Started by ThomasH_normally, September 17, 2015, 10:59:35 am
Quote from: BartvanderWolf on November 22, 2015, 05:32:37 amJohn, you are mistaken. Diehard DNG fanatic is "Hoggy's" signature. No name calling on my part. DNG phobic? I rest my case.Cheers,Bart
Quote from: john beardsworth on November 22, 2015, 05:53:11 amOK, Bart, I accept that it wasn't name calling on your part! But I do think you approach his post from a phobic position.
QuoteWithout going through every point you made, XMP metadata isn't only useful inside Adobe apps - it's a standard that many other apps read. They can even read Adobe's adjustment data (eg Mylio, I think, does it).
QuoteRepeated writing of metadata doesn't increase backup demands if you use Lightroom - it just means you should fine tune your backup scheme. The DNGs to which metadata is repeatedly-written don't really need backup when you have a catalogue backup and the virgin DNGs. And so on.
QuoteVerification balances the risks of repeatedly writing to the DNGs, if you even bother doing that.
QuoteWould anyone seriously argue for a proprietary format like PSD over TIF? Same with raw data.
Quote from: BartvanderWolf on November 22, 2015, 06:37:23 amWhile true, the XMP format standard is open enough to allow describing one's own metadata properties, e.g. only meaningful for Adobe LR/ACR, not necessarily relevant (and thus ignored) by other applications.
Quote from: BartvanderWolf on November 22, 2015, 06:37:23 amThe issue is that a Camera original Raw, as long as it is not altered one bit, will not be backed up again and again, if intelligent backup software is used. This will reduce the amount of data (and time) that needs to be transferred to sometimes off-site (e.g. cloud) storage. When a DNG with embedded XMP is edited, not only the small XMP section, but the entire DNG file (preview/Raw data/Makernotes/XMP) needs to be backed up. By separating the XMP data from the DNG and storing it in a catalogue (backup) creates other issues, and solves nothing for non-Adobe software.In fact, it makes it almost a necessity. Reading and rewriting the Raw data increases the risk of corruption, so some form of verification becomes mandatory.
Quote from: kikashi on November 22, 2015, 03:46:53 amBad advice in the UK. You get a moderately comprehensive degree of protection against fraudsters when you pay by credit card and none if you use a debit card.
Quote from: john beardsworth on November 25, 2015, 03:54:07 amC1's business decision, Mike.
Quote from: BartvanderWolf on November 25, 2015, 10:36:24 amThat's a bit too simple, John, but expected from a Lightroom fan like yourself. There are also technical reasons (e.g. different color and distortion correction models) that make it less obvious with some cameras to convert from the Adobe color model encoded in the DNG to the (considered by many as better) Capture One color model.
Quote from: digitaldog on November 25, 2015, 10:40:16 am Wait, if someone desires a DNG workflow and a company can't provide a proper and competitive handling of that data, that company shouldn't handle that data at all or in the first place. The customer should not buy a product from that company. Or are you suggesting that the technical issues are shared by every and all raw converters that accept the processing of DNG data? Do you have to be a Lightroom 'fan' to expect a serious answer or do you have to be a C1 'fan' to accept flaws in their processing of some data?
Quote from: BartvanderWolf on November 25, 2015, 10:46:11 amAndrew, We've discussed this before (also see the threads mentioned earlier). I'm not going to rehash that discussion, again. Don't know about you, but I have better things to do.
Quote from: BartvanderWolf on November 25, 2015, 10:36:24 amThat's a bit too simple, John, but expected from a Lightroom fan like yourself. There are also technical reasons (e.g. different color and distortion correction models) that make it less obvious with some cameras to convert from the Adobe color model encoded in the DNG to the (considered by many as better) Capture One color model.Despite that, Phase One's Lionel Kuhlmann has stated (in this thread) that they do intend to improve the DNG conversion quality. It's appreciated that they do spend their limited resources to work at that improvement, even though it's not really needed if one uses the (non-DNG) Camera original Raws.Anyway, it has already been discussed in this thread.Cheers,Bart
Quote from: ErikKaffehr on November 25, 2015, 02:45:36 pmHi Bart,Reading DNG doesn't mean that they would need to utilize the colour rendition algorithms in DNG, just threat it as another raw format.
QuoteI would think the distortion model in C1 is not using parameters supplied in the raw data. If say Nikon would supply distortion correction parameters in NEF it may be different from what Canon would supply in CR2.
QuoteBut the main issue for me is that I feel that having hundreds of slightly different image file formats instead of one is not very sane. Also, all code supporting those file formats needs to supported over a long time.
QuoteJust to say, I have some reservations about storing xmp-data in the DNG file, as it causes frequent rewrites of the file. On the other side I feel that embedding processing data in the DNG-files is a great idea. Obviously, it is not much help for programs not using Adobes processing pipelines.
Quote from: ErikKaffehr on November 25, 2015, 02:45:36 pmJust to say, I have some reservations about storing xmp-data in the DNG file, as it causes frequent rewrites of the file. On the other side I feel that embedding processing data in the DNG-files is a great idea. Obviously, it is not much help for programs not using Adobes processing pipelines. But some information is usable regardless, say crop,star ratings, keywording etc. So, I see both risk and damages. The integrity algorithm in DNG is obviously a good thing, but it would need to be used any time the DNG file would be updated.
Quote from: Hoggy on November 25, 2015, 10:27:19 pmBut isn't it possible that other converters could add their instructions alongside of LR adjustments (or any other converter, for that matter)? I thought it was, but so far I don't know of any that do.
Quote from: john beardsworth on November 26, 2015, 03:39:57 amFrequent rewrites of the file don't matter. The "virgin" DNGs and the catalogue are your backup, not these "working" DNGs.
Quote from: BartvanderWolf on November 26, 2015, 04:57:55 amI'm not sure I understand that. Do you mean keeping an original DNG (conversion in the case of a different virgin Camera Raw format), and then do the actual work on a separate DNG? How is that initial DNG conversion a benefit then, over the Camera Raw original?
Page created in 0.049 seconds with 16 queries.