Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: John Camp on August 06, 2012, 01:21:26 pm
-
I started a new thread on this because I think it's important, and the other thread on his commentary is mostly about hardware.
About the DNG standard. I work with cameras from three different companies (Nikon D800/D3, Panasonic M4/3, and Sony RX100) and it would be a great benefit to me if all three were DNG (and I do convert everything to DNG in Lightroom, except the RX100, for which Lightroom has no converter yet.) But, I don't think it's all the companies' fault. I think they feel pressed to provide at least some conversion software so that their customers don't have to go out and buy a relatively expensive and complicated program like Lightroom to process their raw photos. What might work better for everyone is if Adobe offered the companies a customized, compact conversion program (not just access to the standard, but an actual Adobe program) where the user interface is standardized across all cameras that use it; and then if Apple and Microsoft offered DNG compatibility with their built in OSX and Windows photo programs (they may do that already; I don't know, because I don't use them.) The idea would be to give people who are not that involved with photography a route to use RAW, even on a toe-dipping basis with their built-in software, and then have that knowledge apply to better and more sophisticated cameras if they choose to move up. Now, every time you buy a new camera, you have to start over. People say, "Well, buy Lightroom, it's not that complicated." It isn't, compared to Photoshop, but the Lula Lightroom instruction tapes are what, eight hours long? That's not a simple program, and represents a pretty steep learning curve for a lot of new camera buyers.
I guess another way of saying this is, there's nothing wrong with the Sony RX100 conversion software except that it's a mess. But it converts okay. If Adobe provided a front-end interface, and if the Sony engineers then adopted their conversion routines to that front end, life would be much easier.
Another thing: I suspect that a very large number of people buy expensive cameras not always because they want to be "pros" or "artists," but because they've been successful in life and they're interested in technology and a lot of other things, so they buy a nice camera and a few lenses...but they don't really have the time or the interest to completely master the whole Lightroom conversion/master printing routine. They may get good at it, but they really don't have time for the kind of stuff that we see routinely argued about on this forum. They'll learn the camera basics, and use Lightroom mostly to push a couple of sliders and to store the photos, and then make some okay (or even excellent) prints at default settings on an Epson or Canon, and that's about it. And that's great, IMHO. But for those people, who really don't want to learn a new Lightroom every two years, some real standards in interfaces would be a huge boon and a boost to the camera industry in general, IMHO.
-
Apple, Adobe, Phase One and DxO all write powerful, full-featured raw image processing software - and they all support the cameras w/o in camera DNG... so why so much emotions ?
-
I think the real point is also longevity, if all the camera manufacturers would adopt DNG or some other format than there would be a uniformity. And even some of the stand alone raw processors are no longer supporting older raw files. Like DxO stopped supporting the original Canon D30 and D60. I doubt it will ever happen as long as the Canon and Nikon, etc. management feels the need to be secretive about their processes so they will hold on to proprietary formats for as long as they make cameras or are forced by outside sources.
Alan
-
Apple, Adobe, Phase One and DxO all write powerful, full-featured raw image processing software - and they all support the cameras w/o in camera DNG... so why so much emotions ?
What does "w/o" in your statement mean? Normally, this means "without", but without makes no sense in your sentence.
-
What does "w/o" in your statement mean? Normally, this means "without", but without makes no sense in your sentence.
I guess this should mean that Lightroom supports all the "individual" raw-formats without the need of using DNG.
Robert
-
What does "w/o" in your statement mean? Normally, this means "without", but without makes no sense in your sentence.
all those companies support cameras without in camera DNG raw format and do not really have any issues because as it was properly noted (and can be seen by comparing sequential releases of dcraw code) there is not so much difference in raw formats between models... rarely something new appears like Fuji's non standard bayer layout and there the issue is not w/ the raw file format itself but w/ demosaicking and DNG format is not going to solve that... except DNG format will effectively prohibit manufacturers to offer exotic layouts ;D
-
I think the real point is also longevity, if all the camera manufacturers would adopt DNG or some other format than there would be a uniformity. And even some of the stand alone raw processors are no longer supporting older raw files. Like DxO stopped supporting the original Canon D30 and D60.
nothing can prevent DxO from stopping to support DNG files created by old cameras if so they decide... DxO has a code allowing them to read raw files from D30/D60 - their decision was certainly not because they suddenly discovered that they can't read the files ;D
-
I guess this should mean that Lightroom supports all the "individual" raw-formats without the need of using DNG.
Robert
LR and C1 and others mentioned by the author
-
My worry with a single format (designed unilaterally by a company that does not make cameras or sensors or the firmware that converts sensor signal to output file formats) is that it could impede the ability of camera and sensor makers to innovate. For example, does DNG support non-rectangular pixel arrays, or some of the other innovations tried by Fujifilm?
Rather than hoping for camera makers to adopt a format imposed on them by another company (and a potential competitor in the raw processing software market), I would aim for the middle ground that camera makers can design their own formats, but publish full specs so that software makers can easily support them. Codecs do not take up much space, so I doubt we need worry about any significant one being completely lost to future generations of raw processing software. At least anymore than one might worry about DNG losing support if Adobe slips from dominance one day.
Then again, I am just generally more enthusiastic about a good coherent integrated design of hardware and software combinations and maximum flexibility for innovation within the product lines of each competing company, and less so about premature standardization.
-
Hi,
Problem is that we would need to support a multitude (100s) of different formats over a very long time.
I would say that a good option may be to have DNG as an option, like TIFF on some cameras. So you can choose
JPEG, propriatery raw or DNG. Personally I am in favor of a common formate.
Best regards
Erik
My worry with a single format (designed unilaterally by a company that does not make cameras or sensors or the firmware that converts sensor signal to output file formats) is that it could impede the ability of camera and sensor makers to innovate. For example, does DNG support non-rectangular pixel arrays, or some of the other innovations tried by Fujifilm?
Rather than hoping for camera makers to adopt a format imposed on them by another company (and a potential competitor in the raw processing software market), I would aim for the middle ground that camera makers can design their own formats, but publish full specs so that software makers can easily support them. Codecs do not take up much space, so I doubt we need worry about any significant one being completely lost to future generations of raw processing software. At least anymore than one might worry about DNG losing support if Adobe slips from dominance one day.
Then again, I am just generally more enthusiastic about a good coherent integrated design of hardware and software combinations and maximum flexibility for innovation within the product lines of each competing company, and less so about premature standardization.
-
At the very least, as Eric suggests, DNG should be an in-camera format option.
Proprietary RAW would still be available as an option for those who want it as well.
Regards
Tony Jay
-
all those companies support cameras without in camera DNG raw format and do not really have any issues because as it was properly noted (and can be seen by comparing sequential releases of dcraw code) there is not so much difference in raw formats between models... rarely something new appears like Fuji's non standard bayer layout and there the issue is not w/ the raw file format itself but w/ demosaicking and DNG format is not going to solve that... except DNG format will effectively prohibit manufacturers to offer exotic layouts ;D
Thanks deejjjaaaa. I am not sure what I was thinking when I read that yesterday. I must not have been thinking. Your sentence made complete sense w/the w/o.
-
But, I don't think it's all the companies' fault. I think they feel pressed to provide at least some conversion software so that their customers don't have to go out and buy a relatively expensive and complicated program like Lightroom to process their raw photos. What might work better for everyone is if Adobe offered the companies a customized, compact conversion program
For example, make Adobe Photoshop Elements capable of reading DNG files and box that with cameras?
That would add $80 to the price tag of all cameras, including those sold to folks that will never use Elements.
If DNG is to succeed that Adobe needs to do the following: renounce any IP ownership associated with DNG, DNG decoding or encoding.
They also need to give up ownership to a standards body so that there are no licensing fees associated with writing either a DNG decoder or encoder.
-
all those companies support cameras without in camera DNG raw format and do not really have any issues because as it was properly noted
Yes, they eventually support the proprietary raw formats weeks or months after they hack into the newer proprietary format and all users working with the above converters wait. Why should they? They don’t have to wait a second to use the JPEG that new camera spits out. Why don’t these cameras also spit out a DNG so we have full support the day the camera ships and we don’t have to convert to DNG because the dumb manufacturers don’t provide a 3rd setting (DNG) because of nonsense political reasons? The OP is spot on. There are zero reasons any photographers should argue against us having the option to save out DNG from the camera natively. Zero.
-
If DNG is to succeed that Adobe needs to do the following: renounce any IP ownership associated with DNG, DNG decoding or encoding.
What ownership?
They also need to give up ownership to a standards body so that there are no licensing fees associated with writing either a DNG decoder or encoder.
They’ve been trying. And there are no licensing fees that I’m aware of to use DNG.
-
Yes, they eventually support the proprietary raw formats weeks or months
normal company has its production cycles plus normal company needs to create normal profiles ("icc/icm" or "dcp" or whatever they are using) and do some testing and so on... takes time... you might argue that DNG = have manufacturer's profile embedded... ask Pentax users (for example) how many of them are using that ;)
after they hack into the newer proprietary format
in 9 out 10 cases there are nothing new in a format itself - again - compare sequential releases of dcraw and see how much new code was added to deal w/ the __format__ itself.
and all users working with the above converters wait. Why should they? They don’t have to wait a second to use the JPEG that new camera spits out. Why don’t these cameras also spit out a DNG so we have full support the day the camera ships and we don’t have to convert to DNG because the dumb manufacturers don’t provide a 3rd setting (DNG) because of nonsense political reasons? The OP is spot on. There are zero reasons any photographers should argue against us having the option to save out DNG from the camera natively. Zero.
please answer the question what Panasonic had to do when DNG did not support optics correction.... please tell me what I need to do to add some exotic bayer CFA layout or a combo of foveon and bayer and get that into DNG... DNG itself is not a solution - the only solution is when manufacturer itself is willing to publish the details about the data stored in its raw files... and when they DO - it might be DNG or non DNG - does not really matter... reading the data itself from raw files is the smallest issue here nowadays - raw converters moved past that time ago... the issues are demosaicking, NR, etc... Fuji CFA is a good example...
-
They’ve been trying. And there are no licensing fees that I’m aware of to use DNG.
who says the final word about how certain things are implemented in DNG - Adobe or some industry-wide committee where Adobe is just 1 vote ?
-
I agree that it would be nice if camera manufacturers supported DNG as an additional output. But from a practical perspective is it such a big issue given that one can batch convert to DNG and throw out the original RAWs? (I understand there is some delay for support when a new camera model is released and it would help in this situation)
-
I agree that it would be nice if camera manufacturers supported DNG as an additional output. But from a practical perspective is it such a big issue given that one can batch convert to DNG and throw out the original RAWs? (I understand there is some delay for support when a new camera model is released and it would help in this situation)
It is not a big issue if your raw files are supported by the dng converter. But, if the dng converter can not convert your raw files, you are sol.
-
Most if not all of the problems raised about different cameras using different raw formats are actually problems with the specifications of the formats not being published promptly (or at all), causing some delay in the ability of third party software to process them.
But my intermediate goal of persuading camera makers to publish the specs of each new raw format (which they are less unlikely to be willing to do as they are to bow down entirely to Adobe control of raw formats), I do not see any substantial, remaining problems: those who wish to can simply have "batch convert to DNG" as part of their raw workflow.
Even if "DNG out of every camera" would be better, I am trying to be pragmatic about what there is the slightest hope of getting camera makers to agree to, because getting most or all major camera makers to hand over power to Adobe is not in the cards. For one hint as to why, look at the fights over Flash after Adobe aquired it.
Does anyone know if there is any effort to have something like an ISO or JPEG comittee mechanism for developing a raw file format? Either starting with DNG released by Adobe, or from another starting point?
-
Hi,
DNG converter is released simultaneously with Adobe Camera Raw and Lightroom, normally, so it is little help.
There is some software like Bibble Pro that doesn't support DNG, so now days I embed the original RAW files in my DNGs.
Raw formates can change even on the same camera in connection with SW upgrades. In my view the situation is simply insane.
Best regards
Erik
It is not a big issue if your raw files are supported by the dng converter. But, if the dng converter can not convert your raw files, you are sol.
-
.
In my view the situation is simply insane.
and what the real example from your experience that made you insane recently ?
-
given that one can batch convert to DNG and throw out the original RAWs?
why in the world do you want to through out the original raw files (be it DNG or non DNG) ?
-
It is not a big issue if your raw files are supported by the dng converter. But, if the dng converter can not convert your raw files, you are sol.
Adobe DNG converter is not the only "dng converter" that exists... and if you want just demosaicked data w/o WB applied and no gamma there are more options
-
Adobe DNG converter is not the only "dng converter" that exists... and if you want just demosaicked data w/o WB applied and no gamma there are more options
Care to enlighten us on other DNG Converters that support cameras before or differently than Adobe? I have seen converters that will take a DNG to something else.
Alan
-
why in the world do you want to through out the original raw files (be it DNG or non DNG) ?
If the camera makers were to have DNG as a native output what would be the difference between that and what you get from converting NEF/CR2/etc --> DNG in batch post processing? If there's no difference why keep the raw file? is there any information in the RAW file that would not be in the DNG?
-
Hi,
According to to some knowledgeable people there is or may be information in RAW that cannot be stored in DNG. Some programs, like Bibblepro 5.x and DxO wouldn't handle DNG-files. DxO would handle linear DNG, but linear DNG is demosaiced.
DNG itself is changing. There are different generations of DNG and what used to be a limitation in version 2 may be solved in version 4 for instance.
Best regards
Erik
If the camera makers were to have DNG as a native output what would be the difference between that and what you get from converting NEF/CR2/etc --> DNG in batch post processing? If there's no difference why keep the raw file? is there any information in the RAW file that would not be in the DNG?
-
Does anyone know if there is any effort to have something like an ISO or JPEG comittee mechanism for developing a raw file format? Either starting with DNG released by Adobe, or from another starting point?
Just to be perfectly friggin' clear (and blowing the crap out of the FUD already posted here), DNG is the brainchild of Thomads Knoll because he studied the Kodak, Nikon and Canon raw files and realized the camera companies didn't have a friggin' clue how to create a well-formed raw file format. We're talking Thomas Knoll who started this whole digital imaging thing, ya know?
He came up with DNG–and Adobe decided to support him and release it as a publicly documented, license free proposed raw file format standard. Funny thing happened, suddenly both Canon and Nikon's subsequent raw file formats magically got a lot better (because they studied DNG and learned a lot).
DNG is not an evil plot by Adobe to try to corner the market on raw file formats...ironically, Adobe had already deeded TIFF to the ISO and allowed the ISO to adopt TIFF into the TIFF-EP format (TIFF for electronic photography). Adobe has already offered DNG to the ISO for their next TIFF-EP update (last I heard "they're working on it"–the ISO is pretty slow to change standards).
To those people who presume that adopting a standard will somehow abort the ability of camera companies to innovate, bullshyte...Camera Raw/DNG has responded to each and every substantial design concept change and updated the DNG spec. There is nothing, and I mean NOTHING that a camera company can come up with that Thomas the the ACR engineers can't deal with...Thomas and Eric Chan are really, really bright boys and no camera company can possible compete with them in terms of software development to process raw images...ACR/DNG already supports over 275 raw file formats and counting...even Capture One can't support all the cameras that ACR/DNG support (although Dcraw by Dave Coffin comes close because he and Thomas have worked closely together and Adobe has even, uh, given Dave a bit of a gift which I can't really talk about).
To those photographers who suspect Adobe is the evil empire trying to squeeze out the camera companies, again, total friggin' bullshyte. Any photographer who thinks it's somehow a good idea that Nikon and Canon are allowed _NOT_ adhere to a raw file format standard is part of the problem, not the solution...when I read about a photographer claiming that Nikon and Canon should reject DNG or some other standard, I seriously wanna bitchslap the motherf@$ker...because it's exactly that sort of photographer that is allowing the camera companies to pull the friggin' wool over photographers' eyes...(sorry for my language–not really, but if you can't guess, I'm starting to get really friggin' tired of idiots giving the green light to Nikon and Canon).
If you want to do some reading, read this...Digital Preservation (http://photoshopnews.com/2005/05/11/digital-preservation/).
If you read that and come back here and say with a straight face that Nikon and Canon are doing any sort of good thing for the industry by rejecting the adoption of the raw file format standard, I'll eat my hat, my shoes and my underwear...
DNG may not be perfect...but Thomas and the ACR engineers will be happy to listen to ANY technical discussion regarding changes to the DNG spec (we're already as version 1.4 and a lot of the changes have been suggested by the same friggin' camera companies that refuse to adopt DNG).
I'm with Mike on this...the current state of the industry is an abomination...there is no way that photographers should accept the crap than Nikon and Canon (primarily) have tried to get away with. It's a tremendous disservice to the industry, puts our cultural heritage at risk, and for what? Some arrogant thought that maybe, just maybe the proprietary, undocumented raw file formats may have some sort of residual value? Again, bullshyte...the big secret in the industry is there are no "secrets" in the raw file–all of that can be decoded. Whats secret and proprietary is the analog to digital conversion and how the sensor data is written to disk. Once it's saved to media, there's nothing that can't be decoded-it's just a pain in the arse.
Seriously, anybody who thinks that letting the camera companies continue behaving the way they have been behaving is a good idea really must be thought of as an enemy of the photo industry...and deejjjaaaa, if you don't have something substantive to contribute regarding the technical limitations of DNG (so it can be advanced) I suggest you quit trying to take the adversarial position...you are not helping photographers in the industry, you are only giving the camera companies cover and spreading FUD. If you have specific technical issues with DNG, I can direct you to Thomas and Eric and they will fix them. Put up or shut up. But please quit cutting the friggin' camera companies any slack...it's a disservice to the industry (and purely pisses me off, if you haven't guessed).
-
According to to some knowledgeable people there is or may be information in RAW that cannot be stored in DNG. Some programs, like Bibblepro 5.x and DxO wouldn't handle DNG-files.
Again, it would be useful if you could stick to the friggin' facts...Eric Hyman didn't "like" DNG (for some reasons I could mention not in a public forum). Bibble didn't offer full DNG support but only offered DNG support for cameras they already decoded and supported natively–which is not true DNG support. DxO support DNG but must demosiac the file to do the lens correction (duh) and writes out linear DNG.
There are a few cameras out of the 275+ cameras supported whose private maker note metadata is not moved and stored in a DNG...Sigma/Foveon raw files are an example because their raw files are, well goofy (and again, totally undocumented)...there are some early Canon raw files whose private maker notes were, in essence, encrypted (more by accident vs. intentionally) so that metadata isn't written (from what I remember with discussions from Thomas-but I may be wrong). Metadata that DNG doesn't understand but it properly formed and stored safely is move into the DNG even if ACR/DNG doesn't know what the metadata is or means.
Fact is, if Thomas wanted to, I'm pretty darn sure he could take a proprietary raw file form most any current camera (except Sigma), convert the file to DMNG and the decode the DNG and write back a proprietary raw file that would fool even the camera companies' software and be able to be processed in the camera software.
Again, anybody reading this that doesn't work for Nikon and Canon are are not pissed as hell at the current state of the industry, you are part of the problem, not part of the solution...there is simply no legitimate reason to let Nikon and Canon get away with this crap–which is the point Mike was trying to make.
-
I just wish DNG was universally supported by all raw converters and not just proprietary raw conversion of DNG content. I know that with Apple for example I've been burned by supposed DNG support that it meant support only of embedded raw files known to the converter and not full support. It seems few manufacturers (if at all) render demosaic'd DNGs that are universally supported now and in the future - maybe I'm missing something but I believe ONLY demosaic'd files will survive the test of time ... (and software companies that bite the dust)
-
Care to enlighten us on other DNG Converters that support cameras before or differently than Adobe? I have seen converters that will take a DNG to something else.
It probably doesn't qualify by your criteria Alan, but there's this - http://www.visualbakery.com/Tools/DNGImporter.aspx - which is based on the Adobe converter and enhances it.
-
Eric Hyman didn't "like" DNG (for some reasons I could mention not in a public forum). Bibble didn't offer full DNG support
A mindless policy that has been carried forward to AfterShot Pro (ASP) for no good reason that I can see. They argue that it would be too resource intensive to have to profile DNG conversions for every camera out there, believe it or not.
-
If DNG is to succeed that Adobe needs to do the following: renounce any IP ownership associated with DNG, DNG decoding or encoding.
What ownership?
Adobe created DNG therefore it is theirs.
From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Negative):
DNG is based on the TIFF/EP standard format, and mandates significant use of metadata. Exploitation of the file format is royalty-free; Adobe has published a license allowing anyone to exploit DNG, and has also stated that there are no known intellectual property encumbrances or license requirements for DNG. Adobe stated that if there was a consensus that DNG should be controlled by a standards body, they were open to the idea. Adobe has submitted DNG to ISO for incorporation into their revision of TIFF/EP.
They also need to give up ownership to a standards body so that there are no licensing fees associated with writing either a DNG decoder or encoder.
They’ve been trying. And there are no licensing fees that I’m aware of to use DNG.
I wouldn't say that "been trying" is the right way to describe their efforts but there does seem to be some amount of acceptance of them doing it if it became necessary.
-
What's the bet that Canon/Nikon are being obstructionist at an executive level, rather the engineers involved probably suffer from NIHS (Not Invented Here Syndrome) and as long as the decision is left up to the engineers, nothing will change.
Maybe Adobe needs to fly a few executives west and drink sake, play golf/tennis with the appropriate people at Canon/Nikon.
-
I think in case of Nikon it is an economocal problem, if they would switch to DNG in complete.
At the moment, they sell their software package Nikon Capture NX2 seperatly, and this software package is te only which is available to read and understand all infromation available in the NEF. As far as I know, most of the included infropmation are encrypted and only the white-balance chosen by the camera is free. To my knowlede, this is the reason why only Capture NX2 can create a jpg from a NEF which looks identical as the jpg coming directly from the camera.
I don't know the yearly turnover Nikon makes by selling Capture NX2, but I think it could be one reason for them not to go wiht DNG.
Robert
-
>What ownership?
Adobe created DNG therefore it is theirs.
So what? It cost nothing for anyone to use the format, it is publicly documented. How is this in any way obstruction from camera manufacturers writing out the format, as they do JPEG or for other raw converters to be coded to decode that data?
-
It probably doesn't qualify by your criteria Alan, but there's this - http://www.visualbakery.com/Tools/DNGImporter.aspx - which is based on the Adobe converter and enhances it.
C1 can convert to DNG (at least old versions - I stopped using it), Pentax OEM raw converter can convert PEF to DNG, DxO can output linear DNG, DNG sdk is used by some free or opensource projects to allow them to generate DNG...
-
Again, anybody reading this that doesn't work for Nikon and Canon are are not pissed as hell at the current state of the industry, you are part of the problem, not part of the solution...there is simply no legitimate reason to let Nikon and Canon get away with this crap–which is the point Mike was trying to make.
in addition to C&N = there are Sony, Panasonic, Olympus, Samsung, Fuji all do not want to deal w/ DNG = and their marketshare is not zero... the only notable camera makes in DNG camp now are Leica and Ricoh/Pentax... Samsung was using DNG in rebranded Pentax dSLRs but apparently did not see any worth to it and dumped DNG after divorce w/ Pentax.
-
To those photographers who suspect Adobe is the evil empire trying to squeeze out the camera companies, again, total friggin' bullshyte.
several years ago who was thinking that Google will be making cell phones or MS will make tablets or you name it... may be Adobe will start making cameras ;D
-
in addition to C&N = there are Sony, Panasonic, Olympus, Samsung, Fuji all do not want to deal w/ DNG = and their marketshare is not zero... the only notable camera makes in DNG camp now are Leica and Ricoh/Pentax... Samsung was using DNG in rebranded Pentax dSLRs but apparently did not see any worth to it and dumped DNG after divorce w/ Pentax.
None of that changes the crux of Jeff’s statement about photographers who don’t bitch and moan about these facts being part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
-
If the camera makers were to have DNG as a native output what would be the difference between that and what you get from converting NEF/CR2/etc --> DNG in batch post processing? If there's no difference why keep the raw file? is there any information in the RAW file that would not be in the DNG?
if camera maker has DNG as it is native in camera raw - that is OK, it is no different than non DNG - however the question is = how to innovate when you need Adobe to adjust the standard... which means you have to disclose what you are going to do to competition and then wait for Adobe to allow you to do that... or just start using a BLOB field (like DNGPrivateData) in DNG file to write all your data there... how good is that ?
-
There is nothing, and I mean NOTHING that a camera company can come up with that Thomas the the ACR engineers can't deal with..
Schewe - can you personally ask Adobe people to support Sigma raws in a proper manner 8) ?
-
If you want to do some reading, read this...Digital Preservation (http://photoshopnews.com/2005/05/11/digital-preservation/).
I prefer (and do myself) the following :
"...for archival purposes I recommend (and practice) safely storing the original raw files in the form that they came off the camera, whether they be DNG or non-DNG..." (ц) Eric Chan
there were enough bugfixes and silent changes in how Adobe DNG converter operate to say that it is not wise to discard the original raw file...
PS: I wonder whether Library was made aware about those and if Library discarded the originals (of non DNG raw files) after those were converted by prev. versions of Adobe DNG converter... ???
-
puts our cultural heritage at risk
+
there are no "secrets" in the raw file–all of that can be decoded.
so where is the risk then ;) ?
-
and deejjjaaaa, if you don't have something substantive to contribute regarding the technical limitations of DNG (so it can be advanced) I suggest you quit trying to take the adversarial position
thank you for suggestion, but I will ignore it - I still did not hear what Panasonic was supposed to do about optics correction... delay release of their cameras to market (and suffer financially) to wait for Adobe to accomodate that in DNG ? huh ?
-
I still did not hear what Panasonic was supposed to do about optics correction... delay release of their cameras to market (and suffer financially) to wait for Adobe to accomodate that in DNG ? huh ?
Well, the opcode is now in DNG so it's currently a moot point. As far as the timing of when Panasonic developed the cameras/lens that needed so much optical lens correction because of really bad barrel distortion and the inclusion of opcodes into DNG what what sort of time period? Do you know? I don't...all I know is that the ACR/DNG engineers worked with several companies (not Nikon/Canon) to get lens corrections in place for ACR/LR and DNG. I would call that a good result, wouldn't you?
-
Schewe - can you personally ask Adobe people to support Sigma raws in a proper manner 8) ?
deejjjaaaa, can you ask Sigma to work with Thomas and Eric to do so? Their raw file format really and truly sucks.
-
if camera maker has DNG as it is native in camera raw - that is OK, it is no different than non DNG - however the question is = how to innovate when you need Adobe to adjust the standard... which means you have to disclose what you are going to do to competition and then wait for Adobe to allow you to do that... or just start using a BLOB field (like DNGPrivateData) in DNG file to write all your data there
Not so! There is a switch. You want the proprietary goodies, select Native raw. You want DNG and don’t give a crap about that proprietary stuff, switch on DNG. Or just give us a Raw+JPEG, Raw+DNG option. Simple. Nothing stops all these wonderful proprietary processes the manufacturers promise the unsuspecting customer....
-
Jeff,
To one of my questions
Does anyone know if there is any effort to have something like an ISO or JPEG comittee mechanism for developing a raw file format? Either starting with DNG released by Adobe, or from another starting point?
you eventually gave the reply I was hoping for
<expletives etc. deleted> ... Adobe has already offered DNG to the ISO for their next TIFF-EP update (last I heard "they're working on it"–the ISO is pretty slow to change standards).
That could be a good route: a new format initially developed by one competent company or research group (faster than waiting for a standards body to do it all) and then handed over to a standards body for maintenance, so that other companies do not have to worry about the creator keeping too much control or a competitive advantage. Consider the fights over Java, first Sun vs Microsoft and now Oracle vs Google, for a hint as to why companies are naturally uncomfortable with committing to a standard that is to a large extent controlled by another company --- no matter how talented and nice Thomas Knoll and Eric Chan are.
So maybe you can answer my other main question: I read your article Digital Preservation (http://photoshopnews.com/2005/05/11/digital-preservation/) published in Adobe's PhotoshopNews, and my remaining question is:
how much of what you dislike and how much archivists worry about different camera companies using different raw formats rather than Adobe's DNG would be solved by "Disclosure" and "Transparency", with or without standardization on a single format?
By this I mean the publication of full specifications for each raw format, which could then either be stored with any archives using that format, or used to convert to an approved archival format.
-
Hi Jeff,
Thanks for your well articulated arguments. Actually, I am a strong proponent of DNG. On the other hand I have found that some programs Bibble Pro and DxO would not open my DNG files. This was before LR3, with it's much improved processing pipeline.
At that time I used NoiseNinja to reduce noise, and BibblePro implemented NoiseNinja in the processing stage, so I really wanted to try out BibblePro. (Un)fortunately BibblePro 5 sucked and LR3 was introduced with it's new processing pipeline. I was a very early adopter of that beta and even had some contacts with Eric Chan, who seems to be a most helpful character at Adobe. I event sent a sample file with impulse noise to Eric.
Processing pipeline 2010 turned out great, as published here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/32-new-raw-processing-pipeline-in-lightroom-3-beta-2 , so I lost interest in BibblePro.
I mailed Bibble pro about the need to support DNG, and got their view, valid or not.
I'm very satisfied with Lightroom. I was actually thinking about writing something like Lightroom but realised that it would take me 300 years of work. So, I'm much thankful that Adobe did it for me. Saved me 300 years of work.
Best regards
Erik
Ps. So, Adobe give us a 4.2 that handles Sony RX100 raws with geometry correction, please!
Again, it would be useful if you could stick to the friggin' facts...Eric Hyman didn't "like" DNG (for some reasons I could mention not in a public forum). Bibble didn't offer full DNG support but only offered DNG support for cameras they already decoded and supported natively–which is not true DNG support. DxO support DNG but must demosiac the file to do the lens correction (duh) and writes out linear DNG.
There are a few cameras out of the 275+ cameras supported whose private maker note metadata is not moved and stored in a DNG...Sigma/Foveon raw files are an example because their raw files are, well goofy (and again, totally undocumented)...there are some early Canon raw files whose private maker notes were, in essence, encrypted (more by accident vs. intentionally) so that metadata isn't written (from what I remember with discussions from Thomas-but I may be wrong). Metadata that DNG doesn't understand but it properly formed and stored safely is move into the DNG even if ACR/DNG doesn't know what the metadata is or means.
Fact is, if Thomas wanted to, I'm pretty darn sure he could take a proprietary raw file form most any current camera (except Sigma), convert the file to DMNG and the decode the DNG and write back a proprietary raw file that would fool even the camera companies' software and be able to be processed in the camera software.
Again, anybody reading this that doesn't work for Nikon and Canon are are not pissed as hell at the current state of the industry, you are part of the problem, not part of the solution...there is simply no legitimate reason to let Nikon and Canon get away with this crap–which is the point Mike was trying to make.
-
deejjjaaaa, can you ask Sigma to work with Thomas and Eric to do so? Their raw file format really and truly sucks.
it is not about the format - Adobe knows how to read it... it is about how Adobe process the data that was read... which is not process 2012 and not even process 2010 but some prehistoric processing w/ forced NR which is more like 2003 or so.
PS: plus - I do not have Sigma's ear - but you have Adobe's ;)
-
Well, the opcode is now in DNG so it's currently a moot point.
it speaks about MO - certainly Adobe can support anything - but the question is why manufacturer has to ask Adobe's permission, moreover - see my point about Google, MS, others - tomorrow Adobe might start making cameras and then what ? and even if decisions about DNG changes will be done by some form of industry committee where Adobe is just one vote w/o veto power - that means disclosing some things to your competition, sitting there, ahead of time...
-
Hi,
The question I may ask is who is going to support a given raw format in 20 years. I guess Adobe will stay around, but even without Adobe, DNG may survive because it is open and well documented.
Best regards
Erik
it speaks about MO - certainly Adobe can support anything - but the question is why manufacturer has to ask Adobe's permission, moreover - see my point about Google, MS, others - tomorrow Adobe might start making cameras and then what ? and even if decisions about DNG changes will be done by some form of industry committee where Adobe is just one vote w/o veto power - that means disclosing some things to your competition, sitting there, ahead of time...
-
it speaks about MO - certainly Adobe can support anything - but the question is why manufacturer has to ask Adobe's permission, moreover - see my point about Google, MS, others - tomorrow Adobe might start making cameras and then what ? and even if decisions about DNG changes will be done by some form of industry committee where Adobe is just one vote w/o veto power - that means disclosing some things to your competition, sitting there, ahead of time...
This is not correct. When I was still working full time, I was the part of two standards organizations and the whole point is to bring all the stakeholders together to work on an open standard that is published and available for all to adopt. Adobe was the original developer of the DNG but has placed it out there for all to use and there are some camera manufacturers (Pentax, Leica and maybe a couple of others) that use it for capture. Ideally, the standards organization would bring all the camera manufacturers and software companies together along with interested participants from the public sector, such as those who have responded to this thread, to work out all the key issues and refine the standard. This can be a multi-year process if there are complicated issues to be resolved (I remember tracking the C++ programing language standard a while back and that one certainly took a while). At the end of the day you get a standard that benefits everyone and helps advance the technology. I cannot believe that Canon and Nikon are making much money from their RAW processing software and it was my experience with Nikon's Capture NX2 that it really didn't offer me much at all relative to LR and PS (I don't have any familiarity with any of the other software out there). It's time for Canon, Nikon, and other camera makers to quit thinking they are software providers and focus on what they do best, making cameras and lenses. Settling on a DNG standard will certainly free up resources at those and other camera companies.
-
how much of what you dislike and how much archivists worry about different camera companies using different raw formats rather than Adobe's DNG would be solved by "Disclosure" and "Transparency", with or without standardization on a single format?
By this I mean the publication of full specifications for each raw format, which could then either be stored with any archives using that format, or used to convert to an approved archival format.
Disclosure and transparency would be useful but that's really only 2 of the seven sustainability factors. With almost 300 raw file formats out there right now, one of the biggest current issues is one of Adoption. Going back to the early 1990's and the Kodak 400 series cameras (which Kodak has ceased any support for) till now, we have about averaged about 15 new undocumented, proprietary raw file formats a year in the 20 years or so of digital photography. The moving average is much higher because very few cameras started coming out till after 2002 or so. So, take that 15 new file formats forward, what's gonna happen in another 10 years, 25 years, 50 years? Will anybody even support all the new and old file formats forever? It's far less likely with so many file formats out there now and new ones every 6 months of so.
Unchecked by adopting some sort of standard, it's only getting worse, not better. Unless and until somebody stands up to the Nikons & Canons and says, enough...and holds their toes to the fire and forces them to adopt standards, this stuff isn't gonna get better.
That's why it's so critical that photographers know this stuff and don't get hoodwinked by a few doubting Toms who spread FUD and keep letting the camera companies off the hook for the mess they have created.
That's why it's important that every photographer that buys a new camera and then complains that Adobe is taking too long to support their new baby, get their butts kicked so they know who to really blame...the camera companies! We just went through this again with the Nikon D800 & Canon 5D MIII...every time some idiot stands up and screams about Adobe dragging their feet, read them the friggin' riot act and tell them THEY are the problem...but a new camera before the rest of the industry can adopt the new raw file formats is completely the camera companies' fault–and their fault for enabling the camera companies to pull this crap repeatedly each and every time they foist a new camera on the industry.
Look, the camera companies have fallen into this trap. For the vast majority of the history of photography, it was never the camera companies in charge of conservation and preservation. It was the film and paper companies who have the longer history (and even they weren't too good at it...got many unfaded Kodacolor prints from the 1970's left).The camera companies' traditional role has been to make a light tight camera that could hold the film (without scratches) and form a light onto the film. Nikon and Canon know diddly squat about conservation and preservation...
You really want the foxes in charge of the hen house? I don't...
So each time some yoyo says, "but DNG will retard the camera companies' freedom to develop new cameras" (read make new file formats) tell darn tooting and maybe that's a good idea for the industry for the long term. Short term camera churn is how we got into this mess in the first place.
-
but the question is why manufacturer has to ask Adobe's permission
That's a complete distortion of the facts...they don't have to ask Adobe's permission...all they have to do is license for free, the DNG spec and adhere to the minimum standards imposed. No problem...camera companies have already done so. It hasn't seemed to negatively impact Leica one iota (and in fact has been very good for Leica–who is selling every camera they can make).
Again, what you are saying is bullshyte...
Heck, CR2 and NEF files are so close to DNG (now, after DNG taught them how to write well formed file formats alas still undocumented) that the odds are all of the currently shipping cameras could have a firmware update to enable writing DNGs as an option. Why don't the camera companies want to? Because there's no pressure for them to do so...because photographers continue to let them off the hook.
Yes, there are technical challenges to adopting DNG...and yes, Adobe has to keep updating the spec to keep on track but that's stuff that has to be done anyway. Every new camera Canon and Nikon introduce means they are forced to upgrade their own software. If they adopted DNG their life could actually be easier. But they are too arrogant and ignorant to do so.
-
I agree that DNG is not a bad idea: it is a good idea overall, much better than the Tower of Babble scenario we are in now.
Are there any steps that we (consumers) can take to encourage the camera manufacturers to adopt DNG? The only things that I have thought of so far is that we could not purchase a new camera until the raw file is supported by your favorite raw processor (Adobe, C1, Bibble etc.) The second thought is one that someone suggested in a forum a while back (I can not remember the forum nor the person). We could make a statement by sending the software cd that came with your camera back to the manufacturer along with a note stating that the software does not support dng, therefore it is not needed.
Any other ideas or suggestions?
-
Any other ideas or suggestions?
I think the single biggest thing we can do is make absolutely sure that when a photographer bitches about the fact Adobe isn't supporting the new camera de jure, that we all make sure the blowback goes directly and firmly into the camera company's face and not the rest of the software industry. The more blowback that Nikon and Canon get, the more closely they will evaluate the benefits of adopting some standards. I don't think it's realistic to expect people NOT to buy the new cameras...I do think it's critical that the blame is correctly channeled...don't let the camera companies off the hook, it's their friggin' fault.
Back when Nikon released the the D2X camera, the highest Google search results about the camera were NOT reviews of the camera but the controversy of Nikon encrypting the white balance data (http://photoshopnews.com/2005/04/17/nikon-d2x-white-balance-encryption/). To be precise, Thomas was a major protagonist in that drama, but the net result was Nikon contacted Adobe and said "how do we fix this situation?". The solution was Nikon biting the bullet and releasing a mini-SDK that enabled Thomas to decode the D2X white balance.
The camera company does indeed respond to pressure...but if there's some yoyo that is backing the camera company play, it seriously dilutes the message and lets the camera makers off the hook. Nikon and Canon are run by bean counters...if the bean counter deem sticking with proprietary raw file formats is hurting the bottom line, guess what, their perspective will change. If photographers raise their legs and take it, then they are not predisposed to change.
Make no mistake, regarding the current situation, DNG or some other standard is not a technical issue, it's a political issue.
-
I think the single biggest thing we can do is make absolutely sure that when a photographer bitches about the fact Adobe isn't supporting the new camera de jure, that we all make sure the blowback goes directly and firmly into the camera company's face and not the rest of the software industry. The more blowback that Nikon and Canon get, the more closely they will evaluate the benefits of adopting some standards. I don't think it's realistic to expect people NOT to buy the new cameras...I do think it's critical that the blame is correctly channeled...don't let the camera companies off the hook, it's their friggin' fault.
Back when Nikon released the the D2X camera, the highest Google search results about the camera were NOT reviews of the camera but the controversy of Nikon encrypting the white balance data (http://photoshopnews.com/2005/04/17/nikon-d2x-white-balance-encryption/). To be precise, Thomas was a major protagonist in that drama, but the net result was Nikon contacted Adobe and said "how do we fix this situation?". The solution was Nikon biting the bullet and releasing a mini-SDK that enabled Thomas to decode the D2X white balance.
The camera company does indeed respond to pressure...but if there's some yoyo that is backing the camera company play, it seriously dilutes the message and lets the camera makers off the hook. Nikon and Canon are run by bean counters...if the bean counter deem sticking with proprietary raw file formats is hurting the bottom line, guess what, their perspective will change. If photographers raise their legs and take it, then they are not predisposed to change.
Make no mistake, regarding the current situation, DNG or some other standard is not a technical issue, it's a political issue.
Interesting info. I do not remember the Nikon situation as I am a Canon shooter. I have thought about your statement "I don't think it's realistic to expect people NOT to buy the new cameras." I can not see myself buying a new camera before the raw format is supported by Adobe. Lightroom and/or ACR are just as critical to my photography as a camera. Sure, it would be nice to have the new body in order to learn all of the new features etc, but I can do that these days in a few hours at the most. After I finished with the ooooohs and aaaaaaahs over my new toy, I want to dive into a raw file in Lightroom or ACR. If I can not do that, the fun is over. Looking at jpegs, to me, is the same as almost having sex.
Maybe the next time I am considering buying a new camera and the raw format is not yet supported by Adobe, I will sent an email to the manufacturer, or a phone call, and complain because I have to wait to be able to fully use the camera.
Thank you Jeff for using your position to give us a prominent voice that may fall upon the correct ears enough times that they are either wise and follow the advice, or they are sick of hearing about it.....LOL.
-
Thanks for your well articulated arguments. Actually, I am a strong proponent of DNG. On the other hand I have found that some programs Bibble Pro and DxO would not open my DNG files.
Was there a reason for this, such as the DNG files being of a newer version than your software would support?
Maybe the next time I am considering buying a new camera and the raw format is not yet supported by Adobe, I will sent an email to the manufacturer, or a phone call, and complain because I have to wait to be able to fully use the camera.
Nobody takes email very seriously.
Ring up Canon/Nikon support, mention that you are not satisfied with the product that you have bought and wish to contact the local CEO (or whatever) to convey your displeasure. Ask for the postal address of the local CEO and write them a letter or ask for their Fax number and fax them something.
Anyone that you can reach by phone is unlikely to be anyone of consequence (just someone in a call centre).
Bits of paper with words written and signatures on them tend to garner more attention.
I think the single biggest thing we can do is make absolutely sure that when a photographer bitches about the fact Adobe isn't supporting the new camera de jure, that we all make sure the blowback goes directly and firmly into the camera company's face and not the rest of the software industry. The more blowback that Nikon and Canon get, the more closely they will evaluate the benefits of adopting some standards. I don't think it's realistic to expect people NOT to buy the new cameras...I do think it's critical that the blame is correctly channeled...don't let the camera companies off the hook, it's their friggin' fault.
And in that, I think it is time reviewers everywhere started mentioning this and marking cameras down explicitly for it.
"Lovely new camera from Canikon but the raw file format is not recognised by Lightroom/Photoshop/whatever. If you're interested in buying it, understand that you won't get the best from it with the software that is provided."
Yes, there are technical challenges to adopting DNG...and yes, Adobe has to keep updating the spec to keep on track but that's stuff that has to be done anyway. Every new camera Canon and Nikon introduce means they are forced to upgrade their own software. If they adopted DNG their life could actually be easier. But they are too arrogant and ignorant to do so.
The only reason I've been able to come up with myself is that adopting DNG might impose limitations on how they can introduce new innovations with their cameras and/or that they might be too obvious to the competition. i.e. the undocumented raw file format somehow gives them a tiny bit more secrecy about any additions/changes that they've made when compared to DNG.
-
Hi,
DxO only supports demosaiced linear DNGs. Bibble decided not to support DNG I was told by Eric Heyman (?), who was the principial developer.
All other programs I have tested supported DNG.
Best regards
Erik
Posts: 735
Re: Michael's DNG comment
« Reply #59 on: Today at 12:41:10 PM » Reply Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Quote from: ErikKaffehr on August 08, 2012, 08:55:14 PM]
Thanks for your well articulated arguments. Actually, I am a strong proponent of DNG. On the other hand I have found that some programs Bibble Pro and DxO would not open my DNG files.
Was there a reason for this, such as the DNG files being of a newer version than your software would support?
[/quote]
-
I decided to ask Canon Support directly. Here is my question: Canon software does not offer dng file format as an option. This creates a problem each time I purchase a new camera that has a new raw format. I can not utilize Lightroom or Adobe Camera Raw which are far superior raw converters compared to DPP. Why does not Canon offer dng as an option either in camera or via DPP? thanks in advance
Here is the reply:
Dear Bryan Conner:
Thank you for contacting Canon product support. We value you as a Canon customer and appreciate the opportunity to assist you.
The DNG file or digital negative is not a Canon format. The DNG file has been processed and does not contain as much color information as the Canon CR2 RAW file. You can convert the file to a TIFF file in Digital Photo Professional and open the TIFF in Adobe. This will retain color information and have a usable file across applications, but the file will be very large.
We hope this information was useful to you. Please let us know if we can be of any further assistance with any of our Canon products.
Thank you for choosing Canon.
Sincerely,
Trevis
Technical Support Representative
Ok, now everyone can move along....we have our answer! ::)
-
I decided to ask Canon Support directly.
...
Here is the reply:
Dear Bryan Conner:
Thank you for contacting Canon product support
....
Technical Support Representative
A person at that level probably has a scripted reply for questions like this.
When CPS comes to a photography store near you (or if they do...) hit them up about the issue in person.
If there are any photography trade shows close to you where Canon has a booth, go along and pester the same people on the same topic.
And the question that you should ask is "When will Canon support native DNG in their cameras?"
-
And the question that you should ask is "When will Canon support native DNG in their cameras?"
+1
minor quibble:
shouldn't it read: "When will Canon support DNG in their cameras natively?" ?
-
And the question that you should ask is "When will Canon support native DNG in their cameras?"
I think I asked that. " Why does not Canon offer dng as an option either in camera or via DPP?".
-
The only reason I've been able to come up with myself is that adopting DNG might impose limitations on how they can introduce new innovations with their cameras and/or that they might be too obvious to the competition. i.e. the undocumented raw file format somehow gives them a tiny bit more secrecy about any additions/changes that they've made when compared to DNG.
not necessarily undocumented, but w/o a need to get an approval/share information w/ unwanted 3rd parties... upon release of the feature it may or may not be documented based on the manufacturers needs
-
That's a complete distortion of the facts...they don't have to ask Adobe's permission..
so Panasonic can just implement whatever DNG tags they want to optics correction w/o asking Adobe first :D ... are you serious ?
(and in fact has been very good for Leica–who is selling every camera they can make).
Leica's sales has nothing to w/ DNG
Heck, CR2 and NEF files are so close to DNG
they are all TIFF based formats, that's it.
-
I think I asked that. " Why does not Canon offer dng as an option either in camera or via DPP?".
No. Wrong question.
What's the difference between:
"When will you finish making me a cake?"
and
"Why won't you make me a cake?"
In both instances, assume that you haven't started making a cake.
And how are you going to react to me asking both questions?
By asking "When" you are conveying to the person that you expect something to happen. The "Why" question does not convey the same meaning and gives them an easier out.
-
This is not correct.
what is not correct ? that you need to disclose your development to your competitors sitting in the same standards organization because it is depends on changes in DNG format and then it will be blocked or delayed by them and you have to wait w/ the release of the feature to the market ;D
it was my experience with Nikon's Capture NX2 that it really didn't offer me much at all relative to LR and PS
and how is your experience with NX vs LR/ACR (not PS - PS does not work w/ raw) proves anything ? he says, she says.
-
Hi,
The question I may ask is who is going to support a given raw format in 20 years. I guess Adobe will stay around, but even without Adobe, DNG may survive because it is open and well documented.
Best regards
Erik
a big proponent of DNG, mr Schewe, answered that question earlier in this topic, successfully contradicting himself and answering the FUD that is being spread by some DNG proponents ;D
here it is
Quote from: Schewe on August 07, 2012, 11:02:51 PM
puts our cultural heritage at risk
+
Quote from: Schewe on August 07, 2012, 11:02:51 PM
there are no "secrets" in the raw file–all of that can be decoded.
so where is the risk then Wink ?
-
I agree that DNG is not a bad idea: it is a good idea overall, much better than the Tower of Babble scenario we are in now.
it is not Tower of Babble, not even near that... for each raw format out there you have several raw converters ranging from free/open source to commercial/closed source offering support... and if we start counting than DNG is actually supported by less converters because some commercial have issues of various nature... moreover when Tower of Babble invoked by LR/ACR users it is simply a joke, because Adobe provides equal support for DNG and non DNG raw files by design... even in cases like Sigma raw files... so for you Tower of Babble scenarion is absolutely not in place because you have a common language - Adobe raw converters.
-
No. Wrong question.
What's the difference between:
"When will you finish making me a cake?"
and
"Why won't you make me a cake?"
In both instances, assume that you haven't started making a cake.
And how are you going to react to me asking both questions?
By asking "When" you are conveying to the person that you expect something to happen. The "Why" question does not convey the same meaning and gives them an easier out.
If you have no intentions of making me a cake, and I ask "when?", your answer can truthfully, and simply, "never". My next question would logically be "why are you not making me a cake?". I simply cut to the chase. I have no expectation of Canon adopting dng. Why should anyone have this as an expectation? If this expectation were reasonable, they would have done it years ago. The reasons that are valid in supporting the adoption of dng (or any open raw format) that exist today also existed years ago. The only expectation I had was that I learn the reasoning behind the lack of acceptance/incorporation of dng into the Canon Raw World. I got a reason. I do not think that this is the real reason...I think the reason given was really lame.
But, the question was not the wrong question. It was one of many appropriate questions.
-
it is not Tower of Babble, not even near that... for each raw format out there you have several raw converters ranging from free/open source to commercial/closed source offering support... and if we start counting than DNG is actually supported by less converters because some commercial have issues of various nature... moreover when Tower of Babble invoked by LR/ACR users it is simply a joke, because Adobe provides equal support for DNG and non DNG raw files by design... even in cases like Sigma raw files... so for you Tower of Babble scenarion is absolutely not in place because you have a common language - Adobe raw converters.
Most 3rd party raw converters can translate the different raw formats (languages) spoken by each manufacturers cameras. But, can Canon's DPP open an NEF file? and vice versa? My point in using the "Tower of Babble" example to describe the situation was in reference to all of these different "languages" being spoken. And you are correct, I was using it jokingly. When a new camera is introduced that uses a new raw format, it is possible that Adobe can not understand. What about the Sony RX100 users today? Where is your common language with it? Which Adobe Raw converter can translate that language?
-
Disclosure and transparency would be useful but that's really only 2 of the seven sustainability factors.
I agree that moving to a widely used standard lossless image file format would be desirable, but I think that the problems of multiple formats are being greatly exaggerated, in particular as an issue for archival longevity. It seems to me more an issue of convenience rather than any real risk of losing access to old images. My reason for proposing another goal, publication of specs of all raw formats, is that I see this as far more attainable that persuading camera makers to go to the additional effort and expense of rewriting all their existing in-camera firmware and other software to support a different raw format like DNG. The difference between successive versions of a camera maker's own raw format are probably far smaller, making it cheaper and quicker for a camera maker to make minor tweaks to their existing, formats, firmware and software as necessary to support each new sensor. (How much do the new formats for new cameras of the same brand vary? Is it mostly for different CFAs and lens-related information, to guide demosaicing, "de-barelling" and such?)
As to those seven sustainability factors listed by the National Digital Information Infrastructure and Preservation Program (http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/) of the Library of Congress at sites like http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/formats/ --- ss far as I can tell, if the more modest goal of publication of the specifications of all raw file formats were achieved, all such archival factors could be handled. The worst case scenario would be an archive acquiring a collection of old image files available only in an obsolete format that is no longer supported by any standard commercial software. But as far as I can tell, all it would take to deal with this is that some organization (such as the Library of Congress or UNESCO) maintain an archive of the specifications of various raw formats and a reference implementation of software for image file format conversion, supporting that entire archive of formats. I see no major difficulty in adding a dozen or so new file format specifications each year to such a system.
By the way, the archival purpose of not losing access to an old image (rather than retaining maximum ability to manipulate it) could be handled by conversion to TIFF, or maybe even to high quality JPEG. All camera makers support that option, don't they?
-
If the camera makers would have their own raw conversion software that was up to the quality that Adobe produces, this discussion would not be so important. If you take Adobe products out of the mix, DPP does not look that bad, but up against Adobe products, Canon's software solutions are lacking in many areas. Canon could do better. Many of their products are state of the art...why not their software? I can not speak for the users of Nikon, Pentax, Sony, Fuji etc, but from what I have read, many are in the same situation.
BJL, what you have proposed sounds logical to me.
-
Hi,
No problem at all, both Adobe Camera Raw and Lightroom have supported CR2 files for a long time. CR2 is a proven and stable format handled by Lightroom since Beta 3.
What's the problem?
You don't happen to say that Canon invents a new format still called CR2 for each new camera they release? You cannot be serious?!
Best regards
Erik
I decided to ask Canon Support directly. Here is my question: Canon software does not offer dng file format as an option. This creates a problem each time I purchase a new camera that has a new raw format. I can not utilize Lightroom or Adobe Camera Raw which are far superior raw converters compared to DPP. Why does not Canon offer dng as an option either in camera or via DPP? thanks in advance
Here is the reply:
Dear Bryan Conner:
Thank you for contacting Canon product support. We value you as a Canon customer and appreciate the opportunity to assist you.
The DNG file or digital negative is not a Canon format. The DNG file has been processed and does not contain as much color information as the Canon CR2 RAW file. You can convert the file to a TIFF file in Digital Photo Professional and open the TIFF in Adobe. This will retain color information and have a usable file across applications, but the file will be very large.
We hope this information was useful to you. Please let us know if we can be of any further assistance with any of our Canon products.
Thank you for choosing Canon.
Sincerely,
Trevis
Technical Support Representative
Ok, now everyone can move along....we have our answer! ::)
-
By the way, the archival purpose of not losing access to an old image (rather than retaining maximum ability to manipulate it) could be handled by conversion to TIFF, or maybe even to high quality JPEG. All camera makers support that option, don't they?
Ah, so you be happy having a copy of the Mona Lisa and trashing the original painting? As we've seen since the beginning of the digital revolution, raw digital captures keep getting better and better because of the advances of raw processing capability. No having access to the original would really be a big problem for archivists.
Don't loose sight of the goal of conservation and preservation...it's to keep giving us access to originals far into the future. Anything that is done to jeopardize that goal is a bad, bad thing. And not doing something that should be done is equally bad. The current behavior of the camera companies is a bad thing for the long term conservation and preservation of photography. I don't think there is any real dispute about that, correct?
-
Hi,
No problem at all, both Adobe Camera Raw and Lightroom have supported CR2 files for a long time. CR2 is a proven and stable format handled by Lightroom since Beta 3.
What's the problem?
You don't happen to say that Canon invents a new format still called CR2 for each new camera they release? You cannot be serious?!
Best regards
Erik
Hi Erik,
This is precisely what I meant when I stated that "This creates a problem each time I purchase a new camera that has a new raw format."
-
If you have no intentions of making me a cake, and I ask "when?", your answer can truthfully, and simply, "never". My next question would logically be "why are you not making me a cake?". I simply cut to the chase. I have no expectation of Canon adopting dng. Why should anyone have this as an expectation?
Why should anyone have the expectation that Canon will make it possible to shoot in DNG?
Because DNG is being offered up as a standard file format for raw data from digital cameras and we as consumers would like to have standards compliant digital cameras.
-
Why should anyone have the expectation that Canon will make it possible to shoot in DNG?
Well, I think there's a pretty compelling argument for "why not?" here...
-
The DNG file or digital negative is not a Canon format. The DNG file has been processed and does not contain as much color information as the Canon CR2 RAW file. You can convert the file to a TIFF file in Digital Photo Professional and open the TIFF in Adobe. This will retain color information and have a usable file across applications, but the file will be very large.
We hope this information was useful to you. Please let us know if we can be of any further assistance with any of our Canon products.
Thank you for choosing Canon.
Sincerely,
Trevis
Technical Support Representative
This would be funny if it wasn't so sad a reply. I guess Trevis is implying that Leica cannot capture all the color information because they use the DNG standard; same for Pentax!
-
I decided to ask Canon Support directly. Here is my question: Canon software does not offer dng file format as an option. This creates a problem each time I purchase a new camera that has a new raw format. I can not utilize Lightroom or Adobe Camera Raw which are far superior raw converters compared to DPP. Why does not Canon offer dng as an option either in camera or via DPP? thanks in advance
Here is the reply:
Dear Bryan Conner:
Thank you for contacting Canon product support. We value you as a Canon customer and appreciate the opportunity to assist you.
The DNG file or digital negative is not a Canon format. The DNG file has been processed and does not contain as much color information as the Canon CR2 RAW file. You can convert the file to a TIFF file in Digital Photo Professional and open the TIFF in Adobe. This will retain color information and have a usable file across applications, but the file will be very large.
We hope this information was useful to you. Please let us know if we can be of any further assistance with any of our Canon products.
Thank you for choosing Canon.
Sincerely,
Trevis
Technical Support Representative
Ok, now everyone can move along....we have our answer! ::)
Then sit down with Adobe to improve DNG color information. Or develop a new universal format and share it with everyone. What is the problem?
I don't see the point in keeping a closed format. Are they afraid that if they do that, people will jump ship faster then if they don't? Is a pretty short sighted decision, IMHO.
-
Hi,
From the answer it is pretty clear that the Canon representative is absolutely clueless...
For me it is clear that Adobe are the good boys and camera vendors are the bad ones. Just to point out, each new camera has it's own format, and that may even change subtly with a firmware update. The software to read it may not be around forever. Or it may not work on your next computer.
Best regards
Erik
Then sit down with Adobe to improve DNG color information. Or develop a new universal format and share it with everyone. What is the problem?
I don't see the point in keeping a closed format. Are they afraid that if they do that, people will jump ship faster then if they don't? Is a pretty short sighted decision, IMHO.
-
Why should anyone have the expectation that Canon will make it possible to shoot in DNG?
Because DNG is being offered up as a standard file format for raw data from digital cameras and we as consumers would like to have standards compliant digital cameras.
I don't expect Canon to do anything concerning which format they use. It is their choice. I do think that it is in the best interests of the photographic industry that all camera manufacturers use an open raw format. But, to expect it is to regard it as likely to happen, or to think that it will happen. I have no reason to believe that Canon will adopt, or that it is likely that Canon will adopt, a new raw format. There is no evidence pointing to that. History points in the opposite direction. Hence, no expectation. I just want to know why there is no apparent reason for me to expect it.
-
Hi,
From the answer it is pretty clear that the Canon representative is absolutely clueless...
For me it is clear that Adobe are the good boys and camera vendors are the bad ones. Just to point out, each new camera has it's own format, and that may even change subtly with a firmware update. The software to read it may not be around forever. Or it may not work on your next computer.
Best regards
Erik
I agree, either Trevis is clueless, or he is only repeating what he has been instructed to say.
-
I don't expect Canon to do anything concerning which format they use. It is their choice. I do think that it is in the best interests of the photographic industry that all camera manufacturers use an open raw format. But, to expect it is to regard it as likely to happen, or to think that it will happen. I have no reason to believe that Canon will adopt, or that it is likely that Canon will adopt, a new raw format. There is no evidence pointing to that. History points in the opposite direction. Hence, no expectation. I just want to know why there is no apparent reason for me to expect it.
Companies deliver what users want. Part of what they want is that they expect something.
If you don't want DNG and thus don't expect it, then you're part of the problem that Jeff Schewe talked about earlier in this thread.
In this case we are the dog trainers and Canon is the dog. If we continue to let them to only jump as high as they can then they'll never jump any higher. If however we raise the bar and they only get fed when they jump as high as we want them to then they'll train and work harder to reach the goal. Unless it is that they don't want a biscuit.
If we the consumer do not create the demand and expectation for DNG then Canon won't deliver it. To do that means at the very least to stop asking "Why not" and to start asking "When".
Ultimately though it will not be enough for you or I to expect DNG from Canon/Nikon for it to be delivered, it must be expected from reviewers. And those that review coming cameras have got to be willing to keep saying "No native DNG output" in the "Cons" section of their review. Or say "I'd like to recommend this camera to you but it doesn't shoot DNG. Therefore it gets a ``Do not recommend'' stamp."
-
Most 3rd party raw converters can translate the different raw formats (languages) spoken by each manufacturers cameras. But, can Canon's DPP open an NEF file? and vice versa? My point in using the "Tower of Babble" example to describe the situation was in reference to all of these different "languages" being spoken. And you are correct, I was using it jokingly. When a new camera is introduced that uses a new raw format, it is possible that Adobe can not understand. What about the Sony RX100 users today? Where is your common language with it? Which Adobe Raw converter can translate that language?
just wait for the next release - if you are in hurry there are converters to use now... there is a difference between a tantrum (I want support the next minute when it is announced) and getting the proper support in w/ a next, regular release of a raw converter... RX100 is not some tool using which is a matter of life and death... neither for a pleasure nor for a business.
-
Just to point out, each new camera has it's own format
no, not each... rarely format is changed - please for once - compare the sequential releases of dcraw code and do not mix format w/ the data stored in that format (like camera ID for example).
-
no, not each... rarely format is changed - please for once - compare the sequential releases of dcraw code and do not mix format w/ the data stored in that format (like camera ID for example).
Yes, but the "format" not changing is less useful that you might think. Most raw formats don't encode everything that the raw converter needs to convert an image. E.g., what pixels are masked, color conversion parameters, etc. If you look inside DCRaw, you'll see individual settings for nearly every individual camera. So from the perspective of a raw developer, the format might as well change every time - you still have to change code, and release a new version of the software.
DNG is an exception in this regard because it encodes everything the raw converter needs into the image, rather than requiring that the raw converter have specific knowledge of the camera model. So new cameras can be introduced without requiring new versions of raw converters.
Sandy
-
Companies deliver what users want. Part of what they want is that they expect something.
If you don't want DNG and thus don't expect it, then you're part of the problem that Jeff Schewe talked about earlier in this thread.
In this case we are the dog trainers and Canon is the dog. If we continue to let them to only jump as high as they can then they'll never jump any higher. If however we raise the bar and they only get fed when they jump as high as we want them to then they'll train and work harder to reach the goal. Unless it is that they don't want a biscuit.
If we the consumer do not create the demand and expectation for DNG then Canon won't deliver it. To do that means at the very least to stop asking "Why not" and to start asking "When".
Ultimately though it will not be enough for you or I to expect DNG from Canon/Nikon for it to be delivered, it must be expected from reviewers. And those that review coming cameras have got to be willing to keep saying "No native DNG output" in the "Cons" section of their review. Or say "I'd like to recommend this camera to you but it doesn't shoot DNG. Therefore it gets a ``Do not recommend'' stamp."
I expect you to understand that when I asked Canon my "why" question, that was the question that I wanted to ask. I did not want to know when. I wanted to know why. Therefore, I asked the correct question for me. I was not asking for you. I expect you to be able to ask your own questions. But, if you need assistance in asking your own questions, I will be happy to oblige...just let me know. I do not think that I am part of the problem because I ask why instead of when. If Canon does not offer dng in their cameras soon enough for me to have when I "must" have it and it is so important to me that I can not work without it, THEN I will look for an alternative. Maybe I purchase a Leica or whatever other camera that is available that uses dng format. I will make my own choice when I need to...just like I am able to choose what question to ask. The bottom line, and what is most important, is that I think that all of the manufacturers could incorporate dng if they chose to do so. It is about choice. I think that dng, or something similar, would be good for the digital photographic world if it were adopted by all manufacturers. So, I do not disagree with your position on dng, but I do disagree with the fact that you find it necessary to dictate what question I should ask when I am the one asking.
-
just wait for the next release
Exactly ... what a tempest in a teapot!
And I say that as an RX100 owner who is anxious for Adobe to release the next update.
-
Exactly ... what a tempest in a teapot!
And I say that as an RX100 owner who is anxious for Adobe to release the next update.
However, the fact remains that from a macro economic efficiency standpoint not having a unified RAW standard is ridiculously inefficient. (Like incompatible mobile phone protocols, for example). And I end up paying for that inefficiency, because Adobe's costs of continually updating LR and ACR to support every new model coming down the pike is passed on to me in the costs of the product. No, it's not a big deal to me, but it's monumentally stupid.
-
Just wondering. If you are a nikon or canon shooter with all the bodies, lenses and accessories and the other manufacturer started using DNG, would you switch? I would not just for the DNG.
-
Just wondering. If you are a nikon or canon shooter with all the bodies, lenses and accessories and the other manufacturer started using DNG, would you switch? I would not just for the DNG.
Perhaps not just for DNG but personally it would help tip the balance of "pro" and "con".
In this case we are the dog trainers and Canon is the dog. If we continue to let them to only jump as high as they can then they'll never jump any higher. If however we raise the bar and they only get fed when they jump as high as we want them to then they'll train and work harder to reach the goal. Unless it is that they don't want a biscuit.
If we the consumer do not create the demand and expectation for DNG then Canon won't deliver it. To do that means at the very least to stop asking "Why not" and to start asking "When".
Ultimately though it will not be enough for you or I to expect DNG from Canon/Nikon for it to be delivered, it must be expected from reviewers. And those that review coming cameras have got to be willing to keep saying "No native DNG output" in the "Cons" section of their review. Or say "I'd like to recommend this camera to you but it doesn't shoot DNG. Therefore it gets a ``Do not recommend'' stamp."
I wish people could get equally passionate about viewfinders.
-
So, I do not disagree with your position on dng, but I do disagree with the fact that you find it necessary to dictate what question I should ask when I am the one asking.
Ah, now I understand why you were so defensive. You could have said that originally.
-
Sorry,
I think there are no pros for proprietary raw.
Photographers have right to their own pictures.
I don't think it is wise to thrust the photo industry to support their proprietary raw formats for archival periods of time.
What I would suggest:
- Photo industry adopts common raw format, it doesn't need to be DNG but DNG is mature and proven
- Adobe makes whatever is needed to support the photo industry with regard to DNG (I got the impression they do just that)
- Photographers would not buy equipment until it is supported by their raw package
I really think that those application that are not supporting DNG need to rethink:
- I wanted to try out DxO because I'm interested in their lens corrections. It doesn't work with undemosaiced DNG. One consumer lost, and I'm not alone.
- Wanted to try out Aperture, they won't support DNG one potential customer lost.
Best regards
Erik
Perhaps not just for DNG but personally it would help tip the balance of "pro" and "con".
I wish people could get equally passionate about viewfinders.
-
DNG is an exception in this regard because it encodes everything the raw converter needs into the image
you forgot to mention - Adobe raw converter... and because format is rarely changing it has everything if it stops blocking opening the files based on camera model stored there
and the issue that DNG has camera profile stored boils down as to how many users are satisfied w/ one profile supplied by manufacturer... does Adobe DNG standard support several dcp profiles (or ICC) stored at once (to account for different color rendering) ?
-
does Adobe DNG standard support several dcp profiles (or ICC) stored at once (to account for different color rendering) ?
LR and ACR support that in DNG images via XMP, but so far as I am aware, its not documented.
Sandy
-
does Adobe DNG standard support several dcp profiles (or ICC) stored at once (to account for different color rendering) ?
Does a CR2 or a NEF?
Not sure what your point is there...
-
Hi,
I'm not really sure how an ICC profile belongs to a raw file. I got the impression that cameras cannot really be profiled in the iCC sense, but I may be wrong.
I mostly thing of the late Bruce Fraser's statement that a camera is a color mixing device, if I recall correctly.
Best regards
Erik
Does a CR2 or a NEF?
Not sure what your point is there...
-
Hi,
I'm not really sure how an ICC profile belongs to a raw file. I got the impression that cameras cannot really be profiled in the iCC sense, but I may be wrong.
it was long understood that ICC is just a container for a data that raw converters are using... and they do not need to use that data exactly as ICC prescribes
-
Does a CR2 or a NEF?
Not sure what your point is there...
I was answering to the statement that DNG advantage is to have camera profile embedded in DNG file itself (by manufacturer)... my point is that is a half baked solution... DNG has to allow several dcp / icc profiles to be embedded simultaneously to start with... plus as most of raw converters do not follow Adobe's dcp model it will be again an argument against DNG adoption for manufacturers who are using non Adobe raw converters as OEM... the data stored in icc profiles is not standard in the sense how most raw converters are using it, regardless of what ICC (color.org) wants/thinks.
-
LR and ACR support that in DNG images via XMP, but so far as I am aware, its not documented.
Sandy
so much for a standard that we shall use ;D
-
From the documentation:
Camera Profiles
DNG 1.2.0.0 and later formalizes the concept of a “camera profile” and allows multiple camera profiles to be embedded in a single DNG file. A camera profile consists of a set of tags (both existing in DNG versions earlier than 1.2.0.0 and newly defined in DNG version 1.2.0.0), some of which are optional.
I presume this is what you guys were talking about? the tag to look for is called ExtraCameraProfiles if I am not mistaken. It appears that some of you try to vehemently argue against DNG while perhaps not being informed properly?
-
From the documentation:
Camera Profiles
DNG 1.2.0.0 and later formalizes the concept of a “camera profile” and allows multiple camera profiles to be embedded in a single DNG file. A camera profile consists of a set of tags (both existing in DNG versions earlier than 1.2.0.0 and newly defined in DNG version 1.2.0.0), some of which are optional.
I presume this is what you guys were talking about? the tag to look for is called ExtraCameraProfiles if I am not mistaken. It appears that some of you try to vehemently argue against DNG while perhaps not being informed properly?
I could be wrong, but I don't think that tag is actually used when ACR or LR store multiple profiles. But maybe I just haven't got LR set up right to see that.
Sandy
-
I could be wrong, but I don't think that tag is actually used when ACR or LR store multiple profiles. But maybe I just haven't got LR set up right to see that.
Why would ACR or LR be meddling with your DNG files? They are consumers of DNG, not producers…
If you are referring to the calibration tab in those programs, why would you think that those settings should be stored in any DNG file selected for processing? And more importantly, when would you want them to append that if at all?
-
Ah, so you be happy having a copy of the Mona Lisa and trashing the original painting? As we've seen since the beginning of the digital revolution, raw digital captures keep getting better and better because of the advances of raw processing capability. No having access to the original would really be a big problem for archivists.
Realistically, most images that reach the hands of archivists are probably going to be in a final output format like JPEG, or worse yet, prints that must be scanned, rather than any kind of raw format. So archivists would be relatively thrilled to get images in a format like 16-bit TIFF without the lossy compression and 8-bit per channel limitations of JPEG. (Or in any raw format for which they know the specifications.)
As a practical matter, I think Erik Kaffehr has a good strategic idea in this post in a related thread (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=69545.msg550944#msg550944). My version: only buy a camera if and when it either uses an acceptable format or good software is available that supports its raw file format including lossless conversion into a suitable format. Note that this rules out things like formats with encrypted white balance information that third party software cannot reliably read.
(Aside: I would not compare a TIFF to a human-made copy of a painting. A large, high quality print made under the control of the photographer is a closer analogy, assuming that the photographer is in control of the conversion to TIFF, even if that just means choosing the settings on the camera.)
-
Why would ACR or LR be meddling with your DNG files? They are consumers of DNG, not producers…
If you are referring to the calibration tab in those programs, why would you think that those settings should be stored in any DNG file selected for processing? And more importantly, when would you want them to append that if at all?
ACR and LR by default store ALL of their data on adjustments, profiles you use, etc inside DNGs. It's one of the advantages of DNG - no sidecar files, so if you copy a DNG from one system to another, all of your adjustments go along automatically. Although, not everyone views having your images modified every time you edit them as an advantage.
Sandy
-
ACR and LR by default store ALL of their data on adjustments, profiles you use, etc inside DNGs. It's one of the advantages of DNG - no sidecar files, so if you copy a DNG from one system to another, all of your adjustments go along automatically. Although, not everyone views having your images modified every time you edit them as an advantage.
Sandy
There's an interesting point in there. All of the adjustments are in the DNG, but that does not necessarily make them meaningful to a raw converter other than the last one used to process the DNG. With LR4, the program knew that it was not the version to last modify the DNG but did know enough about the previous version to use the settings. If the new processor did not know the meaning of the settings, what would it show and do?
Alan
-
All of the adjustments are in the DNG, but that does not necessarily make them meaningful to a raw converter other than the last one used to process the DNG.
That would be true if the data wasn't DNG too. If you wanted to pop E6 film in C41 chemicals, you'd be in the same boat.
Another raw converter that could understand the DNG would apply a different default rendering.
-
ACR and LR by default store ALL of their data on adjustments, profiles you use, etc inside DNGs. It's one of the advantages of DNG - no sidecar files, so if you copy a DNG from one system to another, all of your adjustments go along automatically. Although, not everyone views having your images modified every time you edit them as an advantage.
Ah, yes, in that case program settings are likely stored under a private tag, not under several public tags.
-
Although, not everyone views having your images modified every time you edit them as an advantage.
I find that to be a pretty big disadvantage of the DNG model.
I like the fact that every time I do an incremental backup of my library only the XMPs with changes get backed up.
-
That would be true if the data wasn't DNG too. If you wanted to pop E6 film in C41 chemicals, you'd be in the same boat.
Another raw converter that could understand the DNG would apply a different default rendering.
I'm sorry that I wasn't clear. I wasn't talking about cross-processing, but rather thinking about how, in 50 years, when ACR has been forgotten and replaced by something else, the raw converter that reads DNG's knows what the numbers in the following lines from a DNG are supposed to mean:
<crs:FillLight>58</crs:FillLight>
<crs:Vibrance>0</crs:Vibrance>
<crs:HighlightRecovery>47</crs:HighlightRecovery>
<crs:Clarity>+50</crs:Clarity>
Alan
-
I wasn't talking about cross-processing, but rather thinking about how, in 50 years, when ACR has been forgotten and replaced by something else, the raw converter that reads DNG's knows what the numbers in the following lines from a DNG are supposed to mean:
<crs:FillLight>58</crs:FillLight>
<crs:Vibrance>0</crs:Vibrance>
<crs:HighlightRecovery>47</crs:HighlightRecovery>
<crs:Clarity>+50</crs:Clarity>
It doesn’t know. But the raw converter that understands DNG will have it’s own set of metadata rendering instructions.
-
That I'll buy. Having the adjustments in the DNG makes it easier to ensure that the adjustments follow the image, but it doesn't do anything to help the new generation understand what the adjusted image looked like. There is, of course, the thumbnail in the DNG also, which does provide a record.
Thanks for the clarification.
Alan
-
That I'll buy. Having the adjustments in the DNG makes it easier to ensure that the adjustments follow the image, but it doesn't do anything to help the new generation understand what the adjusted image looked like. There is, of course, the thumbnail in the DNG also, which does provide a record.
But this is not a disadvantage of DNG per se (not implying that you meant to say that). It's just like with film. What's put into the archive is the mostly unmodified negative and if you want to preserve what the photographer intended to show, to also have to archive an additional print - which would be a developed TIFF or JPG in our case.
Maybe at some point in the future, when computers haven gotten fast enough to handle it, DNG will allow the preview image not only to be full size but also stored with a lossless compression and full colour depth. This would eliminate the problem you pointed out.
-
There are two disadvantages to this. Jeremy Payne pointed to the real one. How important this is is debatable, perhaps quite important if your backup process will send the entire file to backup every time you modify the image, much less so if backup only notes the difference between the previous version and the new version.
The second disadvantage is very theoretical. Its the care that must be taken to protect the contents of a file kept in an archive. You certainly do not want anybody to be able to change the archived version, especially inadvertently through trial changes in a raw converter. This certainly does not warrant changing the design of the DNG file.
Alan
-
I like the fact that every time I do an incremental backup of my library only the XMPs with changes get backed up.
I hope you also back up new RAW images! :D (I do the same thing in terms of XMPs)
-
I hope you also back up new RAW images! :D (I do the same thing in terms of XMPs)
Yes, of course ... but the point is that the RAWs only have to get backed up once.
I have a vague notion that someday I will archive my "selected" RAWs inside a DNG, but I haven't ever gotten around to that ...
-
You don't need to keep backing up your DNGs - it's incomplete and redundant. Back them up once when they're new, keep backing up your Lightroom catalogue, and 100% of your work is covered.
-
John, I think you are saying that, if you have not set "Automatically write changes to XMP", then your changes are not written to the DNG, so there is no need to backup the DNG file, just the Catalog.
I looked into a new DNG I just now created, made some changes in the Develop module and see not settings data at all. This seems to indicate that the creation of a DNG from an already processed CR2 does not automatically write the current settings into the DNG. Subsequent changes to the DNG did not write the DNG either.
This is the behavior I would expect and may be different from previous versions of LR.
Alan
-
Do I have this right?
A dng contains all raw info and adjustments made by the converter, such as Capture 1 or LR?
Capture 1 cannot read the adjustments in a dng created by LR, but will read the raw data?
Therefore, communication between these converters would require a file format such as TIFF?
-
John, I think you are saying that, if you have not set "Automatically write changes to XMP", then your changes are not written to the DNG, so there is no need to backup the DNG file, just the Catalog.
No, I am not saying that. Even if changes are automatically written, continually backing up the modified DNGs is redundant and only of second-class backup value.
-
Do I have this right?
No.
A dng contains all raw info and adjustments made by the converter, such as Capture 1 or LR?
A DNG contains all raw info..... metadata and updated previews.
Capture 1 cannot read the adjustments in a dng created by LR, but will read the raw data?
Capture 1 can read the adjustment settings from Lightroom but does not do so and has no practical reason for doing so. It can read metadata though. Aperture can read metadata, can display the updated previews, and can save metadata back to the DNG.
Therefore, communication between these converters would require a file format such as TIFF?
Depends how narrowly you define communication.
-
Capture 1 can read the adjustment settings from Lightroom but does not do so and has no practical reason for doing so.
Not really - the adjustment settings are undocumented, so while C1 (or any other converter) can read the settings, it can't interpret what they mean.
Sandy
-
Yes, it can read them - they're not encrypted and are logically laid out. You don't need a big brain - it's just not worth the donkey work.
-
Yes, it can read them - they're not encrypted and are logically laid out. You don't need a big brain - it's just not worth the donkey work.
No, really ;D
Without knowing what the settings really mean, you won't get the same result. E.g. vibrance. May sound simple, but what is it measured in? How does it interact with the saturation control? There are way too many possible interactions to be able to work it out by trial and error, even if you ignore the "content aware" processing in LR. Only Adobe know that stuff, and they're not saying.
Sandy
-
It is possible to read whatever is there. Whether it is fully or even marginally understood is a different matter, and translating settings to another app will always be imperfect. But you can take certain parameters and translate them - for example, you can take LR's B&W setting and send it to another app, and even LR's 8 B&W sliders could be mapped to the 6 B&W sliders in C1 or the 3 B&W sliders in Aperture. You'd have to do an awful lot of work, and it's not worth the effort.
-
It is possible to read whatever is there. Whether it is fully or even marginally understood is a different matter, and translating settings to another app will always be imperfect.
Agreed. If you had two products using the term Vibrance but using different math to product the results, seeing +34 Vibrance, which is spelled out in English isn’t going to translate. A bit like RGB numbers with no associated ICC profile. What color is R35/G79/B100? You’ve got only part of the recipe. So even if Capture 1 had Vibrance, +34 there and +34 in LR or ACR would produce a different result. In a raw converter that didn’t use the term Vibrance, it is an unknown term and process.
-
You don't need to keep backing up your DNGs - it's incomplete and redundant.
Why is it incomplete? Redundant I can understand (and frankly have no issue with).
-
Thanks to all. This has been a very interesting thread. I will still save my important images as tiffs.
-
Why is it incomplete? Redundant I can understand (and frankly have no issue with).
Just think of all the stuff that never gets into xmp - flags, history, VCs, collections (all types), custom fields.
-
Just think of all the stuff that never gets into xmp - flags, history, VCs, collections (all types), custom fields.
OK, I see where you’re coming from. That be as true for proprietary raws as DNGs. The point that one needs to backup the catalog for those items is taken. We could suggest to Adobe that those items could (and should?) be embedded in a DNG making backing them up more complete. What is embedded and backed up in the DNG is adequate and some of the items you point out are not accessible in ACR so maybe keeping them in the LR catalog makes more sense.
So the workflow question I have for you is this. At some point I have to backup the DNG. I’ll backup the catalog on a regular basis. But I’m adding newer DNG’s all the time. Plus occasionally updating older DNGs. Currently any change made, even a tiny metadata update will force the backup app to treat this file as needing to be backed up. How do we control this such that DNG’s that have never been backed up get backed up, DNG’s that were once backed up but result in a small change don’t get backed up?
At this point, my backup routines are automated so I’d rather err on the side of backing up a DNG that has a tiny change than not backup a DNG that isn’t backed up. Where it gets slow and somewhat dicey is backing up to the cloud (CrashPlan) which is far slower than backing up to local drives.
-
My approach is to separate them physically - new stuff goes on one drive where it gets backed up, and the files are then moved onto a drive not scanned by the backup software. I think that's broadly the same as Peter K does.
As for the stuff that isn't backed up, I've been making the case for backing up custom fields since the day they became possible in LR. After all, that does happen in Bridge (where custom fields are equally obscure!). I'm more surprised that VCs aren't included, though again I've lost hope as Adobe don't seem to want to merge the VC and Snapshot concepts as I keep suggesting. Flags could be viewed in Bridge, so I'd expect them to appear in the XMP - one day....
-
My approach is to separate them physically - new stuff goes on one drive where it gets backed up, and the files are then moved onto a drive not scanned by the backup software. I think that's broadly the same as Peter K does.
Now I have to decide if it is worth the time to use two drive systems to avoid the auto backup. One takes work on my part, the other doesn’t. I do know that Peter has concerns backing up the same file over and over again.
-
Andrew and John raise some interesting points but the consideration should be what is necessary for the image and what is necessary for the management software. Each software development may implement their database management in a slightly different manner and my thinking is that should not be part of the DNG standard, if we ever get to that point. The DNG should be image and not collection dependent, thus things such as flags, ratings, etc would not. I think this is what I'm reading in your posts but correct me if I'm wrong.
I'm still at the point of keeping everything in NEF format and using XMP files. This makes backups to the cloud (Mozy) simple after the initial image is backed up. I had 800 images when getting back from Italy and it all was backed up pretty quickly. It's not clear to me with DNGs what the backup times will be if all the changes are incorporated into them rather than XMP.
-
The beauty of DNG, Alan, is that we don't need to worry too much about issues such as storing information such as Lightroom collections. That's of concern only to Lightroom users, but the wider point is that DNG can store any such information inside the file (would you want to write it into a NEF or CR2?), and metadata that's embedded is usually much easier to move to other apps.
Your point about the time storing XMP files versus backing up DNGs is important and is what I'm driving at. When you get back from Italy, backing up a NEF and its XMP will be no different to backing up a DNG at its creation. But after that, when you make further changes to the picture, there's no point repeatedly backing up the DNG.
-
The beauty of DNG, Alan, is that we don't need to worry too much about issues such as storing information such as Lightroom collections. That's of concern only to Lightroom users, but the wider point is that DNG can store any such information inside the file (would you want to write it into a NEF or CR2?), and metadata that's embedded is usually much easier to move to other apps.
Your point about the time storing XMP files versus backing up DNGs is important and is what I'm driving at. When you get back from Italy, backing up a NEF and its XMP will be no different to backing up a DNG at its creation. But after that, when you make further changes to the picture, there's no point repeatedly backing up the DNG.
The point that I'm not clear about is whether XMP is used along with DNG here. If you have metadata within the DNG doesn't that mean that it is part of that particular file? If so, the backup system sees a time stamp that the DNG has changed and then requires a back up to be done. How can just the metadata be backed up and not the whole DNG? that't the puzzle I am working through here though maybe I need to look at the DNG standard to see how this really works.
-
The point that I'm not clear about is whether XMP is used along with DNG here. If you have metadata within the DNG doesn't that mean that it is part of that particular file? If so, the backup system sees a time stamp that the DNG has changed and then requires a back up to be done.
Some of the XMP is ‘inside’ the DNG if that is a kosher term to use. Some is inside the catalog. What I think I’m hearing is this: backup the DNG initially and then stop because some of the information is now applied inside the LR catalog which of course we’ll backup every time something new changes. But some info IS updated in the DNG as you continue to edit and if you force the Update DNG Preview and Metadata command, there’s a lot that gets updated into the DNG I’d personally want backed up again (example is a DNG profile).
-
The point that I'm not clear about is whether XMP is used along with DNG here. If you have metadata within the DNG doesn't that mean that it is part of that particular file? If so, the backup system sees a time stamp that the DNG has changed and then requires a back up to be done. How can just the metadata be backed up and not the whole DNG? that't the puzzle I am working through here though maybe I need to look at the DNG standard to see how this really works.
You understand it correctly, Alan. LR writes XMP metadata inside the DNG and in my case my main LR catalogue has the automatic setting switched on. Sure, that means the DNG has changed - but that's not enough of a reason to back up the DNG again. People simply assume it must be so, but that's because the assumption is so rarely challenged.
But let's say I did back up the changed DNG, I would be missing a varying proportion of the LR work I've done on the picture, so the backed-up DNG would only be a second rate backup. It would also be redundant - I can recover 100% of my work from the backup of the DNG when it was created (my "new work" drive is covered by the backup) and by daily catalogue backups.
[Edit] If people want to keep backing up their DNGs they should go right ahead - it does no harm - but don't let the anti-DNG brigade get away with the idea that DNG means bigger backups.
John
-
This seems to be causing some confusion. On backups:
1. To backup the original image (aka the "negative") only, you only need to backup once, preferably as soon as you import the image from SD card/CF card.
2. To backup the image and the adjustments you've made (assuming LR is set up to save to the DNG), you need to backup every time you adjust the image.
Sandy
-
Not really.
You need to backup the DNG when it is first created, and the catalogue on a daily or other schedule. Doing this alone is sufficient to allow 100% recovery of your images and all the work you've done on them.
If you really want to backup the adjusted DNG, then pt 2 applies - but these redundant backups will often not include all your adjustments (virtual copies, proof copies). 2 is entirely optional - in my view wasteful.
-
Could it be that some of the questions and/or confusion in this thread come from the difference between these options:
1. Use LR as the backup mediator
2. Use the OS as the backup mediator
The original question doesn't seem to specifically mention which is used. If TimeMachine on OS X is used, for example, then the questions and confusion make perfect sense to me, since it will search for "edited" files and back those up completely. And incremental backups and states as supported on the latest mac os need to be supported specifically by applications. (I have no idea whether LR makes use of this).
-
I'd say it's more the result of perfectly-natural assumptions.
-
1. To backup the original image (aka the "negative") only, you only need to backup once, preferably as soon as you import the image from SD card/CF card.
2. To backup the image and the adjustments you've made (assuming LR is set up to save to the DNG), you need to backup every time you adjust the image.
For my workflow, option 1 has a disadvantage. While I only need to backup once during the import, it will cost me a lot of disk space as I also backup all the junk which is deleted later in the editing process. This is particularly of concern as some day in the future I might want to backup to some cloud where space is limited and bandwidth costly.
The perfect solution - if such thing exists - would be an incremental, blockwise backup. So even when a file, say a DNG, is changed, only the blocks on the disk which have changed are updated in the backup instead of the while file. That would combine the advantage of having all the metadata in one file while backups are as fast as with separate XMP sidecars.
-
For my workflow, option 1 has a disadvantage. While I only need to backup once during the import, it will cost me a lot of disk space as I also backup all the junk which is deleted later in the editing process.
Yes, good point. I don’t want to back up 100 images only to end up deleting 30. I’d rather backup after I convert DNG on import which doesn’t appear to be that much more time consuming and embeds a lot of useful data at this import stage I apply. Delete the images I don’t want, do some work and then backup. I am backing up to a cloud (CrashPlan) as well as a number of external drives and it is the cloud backup that is the biggest concern for me in this discussion of what and when to backup. The main drive that is dedicated to images and all LR files is a mirrored array. It has saved my butt a few times. After working on a decent number of images, I’ll plug in one of my rotating external drives, clone to that and move that do a machine that then backs up to the cloud. Much of this is automated (backup to external drive done with a schedule that runs automatically in the middle of the night).
I do wish we could have our cake and eat it too. That is, backup just small additions of XMP data embedded in a really big DNG.
Another ‘issue’ in the backup straight away is that I will often use different DNG profiles from a single import session. I like that these profiles are embedded in the DNG. I like that there is a high quality JPEG of the current rendering inside the DNG. I’d really like all that data to be backed up. If I were to import and immediately backup the DNGs, as you point out, not only do I back up documents that will get trashed, I backup the DNG profile used at import and I’ll end up switching that. I’ll do some rough global work on images and I’d like that rendering applied to the embedded JPEG ‘just in case’. If I move the cloned drive to another system, it doesn’t matter if a DNG profile is missing on that machine, it travels with the DNG. So the backup at start of workflow while saving some time is a tad worrisome for a guy like me that likes to wear a belt and suspenders in terms of backing up data.
-
If you really want to backup the adjusted DNG, then pt 2 applies - but these redundant backups will often not include all your adjustments (virtual copies, proof copies). 2 is entirely optional - in my view wasteful.
Well, depends on whether you view virtual copies, etc as adjustments. Point 2 was really about adjustments to the original image. The DNG advantage of including adjustments into the file itself doesn't, of course, apply to virtual items, etc, only the original. If you use such things extensively, then the "adjustments in the original file" part of the DNG value proposition isn't really relevant to you anyway.
Sandy
-
The DNG advantage of including adjustments into the file itself doesn't, of course, apply to virtual items, etc, only the original.
Which is why if I find I have a VC that is a hero image, I export it as a DNG.
-
Well, depends on whether you view virtual copies, etc as adjustments.
Definitions can get tiresome. Whether VCs are counted as adjustments or not (OK, then they are collections of adjustments), they're work and time you've invested. Even if you do not use VCs, and you don't use soft proofing copies, there's still a big chunk of most people's Lightroom work that never gets written to xmp and undermines its backup value. Writing xmp is principally designed for data exchange with other apps, not for backup.
-
The discussion of DNG workflow, backups, etc. shows why it seems unlikely that the industry will adopt DNG as a standard raw format. All this discussion is basically related to use of Adobe software. DNG is an Adobe centric standard designed to provide raw files that work great with Adobe software. It is not designed to meet the specific needs or desires of camera makers or makers of non Adobe image editing software. An ISO type standard would have to be designed to meets the needs and desires of camera makers, image editing software makers, photographers, archivists, computer and display makers, operating system makers, etc. It is the need to gain approval of all these diverse groups that makes creating an approved standard so difficult.
Although Adobe has published the DNG standard, we need to remember that DNG is still basically an Adobe proprietary format. Adobe can, and has, made changes to the standard has made enhancements and basically has an advantage in writing software that takes advantage of the enhancements. The history of the programing language JAVA provides a cautionary tale for anyone considering adopting DNG. Sun developed Java and made it an open standard. Microsoft extended Java to work better with Windows and was successfully sued by Sun. Sun was then sold to Oracle who then sued Google about Google's use of Java. Not saying that this will happen with DNG, but it could. Someone could purchase Adobe and see possibility of getting an economic benefit from DNG.
I agree that a standard raw format would be great and that DNG is a good starting point. But I think there are significant barriers, not all of them of the not invented here type, that have to be overcome. Any standard that does come out of say ISO is unlikely to be pure DNG.
-
DNG is an Adobe centric standard designed to provide raw files that work great with Adobe software.
That's not the case, Les - it is incredibly easy to have a complete, and completely effective, DNG-based workflow from image ingestion to finished image/print without there being a single piece of Adobe software on your machine.
That's actually one of DNG's benefits - the flexibility it delivers and the lack of proprietary software tie-down. Quite a few Linux folk I know have DNG workflows, and they can't/won't use Adobe software.
-
DNG is an Adobe centric standard designed to provide raw files that work great with Adobe software.
Yes it does work great and nothing stops any other manufacturer from utilizing exactly the same file format the same way with their raw converters.
-
I wasn't saying that you had to use Adobe software to use DNG. I was trying to point out that there are valid reasons why the industry might not be willing to adopt DNG as a standard. The theme here seems to be, mostly, that the Nikon and Canon don't adopt DNG because they're big bad companies. I am trying to show that there may be good reasons for them not to adopt DNG.
As far as anyone being able to adopt the format, that's OK, but as things stand now, anyone that adopts DNG is going to be playing catchup when Adobe changes the standard. For example, how many non-Adobe programs can open and use the latest version of DNG? I've seen posts here complaining that non-Adobe software can't deal with latest DNGs.
Personally, I think that a standard raw format would be nice, but not essential. I would much rather see effort put into improved lens corrections and further improvements in noise reduction and the overall raw engine than in trying to get a raw standard through a standard setting group.
-
Personally, I think that a standard raw format would be nice, but not essential. I would much rather see effort put into improved lens corrections and further improvements in noise reduction and the overall raw engine than in trying to get a raw standard through a standard setting group.
And your attitude is part of the overall problem. You don't see proprietary, undocumented raw files as being much of a problem. However, digital conservationists do.
-
I was trying to point out that there are valid reasons why the industry might not be willing to adopt DNG as a standard. The theme here seems to be, mostly, that the Nikon and Canon don't adopt DNG because they're big bad companies. I am trying to show that there may be good reasons for them not to adopt DNG.
No, they are not bad companies, they have some really bad policies! Policies that are political and not in our best interest. And no, as yet I’ve yet to see the valid reasons for not adopting DNG.
As far as anyone being able to adopt the format, that's OK, but as things stand now, anyone that adopts DNG is going to be playing catchup when Adobe changes the standard.
That’s just slightly ridiculous. Do you realize that TIFF has evolved over the years and that any company who’s product supports TIFF is in the same position and can easily update their software to take advantage of the new features? Do you suppose any company worth a dine that supports TIFF will not do this (assuming the new functionally, like support for layers is useful to their customers)? The argument of playing catch up doesn’t wash. What makes you think Adobe would not be providing information to these companies? Where have the pain points been over the years as DNG (as well as TIFF and other formats) been observed? DNG like TIFF and PSD among other formats has evolved and hopefully will continue to evolve. The same is true of files like ICC profiles. It sounds like your argument is to keep these technologies stagnant.
For example, how many non-Adobe programs can open and use the latest version of DNG?
You tell us. Are you suggesting there is no backwards compatibility? And who’s converting these files with these products into a DNG that can’t be read into the products and why?
I've seen posts here complaining that non-Adobe software can't deal with latest DNGs.
Not as many as those posts complaining about non manufacturer’s raw converters that can’t deal with the latest proprietary raw. It happens every time a new camera is released.
Personally, I think that a standard raw format would be nice, but not essential. I would much rather see effort put into improved lens corrections and further improvements in noise reduction and the overall raw engine than in trying to get a raw standard through a standard setting group.
By who? Using this logic, IF Adobe didn’t have to hack every new proprietary raw file to process that data, if instead the camera spit out a DNG, Adobe would have more resources to improve NR (which they are doing any way). That is true for all 3rd party raw converter software vendors. They could all spend a lot more time on their core functionality than screw around with yet another proprietary raw file. Your argument here doesn’t wash either, sorry.
-
I think that the points Les makes are easily dismissed. When I was still gainfully employed (no I wasn't laid off, just retired), I did a lot of work on barcoding of pharmaceutical packaging. The underlying technology was privately developed and then placed with a standards developing organization that has since moved on to develop a number of other technologies that are now in use world wide. The same thing would happen with DNG; of course Adobe developed it but it is in everyone's interest to make it fully compatible with what all users need. The only way to do this is through a standards process where all the stakeholders have an opportunity to sit down at the table and discuss what the needs are. Now there may be some things that get dropped and some new things that get added but that's the way these things go and it's been my experience with two groups that I worked in that the job gets done. I don't think that Java is a good example to use because Sun/Oracle really never turned this into a standardized language. Maybe C++ is better where there was a good process to standardized the language yet the compiler developers could tweak their part of things to give fast compile times and tighter operating directions in the final executable. Same thing here, LR might have a different way of using the DNG than some other RAW processing tool but that really doesn't matter unless one is looking at the DNG as a final finished image. That could be the end result of the standards process but maybe not and perhaps TIFF is suitable as an archival image format. It really doesn't matter, what does is to get the parties talking to one another about needs and an objective goal. This is not insurmountable and if you look at the universality of bar codes (both 1 and 2 dimensional as well as RFID chips which encode the same information structures) you see it can be done.
-
Most of the current formats used by the vendors are very close to DNG (TIFF). They all use the same basic IFD structure (which came from TIFF) and have nearly all the basic tags. There are some minor differences in lossless image compression technology, but frankly they all have roughly the same compression ratio (about 2 to 1).
-
And no, as yet I’ve yet to see the valid reasons for not adopting DNG.
for example necessary to disclose your developments to competition and gain their approval and delay release of techology to market ... that is assuming that DNG is controlled by ind. organization where camera companies are members... if DNG is controlled by Adobe - again Adobe may start making cameras tomorrow, MS started to make computers and Google started to make phones
-
Using this logic, IF Adobe didn’t have to hack every new proprietary raw file to process that data, if instead the camera spit out a DNG, Adobe would have more resources to improve NR (which they are doing any way). That is true for all 3rd party raw converter software vendors. They could all spend a lot more time on their core functionality than screw around with yet another proprietary raw file. Your argument here doesn’t wash either, sorry.
I guess Adobe supports (allegedly) mr Coffin (and may be not only Adobe)... so it is not a factor... and camera profiling is something that every self-respecting raw convertor' vendor has to do anyways.
-
That's actually one of DNG's benefits - the flexibility it delivers and the lack of proprietary software tie-down. Quite a few Linux folk I know have DNG workflows, and they can't/won't use Adobe software.
and the same exactly software will be able to handle non DNG files exactly in the same manner... because I'd assume they are already using non Adobe tools to make DNG files from non DNG raws (or you are talking about folks who use either Ricoh/Pentax or Leica gear or something)... so where is the problem and where is a tie down ?
-
and the same exactly software will be able to handle non DNG files exactly in the same manner... because I'd assume they are already using non Adobe tools to make DNG files from non DNG raws (or you are talking about folks who use either Ricoh/Pentax or Leica gear or something)... so where is the problem and where is a tie down ?
I'm still waiting to hear a reasoned explanation of why multiple incompatible formats are a better thing than a single unified standard....
-
I'm still waiting to hear a reasoned explanation of why multiple incompatible formats are a better thing than a single unified standard....
You're gonna have to wait for quite a while because there ARE no good reasons why the proliferation of undocumented, proprietary file formats is better than adopting standards.
It's really not a technical issues–as Eric mentioned, all of the current undocumented proprietary raw files formats are using the same basic TIFF-EP standard. The only real technical issue is the requirement to provide a reasonable DNG profile. I'm not aware of any other substantial and legitimate technical roadblocks but there are a lot of "opinions" that really don't hold water.
And let's clear the matter of a camera maker being required to get Adobe's "permission" to use DNG, all they need to do is adhere to the DNG specification. If for some reason a camera company comes up with an all new sensor design, the camera company would still need to come up with a way of recording and storing that sensor info even in their own formats...the same sort of work they would have to do with DNG...
Again, any photographers who think it's somehow a good idea to let the camera companies off the hook and NOT adhere to standards simply doesn't understand the problem and the issues...the current situation is simply not in the best interest of the photographic industry.
-
again Adobe may start making cameras tomorrow, MS started to make computers and Google started to make phones
This is a ridiculous statement in support of refusing to adopt raw file format standards...it's downright goofy really because nobody is going to be stupid enough to try to get into an already overcrowded industry that's already severely loosing market share to, wait for it, cell phone cameras. This argument is simply fantasy...
-
This is a ridiculous statement in support of refusing to adopt raw file format standards...
I gave you examples (google, ms), you gave only an adjective ("ridiculous").
it's downright goofy really because nobody is going to be stupid enough to try to get into an already overcrowded industry that's already severely loosing market share to, wait for it, cell phone cameras. This argument is simply fantasy...
cell phone market is overcrowded more than digital cameras market, tablets market is overcrowded and dominated by one player more than the market for digital cameras.
-
And let's clear the matter of a camera maker being required to get Adobe's "permission" to use DNG, all they need to do is adhere to the DNG specification. If for some reason a camera company comes up with an all new sensor design, the camera company would still need to come up with a way of recording and storing that sensor info even in their own formats...the same sort of work they would have to do with DNG...
except that they do not need to ask Adobe's permission and wait for Adobe to do whatever they want w/ their own format, hence your argument is not valid...
Again, any photographers who think it's somehow a good idea to let the camera companies off the hook and NOT adhere to standards simply doesn't understand the problem and the issues...the current situation is simply not in the best interest of the photographic industry.
Camera companies are off the hook from the very beginning and the world still stands intact and you have no issues w/ raw converters for your cameras and your non DNG raw files - that is the fact... and, yes - that is because of Adobe too - so may be Adobe has to start first by refusing to support the non DNG raw files ;D
-
I'm still waiting to hear a reasoned explanation of why multiple incompatible formats are a better thing than a single unified standard....
do you know the difference between "better" and "non issue" ? different formats are non issue ... specifically for Adobe raw converters users (so the question is - why they are a majority of people who cry wolf)
-
do you know the difference between "better" and "non issue" ? different formats are non issue ... specifically for Adobe raw converters users (so the question is - why they are a majority of people who cry wolf)
That may be true now, but it won't true further into the future...digital objects are at great risk of being lost in the future and non-standard, undocumented proprietary file formats is a major cause. But hey, don't believe me...believe the exports (which last time I checked, you aren't). Go back and reread the digital preservation article...those are the people I would listen to, not some anonymous screen name like "deejjjaaaa". The more you argue the more you dig yourself in a hole...and yes, some of your arguments are ridicules...
-
Ok, all of this discussion has been very entertaining, stimulating to my noggin', and informative. But exactly what can we dng supporters realistically do that has a chance of being effective? All of this discussion on a forum probably is not enough pressure to bring on a change even if someone at any of the manufacturers is monitoring this thread.
So, what can we do? This is a serious 'lets get organized' question.
-
As I said several pages back, what we're dealing with isn't a technical issue, but a political one. The customers do have ways to threaten the camera companies. Imagine Nikon's reaction if they produced the brilliant D800, but the people of all the major forums peed on the camera and those who wanted brag about having it, for the simple reason that the camera did not offer a DNG option. The big companies really count on making that initial splash at launch...
Would it work? Who knows. But again, the problem is political, not technical.
-
So, what can we do? This is a serious 'lets get organized' question.
Writing letters will help...not form stuff but stuff like "I just bought XYZ camera and was shocked, shocked I tell you that my workflow was broken because my software didn't support my new camera–and it's all YOUR fault".
Also, when the dweebes who piss$moan about Adobe dragging their heels about supporting the most recent camera "de jure", it would be useful to point out it's not a problem of Adobe's making but the camera companies' fault for not adopting standards...this bullshyte of allowing the camera companies to get off scott free while standing by and letting Adobe get the blame for being slow to upgrade ACR/LR has gotta stop.
You get a new camera, you have to wait because the "friggin' camera company can't adopt a standard raw file format" should be the standard response..."if they had adopted DNG, then you wouldn't be in this fix" should be the knee-jerck response–not piling on Adobe for dragging their heels...heck, it's Eric and Thomas that has to do the work because the camera companies refuse to do the right thing. Nikon and Canon should be castigated for their behavior not let off the hook by some anonymous poster on the forums...
Back when Nikon screwed the pootch and encrypted the white balance data of the the D2X and D2Hs cameras, Adobe (and the industry) got a lesson in the power of the internet...because of the crap Nikon faced, they blinked and basically said "what to we have to do to make this all go away". The result was a specific mini-Nikon SDK that resulted in Adobe being willing to support the white balance info that Nikon encrypted...it was not Nikon's finest hour (but a win for the folks that believe all this undocumented, proprietary raw file format crap is bad for the industry).
Not buying a new camera is not a realistic strategy...blaming the right company when the users have to wait for support is.
-
But again, the problem is political, not technical.
Not really. The problem is actually economic. There's no money in it for any major manufacturer to support DNG. Firstly, they all have huge amounts of money tied up in firmware and raw developer software that is built around their format. Supporting DNG means spending money to upgrade that software. Secondly, it means that they can't do something different to their competitors - e.g., show focus points in the raw developer or whatever. Doing something like that would mean private data in the DNG. And private data in DNG is just another proprietary format, so that just becomes changing one proprietary format for another.
So for a camera manufacturer, DNG support means spending money, and restricting the features you can put in the camera. DNG's advantages are to end-users, and end-users have shown no willingness at all to spend more money to buy a camera that has DNG support.
Sandy
-
So for a camera manufacturer, DNG support means spending money, and restricting the features you can put in the camera.
You sure? Do you have any examples of the restriction of technology caused by DNG?
I know Hasselblad at one point supported DNG in their camera backs and a singe firmware wiped that capability because it was claimed that DNG couldn't hold their lens data due to shortcomings of the DNG format...turns out that wasn't really the reality, Hasselblad just used that claim to close their system...fact was, at that point of time, they chose to kill DNG for completely political reasons, not technical nor economic reasons–they already had DNG as an output format and chose to eliminate it.
Look, TIFF-EP, CR2 and NEF are all close enough that with little effort (meaning economic cost) the major camera companies could support DNG as an output option–the cost of doing so would be very little–a firmware update for recent cameras would be all it takes. Free? no...it would have some cost. But there is no real desire because there's not enough pressure on them to do so...that's political...not technical.
-
and the same exactly software will be able to handle non DNG files exactly in the same manner.
So? The point I was replying to was a suggestion that this was a barrier to using DNG, and it is not.
Your obsessive need to put down DNG at every opportunity is rather tiresome, you know. The fact is that it's as valid as any other "Raw" format, and has advantages not available to proprietary formats. It's great to have the option, to choose or not.
You're not going to persuade people who already know this otherwise, so why even try?
-
I wasn't saying that you had to use Adobe software to use DNG.
Absolutely, Les - you didn't: but you did say that DNG was "an Adobe centric standard designed to provide raw files that work great with Adobe software", but in fact - to Adobe's credit - DNG is far, far more versatile and useful than that.
It would, I'm sure, have been trivially easy for Adobe to have subtly designed DNG in such a way as to make it work best in an Adobe-specific workflow, but (speaking from actual personal experience, here, being a relative latecomer to the Adobe hegemony) I know it's not the case.
-
It would, I'm sure, have been trivially easy for Adobe to have subtly designed DNG in such a way as to make it work best in an Adobe-specific workflow, but (speaking from actual personal experience, here, being a relative latecomer to the Adobe hegemony) I know it's not the case.
You'd still be wrong. Not that Adobe deliberately designed it to work best in an Adobe specific workflow, but it is Adobe centric, as correctly described. 3 prime examples:
- color-temperature + tint is an Adobe invention that makes very little to no sense from a colorscience point of view.
- dual illuminant profiles are a convenience in processing but have very little relevance in other RAW converters.
- Lens corrections can be done by several methods. Instead of providing measurement data to describe the lens-error, DNG insists on describing polynomial parameters of a specific type, as if every RAW converter will use polynomial lens corrections, which simply isn't the case.
These are examples that illustrate the larger problem of DNG, which is that it doesn't properly separate DATA from PROCESSING, if it did separate the 2 properly, I would totally agree with you about it not being Adobe centric or Adobe specific.
-
Of further interest:
Kodak Image patents (http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/08/17/google_htc_samsung_reportedly_joining_apple_in_effort_to_buy_kodak_patents.html)
It's sad that the world has come to this point. It is sad because of this is very counter productive. It is one thing to protect your own productivity with patents, which is fine and possibly necessary, but it is entirely another to attack productivity via patent purchases that subsequently represent no productivity whatsoever.
If the money machines over in washington keep spitting out dollarbills on the basis of future productivity making up for current national debt, then they better do something about patenttrolls real soon…
But this is digressing...
-
- color-temperature + tint is an Adobe invention that makes very little to no sense from a colorscience point of view.
Ding, ding, ding...wrong..Color temp/tint has been a long standing approach to white point balancing...
- dual illuminant profiles are a convenience in processing but have very little relevance in other RAW converters.
Correct...but it was Thomas that concocted this approach which has proven to be superior in tweening the various white point balance–do you have any proof to the contrary? Do you have any proof that Thomas' approach is suboptimal? Or are you simply complaining that it's "different"?
- Lens corrections can be done by several methods. Instead of providing measurement data to describe the lens-error, DNG insists on describing polynomial parameters of a specific type, as if every RAW converter will use polynomial lens corrections, which simply isn't the case.
So, are you disputing the fact that the way ACR/LR does lens corrections isn't useful (read optimal?) What exactly is wrong n the way ACR 7.x and LR 4.x is doing lens corrections (other than the fact there's no way to do asymmetrical lens corrections–yet!!!)
If you are gonna snipe from the sidelines, it would be useful to offer proof of your statements rather than grandiose statements...
If you have better ways of handling this stuff, I suspect Eric and Thomas would listen (course, they are difficult to convince unless they grok what you are saying and you have proof). Complaining for the sake of complaining doesn't get you very far with those guys...
-
Lens correction, for example, can be done by several methods and other vendors can save that information into the DNG's metadata or update its previews.
-
You'd still be wrong. Not that Adobe deliberately designed it to work best in an Adobe specific workflow, but it is Adobe centric, as correctly described. 3 prime examples...
Three examples that can be easily managed or ignored completely and utterly in an non-Adobe workflow.
I'm not wrong, I used a DNG-based Adobe-free workflow for years. Bringing three irrelevant "bells and whistles" into the argument doesn't prove a thing.
Y'know, it really is tiresome when first hand, practical, hands-on experience is dismissed in favour of hypothetical "what if..?" arguments...
-
Ding, ding, ding...wrong..Color temp/tint has been a long standing approach to white point balancing...
Dude, stick to photography, because that remark makes no sense and has no relevance whatsoever. The approach is Adobe centric which is the assertion we are discussing.
Correct...but it was Thomas that concocted this approach which has proven to be superior in tweening the various white point balance–do you have any proof to the contrary? Do you have any proof that Thomas' approach is suboptimal? Or are you simply complaining that it's "different"?
Superiority is not at discussion here, so I don't find the need for any one of us to "proof" anything. The question is whether it is Adobe centric or not.
So, are you disputing the fact that the way ACR/LR does lens corrections isn't useful (read optimal?) What exactly is wrong n the way ACR 7.x and LR 4.x is doing lens corrections (other than the fact there's no way to do asymmetrical lens corrections–yet!!!)
No, I am not disputing that.
If you are gonna snipe from the sidelines, it would be useful to offer proof of your statements rather than grandiose statements...
???
If you have better ways of handling this stuff, I suspect Eric and Thomas would listen (course, they are difficult to convince unless they grok what you are saying and you have proof). Complaining for the sake of complaining doesn't get you very far with those guys...
I have given samples of my arguments in the past. Hardly ever seen them chiming in on our discussions here to disproof or acknowledge what has been discussed.
-
Y'know, it really is tiresome when first hand, practical, hands-on experience is dismissed in favour of hypothetical "what if..?" arguments...
I am not dismissing your experience. The fact is that the DNG specs are partly designed from the context of the Adobe way of processing. That doesn't mean you can not do that processing with other software, but it does mean that there are Adobe specific processing steps that make the DNG definition Adobe-centric.
Of course, if it comes down to a word-game about "Adobe-centric" then you can safely ignore my posts. (Actually, you can always do that anyway. 8) )
-
You sure? Do you have any examples of the restriction of technology caused by DNG?
Jeff,
The example i gave in the post - focus points. Not in the DNG spec. Can be included as private data or an EXIF field of some sort, but not part of the DNG spec. There are a huge number of other possible items.
Regards,
Sandy
-
None of which need to be itemized in the spec. XMP has been part of the spec since day 1, and the X means....
-
Phew, thanks John.
That was needed.
Regards
Tony Jay
-
None of which need to be itemized in the spec. XMP has been part of the spec since day 1, and the X means....
Absolutely. But I think you're missing the point ;D
As has been pointed out previously on this thread, NEF, CRW, etc are just TIFF/EP plus proprietary undocumented extensions.
How is "DNG plus proprietary undocumented extensions" better for anyone than "TIFF/EP with proprietary undocumented extensions"? Because we've already got the latter.
DNG only makes sense if its 100% documented so that all raw converters can read and understand all tags.
Sandy
-
Sadly you're obscuring the point. We're talking XMP, not FUD.
-
Sadly you're obscuring the point. We're talking XMP, not FUD.
John,
Well, in a previous post, there was an example given of some XMP, I repeat it here:
<crs:FillLight>58</crs:FillLight>
<crs:Vibrance>0</crs:Vibrance>
<crs:HighlightRecovery>47</crs:HighlightRecovery>
<crs:Clarity>+50</crs:Clarity>
Please point me at the documentation for FillLight, Vibrance, etc. XMP is a just a container, nothing more.
I've written a lot of software for DNG, some specifically for DNG, and I wish DNG was more widely used. It would make my life so much easier. But claiming that the reason why it isn't used is "political" or similar isn't helpful.
For DNG to be broadly adopted, it had to make economic sense for all the players in the chain, starting with camera manufacturers. And while DNG is a technical success, in economic terms it never got any traction at all.
Sandy
-
You do keep erecting straw men. "For DNG to be broadly adopted....", "DNG only makes sense if...". And you're expecting processing parameters like vibrance to be documented? You can read the values, can't you? They are described with vaguely-English terms? And there is a logical structure to where you find them? In a way you're making an unreasonable perfect the enemy of the good and the achievable, when the latter is already big steps ahead of the camera makers' morass of formats. I doubt Canikon's failure to offer the DNG option comes down to economics - it's probably a wash - more that they simply don't get enough bad PR every time they twist their raw formats. We're too soft on them, not least because the anti-DNG brigade is their fifth column!
-
You do keep erecting straw men. "For DNG to be broadly adopted....", "DNG only makes sense if...". And you're expecting processing parameters like vibrance to be documented? You can read the values, can't you? They are described with vaguely-English terms?
John,
I can't write software from "vaguely-English terms" - life is too short to waste huge amounts of time reengineering specifications, even if it were possible. And people not writing software for DNG is why DNG is where it is today.
As for "straw men", DNG's failure to achieve any kind of broad acceptance is a fact. I understand that this is something that causes some people a lot of frustration, but this thread proves that fact, to whatever extent any further proof was required.
Sandy
-
Hi, Jeff...
Look, TIFF-EP, CR2 and NEF are all close enough that with little effort (meaning economic cost) the major camera companies could support DNG as an output option–the cost of doing so would be very little–a firmware update for recent cameras would be all it takes. Free? no...it would have some cost. But there is no real desire because there's not enough pressure on them to do so...that's political...not technical.
I do not believe it is political or technical. I believe it is financial.
There would be a cost to support Adobe's DNG standard. This would add to the price of the camera where pennies in DE or parts costs result in dollars in price. I am sure the "green eye shades" (financial guys) have a problem justifying any return for the expense.
I, personally, find no need to add price to a camera for DNG. Even if Canon died tomorrow, the CR2 files could still be interpreted by Adobe, Capture One, Aperture, dcraw, etc.
In addition, I doubt any outside party is offering the camera manufacturers funding to support DNG.
Lastly, I do suspect that the camera manufacturers are concerned with any future restrictions or limitations a commitment to DNG might come up. Right now, they are in control of their RAW "standard"....and can change it as needed. Of course, any change would require the software creators support it...adding to their DE cost...but that is the business that they are in and can realize a ROI by supporting the new camera.
Having spent my last 20 years of my working career in PC development, product planning,management, and marketing, I can assure you that most decisions have a decidedly strong financial seasoning to them.
John
-
There would be a cost to support Adobe's DNG standard. This would add to the price of the camera where pennies in DE or parts costs result in dollars in price. I am sure the "green eye shades" (financial guys) have a problem justifying any return for the expense.
It's a software implementation and as such is a one time only cost and probably not much more than they are paying in house to keep their own software (which is not widely used) up to date and functional
In addition, I doubt any outside party is offering the camera manufacturers funding to support DNG.
Lastly, I do suspect that the camera manufacturers are concerned with any future restrictions or limitations a commitment to DNG might come up. Right now, they are in control of their RAW "standard"....and can change it as needed. Of course, any change would require the software creators support it...adding to their DE cost...but that is the business that they are in and can realize a ROI by supporting the new camera.
What I and others have argued for is putting DNG into a standards organization where everyone participates. Adobe has already stated that this is a good way to go. In the end this saves everyone money.
-
The example i gave in the post - focus points. Not in the DNG spec. Can be included as private data or an EXIF field of some sort, but not part of the DNG spec. There are a huge number of other possible items.
So it goes into a private tag OR even if not, if that was super important to you, and considering that only the manufacturer’s raw converter could understand it, you don’t turn the switch on your camera to output DNG. You ask for proprietary raw.
As yet, NO ONE here has provided an ounce of evidence why having the option to have DNG or Proprietary raw, based on your needs isn’t the best solution for customers. If as some have tried to assert that proprietary raw is ‘better’ for the end user, great, we have that option. For those that don’t care and just want an open raw format they can use the day a new camera ships, they turn on the DNG setting, just as then can with another open format, JPEG.
It is astonishing how close minded some are here in terms of just giving the customer another option.
Has anyone in the pro DNG camp here said we should deny the manufacturer the option of providing a proprietary file or proprietary data? We just one an open raw format option along side the others. Don’t like or want to use DNG, don’t.
-
As yet, NO ONE here has provided an ounce of evidence why having the option to have DNG or Proprietary raw, based on your needs isn’t the best solution for customers.
Andrew,
I guess I'll try one last time - software development (and especially testing), done professionally, is hugely expensive. And then you have to maintain the software, provide customer support for the additional functions, etc, etc. It all costs money, and customers have clearly shown that they aren't willing to pay extra for, or buy cameras on the basis of, DNG capability.
Now I think I'll go find a different windmill to tilt at, because I don't think I'm making progress on this one ;D
Sandy
-
I guess I'll try one last time - software development (and especially testing), done professionally, is hugely expensive.
In case you’re not aware, I’m a partner in a company that produces software. I believe it is professionally done. And I’m keenly aware of the expense of paying enginnners! So I’m happy to hear this is the last time you’ll use this rather lame argument in terms of a simple DNG switch which should be small if not tiny engineering.
Now I think I'll go find a different windmill to tilt at, because I don't think I'm making progress on this one
Please take your own advise, you’re not doing a very good job convincing me and I suspect others to what would be a useful and inexpensive feature for all DSLRs.
-
customers have clearly shown that they aren't willing to pay extra for, or buy cameras on the basis of, DNG capability.
I’m sorry, it isn’t clear (as yet) even if you say it is.
The data for that statement is based on what? Where did you get the data on the extra money those companies who happen to provide DNG as an option tacked onto the price of the camera system? Where might we hear from customers who have stated that they are willing or unwilling to pay for that functionality or any functionality in a DSLR?
-
Casio, Leica, Pentax, and Ricoh generate DNG files in camera but did not require permission from Adobe to do so (nor any patent licensing, nor any money changing hands, etc.). Occasionally they may ask us some questions or ask us to verify compatibility, check recommended settings, etc.
Pentax used to offer a choice between their own PEF format and DNG, but dropped PEF in their latest models. There remains vendor-specific and proprietary information in the private MakerNotes, which is fine. That is, DNG supports private MakerNotes so Pentax actually just embeds the same private metadata in their DNG that they used to embed in their PEF.
Vendors who want to provide private or model-specific metadata like focus point information, or focus position metadata, or body orientation (e.g., roll, pitch) can easily do so with DNG, and the vendors listed above are already doing so. In some cases, their own software is able to report additional information to the user or perform image processing functions using this private metadata, that Adobe software does not (this is private data, after all).
Ultimately there is an important distinction between the ability to (1) read a raw image, and (2) process and/or interpret the raw image & metadata. DNG as a file format is really only concerned with #1, though it does have some optional tags for assisting with #2. In other words, different vendors may have different preferred appearances and different features (e.g., focus point display) -- which falls under #2 -- but none of that should prevent you from fundamentally reading the image (#1).
-
In case you’re not aware, I’m a partner in a company that produces software. I believe it is professionally done. And I’m keenly aware of the expense of paying enginnners! So I’m happy to hear this is the last time you’ll use this rather lame argument in terms of a simple DNG switch which should be small if not tiny engineering.
Being involved in small little operation like PixelGenius, gives you no idea of the cost to price considerations of a large worldwide operation such as Canon is.
Also, if you have been involved with actual software development and regression testing across numerous software and hardware (in this case camera) platforms you would never consider ANY change as simple or small.
Concept may be simple and/or small, execution is not.
-
Not really. The problem is actually economic. There's no money in it for any major manufacturer to support DNG. Firstly, they all have huge amounts of money tied up in firmware and raw developer software that is built around their format. Supporting DNG means spending money to upgrade that software. Secondly, it means that they can't do something different to their competitors - e.g., show focus points in the raw developer or whatever. Doing something like that would mean private data in the DNG. And private data in DNG is just another proprietary format, so that just becomes changing one proprietary format for another.
So for a camera manufacturer, DNG support means spending money, and restricting the features you can put in the camera. DNG's advantages are to end-users, and end-users have shown no willingness at all to spend more money to buy a camera that has DNG support.
Sandy
No, it's political. If we photographers organized, and pressured the camera companies to go to DNG, that's a political act that may have some economic consequences for the camera companies. We'd be forming a special interest group that advocates a certain kind of behavior by the camera companies. If they chose to include a DNG switch, that might certainly have some economic consequences for them. If they chose not to include a switch, that might also have some economic consequences -- that is, members of our special interest group might choose not to buy their cameras, and might advocate that other photographers not buy their cameras. So there might be any number of economic outcomes for the camera companies, but what WE would be doing is essentially organizing a political special interest group.
What you're doing is looking at it from the camera companies' point of view. They have to figure out this economic question, and the different companies have done it in different ways -- Pentax and Leica have gone to DNG, the others have not. But from our (photographers) point of view, we'll pay pretty much the same amount for the cameras either way, but we won't be able to do anything unless we organize. (Damn, I'm starting to sound like a Wobbly; Photographers of the World Unite!)
-
I’m sorry, it isn’t clear (as yet) even if you say it is.
The data for that statement is based on what? Where did you get the data on the extra money those companies who happen to provide DNG as an option tacked onto the price of the camera system? Where might we hear from customers who have stated that they are willing or unwilling to pay for that functionality or any functionality in a DSLR?
Where do you have data that a significant number of customers want it or would be willing to pay more for DNG?
Don't ask the question unless you can fulfill your side of it?
Personally, I really do not care what a company, such as Canon, provides as RAW format. I just care that it works across numerous software platforms. CR2 does that today. DNG would do that also.
I do not see that DNG provides me anything additional. The FUD of future support of CR2 doesn't hold water. Too many software programs successfully support it....and, as Eric just said, the private data would still be private, so DNG would not improve that.
-
Being involved in small little operation like PixelGenius, gives you no idea of the cost to price considerations of a large worldwide operation such as Canon is.
Also, if you have been involved with actual software development and regression testing across numerous software and hardware (in this case camera) platforms you would never consider ANY change as simple or small.
Concept may be simple and/or small, execution is not.
Let me reply for Digitaldog, and not to be snappish or anything, but you don't know what you're talking about. His company exists in the same universe as the others.
-
Let me reply for Digitaldog, and not to be snappish or anything, but you don't know what you're talking about. His company exists in the same universe as the others.
Well...that wasn't snappish or anything. LOL
Essentially writing some scripts for Photoshop, has no comparison to what the camera manufacturers have to do with the hardware and software inside their cameras (computers). Timing and boundary conditions are very critical and space is limited (expanding will add to cost and change timing and, maybe, physical space, or heat, or....).
And that only talks to the technical considerations. Downstream are others. Also, financial considerations of a large complex corporation are (unfortunately) very different from a small business.
-
Being involved in small little operation like PixelGenius, gives you no idea of the cost to price considerations of a large worldwide operation such as Canon is.
Yes, PG is a very small operation. Point is, I do have some idea what it costs to pay an engineer and can thus imagine the scale Canon could spend. And you?
The point was, a DNG switch is probably very small engineering in the grand scheme of all that huge engineering costs you surmise Canon spends system wide. You have no evidence that the lack of a DNG option is based on cost do you? If you do, we’d love to see the data.
Where do you have data that a significant number of customers want it or would be willing to pay more for DNG?
I don’t and never said I did. Where was the data that suggested photographers wanted JPEG instead of TIFF as an option? Do you know for a fact that the market wanted to ‘pay’ for a JPEG or that the manufacturers simply decided it was good for their customers? Do you know for a fact that providing some in-camera rendering to a JPEG versus a TIFF is a significant cost to and what percentage of our cost to buy that camera is affected by this functionality? If you have actual data, please share it.
Even if the cost to implement a DNG option were significant (and I don’t see any evidence it is), it would be a useful feature for customers. Do I have a metric of the number of people who buy a new camera and complain on multiple forums that their raw converter can’t handle that data? Nope. But I’ve heard this complaining for years all over the net. It isn’t a small number based on the number of complaints we hear every time a new camera comes out. Funny you don’t hear the same people complain that the same camera produces a JPEG because they can access that data the minute the camera ships. And that is the bottom line. The current behavior is such that every new camera that doesn’t provide an open raw format penalizes every customer that doesn’t process using the the raws with the manufacturers converter.
The pro DNG side is still waiting to hear how this isn’t a political issue while your side has yet to provide anything useful to counter this argument expect for some huge assumptions that the cost inhibits manufactures to do so (despite the fact several companies provide this option). We’ve heard some nonsensical arguments about how it would limit advancements when the facts are, nothing stops these manufacturers from continuing to develop their so called advanced technologies inside of or outside of DNG. Even if 10% of those capturing raw would turn the switch on for DNG, why argue against supporting that base? You really think that the cost to do so would add X dollars to the price of a camera? Really? Lets see some evidence of this please. Otherwise you guys are just arguing for a feature that has no downsides and again points to how political this all is and unfair to the customer.
-
Essentially writing some scripts for Photoshop, has no comparison to what the camera manufacturers have to do with the hardware and software inside their cameras (computers).
First off, yes, writing three plug-in’s for Photoshop isn’t anything like writing the software to drive a camera system.
Second, we are not essentially writing scripts so before you end up saying anything further that shows your lack of understanding in this process, you should get your facts straight.
-
How does DNG make it possible for a 3rd party software to process the raw files from a brand new computer? (This is serious question)
I assume that when a camera company introduces a new camera that any changes made to the company's raw files are necessary to support new features of the new camera. Image editing software then has to be modified to know what to do with the new information. If the company were to use DNG, they would have to make the same changes to the raw file and image editing software would still have to be modified, right? As I read the DNG specification a DNG reader can read the new data because the specification says what goes where but it there is not guarantee that the software knows what to do with the new data. What am I missing?
-
How does DNG make it possible for a 3rd party software to process the raw files from a brand new computer? (This is serious question)
I assume that when a camera company introduces a new camera that any changes made to the company's raw files are necessary to support new features of the new camera. Image editing software then has to be modified to know what to do with the new information. If the company were to use DNG, they would have to make the same changes to the raw file and image editing software would still have to be modified, right? As I read the DNG specification a DNG reader can read the new data because the specification says what goes where but it there is not guarantee that the software knows what to do with the new data. What am I missing?
From my point of view you are asking the wrong question. The way I see it, the problem is one of global inefficiency. A new camera comes out and Adobe doesn't support it right away. They have to do some stuff (and others can probably speak to the 'stuff' better than I) in order to read the files in either LR or PS. Thus, Adobe spends money. The companies that use proprietary RAW files need to engage in software development of their own to produce a software platform that is duplicative (to some but not all) degree that Adobe does with PS and LR. Now just from the number of posts on this website, I think it's fair to say that there is a very large installed Adobe user base and very few use Nikon or Canon software for image processing (I used the Nikon product exactly twice when I bought my first DSLR some years ago and haven't used it ever again preferring LR/PS for database management and image processing. To me as a consumer, this means that I'm paying more for both Adobe products and Nikon products because of this duplication which is a waste of resources from my perspective. Now Leica and Pentax have adopted DNG and they work right out of the box with LR/PS (in fact Leica used to giver away LR with every camera they sold; don't know whether this is still the case) so they don't have to spend any money on this type of software development (I am discounting the argument that both companies are small relative to Canon/Nikon and it's just not economical for them to support this in house).
Will Adobe continue to support NEF and CR2 files forever and ever. Maybe or maybe not. Forever is a long time. Certainly for the foreseeable future they will and we will all pay extra for this. Since moving to an open standard improves this cost efficiency it's a no brainer.
-
I'll give you a concrete example: "as shot" white balance metadata. Nearly all vendors store this data in the same way. It is a set of 2 or 3 numbers which tells you what WB the camera picked for the capture (assuming you have WB in the camera set to Auto WB). The raw converter reads this piece of metadata so it can provide the same WB starting point when you load the picture. There is nothing secretive, special, inventive, or proprietary about this piece of metadata, since all vendors do it the same way.
The only question is where in the file this piece of metadata is stored. In the DNG format, there is a tag called AsShotNeutral that holds this information. Cameras that support DNG (e.g., from Casio, Leica, Pentax, and Ricoh) write the WB numbers into this tag. DNG reading software (whether from Adobe or other companies, including free software like dcraw) will simply look at this tag to find the values. So when a new camera that supports DNG hits the market, this software doesn't have to make any changes to read this metadata. It's done in a standardized way. It's like the mailman dropping off the mail in your mailbox, and you always know where to find your mail (in your mailbox!).
Now let's compare to non-DNG formats. In non-DNG formats, the location of this WB tag varies. Sometimes, a camera vendor will change the location from one model to the next. That means for ACR/Lr, I need to go digging into the file to figure out where they've changed the location. It's as if the mailman dropped by to deliver the mail, but each time he drops the mail off in a difference place next to your house. So you need to walk around your house each day to figure out where he's hidden the mail. ;D Now, that may not seem like a lot of effort, but you multiply the extra few minutes by a lot of cameras, and the way it's done differently across vendors, and it adds up. And keep in mind that effort is spent doing something that is fairly photographically meaningless (finding the as shot WB) instead of doing something that is photographically meaningful -- namely, improving demosaic algorithms, adding new local adjustment tools, improving runtime performance, building new lens profiles, etc. In other words, time spent chasing tags in proprietary formats means time not spent doing things that will actually make photographs look better, improve workflows, speed up the app, fix bugs, etc.
-
Thanks for participating in this thread Eric.
-
The mailman metaphor is quite appropriate. The mailman just doesn't seem to care that you have to play hide and seek, or has anther service to help you find your mailbox. Canikon are just too complacent with their place in the market. But they are not alone in not working to their customer's benefit. Adobe can be like this too. For some reason you need to have two paid copies of photoshop if you have a PC and a Mac, but not if you have two Macs or the LR license that allows you to run either executable on one license. I don't see much difference between this attitude and camera manufacturers refusing to adopt a raw standard.
-
In the US, don't they throw the newspaper in the general direction of your front lawn? Or is that hollywood getting the better of me?
-
In the US, don't they throw the newspaper in the general direction of your front lawn? Or is that hollywood getting the better of me?
It depends, in some areas this is how it is delivered. In my hometown, you had a choice, you could pay for a newspaper box ( maybe $20) and the paper would be put into this box instead of being thrown into your yard. The mail boxes are all property of the US Postal service and I don't think that the newspaper can put your paper into your post box.
-
In the US, don't they throw the newspaper in the general direction of your front lawn? Or is that hollywood getting the better of me?
They throw it on my driveway and seldom miss.
-
In my town they throw it also on the driveway. When it rains, they aim for one of the indentations in the asphalt.
-
Sometimes, a camera vendor will change the location from one model to the next.
by comparing sequential releases of dcraw it is a very rare case, is it not ;) ?
-
Eric
Thanks for the information. Seems really dumb to change where data are stored. Makes more work for everyone.
-
The data for that statement is based on what?
check the trend of market share of Casio/Leica/Ricoh (with Pentax and it is one company now), do not forget to add Samsung to the data before (who dropped DNG)...
-
Eric
Thanks for the information. Seems really dumb to change where data are stored. Makes more work for everyone.
Eric was very careful not to mention how often exactly that happens, that suddenly different tag(s) were used to store WB multipliers...
-
Eric was very careful not to mention how often exactly that happens, that suddenly different tag(s) were used to store WB multipliers...
Sometimes it is as frequent as every new model from a given vendor, or every few models.
The actual frequency isn't that important. The important point is that it does happen, which means I (and other raw software authors) need to check for it on every model. The only way to know whether it has changed is to test it, which takes time. In contrast, we never have to check it for DNG images, since it's done consistently.
Regardless of how one feels about DNG, I think we can agree that it would be better for photography as a whole if raw software authors could spend more time developing algorithms that make images look better, improving workflows, and speeding up performance, instead of chasing WB metadata tags and other similar things. ;D
-
Sometimes it is as frequent as every new model from a given vendor, or every few models.
The actual frequency isn't that important. The important point is that it does happen, which means I (and other raw software authors) need to check for it on every model. The only way to know whether it has changed is to test it, which takes time. In contrast, we never have to check it for DNG images, since it's done consistently.
Regardless of how one feels about DNG, I think we can agree that it would be better for photography as a whole if raw software authors could spend more time developing algorithms that make images look better, improving workflows, and speeding up performance, instead of chasing WB metadata tags and other similar things. ;D
You know, I hope, I have the greatest respect for you and am awed with your knowledge and execution.
I fully understand the benefit DNG would have for the raw software developers.
What evidence do we have that it would aid the camera manufacturers, particularly Nikon and Canon?
I assume each of the manufacturers have a pretty hefty investment in the code they are using and pretty sophisticated tools to assist in creating it. Changing these would probably be a major development cost and time hit, and effect product cycles.
In addition, if today's camera firmware is similar to PC firmware of the past, it is pretty tight, time dependent code. Any inefficiencies caused by standards different from what they are using could cause significant Cost increases due to spec changes or the reduction in function.
Someone in an early post suggested offering both the native raw ( NEF, CR2) and DNG as "switchable" options. I am not sure how that would work....at all...as I assume the raw file is always created, the post processed in camera to jpeg, irrespective of which is saved...or if both are.
I must admit, that my assumptions above could all be wrong as I never personal worked on the coding. However, 20 years of managing he product processes of the PC and PC servers gives you ample time to "rub shoulders" with the hardware and software engineers who do and the test people who need to catch the problems....and deal with the reasons for product delays or trouble shooting critical situations.
Anyway, it is human nature for our concerns to be "all about us". I just think that before we come down on the other guy (in this case the camera manufacturers) for not agreeing with our argument or desire, it helps to understand his side and why he is no jumping on your bandwagon.
John
-
What evidence do we have that it would aid the camera manufacturers, particularly Nikon and Canon?
It's already helped the camera companies that HAVE adopted DNG...but even if Nikon & Canon don't see any benefit, this whole argument by somebody I presume is a photographer (you) arguing on behalf of the camera companies is again, one of the roots of the problem. Why the hell would you care what's "good" for Nikon and Canon. Do you have stock in the companies? Even if adopting raw standards might not be optimal for Nikon and Canon, don't you think the benefits of the many outweigh the benefits of the few?
Undocumented, proprietary raw file formats are not good for the photo industry in general–on that, can we all agree?
-
Undocumented, proprietary raw file formats are not good for the photo industry in general–on that, can we all agree?
+1 and also +1 to Eric for being candid. It confirms the point that I raised the other day that lots of resources are being wasted in an unnecessary manner. I wonder how many of these skeptics use their camera manufacturer's RAW processing software? Not many I bet!
-
It's already helped the camera companies that HAVE adopted DNG...but even if Nikon & Canon don't see any benefit, this whole argument by somebody I presume is a photographer (you) arguing on behalf of the camera companies is again, one of the roots of the problem. Why the hell would you care what's "good" for Nikon and Canon. Do you have stock in the companies? Even if adopting raw standards might not be optimal for Nikon and Canon, don't you think the benefits of the many outweigh the benefits of the few?
Undocumented, proprietary raw file formats are not good for the photo industry in general–on that, can we all agree?
I would think Nikon and Canon are the many in the non-P&S 35mm market. Also, in high end cameras, wouldn't a photographer want the very best image, not the best within a constrained format.
Photography has evolved more in the last 10 than its previous history. Not sure it needs new standards. Besides, the old Marist axiom "the many rather than the few" probably not the best approach to photography.
-
Also, in high end cameras, wouldn't a photographer want the very best image, not the best within a constrained format.
Uh huh...and so you think you can get better image quality from a CR2 or NEF than from a DNG? So, you use Canon's DPP or Nikon Capture? If you don't then your question above is moot since ACR or LR will produce equal quality from either proprietary raws of DNGs (the first process when opening a proprietary raw is to in essence, convert to DNG on the fly into Camera Raw).
-
It's already helped the camera companies that HAVE adopted DNG...but even if Nikon & Canon don't see any benefit, this whole argument by somebody I presume is a photographer (you) arguing on behalf of the camera companies is again, one of the roots of the problem. Why the hell would you care what's "good" for Nikon and Canon. Do you have stock in the companies? Even if adopting raw standards might not be optimal for Nikon and Canon, don't you think the benefits of the many outweigh the benefits of the few?
Undocumented, proprietary raw file formats are not good for the photo industry in general–on that, can we all agree?
Gosh, Jeff....I was aware that I needed a share of stock to participate in a stockholder's meeting, but was not aware that that extended to participating in this forum. I would be more concerned if I was voicing my opinions driven by outside relationships I had with Nikon/Canon....and I can state that my statements and opinions create no ethical issues.
I think I have a right on this forum to state what I believe...and, as differentiated from many others, to attempt to explain the reasoning behind them.
As for Nikon/Canon, I am sure Adobe has made at least one pass at each of them to drive the benefits of DNG. Are you suggesting that their decision to not support DNG is not a financial based business decision. but some ulterior motive?
Please help me understand...
- what benefits "...the camera companies that HAVE adopted DNG..." have derived.
- How are the cost/rewards these companies get differ from what Nikon/Canon would realize?
- When you say "...benefits of the many outweigh the benefits of the few..." please explain who are the "many" and the "few" and, if different groups, what benefits they derive from all DNG vs what exists now?
- Help me understand, if all is DNG and Adobe goes "belly up" in, say, 10 years, what then?
Standards can be good and bad. The JPEG standard has help proliferate the online distribution of images. On the other hand, it's success has kept improvements from occurring.
You say, "...Undocumented, proprietary raw file formats are not good for the photo industry in general..." try to assume that we all agree with that. I, for one...from a photographers basis, do not believe that to be the case.
Perhaps you can detail how it has hurt me (and those like me) other than some small delay in getting immediate support on some software. If, with DNG, you are going to detail cost and efficiency improvements on the software vendor side, please balance it with any effect it will have on the camera vendors, which will be different for the large, established vendor from those smaller, newer entry vendors.
I have, in an early post, stated that I really did not care what format was used....as long as I get the function that I am getting now....and the best function in the future. However, there are a vocal few who are driving this DNG issue with an emotional furor unjustified by the size of the issue. My point was to try to explain what the other side of the issue could be. That you do not agree with my stance gives you no right to attack me personally. We can agree to disagree and we can discuss the points and merits....but with some respect, please....something which is often lacking in your dealing with people on these forums.
-
Hi,
Come back in twelve years and four OS (operating system) generations later and say what you think...
Best regards
Erik
-
Hi,
Come back in twelve years and four OS (operating system) generations later and say what you think...
Best regards
Erik
If your comment was to me, I have completely missed your point....
-
Gosh, Jeff....I was aware that I needed a share of stock to participate in a stockholder's meeting, but was not aware that that extended to participating in this forum. I would be more concerned if I was voicing my opinions driven by outside relationships I had with Nikon/Canon....and I can state that my statements and opinions create no ethical issues.
Are you implying my opinions are not my own?
I was asking why you are arguing on behalf of Nikon and Canon?
Are you suggesting that their decision to not support DNG is not a financial based business decision. but some ulterior motive?
Yes...supporting DNG would be a trivial expense...the reason they aren't is some misguided decisions on their part that they (Nikon and Canon) "think" they have something "special" and refuse to either adopt a standard or fully document their raw file formats. Their positions are based on ignorance, arrogance and a misguided sense of ownership. Very typical Japanese corporate thinking...(and I say this from personal experience dealing with these companies not out of some racial bias–anybody who has had direct dealing with these companies correct me if I'm wrong).
Please help me understand...
what benefits "...the camera companies that HAVE adopted DNG..." have derived.
How are the cost/rewards these companies get differ from what Nikon/Canon would realize?
When you say "...benefits of the many outweigh the benefits of the few..." please explain who are the "many" and the "few" and, if different groups, what benefits they derive from all DNG vs what exists now?
Help me understand, if all is DNG and Adobe goes "belly up" in, say, 10 years, what then?
First question–the companies who have adopted DNG no longer have to worry about engineering a new raw file format each time they release a new camera. They no longer have to worry about new camera support for 3rd party software, out of the box.
Second question–Nikon and Canon have departments that have been budgeted to developing new raw file formats and the software required to support new cameras. At this point those departments have done a good job of downplaying the adoption of standards while advancing their own position for the purposes of their continued existence...it's corporate politics.
The "many" is the photographic industry at large that includes photographers and the consumers of photography–neither of which benefit by Nikon and Canon refusing to adopt standards. The "few" is Nikon and Canon (and a few more) that refuse to adopt any standards at the expense of the many...
If Adobe went away in 10 years it would mean little with regards to DNG because the DNG spec is freely and publicly documented. Anybody who could write code could decode DNG files...the only downside if in 10 years Adobe went belly up is that the bright boys like Thomas Knoll and Eric Chan prolly wouldn't keep advancing the DNG spec but others could because, well, it's publicly documented. Unlike the raw file formats from Nikon and Canon.
Again, your position is one that exacerbates the problem and lets Canon and Nikon off the hook for their behavior. You are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
-
If your comment was to me, I have completely missed your point....
Erik's point was -- and please correct me if I'm wrong here -- that in a decades time or so, many old raw formats will not be supported anymore. And I completely agree with this. It's also 'will' and not 'might' because it's already happening. With DNG being i) completely documented and ii) on it's way to become an official standard it is much more likely that in many years time you will still be able to process it. And keep in mind that adopting DNG doesn't come with any licensing costs.
Another point, which IMHO is often missed, is that DNG as a standard is not so much beneficial for Adobe as it is for other companies. Especially innovative startups. When I gaze into my crystal ball, I see the following: In 10 years time, Lightroom has become an bloated, overcomplicated mess with an awfully expensive subscription model. Also, Adobe has failed to fully embrace the mobile market and still only delivers some trimmed down for tablets. Mind you, tablets now come in 15" with high resolution, calibratible displays and wacom digitizers built in. Great as a wireless viewfinder for you mirrorless fullframe... but I digress. So with this situation you are looking for an alternative to the bit-long-in-the-tood Adobe products. Luckily there's this new software by some MIT graduates with gives sooo much better IQ that LR ever did. Makes you just want to go back and reedit some of your ancient raw files from that D800 which was the hottest thing back in 2012. But you're out of luck! No startup can afford to implement support for the 847 undocumented raw formats in existence since the mid 90s. How sad is that?!
But then again, the IQ of those old raws isn't so great anyway. Even your iPhone 11 has better resolution, lower noise and shoots DNG... ;)
EDIT:
Ok, maybe that was a bit over the top. But still, the point is that a standard raw format makes a more competitive and transparent software market. I believe that's hard to argue with.
Oh, and apologies to Eric and Thomas. I'm sure they are doing their best to prevent the scenario above from happening.
-
hello,
I've got a strange idea !
Why not removing the sirect support for raw-formats from ACR and Lr and supporting only DNG. So everybody who doesn't want to lose Lr or PS, has to put force on C* and N*. So the only way to use these two tools is either to convert all NEF and CR* to DNG prior to import them into Lr or to put force on the manufacturer to have the option of photographing in DNG directly from the camera.
This would be a very extreme way to go, but I think that so many people use lr and PS either for their job, or for their hobby and becasue of the few alternatives, it could lead directly to the goal.
I don't expect C* or N* to through away their propietary formats, but I could imagine that they would give us the choice in their menu.
In my opinion, changes can be achieved either by realization or revolution - and in this special case the second could be the only way to go.
Just my 5 cents !
Robert
-
Are you implying my opinions are not my own?
I was asking why you are arguing on behalf of Nikon and Canon?
Yes...supporting DNG would be a trivial expense...the reason they aren't is some misguided decisions on their part that they (Nikon and Canon) "think" they have something "special" and refuse to either adopt a standard or fully document their raw file formats. Their positions are based on ignorance, arrogance and a misguided sense of ownership. Very typical Japanese corporate thinking...(and I say this from personal experience dealing with these companies not out of some racial bias–anybody who has had direct dealing with these companies correct me if I'm wrong).
First question–the companies who have adopted DNG no longer have to worry about engineering a new raw file format each time they release a new camera. They no longer have to worry about new camera support for 3rd party software, out of the box.
Second question–Nikon and Canon have departments that have been budgeted to developing new raw file formats and the software required to support new cameras. At this point those departments have done a good job of downplaying the adoption of standards while advancing their own position for the purposes of their continued existence...it's corporate politics.
The "many" is the photographic industry at large that includes photographers and the consumers of photography–neither of which benefit by Nikon and Canon refusing to adopt standards. The "few" is Nikon and Canon (and a few more) that refuse to adopt any standards at the expense of the many...
If Adobe went away in 10 years it would mean little with regards to DNG because the DNG spec is freely and publicly documented. Anybody who could write code could decode DNG files...the only downside if in 10 years Adobe went belly up is that the bright boys like Thomas Knoll and Eric Chan prolly wouldn't keep advancing the DNG spec but others could because, well, it's publicly documented. Unlike the raw file formats from Nikon and Canon.
Again, your position is one that exacerbates the problem and lets Canon and Nikon off the hook for their behavior. You are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Jeff, thank you for your reasoned response.
I do not disagree with much of what you said. Particularly, that Asian culture is different and difficult for us westerners to understand....or, in many cases, agree with. I know I had initial difficulties.
However, I believe the actions you ascribe them to are not significantly different from what one would see in a western large business, especially very large complex ones.
The are doing....and continue to do what has worked and continues to work for them. Simplified, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
To think that they do not have standards for their raw formats, and that they are not documented, is naive....and you are far from naive. They just chose not to release them to us.
If the formats change slightly from camera to camera, I think you would find it hard to say that this is due to sloppiness or poor planning or engineering. I seriously doubt it is just to obfuscate or to make Eric Chan's life more difficult.
Why would they make extra work for themselves? I surmise that their is some efficiency, ease of design, or other benefits in getting the most bringing a camera to market that having flexibility in the raw gives them. Pushing the envelop of performance and function in their cameras will bring them sales. Making life easier for the raw converter developers will not.
Last, it is cultural to resist change or to admit you have done wrong.....but not Japanese culture only....human and business culture. While it works, you continue doing it. We need reason to change....and obviously, there is not yet a strong enough reason to change.
Jeff, my disagreeing with you that change is needed does not make me the problem. If the actions that Canon were taking effected me negatively I would vote with my dollars. However, the current status works for me....right now....and the FUD of DNG does not resonate.
Regards and respect for your position....John
-
Their positions are based on ignorance, arrogance and a misguided sense of ownership. Very typical Japanese corporate thinking...(and I say this from personal experience dealing with these companies not out of some racial bias–anybody who has had direct dealing with these companies correct me if I'm wrong).
+1. I have never worked with Canon or Nikon, but I have spent time with other Japanese consumer electronics companies, helping them design new products, and participating in standards organizations with them, and completely agree with the summary. Well, maybe not the "ignorant" part. They're probably completely aware of what's going on. I'm not even sure about arrogance (certainly the Japanese have no monopoly on arrogance). But definitely "misguided sense of ownership".
I would like for there to be a single standard. And I have nothing against DNG, would be happy if it turned into the one single standard (I convert my CR2s to DNG on import). However, it's really not that simple.
For starters, it's naive to think that Canon, Nikon, et.al. are "reengineering" their raw formats for each new camera. They are not. They add a wee bit of metadata here and there. Maybe just change a version number. But imply/infer that they are redesigning things from the ground up is naive. As evidence of this, I'll point to two things: 1) it really doesn't take Adobe very long to release the next version of ACR that reads the raw files from the latest cameras. and 2) go read dcraw.c, a widely available open source raw file parser.
More importantly, and a good concrete engineering reason why Canon, Nikon, et.al. can convince themselves that their own formats are preferable, is ease/speed of innovation, coupled with keeping secrets for longer. As an example, look at Canon's GP-E2 GPS unit. It embeds directional (compass) information into the pictures in addition to GPS coordinates. This is new. Lightroom doesn't know how to display this. More importantly, the EXIF/IPTC/whatever metadata for this hasn't been standardized. Let's pretend you're an engineer at Canon, with bright idea of delivering compass information. Do you want to play with a standards organization, that may have their own schedule, for a long drawn out decision about how to record compass info? Heck no. Worse yet, do you want even tell a public standards body that you want to store compass info? Hell no, that gives advance warning to competitors of your product plans.
[Ok, I just looked it up, and EXIF does have a way to define compass direction. My point is the same, though: if a company wants to do something truly new they certainly don't want to wait on a standards body to tell them how, much less tell their competitors (on the standards body) about the new things being planned]
Of course, the way this is dealt with in the industry is to allow people to have their own custom metadata. If that happened in DNG, then Canon could provide their own private stuff in DNG. And Nikon their own private stuff. And so on. And at that point, your common standard has solved nothing: it's just a well documented wrapper for embedding undocumented stuff.
That, in addition to Japanese corporate decision making, is why any hopes that a standard will be adopted by the big guys is just wishful thinking.
-
DNG already allows custom metadata.
-
Of course, the way this is dealt with in the industry is to allow people to have their own custom metadata. If that happened in DNG, then Canon could provide their own private stuff in DNG. And Nikon their own private stuff. And so on. And at that point, your common standard has solved nothing: it's just a well documented wrapper for embedding undocumented stuff.
I have nothing against "undocumented stuff" I have a problem with that "stuff" being stuffed into an undocumented file format.
-
That's what the MakerNote is for. Consider Pentax's example. They have the standard stuff (white balance tags, color profile, etc.) stored in the public and documented tags of their DNG raw files. Any DNG-reading software can read that, and makes it possible to read and process Pentax files. Then, they have their private stuff in the DNG's MakerNote. Nobody but Pentax knows the meaning of that data. Maybe it helps their software deliver better quality, or helps their technicians diagnose problems if a camera stops working. And all of that's fine.
-
I suspected that DNG would not get universal adoption and that has proved right in most respects. I think Pentax are doing DNG only with the K-30 but there is no sign of anyone else dumping their own raw formats.
Of course..there is no doubt that a single format is beneficial to all of us.
But I point the finger of blame at Adobe, whilst they're not charging for it's use I do not want to see a commercial company have control over this format. If the format went open source then I believe it would have a much brighter future. As it is Adobe have messed up in a very big way here. Let it go or let it die simple as that. Right now it's failed to gain the adoption that was needed.
-
But I point the finger of blame at Adobe, whilst they're not charging for it's use I do not want to see a commercial company have control over this format.
I guess you missed the post where I mentioned Adobe has officially offered DNG to the ISO for their next update of TIFF-EP?
-
I guess you missed the post where I mentioned Adobe has officially offered DNG to the ISO for their next update of TIFF-EP?
Quite possibly a minute late and a dollar short. Time will tell.
If it is adopted, it will be interesting to see the time duration from offer to acceptance/implementation. This will give a good indication of responsiveness of ISO standards to change.
-
I suspected that DNG would not get universal adoption and that has proved right in most respects. I think Pentax are doing DNG only with the K-30 but there is no sign of anyone else dumping their own raw formats.
not Pentax, but Ricoh... the new owner of Pentax was/is DNG only
-
I am interested in the new 6x6 CFA pattern in the Fujifilm X-trans sensors.
Would the current DNG format support encoding all the RAW data produced by the sensor, or does it essentially assume that the sensor has a Bayer pattern?
I have heard "Linear DNG" mentioned, but would that in fact be RAW data? Or would it require a pre-processing stage which would essentially mean that although the files would then be readable by existing software, they would not actually be reading the RAW data?
-
I am interested in the new 6x6 CFA pattern in the Fujifilm X-trans sensors.
Would the current DNG format support encoding all the RAW data produced by the sensor, or does it essentially assume that the sensor has a Bayer pattern?
I have heard "Linear DNG" mentioned, but would that in fact be RAW data? Or would it require a pre-processing stage which would essentially mean that although the files would then be readable by existing software, they would not actually be reading the RAW data?
The current DNG spec, and in fact previous versions as well, supports the 6x6 layout without any problem. Linear raw isn't required. But there are two reasons why you might still want to use linear raw with the X-Pro: (a) compatibility with other software - e.g., CornerFix won't correct a "native" X-Pro DNG, but will correct a Linear raw DNG version. Also (b) some people have used DNG converter set for linear DNG conversions to avoid the chroma smearing problem that LightRoom/ACR suffer from with the X-tran sensor.
Sandy
-
The current DNG spec, and in fact previous versions as well, supports the 6x6 layout without any problem. Linear raw isn't required. But there are two reasons why you might still want to use linear raw with the X-Pro: (a) compatibility with other software - e.g., CornerFix won't correct a "native" X-Pro DNG, but will correct a Linear raw DNG version. Also (b) some people have used DNG converter set for linear DNG conversions to avoid the chroma smearing problem that LightRoom/ACR suffer from with the X-tran sensor.
Sandy
Thanks, very interesting.
So am I correct in thinking that at the point of release (assuming Fuji RAW files had been written in DNG format) that the converters, ACR, etc would not have been able to render the file unless it had been converted into Linear DNG, and that if so, then you would still require advanced algorithms to do the conversion into Linear DNG. Is Linear DNG essentially just a DNG wrapper around a TIF file?
If my questions are too simplistic I would be happy with a redirection to a link. :)
Currently the RAW converters are struggling somewhat with the X-trans sensor, different converters seeming to do better or worse depending on the image, with ACR at this stage probably being the weakest of the bunch. (Note that I do not assume this is due to intransigence by either Fuji or Adobe, nor due to any lack of ability or brilliance on the part of Eric/Thomas. Rather I imagine it has to do with limited resources, a small user base, and possibly other factors like keeping performance reasonable, etc.)
-
So am I correct in thinking that at the point of release (assuming Fuji RAW files had been written in DNG format) that the converters, ACR, etc would not have been able to render the file unless it had been converted into Linear DNG, and that if so, then you would still require advanced algorithms to do the conversion into Linear DNG. Is Linear DNG essentially just a DNG wrapper around a TIF file?
I'd think that raw converters written for the full DNG spec (which means LR and ACR, nobody else does) would have been able to render an X-Trans file. However, it might not have been a very good rendering; I don't know what's on the inside of the LR/ACR converter, but it would not surprise me if it had highly optimized code for well known patterns (e.g., Bayer), but fell back to something simplistic (like nearest neighbor) for an unknown pattern.
Linear raw as a wrapper round a TIF file? That's a religious question ;D
Sandy
-
The DNG spec basically says fairly little about the actual rendering of the image. It's more about the container (file structure of the image) and some of the basic tags needed to describe what the data means. For example, the spec says nothing about how mosaic data should be interpolated. Raw converters are free to do whatever type of interpolation they feel is best for a particular mosaic pattern, and if some converters have more sophisticated methods -- well, good for them! :)