are trained or experienced enough to exploit it.
Yair
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=87011\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
yes, so it should be theoretically.
practically many softwares, written by the manufactors, dont use the full information which can be read out from the raw data as you can see a.e. in the highlight recovery capacity which differs very much, depending on how "clever" the software is interpretating the bayer algorythm.
i am surprissed that there is so much room for improvement left in some manufactors softwares . also some sw is overfreighted with code which has to support very "old" back generations and which is originally develloped years ago. the result is that these programs are slow, compared to more actual written solutions.
in reality a clever translated dng file can have better quality after opening it in lightroom ( or raw develloper or ACR ) than in the original software, the problem is the conversion to dng.
this depends on the info which is written in the DNG, which may vary very much and so the 3. party program performance. so if the dng is written badly, the 3.party sw will perform bad also.
-
I hate when hardware manufacturers try to argue that their software does a better job at processing their own files because they "know" their hardware better. This is just silly. Their file format is either open or closed. If open, other engineers will be able to exploit the hardware benefits just as well as the manufacturers'. Whether they do or not simply depends on their skill. This is evidenced by the recent rumors over processing Leaf files in LC or ACR. Lots of people were saying that only LC could render the highlights correctly. Rubbish. Will a 3rd party app do as good a job on every file? Probably not, but having multiple tools to solve different problems is a good thing. The trick is knowing when to use which app.
I was disappointed to see Hasse abandon their direct-DNG approach as well. I've been told that it came down to a speed issue. This seems like a shame to me, since speed is one thing that could most effectively be optimized for.
Speaking of Hasse and DNG... Anyone having problems with high ISO/low light DNG conversions from Hasse RAWs? Try shooting something at 400 and under exposing it by 4 or more stops. Process it in Flexcolor. Then export it as DNG and process that in ACR. Obviously there will be issues with exposure. But the Flexcolor files show nice smooth (albeit dark) tones. The DNGs I've seen fall apart into crazy grain/noise patterns. I don't know if this is a problem in the DNG export or the ACR handling of the files, but the former seems more likely. Changing the curve to Linear in ACR helps, but not enough. If anyone else is experiencing this, please let us know.
-
I hate when hardware manufacturers try to argue that their software does a better job at processing their own files because they "know" their hardware better. This is just silly. Their file format is either open or closed. If open, other engineers will be able to exploit the hardware benefits just as well as the manufacturers'. Whether they do or not simply depends on their skill. This is evidenced by the recent rumors over processing Leaf files in LC or ACR. Lots of people were saying that only LC could render the highlights correctly. Rubbish. Will a 3rd party app do as good a job on every file? Probably not, but having multiple tools to solve different problems is a good thing. The trick is knowing when to use which app.
I was disappointed to see Hasse abandon their direct-DNG approach as well. I've been told that it came down to a speed issue. This seems like a shame to me, since speed is one thing that could most effectively be optimized for.
Speaking of Hasse and DNG... Anyone having problems with high ISO/low light DNG conversions from Hasse RAWs? Try shooting something at 400 and under exposing it by 4 or more stops. Process it in Flexcolor. Then export it as DNG and process that in ACR. Obviously there will be issues with exposure. But the Flexcolor files show nice smooth (albeit dark) tones. The DNGs I've seen fall apart into crazy grain/noise patterns. I don't know if this is a problem in the DNG export or the ACR handling of the files, but the former seems more likely. Changing the curve to Linear in ACR helps, but not enough. If anyone else is experiencing this, please let us know.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=87026\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think Cliff strikes a good point, but it could be taken on step further.
If the manufacturer's software produces a surperior conversion, then fine, for many instances that should be the direction, but for some reason most of the manufacturer's software is more confusing, clumsy and slower than third party aps.
For single file processing almost any software can be made to work, even something like lc10 or Nikon Capture, which both have yet to reach any form of maturity, but for large amounts of jpeg creation or batch correction/processing to tiffs then nearly all softwares except acr and C-1 seem to be challenged. (challenged is the polite word).
I am truly at a loss to understand some of the software I am required to work with and really wonder if the manufactuers ever take 2000 files and give themself a test deadline to correct and process files.
I have said this a million times but all the manufacturers should be required to sit in a hotel room with a few thousand files and try to batch process and upload correct and high quality jpegs before the start of the next business day.
I think that would open some eyes as to how functional thier software is.
I do think Phase one's annoucemnt of V4 sounds very promsing and it seems that they have listeed better than the other manufactuerers, (Canon, Nikon included).
Still, press releases and PDF's don't mean much until the software is released, debugged and really tested in the real world.
One thing that all the software and hardware companies should address is cost. We all want to move forward, but having to purchase new computers just to keep up with the cameras, that need new software to keep up with the features, that need new............. becomes a never ending cycle of upgrading and cost.
JR
-
I hate when hardware manufacturers try to argue that their software does a better job at processing their own files because they "know" their hardware better. This is just silly. Their file format is either open or closed. If open, other engineers will be able to exploit the hardware benefits just as well as the manufacturers'.
Cliff I hope you don't really *hate* it...but I think this statement is somewhat inaccurate.
There are hardware related tags that most 3rd party converters do not read.
There are embedded input profiles that some 3rd party converters do not read.
I'm not saying that this is good or bad, but they have to rely on their own matrix in order to present the image colours correctly.
There are also cases where the optimisation of the file is done by both hardware, firmware and software, simply because there is more horsepower in a computer than there is a in the camera (see your comment about Hasselblad writing into DNG).
I agree that having choices is a good thing and this is why some of the manufacturers provied an open RAW file.
When it comes to tethering things get a bit more complicated, which is why most 3rd party converters stay away from it, at least for the moment.
Yair
-
If open, other engineers will be able to exploit the hardware benefits just as well as the manufacturers'. Whether they do or not simply depends on their skill.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=87026\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes - and also their willingness to. It's a two way street. In some cases, a 3rd party writer will not extract enough information from the manufacturer to provide a conversion that matches the quality of the native manufacturer's software, even though the manufacturer has offered it. I know this has been an issue with Adobe and some manufacturers. They may only accept as much information as they feel they need (and which matches the amount of effort they wish to invest), yet the results could be better with more information and effort. This is usually a holdup from the 3rd party converter, not the manufacturer. A notable exception to this is Raw Developer by Iridient Systems. Brian puts in the work, and it shows in the results.
Steve Hendrix
PPR Digital
-
Cliff I hope you don't really *hate* it...but I think this statement is somewhat inaccurate.
There are hardware related tags that most 3rd party converters do not read.
There are embedded input profiles that some 3rd party converters do not read.
I'm not saying that this is good or bad, but they have to rely on their own matrix in order to present the image colours correctly.
There are also cases where the optimisation of the file is done by both hardware, firmware and software, simply because there is more horsepower in a computer than there is a in the camera (see your comment about Hasselblad writing into DNG).
I agree that having choices is a good thing and this is why some of the manufacturers provied an open RAW file.
When it comes to tethering things get a bit more complicated, which is why most 3rd party converters stay away from it, at least for the moment.
Yair
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=87118\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Tags, Shmags. I hate 'em! (heh) Tags are even more useless than input profiles. Any competent RAW processor will offer better workflows than relying on manufacturer tags. I've been through all of this with Leaf directly. If there is something that LC can do to all files that ACR can't, show me. Simple as that.
The issue I'm having with Hasse DNGs is far beyond optimization. There's a bug somewhere. I hope. It was probably bad form of me to add this comment in this thread, but I hadn't really thought it through. I'm not sure what you're referring to by hardware, software and firmware optimization. If you could provide an example I'd appreciate it.I don't see it being this complicated. These are just machines with input and output leads. If you have access to the outputs, you can produce the same results as the manufacturer (providing you actually want to and are skilled to do so).
As far as 3rd party apps failing to provide quality goes, this is a market issue I reckon. If they don't fix it, people will eventually stop buying it. Of course with ACR this is somewhat different. I'd say that for the most part, ACR does a great job. Where it doesn't, more people need to complain. One problem is that Adobe doesn't charge anything for ACR. It's bundled with Photoshop, so the incentive to make it perfect everywhere is lessened. This may change with the release of Lightroom. This will be a paid-for app. It seems reasonable that Lightroom and ACR will continue to share code, which could mean better processing across the board for both apps. Let's just hope.
-
) Tags are even more useless than input profiles. Any competent RAW processor will offer better workflows than relying on manufacturer tags.
This I agree with RD, ACR, Lightroom does not pick up the manufactuer's tags and the tags are so broad based they are virtually useless.
Warm Y 4, what is that?
How about a way to make our own settings and embed them in the camera back (not just the CF card)?
As far as 3rd party Aps, lightroom and RD will produce a superior file to lc10, v-8 and even in some instances with a Phase file in C-1.
I want to see Brian's RD succeed if not just for pulling for the little guy, but I have to say that lightroom has really great possiblities as long as they get the speed up, dump the idea of those lame web galleries, allow it to write sidecar files that can be picked up by ARC and most importantly get the stability to rock solid.
The input profiles mean nothing and even the manufactuer's canned white balance really can be discarded, especially on the A series leafs.
JR
-
If there is something that LC can do to all files that ACR can't, show me.
If you insist:
Individual channel sharpening
Better scaling, up to 300-350%
Accurate cropping
Better handling of chroma noise in long exposures and 400-800 iso
CMYK conversion
B&W conversion
Gain calibration and lens cast correction
Moire reduction
Hot folder and remote processing (in V8)
Some of these are obviously available in Photoshop after the conversion but not in ACR.
Yair
-
i don't think it makes a lot of sense to look at ACR functionality without PS, since it is part of the package....you might as well add that V8 or V10 have a browser which ACR does not....
from a technical standpoint i don't understand half the things said here, there is a point where i draw the line....i am very comfortable with V8, V10, C1, ACR, i wish i could use aperture and lightroom more, but i have no desire (or the time) to get into writing code or looking at how the software is written...and maybe that is why i am so frustrated by companies saying:"our standards are open" but no other software can work with their files, or "solutions" like DNG which look great on paper, but are really only an attempt to force the market one way....
if the leaf files are really open, why can yair make a list of several points where V8 or V10 are better then adobe or apple?
aperture has great potential ( i can't use it all for now, but i can see the potential after playing with it) and it's biggest plus is the open architecture which allows for 3rd party plug-ins....so there has to be a way for leaf, sinar, imacon and phase to make simple (or not so simple) conversion plug-ins for aperture which allow everybody to do what they do best, the DMF companies their propriatory conversion (secrets?) and apple the interface....i am probably dreaming and there are several reasons why this can work, most of which are probably based on noone really wanting to do something that might give someone some advantage in the future.....
sinar, leaf, imacon and phase should make backs and back software not try and compete with adobe and apple on the software field...
about RD: didn't adobe buy RD?
-
If you insist:
Individual channel sharpening
Better scaling, up to 300-350%
Accurate cropping
Better handling of chroma noise in long exposures and 400-800 iso
CMYK conversion
B&W conversion
Gain calibration and lens cast correction
Moire reduction
Hot folder and remote processing (in V8)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=87194\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
In my experience a lot of these functions are not sought after in a raw converter... exept for the ability to handle noise, moire, gain and lens correction... (and of course set initial profiles, bit-depths, contrast, color, etc.)
What I see from colleagues is that the raw developer is there to make a "flat" negative, where adjustment layers are put on top for the possibility of future changes to the file. Locking changes (like B&W/CMYK conversion, sharpening, etc.) is not something one does at the RAW develpment stage. Also Photoshop (with plugins and similar programs...) have a much broader palette of tools to tweak channels, apply sharpening to selected areas, mask out bits to change individually, do compositing work, etc. RAW Converters mostly lack the ability to do local adjustments with masks, and so the functions are not so useful.
I see raw developers that can do lots of things, and yet only want them to be great file handlers, workflow creaters, and converters/developers for my "flat" psd/tiff "negative", as well as good batching programs together with tethered capabilities.
How does the majority here use their raw development software, it could tell us something about what MFDB owners needs from their raw converters...?
-
If you insist:
Individual channel sharpening
Better scaling, up to 300-350%
Accurate cropping
Better handling of chroma noise in long exposures and 400-800 iso
CMYK conversion
B&W conversion
Gain calibration and lens cast correction
Moire reduction
Hot folder and remote processing (in V8)
Some of these are obviously available in Photoshop after the conversion but not in ACR.
Yair
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=87194\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
But this is just describing some items. I want you to show me. Pick any of these and show me with pictures what you are talking about. Of these "Gain calibration and lens cast correction" looks like the only one I'd be interested in at the RAW stage, but take your pick. Let me see how LC does better at any of these for every file thrown at it. I'd be very grateful if you could provide me with RAW files and conversions showing LC doing a better job. I would definitely use them in my sales pitch!
And I'm not Leaf-bashing. I happen to really like Leaf for their open file format and speed of shooting. I'm just saying that a competent tech can get great results from many different tools. There is no magic going on that only certain companies can exploit.
-
Warm Y 4, what is that?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=87188\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
LOL, yeah or: Valeo 6 NS-W Portrait.
An oldy but a goody! Nothin like having the leaf engineers color balance your files...
Do you see any functional difference between tags and input profiles when shooting RAWs? Seems to me like these two terms should be consolidated.
-
Do you see any functional difference between tags and input profiles when shooting RAWs? Seems to me like these two terms should be consolidated.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=87220\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The input profile tells the application how to convert the camera color information to a given color space. Very often this Input profile is stored as an ICC profile converting camera RGB values to XYZ or Lab. The profile data consists usually from one or more color lookup tables and a matrix, but there are differnt ways to handle this.
The term TAG is much broader.
An image file has an internal structure.
Most raw formats are derivates from TIFF.
A TIFF file has a number of IFDs. An IFD is a kind of directory that holds information about an image. Usually there is an IFD for the raw Image and at least one IFD for thumbnail representations. Instead of making the information in each IFD self contained, the designers decided to have information in some IFDs which is valid for other IFDs as well.
To find a certain piece of information, each IFD has a number of TAGs. Each TAG has an ID and the corresponding information. There is a TAG for the width of the image (thumbnail or raw) and the corresponding information is the width in pixels. So if you need the width of an image , you look for a TAG with the corresponding id or name (i.e. "imagewidth").
There could be a TAG that holds an input profile in ICC profile format, but the same information could be spread over different TAGs. What TAGs exist in file is defined by the one who writes the file format specification. But as I wrote before many formats a based on TIFF so many TAG names are standardized.
So the term Input Profile describes a structure of data which has a well defined function. And usually this structure follows the blueprint of an ICC profile.
A TAG is just a piece of information with a meaning.
I hope the description was not too confused.
Regards
SH
-
So the term Input Profile describes a structure of data which has a well defined function. And usually this structure follows the blueprint of an ICC profile.
A TAG is just a piece of information with a meaning.
I hope the description was not too confused.
Regards
SH
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=87249\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hardly confused. Quite well articulated actually.
But functionally, are they not really the same? Couldn't an input profile be considered a complex tag? I mean to me when faced with a pile of RAW files, I don't care if the default is +4 Y or a more tuned profile. If it isn't right (which it most certainly won't be) I'm changin it.
This is really a semantic debate. I do appreciate your detailed comparison though.
-
How does the majority here use their raw development software, it could tell us something about what MFDB owners needs from their raw converters...?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=87206\")
I work for a lot of different clients that all have different needs and workflows and I can tell you there are no absolutes.
Early on in digital capture I would always produce a flat "negative" type of file, to build in layers for tonal values and color in photoshop.
that way I had complete control, but mostly did this because the software convertors were so simple in their ability to produce anything but a canned profile or a slightly moveable wb setting.
I think those days are becoming old think, especially after working with lightroom.
Lightroom allows me to change densities in shadows, highlights and midtones, effect split toning, adjust each color channel for density, saturation, and hue, even goes as far as to add a fill light funciton and burn or dodge the edges of a frame.
Prior to this the raw convertor made the negative, photoshop made the "transparency", but now with lightroom I work at getting as close as possible to the final transparency.
I've compared Phase and Leaf files in lightroom and it is the only software that allows me to produce almost identical looks from the two seperate manufacturers.
It really is a great equalizer and I hope becomes a great stand alone piece of software.
I have absolutley no interest in Aperture. It doesn't work with medium format files and I have this feeling that apple is motivated to sell hardware and software so every upgrade to aperture will probably require a new computer to reach full functionality.
That is a merry go round that is never ending.
I would think that Adobe would have a higher agenda, or at least a smart enough agenda to make light room fast and fucntional in as many computers as possible for many files as possible.
I hope adobe's agenda is to take it further, into the tehtered mode caastagory, because whether any of us like it or not, the standard for many commercial projects is tethering to a large monitor.
If I was Hasselblad and Leaf I would have the same hope.
JR
[a href=\"http://www.russellrutherford.com/]http://www.russellrutherford.com/[/url]
-
I think those days are becoming old think, especially after working with lightroom.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=87301\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I agree on this and see my own workflow is moving towards preparing more and more in the raw converter (i use bridge and ACR now.) Yet the images always end up in photoshop for some small detail that only PS can handle, and have actions to take care of particular tasks so its not completely there.
I still miss good file handling on the part of the RAW converters... Lightroom seems to promise a solution to this.
-
This has been an enlightening discussion, to say the least. I took delivery of a borrowed H2 / CFH39 system a month ago, and took it out on safari with me in Africa. Now I have a ton of proprietary raw images that I have to use Flexcolor with, which is frustrating to say the least. I am going to convert all images to DNG format, using Flexcolor, and will do some comparisons to see if I am losing any noticable quality in the process.
Looks like my day is shot. Grrrrr.
-
Forget about the web galleries as they are lame anyway.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86858\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I agree that the web galleries are lame, yet they are eminently useful as "contact sheets" for the less discriminating customer that resides far away from the studio. I sometimes use this function (sometimes, or even less is the operative word ) when I need to show some relative all of the pictures I took at his or her wedding ( )
No lightroom does not make sidecar files and I assume because it uses a different processing engine that pscs 1 and 2, (I'm just guessing).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86880\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
There is a setting in the lightroom preferences to make it create xmp sidecar files, see the attatched .pdf. I have not tested this, but at least it states that they are xmp...
Leaf and hasselblad desperatly need lightroom to come out of the box working, because their software's are just too far behind C-1 in stability and batch functions.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86880\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I disagree with this (have I said this somewhere else on the forum?) FlexColor is really good at batching, but does have a steeper learning curve. It is also very stable, and the rare occasions it has crashed on me, it never hurts/corrupts the files it is working on. I used C1 during my testing of the P25/20 (loaners) for about a month, on both canon and phase files, and having used Flexcolor for a year now, my impression is that they do the same, in totally different ways. And I'm not sure I would go the C1 option today. (But I would welcome P-backs build quality and fan less operation on my HB back )
Regardless of the platform, regardless of how pretty any of us think a certain file is, in the end we must have fast stable software for an easier workflow. Leaf and Hasselblad need to work on thier canned white balance settings so everything out of the camera is close.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86880\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I totally agree with this, and have to add that we need future safe filetypes that are standardized, not neccesarily .dng's, but some format or other. And the white balance settings from my Hasselblad back is not great, but it exels in some areas like skintones (I find them better than Phase One's, but not in any other area like product, landscape, architecture, etc.)
-axel
[attachment=1851:attachment]
-
So far I have not found any reason to use DNG since FlexColor does such a great job with the Hasselblad/Imacon files. I am a Digital Tech in Pittsburgh and handle a wide variety of projects for a variety of clients. So far I have not found a reason to use the DNG method. LightRoom seems to be an interesting possibility for the future and I am looking forward to trying it. I think its usability may be the greatest for the 35mm work, but we will see.
a
http://www.alexrjones.com (http://www.alexrjones.com)
Digital Tech Pittsburgh
-
I usually work with flexcolor, because of how it works with colors but if there is a file that has some blown highlight, they are so much easier to recoup with an exported dng file. Still do this in CS2 bridge
Drawback of that is that dng files generate maybe 10% more noise and strange but true, a tiff generated from dng is 2 pixels smaller in the width than when it is generated straight from flexcolor.
I just checked again what I was writing to see if it is actually true and was amazed at the difference of highlight management with a dng file and am now wondering who of you are using an alternative to flexcolor.
thanks
Marc
www.marcgerritsen.com
-
I usually work with flexcolor, because of how it works with colors but if there is a file that has some blown highlight, they are so much easier to recoup with an exported dng file. Still do this in CS2 bridge
Drawback of that is that dng files generate maybe 10% more noise and strange but true, a tiff generated from dng is 2 pixels smaller in the width than when it is generated straight from flexcolor.
I just checked again what I was writing to see if it is actually true and was amazed at the difference of highlight management with a dng file and am now wondering who of you are using an alternative to flexcolor.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=101080\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I did not know about the two pixels, but the noise and highlights is a know issue/benefit with exported .dng's from flexcolor. I dont think it is just from the dng conversion though, for me ACR has better highlight recovery than any other raw converter I have tested. Phil Askey over at DPReview has even integrated the highlight recovery of ACR into his test parameters for raw files to judge the dynamic range of cameras.
Its weird about the noise though, goes to show that a lot goes on in software, and maybe the rumored iso increase on HB backs has something in it. I wonder if it will make cleaner files out of the old files as well, or if it will only apply to new images captured?
-axel
-
It could be that I just haven´t worked enough with Flexcolour, but most of the time I just export my files as DNG to be viewed in Bridge. I like the new ACR convertor in the CS3 beta a lot.
But I hope to make some prints of files worked on in FC and in ACR. See what it does to colours, highlights and noise.
-
Hoi Wim
Good idea
I would be very interested to hear the result of that.
No CS3 here yet, but I will try myself with CS2.
bedankt
Marc
www.marcgerritsen.com